At 11:01 PM 12/6/4, Keith Nagel wrote: >Hi Terry. > >You will see from their scope graph > >http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/11/10/1/041110 > >that the light speed pulse is larger than both; measuring from the peak like >that can be deceptive as they show. I also agree with >the authors that a "signal velocity" or what I might call >a shock wave velocity need be measured.
It seems to me that if the group velocity can be sensed at 3*c then that constitutes data transmitted FTL. Live data can thus be sent FTL using parallel data cables (or fibers) for a single bit (a bundle), and parallel bundles of cables for a binary word, provided it is known *with good confidence* an interval for the arrival of some indication of the value of each of the parallel data bits in a word. Multiple cables can be used to transmit each bit, including multiple cables to transmit (initiate) the timing (strobe) pulse which starts the sensing interval for a binary word. In this manner multi-bit words can be sent FTL asynchronously. The first indication of a signal on any cable for a given bit then sets that bit. This would not be 100 percent reliable, but neither is any other form of transmission. An indication of both a 1 and a 0 value for a given bit would trigger error processing. If 32 cables were used to transmit a pulse indicating a 1 bit in a given position of a binary word, and 32 cables used to indicate a 0 bit in that word position, then it is known with great reliability much faster than the speed of light if a given bit is 0, 1, or in error. Transmitting an 8 bit byte (with parity) in parallel would take 9*64 + 32 = 608 cables. It may be worthwhile to dedicate 64 cables to the timing pulse bundle, which is always a 1 bit, for reliablity in identifying an earliest possible start for the strobe window. The 640 cables is extravagant, but so what. It's just a proof of principle. > >Hey, HTML free, saves bandwidth and leaves your virtual >breathe minty fresh! How sweet it is! And flouride protected too. Regards, Horace Heffner
