ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 1st June 2016, 02:06 AM   #1
wogoga
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 334
Simple FTL experiment refutes J. C. Maxwell and A. Einstein

Experimental Clarification of Coulomb-Field Propagation (May, 2016)
"Propagation speed of a rapidly collapsing electrostatic dipole-field (spark gap between two spherical capacitors) has been measured in longitudinal direction. Almost exclusively superluminal propagation velocities v > c have been found."
It is generally accepted that Faster-Than-Light transmission of information is Relativity Theory's "kiss of death". Thus, either this experiment is defective or even a fake, or modern physics is in principle as wrong as Copernican astronomy.

Cheers, Wolfgang
wogoga is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2016, 02:14 AM   #2
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,017
That paper you link to seems to be written by you. Are you really claiming that backing for your claim in this thread is provided by your claim elsewhere on the internet?
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don

That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2016, 02:18 AM   #3
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,188
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Experimental Clarification of Coulomb-Field Propagation (May, 2016)
"Propagation speed of a rapidly collapsing electrostatic dipole-field (spark gap between two spherical capacitors) has been measured in longitudinal direction. Almost exclusively superluminal propagation velocities v > c have been found."
It is generally accepted that Faster-Than-Light transmission of information is Relativity Theory's "kiss of death". Thus, either this experiment is defective or even a fake, or modern physics is in principle as wrong as Copernican astronomy.

Cheers, Wolfgang
The experiment is defective or a fake. Actually, there is possibly no experiment - there is just a claim, as there is no corroboration or peer review.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2016, 02:28 AM   #4
Malbec
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 960
There are so many demonstrations of , faster than the speed of light .
The subject is "old hat " .
From memory , the fastest is at least eighty times .But probably well out of date now .
Einstein had no problem with this possibility and even if his ideas are now well past their sales date , he was the Daddy who kick started the subject in such an extraordinary way .
Malbec is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2016, 04:28 AM   #5
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 21,982
Originally Posted by Malbec View Post
There are so many demonstrations of , faster than the speed of light .
The subject is "old hat " .
From memory , the fastest is at least eighty times .But probably well out of date now .
As usual - evidence ?
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2016, 04:35 AM   #6
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,088
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Experimental Clarification of Coulomb-Field Propagation (May, 2016)
"Propagation speed of a rapidly collapsing electrostatic dipole-field (spark gap between two spherical capacitors) has been measured in longitudinal direction. Almost exclusively superluminal propagation velocities v > c have been found."
It is generally accepted that Faster-Than-Light transmission of information is Relativity Theory's "kiss of death". Thus, either this experiment is defective or even a fake, or modern physics is in principle as wrong as Copernican astronomy.

Cheers, Wolfgang
Rubbish.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2016, 04:50 AM   #7
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Congrat , prepare the champagne for your nobel price.....

Now why are you still there trying to convince us ?


Hummmmm.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2016, 04:50 AM   #8
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,088
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Thus, either this experiment is defective or even a fake, or modern physics is in principle as wrong as Copernican astronomy.
Absolutely agree. Then I suggest you resort to the standard methods for distinguishing between those different possibilities: peer review, examination of methodology, and independent reproduction of results. Have these results been submitted to a scientific publication of suitable status? That would be the first step.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2016, 05:20 AM   #9
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 11,116
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Experimental Clarification of Coulomb-Field Propagation (May, 2016)
"Propagation speed of a rapidly collapsing electrostatic dipole-field (spark gap between two spherical capacitors) has been measured in longitudinal direction. Almost exclusively superluminal propagation velocities v > c have been found."
It is generally accepted that Faster-Than-Light transmission of information is Relativity Theory's "kiss of death". Thus, either this experiment is defective or even a fake, or modern physics is in principle as wrong as Copernican astronomy.

