Faster than light

Phil philmt59 at
Thu Feb 23 13:49:19 CST 2012

Clearly, the faulty connection was consistently dropping the 60 ns bit. This is what comes of using a computer to replace a professional scientist with a good stopwatch.

Phil M1GWZ

On 23 Feb 2012, at 12:35, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:

> I suppose it could also be wrong type of fiber and modal dispersion if
> they are clocking on the falling edge of a pulse.  Replacing the patch
> cord with the proper type would fix this.
> We'll never know, of course, with this level of (likely incorrect)
> detail in the reporting...
> -r
> bbruhns at writes:
>> It's either a bad cover story, or bad reporting.  I think they stumbled on a tiny error in the estimate of the speed of light in vacuum, and they are shucking and jiving, and keeping the exact numbers secret until they can publish their theory about it, so that nobody beats them to it.
>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tacos mailing list
>> Tacos at
> _______________________________________________
> Tacos mailing list
> Tacos at

More information about the Tacos mailing list