🚀 go-pugleaf

On 20 Aug, 06:44, Traveler <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote in
sci.physics:
> The die-hard relativists came out en masse to ridicule Gunter Nimtz
> and Alfons Stahlhofen's recent announcement of having achieved
> apparent faster-than-c travel in a quantum tunneling experiment
> involving photons. Nimtz et al claim that relativity is broken. Most
> relativists insist that Nimtz is mistaken and that his experiment is
> flawed. Others accept the results of the experiment but claim that
> it's a matter of interpretation as to whether or not superluminal
> lightspeed was achieved. Still others claim that, since no information
> was transmitted, then relativity is still correct. Finally, we see the
> likes of John Cramer suggesting that Nimtz' experiment simply proved
> the feasibility of time travel (time travel crackpottery can be safely
> ignored in this discussion).
>
> All of this would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. If there really
> were any actual physics behind relativity (other than equations and
> faith-based assumptions), Nimtz' experiment would not have evoked so
> much confusion and religious passion.
>
> Quantum tunneling is a fact, one which cannot be explained by
> classical physics, including relativity. Heck, it cannot be explained
> by QM either. Relativists are running scared because one of the major
> tenets of special relativity (nothing can move faster than c) is under
> vicious attack. Their feeble defence (the one about information not
> being transfered) is wrong for two reasons: 1) Information is not a
> physical entity; and 2) Information did get transfered. The mere
> reception of a signal is information, as far as the receiver is
> concerned. Relativists have used the same pathetic defence against
> quantum entanglement before. Nobody told them to shut the hell up
> then, so why not use it again, eh?
>
> In my opinion, if relativists had any clue as to why nothing can move
> faster than light, they would not be in such deep panic. The truth is
> that, quantum tunneling does not break the light speed limit. QT
> simply proves what quantum entanglement has already proven:
> nonlocality is equivalent to nonspatiality. IOW, space (distance) is
> an illusion of perceptions. Nimtz did not prove superluminal travel.
> The photons never went through the space (3 feet) between source and
> destination. They did a long-distance quantum jump, that is all. In
> the future, we will have long-distance jump technologies that will
> allow us to move from anywhere to anywhere almost instantly. This is
> idea that is alien to Nimtz since he was trained by the same
> establishment that produced trained relativists.
>
> Of course, relativists cannot accept nonspatiality either since their
> infallible pope-god, Einstein, is already on the record for insisting
> that space not only exists, it can also be curved by gravity and said
> curvature explains the motion of bodies in a gravitational field.
> Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. ahahaha...
>
> I don't envy relativists and I am not shedding any tear for the
> assholes. Like every fallen dictator, they deserve every kick in the
> ass that's coming to them.
>
> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> Nasty Little Truth About Space:http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Space
>
> Louis Savain

OK but in the end we shall have to return to the most important WORD
in contemporary physics:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
INDEPENDENT of the state of motion of the emitting body."

INDEPENDENT or DEPENDENT? That is the question.

Pentcho Valev