Simple FTL experiment refutes J. C. Maxwell and A. Einstein

wogoga · 1st June 2016, 02:06 AM

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

MikeG · 1st June 2016, 02:14 AM

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?

Kid Eager · 1st June 2016, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by wogoga

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.

malbec · 1st June 2016, 02:28 AM

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From memory , the fastest is at least eighty times .But probably well out of date now .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 .

The Don · 1st June 2016, 04:28 AM

Originally Posted by Malbec

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From memory , the fastest is at least eighty times .But probably well out of date now .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 ?

catsmate · 1st June 2016, 04:35 AM

Originally Posted by wogoga

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.

Aepervius · 1st June 2016, 04:50 AM

Congrat , prepare the champagne for your nobel price.....

Now why are you still there trying to convince us ?

Hummmmm.

Dave Rogers · 1st June 2016, 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by wogoga

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

Crossbow · 1st June 2016, 05:20 AM

Originally Posted by wogoga

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.

Worm · 1st June 2016, 06:00 AM

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.

Lukraak_Sisser · 1st June 2016, 06:16 AM

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)'

WhatRoughBeast · 1st June 2016, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by wogoga

Experimental Clarification of Coulomb-Field Propagation (May, 2016)

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?

rjh01 · 1st June 2016, 03:33 PM

When I clicked on the link WOT gave me a warning. Enough said.

Reality Check · 1st June 2016, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by wogoga

...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)

Didymus · 1st June 2016, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Worm

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.

Giordano · 1st June 2016, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by WhatRoughBeast

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.

WhatRoughBeast · 1st June 2016, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by Giordano

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.

Meadmaker · 1st June 2016, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by Malbec

The subject is "old hat " .

Old. In which reference frame?

wogoga · 2nd June 2016, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by WhatRoughBeast in #17

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

Reality Check · 2nd June 2016, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by wogoga

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.

Cavemonster · 2nd June 2016, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by wogoga

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!

shemp · 2nd June 2016, 07:57 PM

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.

Reality Check · 2nd June 2016, 08:31 PM

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.

WhatRoughBeast · 2nd June 2016, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by wogoga

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.

BillC · 3rd June 2016, 03:05 AM

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?

WhatRoughBeast · 3rd June 2016, 09:49 AM

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."

Mike! · 3rd June 2016, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by The Don

As usual - evidence ?

Duh, the Historical documents of the Starship, Enterprise, for one.

WhatRoughBeast · 3rd June 2016, 05:59 PM

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?

wogoga · 4th June 2016, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check in #14

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

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

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

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

TubbaBlubba · 4th June 2016, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by wogoga

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...

Lukraak_Sisser · 5th June 2016, 12:09 AM

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.

TubbaBlubba · 5th June 2016, 12:36 AM

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.

Dave Rogers · 5th June 2016, 03:37 AM

Originally Posted by wogoga

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

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

BillC · 5th June 2016, 05:17 PM

Deleted

Reality Check · 6th June 2016, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by wogoga

...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.

You have linked to your own crank web site not the scientific literature.
That is not a paper.
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 !
You misrepresent and quote mine (lie!) the existing literature.
There is the idiocy of citing an forum with someone trying replicate an experiment from a crank web site.
Thinking that measuring a finite speed is measuring an instantaneous interaction needing infinite speed.
No errors on your web page 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.

Fidelio · 6th June 2016, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by shemp

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.

fuelair · 6th June 2016, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

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!!!!!!!

Lukraak_Sisser · 6th June 2016, 09:43 PM

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?

Craig B · 7th June 2016, 03:08 AM

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

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.

BillC · 7th June 2016, 05:30 AM

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?

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 Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 334

1st June 2016, 02:18 AM	#3
Kid Eager Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 7,296	Originally Posted by wogoga *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.
Kid Eager Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 7,296	__________________ What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....

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 Muse Join Date: Feb 2016 Posts: 960

1st June 2016, 04:35 AM	#6
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 28,613	Originally Posted by wogoga *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.

1st June 2016, 04:50 AM	#8
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 33,858	Originally Posted by wogoga 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
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

1st June 2016, 02:14 AM	#2
MikeG Now. Do it now. Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: UK Posts: 24,804	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.

1st June 2016, 04:28 AM	#5
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 36,615	Originally Posted by Malbec 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 ?

