UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 28

Re: Zeta Notso Ridiculoso

From: Ed Stewart <egs@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 00:10:31 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:02:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Zeta Notso Ridiculoso

Jean van Gemert's ufological wisdom is subluminally intercepted:

> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 20:05:54 +0100 (MET)
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> From: Jean van Gemert <jeanvg@dds.nl>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Zeta Notso Ridiculoso

> >Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 19:02:34 -0700
> >From: Ed Stewart <egs@netcom.com>
> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Zeta Notso Ridiculoso

> >So, the same mathematics that predicts tachions, also predicts
> >that information can't be sent faster than the speed of light.

>  No, at most (if the argument is compelling enough, which
>  I haven't looked at yet) it would exclude ONLY Tachyons
>  from being used for interstellar communication...

Please accept my forgiveness for my rashness. I didn't realize that the
arguments against information being able to be sent at superluminal
speeds had yet to receive your blessings. Please let us all know what
your position on the matter is after you have had an opportunity to
explore the arguments and rebuttle of the last nine decades of the
scientific foundation for Special Relativity and later Quantum Physics.

> >I am surprised that the FTL proponents never have ran into that
> >one show stopper regarding the transport of information at
> >superluminal speeds

>  Because, Mr. Smarty Pants, there's a variety of ideas that
>  don't rely on tachyons. In fact, you couldn't use tachyons
>  for propulsion anyway!

Well, let us not be shy on your way to winning a Nobel prize in physics.
Please enlighten us of these variety of "ideas" that you make reference
to. Henny, in another post, has bailed out claiming that his posts would
only be debunked. May I suggest that only bunk gets debunked. I suspect
your statement above is sheer posturing and nonsense. Hopefully, I am
wrong. I would love to be the sparkplug that entices a future Nobel
prize winner to brilliance. Please enlighten us all.

For your information, the only entities that move faster than light that
I am aware of are mathematical creations of our imagination, such as
tachyons. These are not directly measurable physical objects and the
math that prevents the carrying of information at superluminal speeds
are not relegated to tachions only, but to all quantum wavefunctions
that we have mathematically created so far. Quantum wavefunctions are
not physical either.

While we are on the subject of tachions, it should be noted that so far
tachions are solely the product of mathematical creations that only
exist in our imaginations and that the mathematics only applies to the
quantum world and not the macro world which we all seem to be stuck in.
To this date science has yet to be able to detect a tachyon, or better
yet, the predicted byproducts, i.e. Cherenkov radiation, in all
experiments. Hopefully some day, tachyons will be shown to really exist.

Now, the University of Cologne group led by Nimtz has done a lot of
recent work in quantum tunneling and they claim that their results show
that information has passed at superluminal speeds. That is a claim yet
to be proven. It is highly controversial. Most physicists cite the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle to argue that what the Nimtz group
claims are not an example of superluminal transmissions. Experiments
should be able to settle the matter. That is the way that science works.
It is slow, methodotical, critical and rigorous. Knowledge comes by
slowly. But, regardless, it is simply too premature for those endowed
with ufological wisdom to cite Nimtz, Heitmann, Enders, et al... as if
there claims are scientifically proven and/or accepted. I wish them God
Speed in that they may someday show that they are right.

>  I haven't seen any mathematics from you, so stating that
>  mathematics proves it "can't be done" while you wouldn't
>  be able to grasp that math yourself is rather ironic.

Thank you for letting me know what my mental and academic limitations
are. I keep forgetting how impressed you become with appeals to
authority, especially if those authorities seem to support your
position. It is so converting to know that there are those among us that
have all the answers already and are in a position to enlighten us
should we take one step astray. For your info, I do have a background in
math as well as also understand the math. Also, if you need special
considerations in that area, may I point out that the usenet physics and
relativity FAQs I provided pointers to in my previous message, do
contain just enough math so anyone (even without a math background) can
follow the math concepts at a very easy level of understanding. You, or
anyone else, should not have any problems.

> I might also add that I've seen no more than a qualitative
>  objection why you can't use tachyons to tell your wife
>  you'll be late for dinner. Perhaps there's mathetical
>  basis for this, but I'd have to see it first.

So tacky of me to fail to realize that perhaps you were left out of the
debates and arguments over the last three decades that support Special
Relativity and the significance of the causal implications in its
predictions. Please let us know what you find out and what your position
is when you catch up.

>  But what's most important here is your extrapolation from
>  tachyons to other possible methods to achieve FTL that's
>  not supported. Eliminating one possibility doesn't flush
>  'em all down the toilet, Ed.

My goodness, another transgression of mine. But first, let's be very
clear. My statement was related to the transmission of information at
superliminal speeds, not that non-physical entities such as tachyons or
quantum wavefunctions cannot be mathematically shown to exist in an
imaginal world at superluminal velocities.

Forget for a moment that my statement applies to all, and I mean all,
quantum wavefunctions. That was the extent of my "extrapolation. Are you
implying that my statement does not apply to all quantum wavefunctions?

Since you appear to suggest there exist other superluminal possibilities
in our macroworld, away from the realm of quantum wavefunctions, that
have a direct application to today's ufological wisdom, please enlighten
us and lay on the table what that may be? Enquiring minds wish to know.

>                     Science, Logic, and the UFO Debate:
>                http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/index.html

Science, logic and the UFO debate? That is fantastic. It's about time.
Here is your oppotunity to show us all your stuff and hopefully put you
on the path to the Nobel physics prize. Go For it. Many people here
would like to see you succeed. Show us your stuff!

Ed Stewart
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Stewart egs@netcom.com | So Man, who here seems principal alone,
There is Something        | Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown.
  Going On!       ,>'?'<, | Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal,
Salvador Freixedo ( O O ) | 'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole.
--------------ooOO-(_)-OOoo------- Alexander Pope, Essay on Man -------



Search for other documents from or mentioning: egs | jeanvg

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com