🚀 go-pugleaf

On 17 Oct, 08:32, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Einsteinians know their criminal cult is eternal but still too many
> references to superluminal signals make them nervous; in such cases
> they stop singing "Divine Einstein" and fill Einstein zombie world
> with the scornful "pfffft hahahahahaha":
>
> http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/10/16/how-a-superluminal-experiment-should-be-conducted
> How a superluminal experiment should be conducted
> By Chris Lee | Published: October 16, 2007 - 03:30PM CT
> "A couple of months ago we reported on an arXiv paper that reported
> superluminal pulse propagation [Nimtz' paper]. The paper was such a
> steaming pile of science that our report amounted to something along
> the lines of "pfffft hahahahahaha." The reason was that the
> researchers did not give a detailed explanation of their experimental
> setup, did not present any data other than a rather vague "about 2ps,"
> and didn't try to make a distinction between the group velocity and
> the phase velocity. To examine these sorts of experiments, let me give
> you a short introduction to the propagation of light. Light has two
> speeds associated with it: phase velocity, and group velocity. When
> Einstein formulated special relativity, he did it using the
> empirically observed evidence that the phase velocity of light was
> constant for all observers. The conclusion was that the phase velocity
> of light in vacuum was the fastest speed possible. Today, I am pleased
> to be able to give an example of superluminal experiments done right.
> In work published in Physical Review A, a group of researchers from
> NIST and the Wuhan Institute of Physics and Mathematics...."
>
> So zombies should learn by rote that in 1905 Einstein postulated the
> PHASE VELOCITY was constant, not the group velocity. If he had said
> the GROUP VELOCITY was constant - then, OK, superluminal signals would
> refute relativity - but fortunately Einstein did not say so. Zombies
> should also know that only superluminal experiments published in in
> Physical Review A matter - superluminal experiments published anywhere
> else deserve, by definition, "pfffft hahahahahaha". Finally, zombies
> should never ask the following question: Can superluminal signals
> refute relativity as implied in textbook problems like the following
> one:
>
> http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic193296.files/chap11.pdf
> pp. 41-42:
> 11.6. Train in a tunnel **
> "A train and a tunnel both have proper lengths L. The train moves
> toward the tunnel at speed v. A bomb is located at the front of the
> train. The bomb is designed to explode when the front of the train
> passes the far end of the tunnel. A deactivation sensor is located at
> the back of the train. When the back of the train passes the near end
> of the tunnel, the sensor tells the bomb to disarm itself. Does the
> bomb explode?"
> p. 57: "Therefore, the far end of the tunnel passes the front of the
> train before the near end passes the back, so the bomb explodes. We
> can, however, also look at things in the frame of the tunnel (see Fig.
> 11.53). Here the tunnel has length L, and the train is length-
> contracted down to L/gamma. Therefore, the deactivation device gets
> triggered before the front of the train passes the far end of the
> tunnel, so you might think that the bomb does not explode. We appear
> to have a paradox. The resolution to this paradox is that the
> deactivation device cannot instantaneously tell the bomb to deactivate
> itself. It takes a finite time for the signal to travel the length of
> the train from the sensor to the bomb. And it turns out that this
> transmission time makes it impossible for the deactivation signal to
> get to the bomb before the bomb gets to the far end of the tunnel, no
> matter how fast the train is moving. Let's show this. The signal has
> the best chance of winning this "race" if it has speed c....."

Needless to say, this phase-velocity-group-velocity hypnosis is only
relevant when zombies imagine light as a continuous field, that is,
when they think in terms of the concept Einstein refers to in his 1954
confession:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
physics."

So as zombies learn why superluminal signals cannot refute relativity,
they should not look at and even think of the following words of
combinations of words: "discontinuum", "photons", "emission theory",
"Newton", "Ritz", "Michell" "the other Einstein", "John Stachel",
"Jean Eisenstaedt", "John Norton". Virtually the name of no Einstein's
hypnotist should be looked at or thought of since at present all
hypnotists are trying to introduce discontinuity and the emission
theory in Einstein's relativity. Up until recently it was still
possible to look at "Tom Roberts", the name of a freshman among
hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult, but since August 25 even this
possibility has been forbidden:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/40698de7cd7bdfb0?
Tom Roberts, August 25: "IMHO it is the whole concept of "manifold"
that is at most risk of becoming obsolete in future theories. That is,
I strongly suspect that at the Planck scale the fundamental structure
of the world is not continuous."

Pentcho Valev