Debunking Nimtz
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Next: USM
From: Dono on 21 Aug 2007 23:41 On Aug 21, 8:31 pm, "Tom Van Flandern" <to...(a)metaresearch.org> wrote: > "Dono" writes: > > Nimtz has been making this ridiculous claim [about faster-than-light > > propagation] 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. > > The Nimtz claim may or may not be correct, but it certainly is not > ridiculous. It has now been solidly established that Lorentzian relativity > (with no speed limit) is just as viable a physical model as special > relativity (with speed limit c) because both theories agree with all 11 > independent experiments testing the relativity of motion. That much is > uncontested. It is also the prevailing opinion at present that gravitational > force propagates faster than light in forward time because all six > experiments sensitive to that speed agree that it propagates faster than c. > Several early challenges to that conclusion between 1998 and 2001 were > answered to the satisfaction of neutral parties, and no further challenges > have appeared since the 2002 comprehensive review paper on this subject. > > Here are the citations: > ** "Possible new properties of gravity", Astrophys.&SpaceSci. 244:249-261, > 1996;http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/possiblenewpropertiesofgrav... > > ** "The speed of gravity - What the experiments say", Phys.Lett.A 250:1-11, > 1998;http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp > > ** "Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, > Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions", T. Van Flandern & J.P. > Vigier, Found.Phys. 32:1031-1068, 2002; preprint under title "The speed of > gravity - Repeal of the speed limit":http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/speed_limit.asp > > These are peer-reviewed, published in major physics journals, and the > last of them is unchallenged and therefore stands as the last word on the > subject to date. Stop deluding yourself, Carlip debunked your incorrect claims in this very forum several times. Of course, LIGO will provide the final falsification of your theory.
From: Dono on 21 Aug 2007 23:50 On Aug 21, 8:31 pm, "Tom Van Flandern" <to...(a)metaresearch.org> wrote: > "Dono" writes: > > Nimtz has been making this ridiculous claim [about faster-than-light > > propagation] 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. > > The Nimtz claim may or may not be correct, but it certainly is not > ridiculous. It has now been solidly established that Lorentzian relativity > (with no speed limit) is just as viable a physical model as special > relativity (with speed limit c) because both theories agree with all 11 > independent experiments testing the relativity of motion. That much is > uncontested. No, really? It is very easy to falsify your claim. From your paper one gathers that you call "Lorentzian theory" the one governed by the Selleri-Tangherlini transforms, right? x'=gamma*(x-vt) t'=t/gamma Could you please show how the above set transforms the Maxwell wave equation? This should be very entertaining :-)
From: shuba on 22 Aug 2007 03:25 Tom Van Flandern wrote: > Found.Phys. 32:1031-1068, 2002 > unchallenged and therefore stands as the last word Fantasy can be a component of a healthy psychological makeup. ---Tim Shuba---
From: Pentcho Valev on 22 Aug 2007 03:49 On 22 Aug, 05:31, "Tom Van Flandern" <to...(a)metaresearch.org> wrote: > "Dono" writes: > > Nimtz has been making this ridiculous claim [about faster-than-light > > propagation] 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. > > The Nimtz claim may or may not be correct, but it certainly is not > ridiculous. It has now been solidly established that Lorentzian relativity > (with no speed limit) is just as viable a physical model as special > relativity (with speed limit c) because both theories agree with all 11 > independent experiments testing the relativity of motion..... > Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on frontier astronomy > research athttp://metaresearch.org Many Einsteinians will agree with you - they want to get rid of Einstein's false light postulate and claim special relativity "would be unaffected" even if "light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform": http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "D'autre part, nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumiere est une consequence de la nullite de la masse du photon. Mais, empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne superieure experimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais etre consideree avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait meme que de futures mesures mettent en evidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumiere alors n'irait plus a la "vitesse de la lumiere", ou, plus precisement, la vitesse de la lumiere, desormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus a la vitesse limite invariante. Les procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle- meme en serait-elle invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer, il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs plus economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la condition de l'exploiter a fond." http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability would be reduced)." http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4114.html Jong-Ping Hsu: "....unexpected affirmative answer to the long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity. This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman, Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers." Pentcho Valev
From: Ben Rudiak-Gould on 22 Aug 2007 09:31
Dono wrote: > From your paper one > gathers that you call "Lorentzian theory" the one governed by the > Selleri-Tangherlini transforms, right? > > x'=gamma*(x-vt) > t'=t/gamma Can someone explain to me once and for all what the heck these are supposed to mean? You can't use them as a plug-in alternative to the Lorentz transforms, because they don't define a symmetry. Any time you have a set of transforms that leave your equations unchanged, it must be true (for obvious reasons) that 1. If T is one of them, then its inverse T^-1 is one of them. 2. If T and U are two of them, then the combination T-then-U is one of them. The transforms above don't satisfy either of these. So what on earth can they possibly mean? The only reason the Lorentz transformations are interesting is that they define a symmetry, and that symmetry is a physically meaningful constraint on possible physical laws. Can someone show me a physical theory that's "consistent" with the Selleri-Tangherlini transforms, and one that isn't, and what exactly the difference is? -- Ben |