Debunking Nimtz
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Next: USM
From: Pentcho Valev on 25 Aug 2007 13:53 On 25 Aug, 20:14, "Tom Van Flandern" <to...(a)metaresearch.org> wrote in sci.physics.relativity: > Tom Roberts writes: > > [Roberts]: It is not at all obvious that Lorentzian relativity has no > > speed limit. Certainly Lorentz himself did not think so (c.f. the title of > > his 1904 paper that is the cornerstone of this theory). > > Lorentzian relativity (LR) is the modern updating of the Lorentz Ether > Theory (LET) to which you refer. There can be no speed limit because in LR, > nothing happens to time. The changes happen only to clocks, much the way a > pendulum clock changes rate when temperature changes. > > Specifically, with "elysium" defined as the locally entrained > light-carrying medium, elysium is denser near masses for the same reason > planetary atmospheres are -- compression by the force of gravity. And > electromagnetic waves propagate more slowly in a denser medium. Speed > relative to the entrained elysium also causes the same kind of slowing > because a wave encountering more elysium constituents (elysons) per unit > time is physically equivalent to being at rest in denser elysium. > > Special relativity (SR) gets its speed limit from time dilation. Because > time stops for objects moving at the speed of light, they cannot be > accelerated further. No such phenomenon occurs in LR because its universal > time is unaffected by motion or potential. Flandern I call silly Einsteinians "zombies" but they are geniuses compared to you and your brothers aetherists. Now I see why journalists always choose YOU as a representative of the anti- relativity movement: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162 Pentcho Valev
From: Androcles on 25 Aug 2007 13:57 "Tom Van Flandern" <tomvf(a)metaresearch.org> wrote in message news:y-idnWqHCdL2_k3bnZ2dnUVZ_quhnZ2d(a)wavecable.com... : Tom Roberts writes: : : > [Roberts]: It is not at all obvious that Lorentzian relativity has no : > speed limit. Certainly Lorentz himself did not think so (c.f. the title of : > his 1904 paper that is the cornerstone of this theory). : : Lorentzian relativity (LR) is the modern updating of the Lorentz Ether : Theory (LET) to which you refer. Thrown out by MMX. So is SR, by it's stupidity so that only leave NM, pure and simple as it has always been, totally in agreement with MMX and Sagnac.
From: Robert Clark on 27 Aug 2007 12:48 On Aug 19, 11:07 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Robert Clark wrote: > > Tom, it seems to me to prove information could be sent all the > > experimenters would have to is instead of reflecting back the same > > pulse, send back something different such as two pulses. > > I think what is required is to actually send some information, and > demonstrate it arrived at the receiver faster than c. To be convincing, > the distance should be varied and the time delay as a function of > distance should be plotted, along with a comprehensive error analysis. > > > This might be difficult to do over a short distance of 1 meter, > > 3 ns is a long time for some current methods of measuring the delay of a > light beam. In at least one case, a resolution of a few attoseconds > (10^-18 sec) has been achieved (they used this to stabilize the fiber > optic links of ALMA, a multi-antenna radio telescope). Stability becomes > a big issue, as the light path must remain constant to better than an > Angstrom.... > > Tom Roberts They might be able to send significant information with a single pulse. I'm thinking of using a mask of open and closed squares. Each square represents 0 or 1. Then this could be used to send a digital message. The receiver when it receives the coded message sends back a predetermined different coded message. This response to send the response message would have to be automated of course because of the short times involved. Afterwards, you review the data and confirm that the receiver did in fact send the response message because it was triggered by reception of the originating pulse. This is to prove that the receiving circuit was not just triggered by accident or by a spurious signal or because (somehow) that circuit was set up to send a signal at some specified time. Better would be to have the a wide variety of different coded signals being able to be sent and the response signal being determined by what signal was sent. For instance, you could have it be determined at random that the coded signal for some integer be sent initially. And the response signal has to be some number dependent on that number, such as the next integer. This though would require some processing time for the receiver to decode the signal and to calculate the correct response to be sent. There are commercially available processors at the 5 Ghz range now, and I read of an experimental processor by IBM operating at 500 Ghz. Also, there are photodetectors available now able to operate at GHz speeds. But you also have to figure in the time for reading in data to and from memory, which typically is much less than the processor speed. There may also have to be several clock cycles to complete all the calculations required, which will make it even harder to beat a 3 ns speed or 6 ns round trip speed for a normal light signal. They might be able to create a specially designed circuit that is stripped down to the very minimum that can perform all the calculations and I/O operations at the Ghz speed. Achieving this of course becomes much easier if they can extend their distances to 100 meters or longer. Bob Clark
From: schoenfeld.one on 28 Aug 2007 01:52 On Aug 18, 2:03 pm, Traveler <trave...(a)noasskissers.net> wrote: > On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 21:01:42 -0700, Dono <sa...(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. A chess player with a faulty-eye, no matter how intelligent, will always miscalculate.
