Star triangle paradox

I just read this thread in it's entirety. It got me thinking, and I may have a dumb question here, but I'd like to ask it anyway...

In the quoted experiment that Magical Realist posted, the scientists were amplifying the speed of light using caesium up to 300 times. So, if they were able to apply this process to a message using fiber optic coil (of considerable length, I suppose), could they send a message back in time?
 
I just wanted to add, (I may be wrong here too), that if sending that message was theoretically possible, the equipment on the receiving end probably wouldn't be able to process it. Not quick enough to make it useful at least.
 
Welcome back, John99.

You have 24 hours to either support or retract your claim, or you will be banned from sciforums for 1 month.

Alternatively, should you wish to be permanently banned right now, I will oblige you. Just let me know.

(Copy of this post sent by PM as well.)
 
James R said:
Welcome back, John99.

You have 24 hours to either support or retract your claim, or you will be banned from sciforums for 1 month.

Alternatively, should you wish to be permanently banned right now, I will oblige you. Just let me know.

(Copy of this post sent by PM as well.)
Click to expand...

didn't i post earlier that it was done or didn't you understand what that meant?

Here is a list of PM's you've sent me on this matter.

http://imageshack.us/f/844/banli.jpg/

What specifically are the requirements? I said i retracted it.
 
James PM's me and tells me to ratract the statemnt. I post "Done" in the thread because he wants it in the thread.

Done, retracted.

Why doesnt James just delete the posts he dont like?

The OP was answered on the first page. I posted what i believed in to be true.
 
Last edited:
James, why dont you split the relevant posts to a new thread?

Hey, put it in the formal debates thread for one month then we can formally debate it and see what happens.

or just delete. If not then consider it retracted 100%.
 
Last edited:
John99 said:
It's retractced..
Click to expand...

John99 said:
James, why dont you split the relevant posts to a new thread?

Hey, put it in the formal debates thread for one month then we can formally debate it and see what happens.
Click to expand...

Either you're retracting your claim or you're not. If you want it formally debated, then you're not retracting it.

Which is it? Are you retracting it or not?

John99 said:
Why doesnt James just delete the posts he dont like?
Click to expand...

That would be censorship on the basis of personal whim. That's not how this place works.

All I have required you to do is to back up your claims with some kind of logical argument and/or evidence, or else retract them. That's quite reasonable for a science site.

Let me know whether you wish to debate your claim or retract it. If you wish to debate it, you must start by supporting it.

I hope we can resolve this before you're banned. I'm getting sick of going round and round with you.
 
James,

How do you know there is a delay?

How do you know the delay is with the eyes?

Remember you said there is no RT vision, but more importantly, remeber why you claim there is no RT vision? Because the light has to reach the eyes. Lets take it from there. All i am asking is to explain it.

You should at least answer those two questions.

Anser them and I will acknowledge it. But all you ask me is to retract something or i will be banned. Never explaining why what i am saying is wrong.

Retract or be banned are not good options. Show why and i will retract because then there will be proof.
 
John99 said:
James,

How do you know there is a delay?

How do you know the delay is with the eyes?

Remember you said there is no RT vision, but more importantly, remeber why you claim there is no RT vision? Because the light has to reach the eyes. Lets take it from there. All i am asking is to explain it.

You should at least answer those two questions.

Anser them and I will acknowledge it. But all you ask me is to retract something or i will be banned. Never explaining why what i am saying is wrong.

Retract or be banned are not good options. Show why and i will retract because then there will be proof.
Click to expand...
Excuse me? You've been explained why you're wrong a great number of times already.
 
Ellis said:
In the quoted experiment that Magical Realist posted, the scientists were amplifying the speed of light using caesium up to 300 times. So, if they were able to apply this process to a message using fiber optic coil (of considerable length, I suppose), could they send a message back in time?
Click to expand...

Nope. It's a cool experiment, but it is the GROUP velocity that's exceeding the speed of light, not the velocity of any of the photons in that group.

For a mechanical example:

Imagine two rulers a million miles long. They are almost parallel but are offset so that at their near side they overlap, but on their far side they are 1mm apart. Now slide them together at 1mm a second. After 1 second, the far side will overlap as well.

Now, if you look at the point at which the rulers intersect while you move them, that point will be moving at 1 million miles a second, which is over 5 times the speed of light. But the rulers are only moving at 1 millimeter per second, which is far below lightspeed.

Likewise, the phase velocity of light (when viewed as a wave) can be far, far higher than lightspeed - even when the light itself (i.e. the photons that make it up) move at a "mere" 186,000 miles per second.
 
John99 said:
How do you know there is a delay
Click to expand...

Delay due to lightspeed has been measured literally millions of times. You can do it yourself with a flashlamp, two phototransistors and an oscilloscope. If it's a good scope and the detectors are good you can measure the delay down to about a nanosecond (which is a distance of about a foot.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top