Debunking Nimtz
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Next: USM
From: John Park on 18 Aug 2007 01:12 Jerry (Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net) writes: [...] > > It is frustratingly difficult to figure out Nimtz's > experimental setup, or what he might actually have been > measuring. > > Nevertheless, I believe tht I have discerned a feature of > his setup that points beyond mere stupidity. Rather, this > feature points to actual -fraud-. > > Note that one element of his setup initially makes no sense > at all. Why in the world should the receiving antenna have > been "movable paralel to the prism's surfaces"? Making it > movable provides a wonderful opportunity to fudge the data. > Are your pulses arriving later or sooner than you want? > Move the receiver down to a narrower or thicker part of the > prism! >[...] Possible reality check: if this movable antenna was the basis of a deliberate fraud, why would it be advertised in the paper, when other details were apparently glossed over? --John Park
From: Pentcho Valev on 18 Aug 2007 02:24 On 18 Aug, 05:22, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in sci.physics.relativity: > 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 Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer the Albert Einstein of our generation)! Roberts Roberts why do you replace Einstein's light postulate http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." with this sending-INFORMATION idiocy? If Einstein's idea that CONTINUOUS structures (that is, light waves) are not the suitable foundation http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." is reasonable, then, as far as the speed of light is concerned, Newton's particle model of light is correct, the speed of light is NOT independent of the state of motion of the emitting body and your sending-INFORMATION idiocy can only be regarded as silly camouflage Roberts Roberts. Still let us consider the wave model of superluminal speed: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/20/20.html "However, the total wave (the bottom trace, in white) has its strongest peaks where all the individual frequencies are in phase, and the places where that happens shift with time, at a "speed" that is greater than c." Now Roberts Roberts you will have to answer a simple question if you want your camouflage to continue to be actual: How do you know, EXPERIMENTALLY, that "the total wave (the bottom trace, in white) has its strongest peaks where all the individual frequencies are in phase, and the places where that happens shift with time, at a "speed" that is greater than c"? Perhaps you are able to somehow DETECT the sending of the peak and then DETECT its arrival and so you know the time the travel takes and the respective speed? Is this correct Roberts Roberts? If it is, just say "yes" and then we will see if this has something to do with your sending-INFORMATION idiocy. Pentcho Valev
From: Jerry on 18 Aug 2007 03:55 On Aug 18, 12:12 am, af...(a)FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Park) wrote: > Jerry (Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net) writes: > > [...] > > > > > > > > > It is frustratingly difficult to figure out Nimtz's > > experimental setup, or what he might actually have been > > measuring. > > > Nevertheless, I believe tht I have discerned a feature of > > his setup that points beyond mere stupidity. Rather, this > > feature points to actual -fraud-. > > > Note that one element of his setup initially makes no sense > > at all. Why in the world should the receiving antenna have > > been "movable paralel to the prism's surfaces"? Making it > > movable provides a wonderful opportunity to fudge the data. > > Are your pulses arriving later or sooner than you want? > > Move the receiver down to a narrower or thicker part of the > > prism! > >[...] > > Possible reality check: if this movable antenna was the basis > of a deliberate fraud, why would it be advertised in the > paper, when other details were apparently glossed over? Nimtz felt obligated to report the fact that the antenna was movable, but felt no obligation to report the effects of its movement. Nimtz report a constant 100 ps delay in the reflected and transmitted pulses, independent of the separation of the prisms. It appears that that cannot possibly be the case, given the geometry of their experimental setup which implies a variable path through Perspex depending on the prism separation. The only way to achieve a constant 100 ps delay would have been by moving the receiving antenna. Nimtz could not possibly have overlooked the results of antenna movement. Hence, fraud. Jerry
From: Pentcho Valev on 18 Aug 2007 04:58 On 17 Aug, 18:09, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > 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. :-) Dono Dono I am not sure Nimtz is correct (your Master Tom Roberts rightly says there is not enough information) but even if he is not, the idiocies your masters produce as they are trying to defend Einstein criminal cult show Einstein criminal cult simply cannot be defended anymore: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/ns-lst081607.php "Aephraim Steinberg, a quantum optics expert at the University of Toronto, Canada, doesn't dispute Nimtz and Stahlhofen's results. However, Einstein can rest easy, he says. The photons don't violate relativity: it's just a question of interpretation. Steinberg explains Nimtz and Stahlhofen's observations by way of analogy with a 20-car bullet train departing Chicago for New York. The stopwatch starts when the centre of the train leaves the station, but the train leaves cars behind at each stop. So when the train arrives in New York, now comprising only two cars, its centre has moved ahead, although the train itself hasn't exceeded its reported speed. "If you're standing at the two stations, looking at your watch, it seems to you these people have broken the speed limit," Steinberg says. "They've got there faster than they should have, but it just happens that the only ones you see arrive are in the front car. So they had that head start, but they were never travelling especially fast." Pentcho Valev
From: Pentcho Valev on 18 Aug 2007 07:52
On 18 Aug, 11:58, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 17 Aug, 18:09, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > 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. :-) > > Dono Dono I am not sure Nimtz is correct (your Master Tom Roberts > rightly says there is not enough information) but even if he is not, > the idiocies your masters produce as they are trying to defend > Einstein criminal cult show Einstein criminal cult simply cannot be > defended anymore: > > http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/ns-lst081607.php > "Aephraim Steinberg, a quantum optics expert at the University of > Toronto, Canada, doesn't dispute Nimtz and Stahlhofen's results. > However, Einstein can rest easy, he says. The photons don't violate > relativity: it's just a question of interpretation. Steinberg explains > Nimtz and Stahlhofen's observations by way of analogy with a 20-car > bullet train departing Chicago for New York. The stopwatch starts when > the centre of the train leaves the station, but the train leaves cars > behind at each stop. So when the train arrives in New York, now > comprising only two cars, its centre has moved ahead, although the > train itself hasn't exceeded its reported speed. "If you're standing > at the two stations, looking at your watch, it seems to you these > people have broken the speed limit," Steinberg says. "They've got > there faster than they should have, but it just happens that the only > ones you see arrive are in the front car. So they had that head start, > but they were never travelling especially fast." Needless to say, the greatest idiocy can only be produced by a Nobel laureate: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/31704765.cms "Does fasterthan-light speeding up of photons violate Einstein's theory of relativity?......The Nobel laureate Brian Josephson put it a little differently: "The new speeds given for photons are in excess of the current value for the speed of light in air, but they are still light photons. So clearly, we are dealing with the speed of light-only faster light." Pentcho Valev |