Debunking Nimtz
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Next: USM
From: Dono on 17 Aug 2007 12:09 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. :-)
From: Josef Matz on 17 Aug 2007 18:33 Nimtz is right and you are wrong ! Josef Matz "Dono" <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 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. :-) >
From: Tom Roberts on 17 Aug 2007 22:22 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
From: Dono on 17 Aug 2007 22:52 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.
From: Jerry on 17 Aug 2007 23:53
On Aug 17, 9:22 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. I can certainly understand superluminal group velocity in anomalous dispersion scenarios. But I find it difficult to understand how that would apply to Nimtz's setup. 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! Note carefully in Figure 1, the right diagram. With the prisms separated, the total path through Perspex with refractive index n=1.6 is significantly less than the path length through Perspex shown in the left diagram! Allowing the receiver antenna to be "movable paralel to the prism's surfaces" allows Nimtz to adjust the geometry of the experimental setup so that the pulse delays come out just the way he wants them to come out. > 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. He wasn't careful enough. Comparison of the left and right diagrams in Figure 1 show very clearly that separation of the prisms might possibly even have -advanced- the arrival time of the pulses at the receiving antenna, due to the shorter path length through the Perspex. This sort of result would not have been acceptable, even to a crackpot. Hence the need for a movable receiver antenna. Nimtz is not merely deluded. Nimtz has generated fraudulent results. Jerry |