An experiment for the bigger velocity than light

[xersan]

An experiment for the bigger velocity than light

 

 

The velocity of relative magnetic area was determined bigger (> 4c) than light due to an experiment by Prof. Tolga Yarman, Prof Metin Arık and Prof. Alexander Kholmetski.

 

Other interactions (gravity, information) without energy may have bigger speed than light.

 

This new experiment menaces the theory of general relativity.

 

The announce will be realized at December 18, on Okan University (http://www.okan.edu.tr)

[Roadam]

As far as I know gravity has been experimentally tested to have the speed of light...

 

And the light is electromagnetic field...

[xersan]

arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+tolga+yarman/0/1/0/all/0/1

 

I want to give a link; I am searching yet.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

As far as I know gravity has been experimentally tested to have the speed of light...

 

And the light is electromagnetic field...

I am not going to bother with gravity as I'm not sure anyone actually knows what it is beyond being a force found throughout the universe that causes objects to be attracted to one another.

 

O.k. with that out of the way let's look at magnetic fields.

You made the point that light is EMF, it's made up of wildly oscillating magnetic fields.

That said with the speed of light being measured as point A to point B in a specified increment of time we must look at how much distance was traveled by the magnetic field, which is not the straight line (point A to point :) but the distance that would be achieved if the wave were stretched flat. Which of course is significantly farther depending on frequency, wavelength and amplitude.

 

Following this simple logic one can only determine that magnetic fields do in fact travel faster than light. As said light is made up of oscillating magnetic fields (as a static field would not yield light)

so you not only have a field moving directly from A to B but it is also traveling in several other directions while traveling to those points and therefore traveling a greater distance in the same amount of time.

[CraigD]

The velocity of relative magnetic area was determined bigger (> 4c) than light due to an experiment by Prof. Tolga Yarman, Prof Metin Arık and Prof. Alexander Kholmetski.

 

Other interactions (gravity, information) without energy may have bigger speed than light.

 

This new experiment menaces the theory of general relativity.

 

The announce will be realized at December 18, on Okan University (http://www.okan.edu.tr)

As it’s wise, I think, not to discuss a paper before its available, we should probably suspend discussion of the strange-sounding claims xersan attributs to this paper, announcement, or whatever it may be until it’s available to be read.

arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+tolga+yarman/0/1/0/all/0/1

 

I want to give a link; I am searching yet.

Of the two papers in this link, neather make any statement about faster than light signals. Sobczyk and Yarman’s does contradict the theory of relativity. The heart of its arguments, however, appear to me to be two badly flawed ideas:

1. An observer must get accelerated to be able to catch up with an accelerating elevator, whereas he has to get decelerated in order to be able to land on the celestial body. In our theory, the first process yields a mass increase, whereas the second one leads to a mass decrease
   
2. … the simple principle that each body, as it moves under the forces of nature, must subtract the mass-equivalent for any change in its kinetic energy.
   

The first idea seems to me to exhibit a profound misunderstanding of Galilean relativity and confusion and conflation of several thought experiments. The distinction between acceleration and deceleration (conventionally, we call decreases in speed deceleration, this is only a convention: all changes in velocity are called acceleration) is entirely relative to some observer: an observer stationary with respect to a celestial body A on which another body B is landing would usually (ie: if B’s initial speed was greater than the speed of the surface of A where it is landing) measure a decrease in the speed of the B relative to him (and a slight increase in the speed of A), while one stationary with respect to B would measure an increase in the speed of B (and a slight decrease in the speed of A).

 

The second idea seems to me entirely contradictory to classical and relativistic mechanics and easily obtainable evidence. Because, in the classical limit, kinetic energy can be described as equivalent to the difference in rest and relativistic mass, having rest mass (more conventionally called [wiki]invariant mass[wiki]) decrease by an amount exactly equal to its increase in kinetic energy, this principle directly implies that an object cannot gain kinetic energy “as it moves under the forces of nature”.

 

In short, the paper appears to me to be fabulous BS. That the announcement xersan says to expect on 12/18/2008 shares an author with this paper bodes, IMHO, poorly for the promised announcement.

[xersan]

Prof Tolga Yarman had published an articled at 2004 in "Annales de la Fondations Louis de Broglie and at 2006 December in "Foundation of Physics Letters.

 

At present the reason of new announcement is an experiment by Kholmetski in Belarus Government University.