Re: Re:longitudinal faster then light paradox (Tesla's World Electrical System )

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "bob golding by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <yubba-at-clara-dot-net>

Hi Marc,
    Before Terry kills the thread are you sure that faster than light also
means faster than time? I guess that if I had a faster than time antenna I
would already know the answer. I hear the footsteps of the moderator coming
down the hall.*
cheers
bob golding

>> *Yep!  Won't be long now ;-))  - Terry <<


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 2:22 PM
Subject: Re:longitudinal faster then light paradox (Tesla's World Electrical
System )


> Original poster: "Metlicka Marc by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <mystuffs-at-orwell-dot-net>
>
> richard,
> (snip)
>
>
> > So, here is a modern example of Teslas longitudinal
transmission/reception
> > embodied in real hardware.  The concepts while a little foreign are not
that
> > complicated and the antennas should be relatively easy to construct.
>
> yes it looks like it would be "easy" to construct, halogen bulb a couple
> coils, power supply, rf input, but if it "does" transmit faster then
> light couldn't i build the receiver today and plan on building the
> transmitter tomorrow, turn it on and i should hear my message that i
> sent tomorrow. right? my point is that what good would a transmitter
> that transmits faster then light be, how would you know when to listen
> for a message because if at 4:00pm i send you a message, then you would
> have to listen for the message at 2:00pm, then you reply at 2:10, then i
> would hear your reply before i send the message. so if i sent myself a
> message at 4:00pm and i always had the unit turned on and listening, i
> would hear my message before i sent it and therefore not need to send my
> message, therefore never send the message in the first place?
> i'm not saying it doesn't work (because i haven't tried it) but i'm
> saying "how would you know that it was actually sending the message
> faster then light other then hearing a message before you sent it"?
>
>   So, time
> > to get cracking.  Eh, Malcolm?
> >
>
>
>
>
>