Cheers, Wolfgang
I expect that the experiment is defective which has produced the wrong results.
__________________
On 16 MAY 2017 Paul Bethke discussed some of the sexual prohibitions of his god regarding man-to-man sex acts and woman-to-woman sex acts: "So not only lesbian acts but also anal sex.."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post11840580

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2016, 06:00 AM   #10
Worm
Graduate Poster
 
Worm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,479
I have no technical ability at all, I am simply interested in science in general, and my immediate reaction would be that measuring the speed of light over a distance of 1.5 metres seems to be almost predestined to be subject to huge issues with accurate measurement.
__________________
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" Isaac Asimov

Not all cults are bad - I've joined a cult of niceness
Worm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2016, 06:16 AM   #11
Lukraak_Sisser
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,914
Sweet, you can break the laws of physics as known so far.

Should be easy to transform into either a superluminal drive or some for of engine.
Well done on your deserved riches that will soon follow.
And given that it is so easy, and you just published it on the internet every single nation on earth can follow your example. I look forward to my first superluminal car to be revealed 'real soon (tm)'
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2016, 06:18 AM   #12
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,215
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
You know, I'm probably going to regret this, but I'll ask.

1) What oscilloscope did you use?

2) What timebase?

3) Exactly how did you trigger your scope?
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2016, 03:33 PM   #13
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 22,853
When I clicked on the link WOT gave me a warning. Enough said.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2016, 05:05 PM   #14
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,971
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
...Cheers, Wolfgang
The thread title is a lie, wogoga.
You have linked to your own crank web site not the scientific literature.
Your conclusion is 2/3 correct: The experiment is either incorrect or faked.
You missed out: The experiment is correct and reporting results that support "J. C. Maxwell and A. Einstein".
You reveal some ignorance.[list][*]SR does not limit velocities to less than c. It limits the transmission of information to below c.[*]The group velocity of pulses is not limited to c.[*]The phase velocity of pulses is not limited to c.[/LIST

You misrepresent and quote mine (lie!) the existing literature.
  • Coulomb Interaction Does Not Spread Instantaneously (2000) measured the interaction propagating with a limited group velocity in a discharge cable between 2 spheres.
    The speed they measure is above the speed of light. The range of the measurement includes the speed of light.
  • Measuring Propagation Speed of Coulomb Fields (2012) is a measurement speed of electric fields carried an electron beam.
    Your quote is that the speed of the electric field the same as the speed of the election beam which is < c !
  • Experimental Evidence of Near-field Superluminally Propagating Electromagnetic Fields (2000)
    Quote:
    A simple experiment is presented which indicates that electromagnetic fields propagate superluminally in the near-field next to an oscillating electric dipole source. A high frequency 437MHz, 2 watt sinusoidal electrical signal is transmitted from a dipole antenna to a parallel near-field dipole detecting antenna. The phase difference between the two antenna signals is monitored with an oscilloscope as the distance between the antennas is increased. Analysis of the phase vs distance curve indicates that superluminal transverse electric field waves (phase and group) are generated approximately one-quarter wavelength outside the source and propagate toward and away from the source. Upon creation, the transverse waves travel with infinite speed. The outgoing transverse waves reduce to the speed of light after they propagate about one wavelength away from the source. The inward propagating transverse fields rapidly reduce to the speed of light and then rapidly increase to infinite speed as they travel into the source. The results are shown to be consistent with standard electrodynamic theory
    Standard electrodynamic theory starts with the work of a J. C. Maxwell !
  • A forum is not scientific literature. However an competent amateur trying to replicate an published experiment is good. This is not that !
    The unpublished experiment they cite is a PDF on a crank web site.
    They cannot understand a paper you misrepresent (electric fields propagating with the speed of an electron beam)

Last edited by Reality Check; 1st June 2016 at 05:06 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2016, 05:10 PM   #15
Didymus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 242
Originally Posted by Worm View Post
I have no technical ability at all, I am simply interested in science in general, and my immediate reaction would be that measuring the speed of light over a distance of 1.5 metres seems to be almost predestined to be subject to huge issues with accurate measurement.
Some of the most accurate measurements of the speed of light were those done over such short distances. Their accuracy depended mainly on how accurately the length itself could be measured,
See Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Cavity_resonance

Of course, now that length is defined by counting wavelengths of light, the question is moot.
Didymus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2016, 05:20 PM   #16
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,094
Originally Posted by WhatRoughBeast View Post
You know, I'm probably going to regret this, but I'll ask.

