Debunking Nimtz
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Next: USM
From: Bill Hobba on 17 Aug 2007 23:54 "Dono" <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1187366969.564881.41340(a)x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > Here is a very good analysis of his latest paper uploaded on arxiv: > > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070816-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-no-i-dont-think-so.html > > Nimtz has been making this ridiculous claims for years and he has been > countered in numerous venues. In spite of all the criticisms, he keeps > at it , just like Cahill, Hartwig Thim, Munera, Tom van Flandern etc, > etc. :-) > Nimitz has in fact admitted he can't do what some claim his experiments show. I suspect Nimitz is a fairly respectable scientist - people misinterpret what he says. Thanks Bill
From: Jerry on 17 Aug 2007 23:57 On Aug 17, 10:54 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...(a)junk.com> wrote: > "Dono" <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:1187366969.564881.41340(a)x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > > > Here is a very good analysis of his latest paper uploaded on arxiv: > > >http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070816-faster-than-the-speed-o... > > > Nimtz has been making this ridiculous claims for years and he has been > > countered in numerous venues. In spite of all the criticisms, he keeps > > at it , just like Cahill, Hartwig Thim, Munera, Tom van Flandern etc, > > etc. :-) > > Nimitz has in fact admitted he can't do what some claim his experiments > show. I suspect Nimitz is a fairly respectable scientist - people > misinterpret what he says. No. See my other post in this thread and look carefully at Figure 1 in his paper. I believe that Nimtz has committed scientific fraud. Jerry
From: Bill Hobba on 17 Aug 2007 23:57 "Dono" <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1187405558.538162.120000(a)q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 17, 7:22 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> Josef Matz wrote >> >> > [to those claiming Nimtz is wrong about superluminal signals] >> > Nimtz is right and you are wrong ! >> >> This is probably a case of both being right, but saying different things. >> >> Yes, Nimtz probably did observe a superluminal group velocity of his >> signals. But yes, this does not violate SR because it cannot be used to >> send INFORMATION faster than light. Here's a simple demonstration of why >> this can be so: >> http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/20/20.html >> >> Nimtz carefully did not give enough information so his claims could be >> examined in detail by experts. >> >> Tom Roberts > > > > No, Tom > > Nimtz has been claiming in front of rooms full of experimenters that > his "experiments" are disproving relativity. He's been at it for > years, he is as misguided as Cahill. I take your word for it. But I have seen a paper he authored where he carefully explains why his experiments don't violate relativity - and they can't because they are predicted by QFT which assumes SR. I posted a link to it for that nut Josef Matz who called me a liar but skulked away for a while until he recent reappearance. Thanks Bill
From: Dono on 18 Aug 2007 00:01 On Aug 17, 8:57 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Aug 17, 10:54 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...(a)junk.com> wrote: > > > > > "Dono" <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > >news:1187366969.564881.41340(a)x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > > > > Here is a very good analysis of his latest paper uploaded on arxiv: > > > >http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070816-faster-than-the-speed-o... > > > > Nimtz has been making this ridiculous claims for years and he has been > > > countered in numerous venues. In spite of all the criticisms, he keeps > > > at it , just like Cahill, Hartwig Thim, Munera, Tom van Flandern etc, > > > etc. :-) > > > Nimitz has in fact admitted he can't do what some claim his experiments > > show. I suspect Nimitz is a fairly respectable scientist - people > > misinterpret what he says. > > No. See my other post in this thread and look carefully at > Figure 1 in his paper. I believe that Nimtz has committed > scientific fraud. > > Jerry You are most likely correct. Be aware that he's the laughing stock in the group of relativity test scientists. He's been pushing his experiments for many years now, the latest arxiv fiasco is just the last one in a long series.
From: Traveler on 18 Aug 2007 00:03
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 21:01:42 -0700, Dono <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote: >You are most likely correct. Be aware that he's the laughing stock in >the group of relativity test scientists. He's been pushing his >experiments for many years now, the latest arxiv fiasco is just the >last one in a long series. Yeah, that's the way to do science. If you don't like someone's results, ridicule him into insignificance or oblivion. Louis Savain Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It: http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm |