From: snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Faster than Light Comm.
Keywords: Snarfy's Reply to Scott Chase
Date: 13 Aug 92 01:42:06 GMT
Reply-To: snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us


 Scott Chase writes:

> I have deleted the entire text of snarfy's reply because it's all old stuff
> we've been through before.

   I  have  no  way of verifying that statement, but I think it's probably a
   case of peer group intimidation that stifled any  further  discussion  if
   you've been through this before.

>   It seems like we have reached an impass in this
>  discussion, with the positions of both sides clearly known to the other,
>  with neither side willing to concede the field.

      Oh please ..you make it sound like war or something.

> Fine.   But  before  this  fades  away all together, I have the following
> comments for you (snarfy) to consider, if you dare.

     (groan...)

> You  started  this thread with what amounted to a request for information
> from the group.

    Not  so.  I  started  this  thread  by  making  an  assertion  that  FTL
    communication was possible then offering technical details.

>  The responses  of  Dave  Ring,  Dale  Bass,  and  others  have  all  been
>  uniformly in agreement.

    I  think they uniformly agree that they would rather I take my arguments
   elsewhere , while at the same  time  not  bothering  to  reconcile  their
   arguments  with  Ohm's  or  Kirchoff's  laws  .   I will gladly leave the
   newsgroup ,once you or anyone else proves that you own the disk  space  I
   take up . This isn't a popularity contest.

>  It seems to me that you now have a choice/opportunity.   You  can  either
>  decide that the entire group of people to whom you are speaking are plain
>  stupid  for  disagreeing  with  you or that maybe you can learn something
>  from what they have said.

    You  seem  to be implying that you and those who agree with you comprise
   the entire group of people who monitor these discussions. I doubt it.   I
   seldom  accuse  people of stupidity. For one thing I do not engage stupid
   people in conversations.  So I really  don't  think  that  about  you  or
   anyone  else  who's  responded  negatively  to my assertions.  You may be
   misinformed ,or too lazy to respond in any meaningful way to the issues I
   raise-(>``Electrons?    Electrons?    We   don't   need    no    stinking
   electrons!'')-  but  I  don't  think  you're stupid.  Some of the private
   responses  I've  received,  the  other  hand  ,speaking  of  the  serious
   inquiries  by  professionals  ,  often have technical arguments much more
   difficult to overcome than those made by  yourself  or  the  persons  you
   mentioned.

> Only one of those options gives you the possibility of knowing more
> physics than you started out with when you initiated this discussion.

    The  serious  responses  indeed  prompt me to open a book and learn more
   physics, or  get  help  from  third  parties.   Still  ,  none  of  these
   objections   have  yet  convinced  me  to  adopt  a  belief  system  that
   continually strives to rule out the possibility of FTL communications. To
   the contrary , the more I learn about nature , the more I'm  inclined  to
   think  positively  . I don't think that anything that needs to be done as
   much as breaking the light barrier needs to be done, for the sake of  the
   survival of the human species, can really be impossible.

  I think the list of my options is orders of magnitude  longer  than  you
  claim it is.


   - Snarfy
Newsgroups: sci.physics