UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Sep > Sep 28

Re: Q&A On That FTL 'Discovery'

From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:31:09 +0100
Archived: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:35:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Q&A On That FTL 'Discovery'

>From: Geoff Blackmore <geoff_184.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 01:55:37 +1300
>Subject: Re: Q&A On That FTL 'Discovery'

>>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul>
>>Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:54:15 +0100
>>Subject: Q&A On That FTL 'Discovery'


>>So why can't something go faster than the speed of light?
>>Because it would violate the laws of cause and effect.

>There appears to be some confusion here. The speed of light is
>not zero-time. The particles that CERN observed arriving 60 nano
>seconds earlier than expected, did not arrive 60 nano seconds
>before they departed, as implied. They still took a period of
>time to get from A to B; they just did it faster than

Hello Geoff, know how you feel - that was always my reaction to
that "time travel" statement about FTL.

But then I'm not in love with Relativity, and it's Relativity's
'speed limit' dictum that allows scientists to say that.

Personally I think there's too many loose ends around Relativity
- f'rinstance it says (iirc) that "gravity" travels at light
speed; but empirical evidence (including NASA's) says it's
approximately instantaneous - see Tom Van Flandern's masterly
analysis and conclusions



if so, that Relativity dictum would've meant that gravity itself
was "time travelling"!


Ray D

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.