1) What oscilloscope did you use?

2) What timebase?

3) Exactly how did you trigger your scope?
Frankly I just read through the essay quickly, but these are among the crucial questions. I also didn't understand exactly how the time shifts caused by the properties of the detectors and in the wiring by which the signals were brought to and processed by the oscilloscope were incorporated in the calculations, although I recognize that those variables may have been controlled for and I missed it.

Also given the enormous variation in the calculated speeds from run to run, doesn't this indicate that the experiment was operating on the very edge of what would be necessary for this kind of study? It would appear that the instruments and configuration was not adequate for precise measurements.

Last edited by Giordano; 1st June 2016 at 05:21 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2016, 07:17 PM   #17
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,215
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Frankly I just read through the essay quickly, but these are among the crucial questions. I also didn't understand exactly how the time shifts caused by the properties of the detectors and in the wiring by which the signals were brought to and processed by the oscilloscope were incorporated in the calculations, although I recognize that those variables may have been controlled for and I missed it.

Also given the enormous variation in the calculated speeds from run to run, doesn't this indicate that the experiment was operating on the very edge of what would be necessary for this kind of study? It would appear that the instruments and configuration was not adequate for precise measurements.
My first reservations arose from the perfect 0.5 nsec resolution of the data. I assume it comes from a 2 GSa/sec digital scope, but wanted to check. Plus, of course the whole question of how the timing is derived is completely undescribed. And making the timing more robust by, for instance, doing cross-correlation has probably never crossed his mind.

At any rate, the standard of judgement for a scientific paper: "Can a practitioner of the art use the contents of the paper to reproduce the experiment?" is not remotely satisfied.

Pity.
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2016, 07:22 PM   #18
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,475
Originally Posted by Malbec View Post
The subject is "old hat " .
Old. In which reference frame?
__________________
On vacation.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2016, 04:41 PM   #19
wogoga
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by WhatRoughBeast in #17 View Post
At any rate, the standard of judgement for a scientific paper: "Can a practitioner of the art use the contents of the paper to reproduce the experiment?" is not remotely satisfied.

Which relevant information do you miss in the experimental report?

And do you genuinely assume that the peer-reviewed experiments you blindly believe in are performed in a more transparent way?

Cheers, Wolfgang
wogoga is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2016, 04:52 PM   #20
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,971
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Which relevant information do you miss...
Maybe similar information to the experiments that you cited and quoted from, wogoga ?

Perhaps the more important the information would be that you have the courage to allow working scientists to review your experiment by submitting it to an appropriate peer-reviewed journal and reporting its success or failure. It is not reasonable to expect people to analyze an experiment on a obscure web site in the detail needed for replication. Especially when the web page is so obviously wrong. To which I will add the errors of
  • Thinking that measuring a finite speed is measuring an instantaneous interaction needing infinite speed.
  • No errors which makes it look like you have a single measurement per configuration (you have a handful per configuration) !
  • No explanation for the large range in values per configurations.
    For example, there is bad science in hiding that "config e" has values of v/c from 1 to 99 in a spreadsheet.
  • You have not demonstrated the "kiss of death" in the OP.
    A measurement of velocity is not a measurement of information speed.

Last edited by Reality Check; 2nd June 2016 at 05:47 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2016, 05:04 PM   #21
Cavemonster
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,710
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Experimental Clarification of Coulomb-Field Propagation (May, 2016)
"Propagation speed of a rapidly collapsing electrostatic dipole-field (spark gap between two spherical capacitors) has been measured in longitudinal direction. Almost exclusively superluminal propagation velocities v > c have been found."
It is generally accepted that Faster-Than-Light transmission of information is Relativity Theory's "kiss of death". Thus, either this experiment is defective or even a fake, or modern physics is in principle as wrong as Copernican astronomy.

