🚀 go-pugleaf

On Oct 17, 3:36 am, DiamondSkep...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On 17 Oct, 09:47, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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-superlum...
> > > 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-b7e3-4a...
> > 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/40698de7c...
> > 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
>
> And still nobody gives a shit.
>
> Rigorous experiments on Einstein's postulates have failed to find a
> flaw in any of them.
>
> That's the bottom line - Einstein's theory predicts experimental
> results - Pentcho predicts exactly nothing despite
> the endless posturing and baiting of supporters of Einstein's Theories.

I wonder what it would take to break up this game?