Dear Reader,
I've amused myself, these last 2 days - by posting a challenge to Poynty and other forum members - for their prizes for proof of over unity. Frankly this was only motivated by another 'attack' on another poor and unsuspecting experimentalist who, in his innocence, is expecting to be aided by those members. A Serbian Professor - who prefers to remain anonymous. I simply intended showing everyone that - in truth - and even in the face of the evidence - these claims like ours, will be variously dismissed and/or denied - with our without some rather damning and inappropriate criticisms of those experimentalists.
The reactions have been varied but not entirely predictable. Poynty Point is determined to claim that the experimental evidence is flawed. Unfortunately he cannot point to anything to substantiate this. So he needs must insist that I am fantasising. It's a general reminder to the general public that my sanity is at question, as is my scientific competence, and, indeed, my faculties of logic. Certainly it's an allegation that he's persisted in for so long that those less discerning members of the public are more inclined to believe him than otherwise. Fortunately they're in the minority. And unfortunately they're patently not qualified to comment as they avoid all reference to the tests in those papers. I was expecting to see some measure of surprise. Golly
But here's the problem. HE POSTED PUBLIC LINKS TO THOSE PAPERS. Clearly - if he's trying to get everyone to think that we're mad - then the thing is NOT to publish anything at all. Because those papers are clear, logical and reasonable. They are simply designed to appeal to our academics to consider some rather anomalous results that beg some kind of explanation. They also broadly describe the thesis that predicted these results.
In any event. It's sparked a dialogue on the feasibility or otherwise of faster than light speed. And I am shocked - again - to see the rampant confusions related to theoretical physics. One poster has mentioned that a neutrino is particle but light is a wave? This is NOT correct. Light has been proved to be particulate. But both neutrinos and photons move as a wave. Here's the analogy. Take a photon the size say of 'red'. Here you have a HUGE particle moving through space at a slower speed than - let's say ultra violet - which is a smaller particle moving through space at a faster speed than red. Then you have a neutrino - also a photon in structure - but really, really small. Here you something smaller than ultra violet - but it moves through space at an EVEN FASTER RATE. The smaller the particle the faster the frequency - therefore the MORE ENERGETIC is that particle. The evidence is that they ALL travel at light speed, as a wave. And they cover precisely the same distance - but moving at varying velocities or better said - frequencies. Their frequencies vary depending on their 'size'. The point is this. THEY ALL MOVE AT PRECISELY LIGHT SPEED. But each frequency or 'rate of travel' varies with each size of each photon. I might add that - rather confusingly, the neutrino can also be charged. Not entirely neutral as its name suggests.
In any event. Only THEN, on a diminishing scale - does one get to the theorised TACHYONS - which are only PROPOSED to exceed light speed. NEVER BEEN SEEN. By definition - IF they exceed light speed, then HOW DOES ONE FIND THEM?
Another poster has suggested that Einstein himself suggested that his General Theory of Relativity would be disproved. What nonsense. Einstein has NEVER proved this theory. It's ALWAYS been a partial theory. The ONLY theory he ever proved was SPECIAL RELATIVITY - which is a small but critical part of his general theory. Again, I am amazed that people don't know this.
Then another poster has suggested that Carl Sagan has discounted the postulate that anything can exceed light speed. Again. Carl Sagan was a brilliant astrophysicist. WHY should he discount ANY proposal that light speed can be exceeded? It's ONLY A THEORETICAL POSTULATE. What is true is that Einstein proposed that nothing material could exceed light speed. And I think he's right. But his definition of material was restricted to something measurable. And to be measurable it needs must move at some speed that can enable an interaction with light. Again. If it's faster than light speed - light cannot find it. Obviously.
What we PROVE is that IF you propose that a magnetic field comprises the material structure of those dipoles, then there are MANY anomalies that can be resolved. And ALSO. PROVIDED ONLY that all particles are composites of this fundamental particle - then our deductions point to the fact that this particle would need move at precisely 2C - which is certainly something greater than light speed. But it's only a PROPOSAL. It needs to be more thoroughly established.
I suppose what intrigues me - more than anything - is how the conceptual understanding of physics seems to elude so many of our forum members. More's the pity. I've always assumed that just about everyone knows considerably more than me. It always, therefore, surprises me when I see that - actually - they don't. Golly.
Regarding the posting of links to those papers. It hasn't worked. I'll try again with some help - in the morning. I'm thrilled to find that this can be done at all. Most gratifying. Hans, for one will be pleased. But the truth is that many of you have asked for this. Sorry I didn't rally before. I didn't know it could be done.
Kindest regards,
rosemary
