<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Einstain called the "spooky interaction". <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Greetings from Cydonia, I hope all is well. The drones of Cydonia have shown great interest in the "ZERO" theory.(None of them understand it but they are eating it up)
Does this have anything to do with the idea of a parallel universe?
I don't recall where I saw it but there was recently an experiment done from New York across the pond where one could push, touch, or hit a box like object and the reaction was "FELT" instantaneously on the other side, shaking hands across the pond. It's not the same technology but it's kind of the same idea.
How do you suggest we get started Fred?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
First off, was "Einstain" intentional spelling or a typo? The anti-Einstein hype I see on some sites is disturbing, and unproductive. Let's give Einstein his due. We don't go around blasting Ptolemy just because his ideas have been supplanted. Further, quantum mechanics, string theory, and the (yet to be worked out, as far as I know) quantum theory of gravity are steps on a ladder or competing theories in a progression of knowledge, and all of the substanceless squabbling between competing theories is unnecessary and wasteful. That energy would be better spent designing and building *experiments* which after all are the bottom line in science. Are we agreed here? To that end, Patrick, I wish you would try to locate chapter and verse on that "across the pond" experiment, cite references we can check? That would be great if you could find it again!
Now, to my proposals. I am not a physicist nor an electronics or computer whiz. I do have a knack for spotting the essential and synthesizing material from disparate sources, however. What I suggest is more interdisciplinary study and experimentation. I have been trying to generate interest in FTL on a hobby forum full of electronics and radio-controlled craft enthusiasts. I'm having trouble connecting with them, however, because I don't speak the language. That's perhaps where some of you come in. We need a combination of bench-top design-and-build skilled and we need equation/design skilled, working together, to work out the theoretical and technical problems. Mozart has been transmitted FTL in the lab. We know this. The naysayers come back and say, "This does nothing to negate causality," confusing the problem. Kopeikin, to cite another example, refuses to understand the distinctions between the geometric and field interpretations of GR, and further, refuses to understand the distinction between the speed of gravitational wave and the speed of gravitational force. The refusal to agree on terms and language conventions perpetuates these problems.
So to answer your question further, Patrick, I suggest also that we ought to lead by example here on this board and be precise in language and therefore clear in presentation. To wit, when you cite the experiment transmitting a handshake across the Atlantic (if I got the gist of the "pond" correctly) "instantaneously" you are being imprecise, if you leave two distinct quantities, "instantaneous" and "at the speed of light" equal. They are not equal, and to make them so by imprecise language confounds the problem unnecessarily. Did anyone actually take the trouble to clock the transmission speed?
Maybe it *was* FTL!
I would like to see efforts in the direction of computer/hardware/solid state/integrated circuitry, driven by specially designed software (if such software could be designed, which would not be an actual hindrance to FTL -- we might be forced to stick to a purely hardware design) which would in effect comprise the necessary components of a FTL system, and I have a concrete suggestion for how to proceed, and with whom, as a tentative first exploration of these proposals. I direct you to these sites:
phys.educ.ksu.edu/vqm/html/qtunneling.html
(quantum tunneling)
www.altair.org/Qtunnel.htm
("Quantum Tunneling on Your Kitchen Table")
I also have a PDF file I would be glad to email to anyone who requests it, containing an FTL device design. My email address is available here on the Metaresearch boards, if you want to request the file.
And the following site, for the kinds of people with whom we need to join forces to build these things:
www.thehobbyforum.com/
I am a member of the Hobby Forum, and invite and encourage you to join as well, and post to the site, make contacts. There are a few folks there who are into the SETI@home DC project, and I believe could become interested and enthused about FTL, if they can see something they can sink their technical teeth into. Let's come up with some first principles, goals, plans, and at least rudimentary designs here, on this board, and via snail mail and freight (working models are always a plus). Let's be rigorous about language and clarity, both theoretically and technically. If and when we successfully build a working model, let's make the design user friendly, so that any Homer can read it, understand it, and build it.
Lastly, my enthusiasm for science and especially the frontiers of science has been modified by the influence of R. Buckminster Fuller, a designer/builder par excellence, whose main motive was improvement of the human condition, for its own sake. He was wonderfully oblivious to the profit motive, except to understand it as a means, a tool, not an end. His modus operandi was to do the work, let the funding find you, it always does.
Peace,
Wilson
