1 posted on
09/16/2002 7:26:53 AM PDT by
aculeus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
To: maxwell; Robert A. Cook, PE
max, is this the kind of stuff you play around with all day?
2 posted on
09/16/2002 7:29:28 AM PDT by
xsmommy
To: aculeus
This is weird BUMP.
3 posted on
09/16/2002 7:31:10 AM PDT by
mercy
To: aculeus
Amazing! Faster processing time means another step towards meaningful artificial intelligence. This means another step towards autonomous battlefield "robots". (Pretty scary in way)
(If Bell Laboratories can hire these guys, maybe Lucent stock will become worth something again.)
4 posted on
09/16/2002 7:31:58 AM PDT by
BenLurkin
To: aculeus
Signals also get weaker and more distorted the faster they go, so in theory no useful information can get transmitted at faster-than-light speeds, though Robertson hopes his students and others can now rigorously and cheaply test those ideas. Given that the peak can be observed, and its speed measured, this statement seems to be incorrect. A frequency modulation scheme would seem to offer a way of transmitting information.
5 posted on
09/16/2002 7:33:55 AM PDT by
r9etb
To: aculeus
Signals also get weaker and more distorted the faster they go, so in theory no useful information can get transmitted at faster-than-light speeds,That is not true, since by accurately timing the distortion you could take it into account. As well, sending a known test signal down the line before transmitting data would allow you to adjust for any slight differences due to temperature, etc.
6 posted on
09/16/2002 7:34:35 AM PDT by
ikka
To: aculeus
Alot of the slowdown in the future is not going to be the rate at which our computers receive data, but at how it processes it. You throw 200 GB in one second at your computer and see what happens.
7 posted on
09/16/2002 7:35:43 AM PDT by
dogbyte12
To: aculeus
bump .... so where's the warp drive already ? ;)
To: aculeus
Speed of light broken with basic lab kit... Wasn't me, I was taking a shower!
I hope this isn't series.
To: aculeus
Ha! And I've been snickering at my six-year-old son's plan to build his own rocket. When I explained that he'd have to study and then work for NASA, he said, "No, we can just go shopping at Home Depot." Maybe the kid is right.
To: aculeus
"In a related announcement, the staff of Middle Tennessee State University have 'solved' the Unified Field Theory utilizing six soda straws, three empty beer cans, a ten-year-old Timex man's watch (leather band), twenty feet of plastic tubing (1/4" diameter), and duct tape."
To: aculeus; xsmommy
Well, of course this isn't really news....
The National press corpse used to get their daily fax followup questions and spin briefing from the dnc even before the the media broadcast the first batch of lies from Hillary's White House.
To: aculeus
I knew that appointing Jethro Bodine to the Middle Tennessee faculty would finally pay off!
17 posted on
09/16/2002 8:00:00 AM PDT by
ArcLight
To: aculeus
QUESTION TO ALL:
Doesn't Einstein's theory imply that if something travels faster than the speed of light, it would travel backward in time?
That means if an electronic signal is traveling along a certain length of cable then the signal would arrive at it's destination at a point in space time prior to the point in space time that the switch was thrown to SEND THE SIGNAL in the first place. (Theme to jeopardy playing in background)
Any thoughts?.....And the SURVEY SAID?:
20 posted on
09/16/2002 8:02:25 AM PDT by
webboss
To: Physicist; RadioAstronomer; longshadow; general_re
Anybody got a clue here?
And I don't see how the oscilloscope can show squat here. Is this just another phase shift masquerade?
To: Carry_Okie
ping for science fun.
To: aculeus
Light doesn't travel the same speed through coax as it does through free space. There is a characteristic called "velocity factor". Light travels at about 2/3 the speed through coax compared to free space in RG8/U coax. I don't think the parties writing the article finished their basic electricity/electronics courses.
28 posted on
09/16/2002 8:17:26 AM PDT by
Myrddin
To: aculeus
When someone builds a spacecraft that goes 100 times the speed of light, the "science" community will still act like spin doctors in their attempts to save face for their pagan god, Einstein. It's pathetic. Science is rooted in the laws (known and unknown) of nature, not in some crotchety dead guy with a white beard.
To: aculeus
While the peak moves faster than light speed, the total energy of the pulse does not.It must have been a slow news day.
The article is describing the faster-than-light travel of phase velocity, not group velocity. It is the latter that would be useful in transmitting information. The article even states this, though the press seems not to have cared.
A faster-than-light phase velocity has been around for a very long time. A more pedestrian analogy would be ocean waves striking the shore at an angle. If you followed the crest of the wave as it struck the shore, you'd find it was traveling faster than the velocity of the wave itself.
40 posted on
09/16/2002 8:30:06 AM PDT by
bcoffey
To: aculeus
For Sale: Electronic test equipment, slightly used.
To: aculeus
"Speed of light broken with basic lab kit"
UNless they measured something wrong, or measured by a previous wrong measurement or maybe their equipment was not calibrated correctly or maybe.....nevermind
and now for my secund secound 2nd cup of mornin coffee....
"If you reach total enlightenment while drinking beer, I bet it makes beer come out your nose.
Deep Thoughts- Jack Handy
52 posted on
09/16/2002 8:40:34 AM PDT by
hosepipe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson