J?rgen Clade wrote:

Hello Richard,

[...]
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.

No, it hasn´t. SR forbids *transport of energy-momentum at
superluminal speeds*, and in the case of anomalous dispersion, as in
this experiment, energy-momentum is not transported with the group
velocity of the wave package. So superluminal group velocities don´t
violate SR.

Where in the lorentz transform is it implicit that v corresponds only to
tangible particles? You are only repeating what you've heard over and
over. This was an outright lie imposed in order to save SR from very
observable superluminal speeds. It was a rationalization, it was a
fabrication, it was pulled out of their asses. Tell me, If a spot
(generated by a rotating laser) is moving at 2c along a fence wrt me,
then what speed will that spot be moving wrt an observer moving at x m/s
wrt the fence, as measured by that observer?

Richard Perry


regards,
Jürgen

"Richard" wrote in message ...


[snip]


Where in the lorentz transform is it implicit that v corresponds only to
tangible particles? You are only repeating what you've heard over and
over. This was an outright lie imposed in order to save SR from very
observable superluminal speeds. It was a rationalization, it was a
fabrication, it was pulled out of their asses. Tell me, If a spot
(generated by a rotating laser) is moving at 2c along a fence wrt me,
then what speed will that spot be moving wrt an observer moving at x m/s
wrt the fence, as measured by that observer?

Primed frame 2 moving with velocity vc wrt unprimed frame.

Spot_event 1: (x',t') = ( 0, 0 )
Spot_event 2: (x',t') = ( wt', t' )
velocity of spot = wt' / t' = w
for instance 2c

Spot_event 1: (x,t) = ( 0, 0 )
Spot_event 2: (x',t') = ( g(wt'+vt'), g(t'+vwt'/c^2 )
velocity of spot = (w+v)/(1+vw/c^2)

w c == (w+v)/(1+vw/c^2) c
w = c == (w+v)/(1+vw/c^2) = c
w c == (w+v)/(1+vw/c^2) c

Subluminal in one frame == subluminal in all frames
Luminal in one frame == Luminal in all frames
Superluminal in one frame == superluminal in all frames

Dirk Vdm

"Richard" wrote in message ...


[snip]


Where in the lorentz transform is it implicit that v corresponds only to
tangible particles? You are only repeating what you've heard over and
over. This was an outright lie imposed in order to save SR from very
observable superluminal speeds. It was a rationalization, it was a
fabrication, it was pulled out of their asses. Tell me, If a spot
(generated by a rotating laser) is moving at 2c along a fence wrt me,
then what speed will that spot be moving wrt an observer moving at x m/s
wrt the fence, as measured by that observer?

Primed frame moving with velocity vc w.r.t. unprimed frame.

Spot_event 1: (x',t') = ( 0, 0 )
Spot_event 2: (x',t') = ( wt', t' )
velocity of spot = wt' / t' = w
for instance 2c

Spot_event 1: (x,t) = ( 0, 0 )
Spot_event 2: (x,t) = ( g(wt'+vt'), g(t'+vwt'/c^2 )
velocity of spot = (w+v)/(1+vw/c^2)

w c == (w+v)/(1+vw/c^2) c
w = c == (w+v)/(1+vw/c^2) = c
w c == (w+v)/(1+vw/c^2) c

Subluminal in one frame == subluminal in all frames
Luminal in one frame == Luminal in all frames
Superluminal in one frame == superluminal in all frames

Dirk Vdm

"EL" wrote in message om...

[snip]

SR takes no credit for the constancy of electromagnetic waves in
vacuum but Maxwell does.

SR takes credit for modifying Newton and Galileo in a way
that satisfies Maxwell and all people who think that physics
is about experiments.

Dirk Vdm

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:32:31 -0500, Richard
wrote:



J?rgen Clade wrote:

Hello Richard,

[...]
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.

No, it hasn´t. SR forbids *transport of energy-momentum at
superluminal speeds*, and in the case of anomalous dispersion, as in
this experiment, energy-momentum is not transported with the group
velocity of the wave package. So superluminal group velocities don´t
violate SR.

Where in the lorentz transform is it implicit that v corresponds only to
tangible particles?

In working out the consequences. You can easily add up a bunch of
waves with subluminal speeds and get a superluminal group velocity.
It's simple addition. Therefore it follows that subluminal phase
velocity does not prohibit superluminal group velocity.

You are only repeating what you've heard over and
over.

No, you are attempting to do mathematical derivation without
mathematics. It's a simple consequence of the mathematics: If under
the postulates we find that something like superluminal group velocity
is allowed, we say "under the postulates, superluminal group velocity
is allowed". Because we show that under the postulates you can get
superluminal group velocity.

- Randy

In article , Randy Poe writes:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:32:31 -0500, Richard
wrote:



J?rgen Clade wrote:

Hello Richard,

[...]
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.

No, it hasn´t. SR forbids *transport of energy-momentum at
superluminal speeds*, and in the case of anomalous dispersion, as in
this experiment, energy-momentum is not transported with the group
velocity of the wave package. So superluminal group velocities don´t
violate SR.

Where in the lorentz transform is it implicit that v corresponds only to
tangible particles?

In working out the consequences. You can easily add up a bunch of
waves with subluminal speeds and get a superluminal group velocity.
It's simple addition. Therefore it follows that subluminal phase
velocity does not prohibit superluminal group velocity.

You are only repeating what you've heard over and
over.

No, you are attempting to do mathematical derivation without
mathematics. It's a simple consequence of the mathematics: If under
the postulates we find that something like superluminal group velocity
is allowed, we say "under the postulates, superluminal group velocity
is allowed". Because we show that under the postulates you can get
superluminal group velocity.

I'll add here as a comment that the issue of group velocity is
generally misunderstood, perhaps due to the fact that lower level
textbooks don't explain it well. Group velocity *is not* signal
velocity. Under some circumstances, when the dependence of phase
velocity on frequency over the bandwidth of the signal is weak, group
velocity is a good approximation to signal velocity over distances
short enough so that the pulse shape does not change appreciably in
propagation. That's all. The conditions listed above are reasonably
well satisfied in most practical situations, but they totally fail
under anomalous dispersion situation.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

Richard wrote in message ...

W = (v+w)/(1 + vw/c^2)



Need I continue?



Richard Perry

[EL]
From the paper, the group velocity is

{
vg = c/ng
}

From the same paper also, the group refractive index was measured to
be
{
Using a least square fitting procedure, we obtain a pulse
advancement shift of 63
(±1) nsec. Compared with the 0.2 nsec propagation time for light to
traverse the 6-cm
length of the atomic cell in vacuum, the 63nsec advancement gives an
effective group
index of ng = 315(±5).
}

They simply divided 63 ns by 0.2 ns and a dimensionless ratio is 315.

Therefore the group velocity is

vg = (3 x 10^8) / (315) = 952,381 meters/second

Can any one see any superluminal **** in this velocity?

Nevertheless, the suckers comment saying

{
We note here that the measured superluminal pulse propagation inside
the transparent
anomalous dispersion medium is a linear effect.
}

Naturally if they have divided 0.2 by 63 and stated that the new group
refractive index was 0.0031746[031746]° rather than
1.0031746[031746]°, then any decent scientist could have sued them for
fraud but what they did is pretend to misinterpret the result which is
a very normal delay in an extremely dispersive medium.

What that paper was doing is taking the reader in a wild tour
demonstrating a rigorous experimental setup to convince the reader
that it is serious science if that reader was competent and to get the
reader lost and baffled if the reader was incompetent. Then suddenly
they fabricate the outcome and while admitting that the so elaborately
prepared signal was delayed by 63 or 62 nano-seconds in the dispersive
caesium medium while in vacuum it is delayed by 0.2 ns only, you find
them claiming that it was 315 times faster rather than slower!

If they dare to say that that 62 ns is the time interval between
reading an output first and then pumping an input then how many asylum
residents would believe that claim?

Any forward shift must be an artefact of the 50 KHz continuous pulsing
where the output of a previous dispersive pulse is grouped with a
current vacuum reference pulse.

The scam is clearly based on the rabid desire from the physics
community to confirm time variance as proposed by Einstein
relativities.

This is really sick and I CAN debunk every single fraudulent claim
made by assholes who seek fame riding on an ancient error for
rewarding the biggest asshole a Nobel Prize.