From: Robert Clark on 28 Aug 2007 09:53
On Aug 27, 12:48 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 19, 11:07 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > Robert Clark wrote: > > > Tom, it seems to me to prove information could be sent all the > > > experimenters would have to is instead of reflecting back the same > > > pulse, send back something different such as two pulses. > > > I think what is required is to actually send some information, and > > demonstrate it arrived at the receiver faster than c. To be convincing, > > the distance should be varied and the time delay as a function of > > distance should be plotted, along with a comprehensive error analysis. > > > > This might be difficult to do over a short distance of 1 meter, > > > 3 ns is a long time for some current methods of measuring the delay of a > > light beam. In at least one case, a resolution of a few attoseconds > > (10^-18 sec) has been achieved (they used this to stabilize the fiber > > optic links of ALMA, a multi-antenna radio telescope). Stability becomes > > a big issue, as the light path must remain constant to better than an > > Angstrom.... > > > Tom Roberts > > They might be able to send significant information with a single > pulse. I'm thinking of using a mask of open and closed squares. Each > square represents 0 or 1. Then this could be used to send a digital > message. > The receiver when it receives the coded message sends back a > predetermined different coded message. > This response to send the response message would have to be automated > of course because of the short times involved. Afterwards, you review > the data and confirm that the receiver did in fact send the response > message because it was triggered by reception of the originating > pulse. This is to prove that the receiving circuit was not just > triggered by accident or by a spurious signal or because (somehow) > that circuit was set up to send a signal at some specified time. > Better would be to have the a wide variety of different coded signals > being able to be sent and the response signal being determined by what > signal was sent. > For instance, you could have it be determined at random that the coded > signal for some integer be sent initially. And the response signal has > to be some number dependent on that number, such as the next integer. > This though would require some processing time for the receiver to > decode the signal and to calculate the correct response to be sent. > There are commercially available processors at the 5 Ghz range now, > and I read of an experimental processor by IBM operating at 500 Ghz. > Also, there are photodetectors available now able to operate at GHz > speeds. > But you also have to figure in the time for reading in data to and > from memory, which typically is much less than the processor speed. > There may also have to be several clock cycles to complete all the > calculations required, which will make it even harder to beat a 3 ns > speed or 6 ns round trip speed for a normal light signal. > They might be able to create a specially designed circuit that is > stripped down to the very minimum that can perform all the > calculations and I/O operations at the Ghz speed. > Achieving this of course becomes much easier if they can extend their > distances to 100 meters or longer. > > Bob Clark After a web search I found that memory chips are also available now that operate at Ghz speeds: Toshiba samples world's fastest memory chips. XDR DRAM chips run 12 times faster than the memory typically found in today's desktop PCs. By Paul Kallender, IDG News Service March 30, 2005 "Toshiba has begun sampling computer memory chips with the world's fastest data rate, and will start mass production of the chips in the second half of this year, the company said Wednesday. "The 512Mb XDR (extreme data rate) DRAM (dynamic random access memory) chips run at a speed of 4.8GHz, which is about 12 times faster than that of the memory typically found in today's desktop PCs, according to Junichi Nagaki, a Toshiba spokesman. "DRAM is the main type of memory used in PCs and servers. The faster the memory, the more smoothly computers tend to work and faster memory helps games machines produce better graphics. "Working at the 4.8GHz speed, the chips deliver a bandwidth of 12.8GBps, and this will help make them suitable for use in high-end digital TVs and PC graphics applications, Nagaki said." http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/03/30/HNtoshmemorychips_1.html Bob Clark |