1st June 2016, 04:50 AM	#7
Aepervius Non credunt, semper verificare Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Sigil, the city of doors Posts: 14,571	Congrat , prepare the champagne for your nobel price..... Now why are you still there trying to convince us ? Hummmmm.

1st June 2016, 05:20 AM	#9
Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Charleston, WV Posts: 14,447	Originally Posted by wogoga *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 29JUL2022, 'Gaetan' said: "We all know here that the moderators are for the use of firearms and they don't mind if some people recieve a bullet in their head." A man's best friend is his dogma.

1st June 2016, 06:00 AM	#10
Worm Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Dundee Posts: 3,522	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

1st June 2016, 06:16 AM	#11
Lukraak_Sisser Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 4,987	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)'

1st June 2016, 06:18 AM	#12
WhatRoughBeast Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 1,499	Originally Posted by wogoga *Experimental Clarification of Coulomb-Field Propagation (May, 2016)* 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?

1st June 2016, 03:33 PM	#13
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 27,728	When I clicked on the link WOT gave me a warning. Enough said.
	__________________ This signature is for rent.

1st June 2016, 05:05 PM	#14
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 28,521	Originally Posted by wogoga ...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)
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 1st June 2016 at 05:06 PM.

1st June 2016, 05:10 PM	#15
Didymus Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 250	Originally Posted by Worm 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 Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 250

1st June 2016, 05:20 PM	#16
Giordano Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 17,646	Originally Posted by WhatRoughBeast 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.

1st June 2016, 07:17 PM	#17
WhatRoughBeast Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 1,499	Originally Posted by Giordano 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.

1st June 2016, 07:22 PM	#18
Meadmaker Guest Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 29,033	Originally Posted by Malbec The subject is "old hat " . Old. In which reference frame?
Meadmaker Guest Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 29,033

2nd June 2016, 04:41 PM	#19
wogoga Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 334	Originally Posted by WhatRoughBeast in #17 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 Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 334

2nd June 2016, 04:52 PM	#20
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 28,521	Originally Posted by wogoga 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.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 2nd June 2016 at 05:47 PM.

2nd June 2016, 05:04 PM	#21
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,701	Originally Posted by wogoga *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!
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,701	__________________ 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

2nd June 2016, 07:57 PM	#22
shemp a flimsy character...perfidious and despised Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Where the Old Man of the Mountain used to stand Posts: 55,264	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.
	__________________ "An empty void is growing between his ears. Distant screams can be heard echoing in the darkness." -- JihadJane

2nd June 2016, 08:31 PM	#23
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 28,521	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.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 2nd June 2016 at 09:02 PM.

2nd June 2016, 08:59 PM	#24
WhatRoughBeast Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 1,499	Originally Posted by wogoga 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.

3rd June 2016, 03:05 AM	#25
BillC Bazooka Joe Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5,676	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?
BillC Bazooka Joe Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5,676

3rd June 2016, 09:49 AM	#26
WhatRoughBeast Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 1,499	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."

3rd June 2016, 03:44 PM	#27
Mike! Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it! 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: 50,202	Originally Posted by The Don 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."

3rd June 2016, 05:59 PM	#28
WhatRoughBeast Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 1,499	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?

4th June 2016, 04:51 PM	#29
wogoga Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 334	Originally Posted by Reality Check in #14 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 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 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 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 Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 334

4th June 2016, 05:11 PM	#30
TubbaBlubba Knave of the Dudes Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 12,931	Originally Posted by wogoga 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

5th June 2016, 12:09 AM	#31
Lukraak_Sisser Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 4,987	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.

5th June 2016, 12:36 AM	#32
TubbaBlubba Knave of the Dudes Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 12,931	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

5th June 2016, 03:37 AM	#33
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 33,858	Originally Posted by wogoga 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 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
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

5th June 2016, 05:17 PM	#34
BillC Bazooka Joe Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5,676	Deleted
BillC Bazooka Joe Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5,676	Last edited by BillC; 5th June 2016 at 05:18 PM.

6th June 2016, 02:35 PM	#35
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 28,521	wogoga: An ignorant, badly written experiment is not the "kiss of death" for anything Originally Posted by wogoga ...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. You have linked to your own crank web site not the scientific literature. That is not a paper. 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 ! You misrepresent and quote mine (lie!) the existing literature. There is the idiocy of citing an forum with someone trying replicate an experiment from a crank web site. Thinking that measuring a finite speed is measuring an instantaneous interaction needing infinite speed. No errors on your web page 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.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 6th June 2016 at 02:47 PM.