posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 01:02 AM
There is a lot of misinformation floating around in this thread....
Let me start off by mentioning the information linked to by Electromagnetic Multivers at math.ucr.edu.
In section 3 titled Shadows and Light Spots, the author states that "The speed of a shadow is therefore not restricted to be less than the speed of
light." and "Others things which can go faster than the speed of light include the spot of a laser which is pointed at the surface of the moon."
and he describes the "oblique wave" example. All of these situations have been grossly misunderstood by the author (and some people in this
First: A shadow is not an object, not even in the most imaginative sense! Shadows, like brighter colors, are just less intense photons being
reflected towards your eyes. When the shadow "moves" what is really happening is DIFFERENT photons are travelling to your eyes. Nothing here moves
FTL. Those photons move at precisely the speed of light in air.
Second: The laser spot on the moon is a similar situation. The laser spot is really just photons being reflected back toward earth (they originate
on earth with the laser). These photons move at the speed of light. When the laser is turned, new photons are reflected. In fact, at every instant
in time, the photons you see are different photons from the ones you just saw. Again, the "spot" is not an object. Nothing here moves FTL.
Third: The oblique waves.....wow. They certainly do not travel FTL. Not even close. Their intersection with the shore is not an object that has a
velocity. This author is twisting words and concepts around in ways that have no meaning when referring to velocity.
In section 5 he mentions phase velocity and group velocity. Phase velocity is again not an actual object moving, but a probability function. If one
were to say this is moving faster than light, then it happens ALL THE TIME. Probability functions change instantaneously over infinite distances.
However, they are not objects. They are merely mathematical constructs to describe the location/energy/momentum/time of a particle. They do not
Wormholes/warp drive: Neither of these methods enables FTL travel. Instead, they "warp" space, causing the distance between 2 points to be
smaller, allowing conventional (slower than light) travel between the 2 points in much less time than it would take if they were at their original
spatial separation. An outside observer may think they are travelling FTL, but it is an illusion. The actual travellers would not be going FTL.
Electro also said this: "Every time someone announces that they have made a breakthrough, they get slapped with a boat load of money and made to
sign a 'secrecy' clause, this I don't know for fact, but what I can say is, we ain't gonna see this for a LONG time."
If you don't know this "for fact" why did you say it? It's pure speculation with no basis, and is entirely misleading. I have to point this out
because I feel you are wrong for knowingly stating something you know isn't a fact as if it is. The disclaimer at the end doesn't exuse it, IMO.
Now for those who think we got our technology from aliens and cite Corso's book as the smoking gun...all I can say is go study science history. I
mean really really study it in depth. If you do, you'll see that we made constant and continuous steps from medievel times all the way until today.
Not only that, but most of our advancements were made in multiple locations nearly simultaneously. This indicates natural progression of knowledge,
not alien technology. Don't go tossing out semiconductors and microcircuits as your proof. I've studied them quite a bit, including the history of
the technology. We've had the necessary knowledge ever since the 1920's...all it took was the experimentation at Bell Labs to figure out it's
usefulness. Have you seen the first transistor??? It's not a work of art, unless you like post-modernism.