Cheers, Wolfgang
You've conducted an experiment, that's wonderful!

Your next step is to have it peer reviewed and published, if there are any physicists here, they're a very tiny minority.

If you have found something that changes the world's view of physics, your methodology must be examined by experts in the field, and the experiment must be replicated.

Until these things have happened, it's still essentially your contention. But if you believe your methods were rigorous and your findings are as revolutionary as you claim, please share it with the world of physics so that our science can advance!
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2016, 07:57 PM   #22
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
 
shemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: People's Democratic Republic of Planet X
Posts: 24,851
I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who think that the best way to publicize their universe-shattering discovery that turns all of science on its head is to post about it in a forum that relatively few people read, rather than going through the proper methods of peer-reviewed publication.
__________________
"Shemp, you are the one fixed point in an ever-changing universe." - Beady

"I don't want to live in a world without shemp." - Quarky

Vote for Dave "The Mad Garroter" Rogers!
shemp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2016, 08:31 PM   #23
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,971
Especially in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of a skeptics forum where some posters are working scientists very capable of seeing how bad that idea could be. And other posters with science backgrounds who quickly see the flaws.

ETA: It is also not good to link to a personal web site that people can explore to find out how many mistake about physics they have written!
wogoga's mistakes: Time dilation in SR is symmetric between reference frames, the second law of thermodynamics is an empirical law not dogma, no laws of physics are dogma, "Darwinism" does explain the evidence for evolution, redefining "special extent" does not make the measured radius of elementary particles go away or the success of treating some as point particles a failure, Bell's spaceship paradox does not refute Special Relativity, the Sagnac effect does not invalidate the Michelson–Morley experiments (especially in a calculation that totally ignores it :eek!!), totally ignoring the Michelson–Morley experiments is not good in a web page about them, Special Relativity explains the Michelson–Morley experiment null results, the Lorentz transformation does reduce to the Galilean transformation, the temperature of Venus is caused by a greenhouse effect from an atmosphere with 96.5% CO2 and other greenhouse gases, etc. etc.

Last edited by Reality Check; 2nd June 2016 at 09:02 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2016, 08:59 PM   #24
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,215
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Which relevant information do you miss in the experimental report?
Sigh. Post #12.

Quote:
[1) What oscilloscope did you use?

2) What timebase?

3) Exactly how did you trigger your scope?
You know, the stuff you didn't bother to read. And, I'll add, a detailed explanation of how you derived your timing data. And some error estimates, too.

Quote:
And do you genuinely assume that the peer-reviewed experiments you blindly believe in are performed in a more transparent way?
Generally, yes, except that it's not an assumption. In your case the choice of scope is important in order to explain how you got data points at exactly 0.5 nsec resolution. This is sufficiently improbable (in general) to require explanation. As I remarked in another post, there is potentially a perfectly reasonable explanation - but you have not provided it. Plus, since your scope traces show complex structure, the question of exactly how you derived your timing to that resolution is important.
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2016, 03:05 AM   #25
BillC
Bazooka Joe
 
BillC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,292
The two oscillograms in the report are at horizontal resolutions of 50 and 500 ns per division, insufficient to determine the measurement of 1.1 ns provided in your abstract. Can you provide screenshots of the experimental runs from which this was obtained?
__________________
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams
"If homeopathy works, then obviously the less you use it, the stronger it gets. So the best way to apply homeopathy is to not use it at all." - Phil Plait
BillC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2016, 09:49 AM   #26
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,215
And while I applaud your honesty, your data and analysis shows some very strange failings in your thought processes.

I refer to the Excel data, configuration a. Here, in 2 out of 5 cases you derived timing which indicated that the pulse arrived at the farther detector before the nearer. This is not, in and of itself too bad. Experimental error is a fact of life when you do experiments. You could have used these data points to establish measurement uncertainties of at least 1.5 nsec.

However, your analysis declares that such non-causal events have a v/c ratio of 99.9.

That you failed to realize the implications of this data make it hard to take your other conclusions seriously. It's like the old saying: "Not only is the thirteenth stroke of the clock wrong, it tends to cast doubt on what has come before."
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2016, 03:44 PM   #27
Mike!
Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it!
 
