Re: starship-design: Light is not a constant, apparently...

["Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>]

Steve VanDevender wrote:

> Relativity has dealt with the existence of refractive materials
> from the beginning.  At the quantum level the average slowdown of
> the speed of light in a refractive material is actually caused by
> delays between the absorption and re-emission of photons by
> electrons in the material.  All the experimenters have done is
> create a Bose-Einstein condensate with an extremely high index of
> refraction.  Relativity is still fine.

I know what you said, and I understand it. But I do disagree with your
assumption that relativity is 'still fine.' You are a computer science
person (what you told me a year back) not a physicist. Dr. Michael
Guillen is a physics researcher, and he holds a doctorate. They don't
hire idiots to be the science editor for a major news program. If you
want to compete with him, or anyone like him for that matter, you are
welcome to it. You will find you are not in the best position.
> 
> And, Kyle, until you actually publish a replicable experiement
> and others successfully replicate it your claims of having seen
> FTL effects are completely untenable. 

And I have said to the group before: I cannot tell you how to replicate
it yet. I will in a while, when my testing is finished. You could build
one yourself if you wanted to. It is fairly simple. You can do something
right now though: take a TV delay line, use one from an OLD color TV,
and put a square wave signal through it. By varying the resistance with
some potentiometers, you can vary the speed of transmission. There are
those that argue that this is due simply to transformer induction
effects. Well, you can make it non-inductive. This is sort of the way my
setup works. 

> I don't want to hear about
> how you're using some "proprietary" material in some way you
> don't want to tell us about and that you won't let anyone else
> touch.  It's not how science is done.

I have let many people 'touch' this. The people at my college have. They
are frankly shocked by this. If you want to know why I am not releasing
full details to everyone yet, I have no idea. My co-worker is the one
who is secretive. I don't give a damn about trying to get money from
something like this...I just want it to be published and 'out there' so
to speak. When I get more done, I am going to release it. Really this
isn't *my* device per se, but was invented over ten years ago. No one
followed it up. So you understand, I want to confirm it. I have. It
works. When I have a concrete design, I will let you know EXACTLY how to
build it. And really, I don't give a damn what you want to hear about; I
posted something I though was interesting. And, yes, science is done by
experimentation. It is not sitting around and theorizing about
something. That is THEORIZING. If you want to do science, do an
experiment, for Gods sake! I have, and I have sent a signal through this
device, varied the frequency, the delay is exactly the same: coincident.
If it is coupling through the coils, I don't know how. It is
noninductive, and a wire of equal length of one run cannot detect the
signal when placed half the distance from a winding than the windings
are nominally spaced. If it is inducting, then I will still be
interested: it will show me that there is a way to induct
noninductively. This is a phase velocity exceeding C, and a frequency
modulation exceeding C. I will now attempt a different form of
modulation. Instead of modulating a dead carrier wave, I want to send
trains of beeps down the line, and listen to them. If I detect no delay,
then it is excellent. If the delay is less than C, I will be quite
confused.

Kyle R. Mcallister