![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Tags: confirmed, empirically, superluminal, velocities |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Richard
wrote in message ... wrote: Yup... The problem is definitions of SR as to 'event sequencing'. LRT does not have this problem since it does NOT have a defined synchronization process that sets time as a pseudo-distance... Paul Stowe Exactly. Richard Perry [EL] Hi Richard and Paul. Please help me on this because I really do not know what experiment was being conducted when that discovery was made. If it was not a discovery that was discovered during conducting another experiment, then this is a fabricated setup with intentional end results in mind and a complex rig to hide a glitch. My very clear question is {What was the original research researching when the alleged superluminal propagation was allegedly found out?} Naturally, they never saw any results on any oscilloscope because a scan line is constant time dependant and it is rather obscenely ridiculous to assume an output showing before an input. Therefore we expect them to tell us more numerical details on the measurements without any hoopla of equations because until I see the detailed circuit being used I doubt that they have measured and wave propagation at all. Those who know about electronics, know very well that a continuous wave may be displayed by synchronising the sweep rate at an integer multiple or part of the wave frequency otherwise the wave shape shall slip on the screen. However, they talk on something much more demanding because they talk about a single pulse that demands a trigger to catch it. Now if the input was not the trigger then they never caught anything but if the input was the trigger then it is impossible to catch anything before such an event. This excludes all the negative time bull **** of course. So we are left a sixty millimetre tube full of caesium gas and a LASER pumped pulse as an input and a trigger that is supposed to traverse the tube in 0.2 nanoseconds IN VACUUM. If the signal was delayed by 62 ns in caesium then how can that be faster than light? To capture detailed data of a full pulse wave-shape within 0.2 nanoseconds is a formidable task and I demand the release of the electronic parts that accomplished that feat if they dare, but I am certain that it is all a fabrication. They were not working on something else and made a discovery, but the whole scam was planned ahead before any rig was constructed, right? ![]() Regards. EL |
| Ads |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Perfectly Innocent:
I wonder if this is all nonsensical hoopla based on the antiquated wave theory of light or if there is a real, measurable faster-than-light particle view of quantum mechanical tunneling going on. Neither. If I understand Richard P. Feynman correctly, photons are always particles; the wave nature of light only reveals itself in terms of probabilities. Right. All quantum mechanists know the rules of adding amplitudes but I would like to know if something new about quantum mechanical tunneling has been revealed. Yeah. That it doesn't make sense to think of quantum mechanics in the same way one thinks of classical mechanics. Are individual photons in these experiments moving at velocities faster than light? That doesn't really make much sense quantum mechanically. Answer: The sheer mention of this result together with Einstein's theory of special relativity and the principle of causality is a scam. Not a single photon is moving faster than light. Whatever. The alleged generation of superluminal velocities without violating causality is intentionally misleading physicists' hoopla and all the media hype is pure distortion. Don't read the media hype. The fact that the dramatic 60 ns advance is only one fiftieth of the width of the pulse is a clear indication of this. The fact that you're looking at a pulse means you aren't looking at photons. However, I don't really feel like explaining it in detail, as I'm sure it won't matter. If you were hoping to conceptualize how Einstein's special theory of relativity might be false, then don't let these facts disappoint you. The "facts" you've mentioned don't really say much about it one way or the other. It is possible to modify Einstein's special theory to allow for motion faster than light. Sure, if you give light a mass. Then, a photon is just like any other massive particle. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
EL wrote: Richard wrote in message ... wrote: Yup... The problem is definitions of SR as to 'event sequencing'. LRT does not have this problem since it does NOT have a defined synchronization process that sets time as a pseudo-distance... Paul Stowe Exactly. Richard Perry [EL] Hi Richard and Paul. Please help me on this because I really do not know what experiment was being conducted when that discovery was made. If it was not a discovery that was discovered during conducting another experiment, then this is a fabricated setup with intentional end results in mind and a complex rig to hide a glitch. My very clear question is {What was the original research researching when the alleged superluminal propagation was allegedly found out?} Naturally, they never saw any results on any oscilloscope because a scan line is constant time dependant and it is rather obscenely ridiculous to assume an output showing before an input. Therefore we expect them to tell us more numerical details on the measurements without any hoopla of equations because until I see the detailed circuit being used I doubt that they have measured and wave propagation at all. Those who know about electronics, know very well that a continuous wave may be displayed by synchronising the sweep rate at an integer multiple or part of the wave frequency otherwise the wave shape shall slip on the screen. However, they talk on something much more demanding because they talk about a single pulse that demands a trigger to catch it. Now if the input was not the trigger then they never caught anything but if the input was the trigger then it is impossible to catch anything before such an event. This excludes all the negative time bull **** of course. So we are left a sixty millimetre tube full of caesium gas and a LASER pumped pulse as an input and a trigger that is supposed to traverse the tube in 0.2 nanoseconds IN VACUUM. If the signal was delayed by 62 ns in caesium then how can that be faster than light? To capture detailed data of a full pulse wave-shape within 0.2 nanoseconds is a formidable task and I demand the release of the electronic parts that accomplished that feat if they dare, but I am certain that it is all a fabrication. They were not working on something else and made a discovery, but the whole scam was planned ahead before any rig was constructed, right? ![]() Regards. EL Who knows? What I do know is that upon reflection, SR is incompatible with any superluminal speed, even of a non-thing. Let's apply again the formula (v+w)/(1 + vw/c^2) Now let's take the FOR of some blue phase wave. From this FOR the red phase wave is propagating at less than c, regardless of dispersion. Now along the path there are nodes formed by the addition of these phase waves, and these nodes can supposedly have a velocity greater than c wrt lab frame. If however the node is propagating slower than one phase wave wrt the other, then it is traveling at less than c wrt the phase waves themselves, and thus by the above equation must also be traveling at less than c wrt lab frame. Thus even a group velocity cannot exceed c wrt lab frame. Now as I see it, a group velocity was measured at greater than c, and thus, in contrast to the Fizeau near fit, the relativistic velocity addition equation fails in this current experiment. Not only that, but the whole of special relativity has been proved false. Moreover I have considered again the problem of a flashlight beam from a rotating flashlight, regardless of the observed speed of the 'spot' on surrounding reflectors, it too is constrained to less than c within SR. If for instance the spot is moving at less than c wrt some point in motion wrt the background, then it must, by the equation above, also be moving at less than c wrt the background. Thus the disproof of SR is as old as the rotating flashlight gedanken. Richard Perry http://www.cswnet.com/~rper Electromagnetism: First Principles (which is indirectly, another disproof of SR) |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Richard wrote in message ...
[snip] Who knows? What I do know is that upon reflection, SR is incompatible with any superluminal speed, even of a non-thing. Wrong. As always. The speed limit of c in SR applies to matter, energy, and information. The limit does not apply to interference patterns, shadows, projections, and cuts. Paul Cardinale |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Richard wrote in message ...
EL wrote: Richard wrote in message ... wrote: Yup... The problem is definitions of SR as to 'event sequencing'. LRT does not have this problem since it does NOT have a defined synchronization process that sets time as a pseudo-distance... Paul Stowe Exactly. Richard Perry [EL] Hi Richard and Paul. Please help me on this because I really do not know what experiment was being conducted when that discovery was made. If it was not a discovery that was discovered during conducting another experiment, then this is a fabricated setup with intentional end results in mind and a complex rig to hide a glitch. My very clear question is {What was the original research researching when the alleged superluminal propagation was allegedly found out?} Naturally, they never saw any results on any oscilloscope because a scan line is constant time dependant and it is rather obscenely ridiculous to assume an output showing before an input. Therefore we expect them to tell us more numerical details on the measurements without any hoopla of equations because until I see the detailed circuit being used I doubt that they have measured and wave propagation at all. Those who know about electronics, know very well that a continuous wave may be displayed by synchronising the sweep rate at an integer multiple or part of the wave frequency otherwise the wave shape shall slip on the screen. However, they talk on something much more demanding because they talk about a single pulse that demands a trigger to catch it. Now if the input was not the trigger then they never caught anything but if the input was the trigger then it is impossible to catch anything before such an event. This excludes all the negative time bull **** of course. So we are left a sixty millimetre tube full of caesium gas and a LASER pumped pulse as an input and a trigger that is supposed to traverse the tube in 0.2 nanoseconds IN VACUUM. If the signal was delayed by 62 ns in caesium then how can that be faster than light? To capture detailed data of a full pulse wave-shape within 0.2 nanoseconds is a formidable task and I demand the release of the electronic parts that accomplished that feat if they dare, but I am certain that it is all a fabrication. They were not working on something else and made a discovery, but the whole scam was planned ahead before any rig was constructed, right? ![]() Regards. EL Who knows? What I do know is that upon reflection, SR is incompatible with any superluminal speed, even of a non-thing. Let's apply again the formula (v+w)/(1 + vw/c^2) Now let's take the FOR of some blue phase wave. From this FOR the red phase wave is propagating at less than c, regardless of dispersion. Now along the path there are nodes formed by the addition of these phase waves, and these nodes can supposedly have a velocity greater than c wrt lab frame. If however the node is propagating slower than one phase wave wrt the other, then it is traveling at less than c wrt the phase waves themselves, and thus by the above equation must also be traveling at less than c wrt lab frame. Thus even a group velocity cannot exceed c wrt lab frame. Now as I see it, a group velocity was measured at greater than c, and thus, in contrast to the Fizeau near fit, the relativistic velocity addition equation fails in this current experiment. Not only that, but the whole of special relativity has been proved false. Moreover I