Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities?

(Robert Clark) wrote in message

. com...



[Bilge]
Why is it necessary to compare times at two locations? That would
seem to be the hard way to determine whether or not a signal is
superluminal and it would be less accurate in making the determination.
It would seem to me that the simplest way to make this determination
is for the source to arrange that the pulse be split, with one part
of te pulse propagating in vacuum and the other through the apparatus.
You then compare the two pulses and see which leads which.

[Clark]
Your suggestion may indeed work. What the experimenters appear to
have done in the Wang experiment was to note the time of departure at
the starting point and compare that to the time of the signals arrival
at the endpoint.

snip
Bob Clark

[EL]
Not true, and I have the Adobe file of Wang Superluminal thing and
here is the label under the fugure.

{{{
Fig. 2. Pulse propagation through a medium of a length L at a group
velocity
vg = c/(n + ν dn/dν). and through vacuum for the same
length.
}}}

As you can see, they planned the equation to force a negative quantity
for (ν dn/dν) such that it exceeds the fraction above unity
in the refractive index of caesium.

If you care to inspect carefully the physical meaning of (ν
dn/dν) you shall realise that relativistic issues are hidden
within this innocent classic form of simple calculus.

The resulting relative velocity assumes [c] to be the moving
observer's speed and then multiply the modulation slipping velocity by
it. So no wonder they came up with a velocity that is 315 times faster
than light.

The experimental setup is almost perfect if not literally perfect and
it is exactly as Bilge said.
However, they do not have any physical electronic devices that can
respond to times as small as less than 0.2 ns delays.
That is why they have to record complete traces of waves with equally
compensated delays.
The consequence of the mathematical manipulations is that relative
frequency shifts is taken as a direct consequence of relative velocity
with respect to that of the LASER beam in vacuum.
Naturally, the wave is dispersed due to the different way the medium
responds to different frequencies such that it is quite possible that
the fastest component's propagation speed could be 315 times as fast
as the slowest while all speeds stay below c.
If the slowest wave was assumed to be propagating at c then they must
conclude accordingly that they have achieved superluminal speeds, but
did they?

EL

(EL) wrote in message om...
(Robert Clark) wrote in message

. com...



[Bilge]
Why is it necessary to compare times at two locations? That would
seem to be the hard way to determine whether or not a signal is
superluminal and it would be less accurate in making the determination.
It would seem to me that the simplest way to make this determination
is for the source to arrange that the pulse be split, with one part
of te pulse propagating in vacuum and the other through the apparatus.
You then compare the two pulses and see which leads which.

[Clark]
Your suggestion may indeed work. What the experimenters appear to
have done in the Wang experiment was to note the time of departure at
the starting point and compare that to the time of the signals arrival
at the endpoint.

snip
Bob Clark

[EL]
Not true, and I have the Adobe file of Wang Superluminal thing and
here is the label under the fugure.

{{{
Fig. 2. Pulse propagation through a medium of a length L at a group
velocity
vg = c/(n + ν dn/dν). and through vacuum for the same
length.
}}}

As you can see, they planned the equation to force a negative quantity
for (ν dn/dν) such that it exceeds the fraction above unity
in the refractive index of caesium.

If you care to inspect carefully the physical meaning of (ν
dn/dν) you shall realise that relativistic issues are hidden
within this innocent classic form of simple calculus.

The resulting relative velocity assumes [c] to be the moving
observer's speed and then multiply the modulation slipping velocity by
it. So no wonder they came up with a velocity that is 315 times faster
than light.

The experimental setup is almost perfect if not literally perfect and
it is exactly as Bilge said.
However, they do not have any physical electronic devices that can
respond to times as small as less than 0.2 ns delays.
That is why they have to record complete traces of waves with equally
compensated delays.
The consequence of the mathematical manipulations is that relative
frequency shifts is taken as a direct consequence of relative velocity
with respect to that of the LASER beam in vacuum.
Naturally, the wave is dispersed due to the different way the medium
responds to different frequencies such that it is quite possible that
the fastest component's propagation speed could be 315 times as fast
as the slowest while all speeds stay below c.
If the slowest wave was assumed to be propagating at c then they must
conclude accordingly that they have achieved superluminal speeds, but
did they?