Mike!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not!
Posts: 25,857
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
As usual - evidence ?
Duh, the Historical documents of the Starship, Enterprise, for one.
__________________
"Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes...
Because then it won't really matter, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes."
Mike! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2016, 05:59 PM   #28
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,215
Also, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding how your experiment is different from measuring RF radiation. Spark gaps were the original source of radio transmission (Hertzian waves), and the propagation of radio is pretty well understood. Supraluminal issues would certainly complicate radar, don't you think?
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2016, 04:51 PM   #29
wogoga
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by Reality Check in #14 View Post
SR does not limit velocities to less than c. It limits the transmission of information to below c.

The event of rapid dipole discharge represents information. In principle, we can replace the spark gap by a high-voltage thyristor switch and start discharge on purpose, e.g. in order to transmit a warning signal superluminally over a few meters.


Originally Posted by Giordano in #16 View Post
Also given the enormous variation in the calculated speeds from run to run, doesn't this indicate that the experiment was operating on the very edge of what would be necessary for this kind of study?

"The enormous variation in the calculated speeds" is primarily an artefact of the concept speed which is rather ill-suited for simultaneity at different locations.

The distance of the main experiment is always Δx = 1.65 m. Light and radio waves need Δt = 5.5 ns for 1.65 m. If measurement errors were e.g. ± 1 ns then measurements of such transversal electromagnetic radiation would result in speeds between 0.82 c and 1.18 c (corresponding to Δt = 5.5 ns + 1 ns and Δt = 5.5 ns – 1 ns).

In the case of instantaneous Coulomb-field "propagation" let us assume that the dipole must discharge e.g. 0.5 ns longer for a field-change being detectable at the remote measurement point. In this case, the measured speeds would range between 3.7 c and -11 c (corresponding to Δt = 0.5 ns + 1 ns and Δt = 0.5 ns – 1 ns).

In the spreadsheet, the corresponding formula results in 99.9 c instead of division by zero or negative values. Averaged speeds are independent from such individual speed values. Average speed is v = 5 Δx / (Δt1+Δt2+Δt3+Δt4+Δt5).

I think it makes more sense to provide the original data than to present questionable statistical values.


Originally Posted by Reality Check in #20 View Post
  • No explanation for the large range in values per configurations.
    For example, there is bad science in hiding that "config e" has values of v/c from 1 to 99 in a spreadsheet.

If you look at the screen-shot of measurement 2 of config_e, you can see that at t = -6 ns (resp. at t = 44 ns if counted from left instead from middle) the red signal goes shortly up. As the signal hasn't previously reached this value, I chose t = 44 ns = -6 ns + 50 ns as signal start. The blue signal moves analogously half a nanosecond later. Bad luck!

As I mentioned in the report: "Certain arbitrariness in determining the signal-start from screen shots cannot be denied, but it is hardly possible to interpret the data in such a way that it does not entail superluminal propagation."

The experiment is performed only two meter above ground. As the distance between dipole center and remote detector sphere is 8 m in config_e, image charge complication becomes substantial. If one repeated this experimental configuration with a minimal distance of 8 m from all sides of a big enough Faraday cage, the result would almost ideally agree with simultaneity of signal-arrivals.


Originally Posted by Reality Check in #20 View Post
Perhaps the more important information would be that you have the courage to allow working scientists to review your experiment by submitting it to an appropriate peer-reviewed journal and reporting its success or failure.

Does the validity of an experiment depend on what peer reviewers think about it? The peer-review system is also a modern, sophisticated variant of censorship. For instance, if you were a peer reviewer, in any case you would do all you can in order to render my application a "failure".

By the way, if somebody knows "an appropriate peer-reviewed journal" interested in the experiment, let me know. In theory, every journal of physics should be interested in finally resolving by experiment the most fundamental question of physics: instantaneous actions at a distance or contact actions mediated by fields propagating at c. To decide whether rapidly collapsing Coulomb fields of dipoles have instantaneous or retarded effects is a child's play with modern technology. Clock cycles of less than one nanosecond render propagation at light-speed rather "slow" (only centimeters per clock cycle). In this sense, the difference between simultaneity and 1 ns / 30 cm is enormous.