EL

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...
"EL" wrote in message om...

[snip]

SR takes no credit for the constancy of electromagnetic waves in
vacuum but Maxwell does.

SR takes credit for modifying Newton and Galileo in a way
that satisfies Maxwell and all people who think that physics
is about experiments.

Dirk Vdm

[EL]
Pray tell Mr. de moortel.

Did the SR modification make Newton's apple fall upwards?
Then screwing the decent work of Galileo is called a virtue!
Satisfying Maxwell by plagiarising his results and screwing his ether!
Perhaps it is satisfying all people who think that physics is about
sex experiments such as screwing every decent theorem that existed
before and making crackpot lists for intimidating honourable and
credible professors by adding their names side by side with lunatics
and assholes of your type.

What a Dirk!

Be gone asshole.

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...
"EL" wrote in message om...

[snip]

SR takes no credit for the constancy of electromagnetic waves in
vacuum but Maxwell does.

SR takes credit for modifying Newton and Galileo in a way
that satisfies Maxwell and all people who think that physics
is about experiments.

Dirk Vdm

[EL]
The first postulate of SR is plagiarized from the Galilean
transformation postulate.
The second Postulate is plagiarized from Maxwell's constancy of light
speed in vacuum.
Observers are irrelevant to both postulates.

Lorentz transformation and the gamma factor are idiotic manipulations
of invariant dimensions.

Ah! And you are an asshole and it is not a pleasure to communicate
with you after demonstrating your bias and disrespect.

Be gone.



EL

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"Richard" wrote in message ...


[snip]


Where in the lorentz transform is it implicit that v corresponds only to
tangible particles? You are only repeating what you've heard over and
over. This was an outright lie imposed in order to save SR from very
observable superluminal speeds. It was a rationalization, it was a
fabrication, it was pulled out of their asses. Tell me, If a spot
(generated by a rotating laser) is moving at 2c along a fence wrt me,
then what speed will that spot be moving wrt an observer moving at x m/s
wrt the fence, as measured by that observer?

Primed frame moving with velocity vc w.r.t. unprimed frame.

Spot_event 1: (x',t') = ( 0, 0 )
Spot_event 2: (x',t') = ( wt', t' )
velocity of spot = wt' / t' = w
for instance 2c

Spot_event 1: (x,t) = ( 0, 0 )
Spot_event 2: (x,t) = ( g(wt'+vt'), g(t'+vwt'/c^2 )
velocity of spot = (w+v)/(1+vw/c^2)

w c == (w+v)/(1+vw/c^2) c
w = c == (w+v)/(1+vw/c^2) = c
w c == (w+v)/(1+vw/c^2) c

Subluminal in one frame == subluminal in all frames
Luminal in one frame == Luminal in all frames
Superluminal in one frame == superluminal in all frames

Dirk Vdm

Which I have already stated Dirk. OTOH this requires that the time of
occurrence, i.e. the exact moment of transition between subluminal and
superluminal, be the same instant in every frame. Thus if wrt some
observer two spatially separated 'spots' make the transition from
subluminal to superluminal simultaneously, then they must do so
simultaneously wrt all frames, thus negating SR's relativity of
simultaneity.

Now I know that you will respond, "not so", but consider that if this is
not in fact the case, then at some given instant we will have one of the
spots moving superluminally wrt K, but not wrt K'. This directly
contradicts either SR, or your assessment above, take your pick. As far
as I'm concerned, when one goes the other goes with it, and thus the
book is closed.

Now I know this may be difficult to understand, but you cannot argue the
points made in the Gravitomagnetism thread, and the result of those
premises is that the actually correct theory requires the incorrectness
of SR. I have no choice but to stick to the theory that explains nature
coherently, and it just doesn't happen to be SR. OTOH if not for the
overwhelming counter evidence that I've provided, I might also find SR
agreeable from an aesthetic point of view. It has nothing to do with
sentiment, not in my case. It's a matter of pure empiricism and logical
principles. My disgust with the illogic of the theory wasn't spawned by
the theory, but by the mentality of the majority of its die-hard
adherents.

Richard Perry

http://www.cswnet.com/~rper