have considered again the problem of a flashlight beam from a rotating flashlight, regardless of the observed speed of the 'spot' on surrounding reflectors, it too is constrained to less than c within SR. If for instance the spot is moving at less than c wrt some point in motion wrt the background, then it must, by the equation above, also be moving at less than c wrt the background. Thus the disproof of SR is as old as the rotating flashlight gedanken. Richard Perry http://www.cswnet.com/~rper Electromagnetism: First Principles (which is indirectly, another disproof of SR) [EL] Hahaha Dear Richard, I was not concerned about SR at this moment as I am aware of Prf. Lorentz efforts to create a concept of a varying time dimension, which I strongly rebuke. I was very specific in my inquiry concerning the activity of that research team before announcing superluminal measurements. You just confirmed to me that there was no other research going on while an anomaly popped up. The whole hardware setup was constructed to make believe that there is a superluminal propagation of electromagnetic waves at any cost. I am aware of equipment from Fairchild and others, which electronic IC manufacturers use to determine the slew rate and signal delay between input pins and output pins. In fact Integrated Circuits are much slower than high power discrete transistors, and the fastest of all are switches and choppers. To give you an example on NPN type switching transistors, a 10 mA to 1 A range current (collector) has 20 ns = t_on = 70 ns, which is the turn-on time, and 32 ns = t_off = 285 ns, This means an obvious meaning, which is the fact that a trigger signal MUST TAKE TIME to reach the circuit that captures the output of the pulse for comparison. Therefore, a 0.2 ns time window is too narrow for any real time measurement, so what they must have done is to tune the circuit to resonance such that they catch an Nth pulse in a train of pulses and not THE pulse that caused the trigger. This means that fractional delays may accumulate slipping the output backwards until it seems as if it was ahead of the input. ![]() A serious and professional wave plumber knows that for this type of measurement a trigger technique is inapplicable. What is applicable is a matched pair of lines that have perfectly matched components on each side and that carry the signals to a comparator of internally matched components as well. That comparator can measure the difference in the gained potential difference as a function of phase shifting. This technique admits a delay but which is matched as a pair and cancels out. However, the phase shift in that case could be due to any number of cycles in between and does not measure the number of cycles in between to account for the total delay between the incident wave at the starting of the caesium tube and the ending of the caesium tube. This restricts experiments to law frequency waves to guarantee that a phase shift is that of a single wave, which is based on our empirical knowledge that the wave must travel at less than [c] in caesium or any medium other than vacuum. So I was not surprised to read that they obtained a delay of 62 ns inside the tube. I tried to follow the equations but I stopped at being disgusted from the relentless attempts to fit the results to a hypothesis. Any way, thank you for your response Richard. sigh EL |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Paul Cardinale" wrote in message om... Richard wrote in message ... [snip] Who knows? What I do know is that upon reflection, SR is incompatible with any superluminal speed, even of a non-thing. Wrong. As always. The speed limit of c in SR applies to matter, energy, and information. The limit does not apply to interference patterns, shadows, projections, and cuts. Paul Cardinale Very true. That would be like denying the existence of space-like geodesics, which obviously do exist. We just can't have real "things" moving along them. SR has no problem with, for example, someone spinning a flashlight around in the center of a cyllindrical room with a radius of 1 light year at one revolution per second. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Paul Cardinale wrote: Richard wrote in message ... [snip] Who knows? What I do know is that upon reflection, SR is incompatible with any superluminal speed, even of a non-thing. Wrong. As always. The speed limit of c in SR applies to matter, energy, and information. The limit does not apply to interference patterns, shadows, projections, and cuts. Paul Cardinale I think the trick here is the barrier they use it to alter the wave form so the peak of the wave is advanced. Then the detector detects it sooner than if it was not manipulated. i.e. chart an x any y graph and run a sine wave through so a new wave starts at zero, continue the wave in the negative direction also. Now make a sine wave with a longer wavelength, but only on the right side. A detector would detect the longer wave first. holog |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
I know what goes faster than the speed of light.
The stars really really far from me all go faster than the speed of light when I spin around in circles because my spinning reference frame is just as good as anybody else's. (...Starblade Riven Darksquall...) |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Superluminal science lab kit that falsifies Einstein's speed limit, auctioned at eBay, starting at $10.00................................................................................................................ | Mathew Orman | Physics - General Discussion | 30 | October 24th 03 07:20 AM |
| NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction | SDR | Physics - General Discussion | 0 | July 17th 03 11:35 PM |
| NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction | SDR | Physics - General Discussion | 4 | July 13th 03 03:40 AM |
| NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction | SDR | Physics - General Discussion | 0 | July 13th 03 12:29 AM |
| NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction | SDR | Physics - General Discussion | 0 | July 12th 03 11:06 PM |