Cheers, Wolfgang
wogoga is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2016, 05:11 PM   #30
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,261
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
As I mentioned in the report: "Certain arbitrariness in determining the signal-start from screen shots cannot be denied, but it is hardly possible to interpret the data in such a way that it does not entail superluminal propagation."
Um... why not use Constant Fraction Discrimination? This seems like a pretty bad coincidence measurement process...
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2016, 12:09 AM   #31
Lukraak_Sisser
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,914
Wait, you think that peer reviewers trying to invalidate your experiment is a flaw in the process?

It's what the whole scientific method is based upon.

If your experiment is valid, they will fail. If they succeed the experiment is invalid and you need to start over.
That is not censorship, that is science. Not wanting to submit your experiment to such criticism is not science but rather self delusion.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2016, 12:36 AM   #32
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,261
Seriously, if you were to do this experiment for real, you would obviously use a timing circuit that only allowed coincidental signals with an overlap such that v>c. A TAC should get you more than an order of magnitude above the required timing discrimination. It's not that hard to do properly.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2016, 03:37 AM   #33
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,088
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Does the validity of an experiment depend on what peer reviewers think about it? The peer-review system is also a modern, sophisticated variant of censorship. For instance, if you were a peer reviewer, in any case you would do all you can in order to render my application a "failure".
That's kind of the point. Peer reviewers will try to find fatal methodological flaws or contradictions in your work, in order to detect gross errors. If they can't find any, and the work appears novel, then they'll pass it for publication. If they can find such errors, then the work's not worth publishing. If you think you haven't made any gross errors, then what are you worried about? Nobody benefits from suppressing groundbreaking new discoveries in physics.

Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
By the way, if somebody knows "an appropriate peer-reviewed journal" interested in the experiment, let me know.
Physical Review Letters (I'm sure you can find it online) is a well respected journal for rapid communication of important new results. If your work is accepted and published there, it will get the attention of everyone who matters in the field.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2016, 05:17 PM   #34
BillC
Bazooka Joe
 
BillC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,292
Deleted
__________________
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams
"If homeopathy works, then obviously the less you use it, the stronger it gets. So the best way to apply homeopathy is to not use it at all." - Phil Plait

Last edited by BillC; 5th June 2016 at 05:18 PM.
BillC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2016, 02:35 PM   #35
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,971
Thumbs down wogoga: An ignorant, badly written experiment is not the "kiss of death" for anything

Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
...Does the validity of an experiment depend on what peer reviewers think about it?...
Denying the actual issues with your "experiment" remains ignorant, wogoga. Adding more ignorance and paranoia does not help.
The validity of an experiment depends as a first step on the analysis of the experiment by peer reviewers. They would point out your high school science level mistake of missing out errors in the body of the "paper". They would point out your ignorance of SR making the experiment useless. In fact they would point out basically what I have pointed out !
If you do not have the courage to allow working scientists to analyze your experiment and want to pass up a Noble prize then that is your problem. Just do not expect us to believe in obviously bad experiment.
Every peer reviewed physics journal in the world would be interested in a valid experiment that (according to you) invalidates electromagnetism and SR. Try submitting your paper to Nature. Or Physical Review.

An ignorant and badly written experiment is not the "kiss of death" for anything.
  1. You have linked to your own crank web site not the scientific literature.
    That is not a paper.
  2. Your ignorance of SR:
    • SR does not limit velocities to less than c. It limits the transmission of information to below c.
    • The group velocity of signals is not limited to c.
    • The phase velocity of signals is not limited to c.
    So your experiment (if it is correct) is showing what someone who knows about SR would expect !
  3. You misrepresent and quote mine (lie!) the existing literature.
  4. There is the idiocy of citing an forum with someone trying replicate an experiment from a crank web site.
  5. Thinking that measuring a finite speed is measuring an instantaneous interaction needing infinite speed.
  6. No errors on your web page which makes it look like you have a single measurement per configuration (you have a handful per configuration).
  7. No explanation for the large range in values per configurations.
    For example, there is bad science in hiding that "config e" has values of v/c from 1 to 99 in a spreadsheet
  8. You have not demonstrated the "kiss of death" in the OP.
    A measurement of velocity is not a measurement of information speed.

Last edited by Reality Check; 6th June 2016 at 02:47 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2016, 03:01 PM   #36
Fidelio
Muse
 
Fidelio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: The island of Atlanta
Posts: 807
Originally Posted by shemp View Post
I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who think that the best way to publicize their universe-shattering discovery that turns all of science on its head is to post about it in a forum that relatively few people read, rather than going through the proper methods of peer-reviewed publication.
Pretty much this.
__________________
"...not God exactly, just someone with the skill set necessary to create an entire working universe." -Jon Stewart-The Daily Show
Fidelio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2016, 04:13 PM   #37
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,561
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Wait, you think that peer reviewers trying to invalidate your experiment is a flaw in the process?

It's what the whole scientific method is based upon.

If your experiment is valid, they will fail. If they succeed the experiment is invalid and you need to start over.
That is not censorship, that is science. Not wanting to submit your experiment to such criticism is not science but rather self delusion.
And this is one of the MAJOR things that separates the nutcases and tools from actual scientists: the complete refusal to accept peer review and peer proof of error - and why many of the nutcase side will never provide sufficient detail for peers (well, in these cases, actual scientists) to be able to duplicate their "work"...............And, when it gets blown up in their faces they claim it is because those meanie real scientists either are working to steal the credit OR are part of a cabal working to keep the secret found from being made known to anyone but their seekrit overlords from the 13th Dimension or near it!!!!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2016, 09:43 PM   #38
Lukraak_Sisser
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,914
Maybe a look at how Röntgen presented his discovery of X-rays would help here. (quite abridged)

At first he suspected an error, thus re-did all the work to make sure that was not the case.
Then he suspected he was hallucinating and it was only when his wife saw the same effect he knew he was seeing something real.
Since he also knew that a form of light traveling trough opaque matter went against all known theories of how light worked he then thought of every way he could be proven wrong and tested those, with full records.
Only when he did not know of any other way to disprove himself he went public, with a clear set of instructions on how to replicate his work and the data to parry all those who doubted him.
Which is exactly what made his peers accept his radical new theory.
That and the fact that, yes, they could replicate him.

What this experiment suggests is even more radical than x-rays. So, what experimental data have you/they done to disprove themselves that has not worked?
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2016, 03:08 AM   #39
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,710
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Maybe a look at how Röntgen presented his discovery of X-rays would help here. (quite abridged)
<respectful snip> Which is exactly what made his peers accept his radical new theory.
That and the fact that, yes, they could replicate him.
Röntgen published his discovery in 1896. The very next year, in a war between Greece and the Ottoman Empire, x-Rays were put to use in military dressing stations and hospitals. This technology obviously worked, and was clearly valuable, so it was immediately brought into service.

Last edited by Craig B; 7th June 2016 at 03:10 AM.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2016, 05:30 AM   #40
BillC
Bazooka Joe
 
BillC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,292
In my previous post I lamented that my request for the oscillograms from which the main experimental results were derived had gone unanswered. I deleted the post because soon after writing it found that these oscilloscope screen shots were linked from the spreadsheet which was in turn linked from the main paper. While it would have been a whole lot better to post a representative oscillogram in the paper together with a discussion of its interpretation, I'm still no wiser after seeing one.

In a sample screenshot, I see four coloured traces, one of which is a somewhat noisy sine wave, coloured blue, but I'm not sure what the other traces are. Can you clarify?
__________________
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams
"If homeopathy works, then obviously the less you use it, the stronger it gets. So the best way to apply homeopathy is to not use it at all." - Phil Plait
BillC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:42 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.