EL

The original paper in Nature is available he

Gain-assisted superluminal light propagation.
L. J. Wang, A. Kuzmich & A. Dogariu
NEC Research Institute, 4 Independence Way, Princeton, New Jersey
08540, USA
NATURE, VOL 406, 20 JULY 2000, p. 277-279.
http://www.physik.uni-stuttgart.de/i...2001-chien.pdf

A passage on page 278 suggests the departure points and arrival
points have to be time synchronized:

"A high-sensitivity avalanche photodiode,
reverse-biased below breakdown, serves as detector D2 to measure
the weak probe pulse that propagates through the atomic cell. The
photoelectric current produced by detector D2 is converted to a
voltage signal using a 500-Q load resistor and recorded by a
digitizing oscilloscope using a synchronized output signal from
the pulse generator as the trigger."
Gain-assisted superluminal light propagation, p. 278


The equations that you cited I think are actually in a more detailed
examination that is available on lead author Lijun Wang's web site:

Superluminal Light Pulse Propagation at a
Negative Group Velocity.
http://www.neci.nec.com/homepages/lw...er/paper46.pdf

The equations you cited used greek letters that didn't show up in the
usenet post. I'll use the letter w to represent the frequency that
appears in the first equation you cited. Then the equation says:

Vg = c/(n + wdn/dw) , where Vg is group velocity, c is light speed, n
is refractive index and w is frequency.
The researchers were able to achieve superluminal group velocity by
making the derivative dn/dw highly negative, that is, the refractive
index rapidly decreases as the frequency increases.
They explain their work simply he

Detailed statement on faster-than- c light pulse propagation.
http://www.nec.co.jp/press/en/0007/images/1901.pdf

Here they explain that the laser pulse exited the 6 cm long cesium
chamber 62 nanoseconds sooner than if the laser traveled the 6 cm in
vacuum. Since it takes only 0.2 nanoseconds for light to traverse 6 cm
in vacuum, this means the pulse exited the chamber before it entered
it.
The suggested explanation for this effect is that some portion of the
entering pulse reaches the end detector before the full pulse enters
the chamber from which the full pulse was reconstructed. This
explanation however could be applied whenever you did get a result
that suggested the pulse traveled superluminally.
An improved test to see if the signal is traveling superluminally
might be to use a longer chamber 100 meters long for example. Light
takes 330 nanoseconds to traverse this length. In the first experiment
the authors say the exiting pulse traveled 20 meters before the
starting pulse entered the chamber. If the time shift is the same in
the 100 meter long chamber, the exiting pulse should leave after the
starting pulse enters this time. Then you could see if the travel time
is less than that for light in vacuum. You might still be able to
argue that what is happening is some portion of the starting pulse is
being transmitted early to the end detector, but it won't really
matter if it still provides a means of signaling in a shorter time
that light signals would take.



Bob Clark

(Robert Clark) wrote in message . com...

Here they explain that the laser pulse exited the 6 cm long cesium
chamber 62 nanoseconds sooner than if the laser traveled the 6 cm in
vacuum. Since it takes only 0.2 nanoseconds for light to traverse 6 cm
in vacuum, this means the pulse exited the chamber before it entered
it.

[EL]
My problem with those supposedly scientists is that they do not feel
ashamed to say that nonsense and repeat it as if it was so normal
logic and they claim with boldness that it does not violate causality.
If that nonsense did not violate causality then what else does?


The suggested explanation for this effect is that some portion of the
entering pulse reaches the end detector before the full pulse enters
the chamber from which the full pulse was reconstructed.

[EL]
How strange!
I was under the impression that a group velocity demands the full
arrival of the wave envelope to the detector or else there is no group
to have a velocity. If only a portion of the modulated wave have
arrived first then it must be the fastest component wave which we
already know its frequency and its refractive index and its velocity
to be subluminal as well. So what is this game, hide and seek?

This
explanation however could be applied whenever you did get a result
that suggested the pulse traveled superluminally.

[EL]
What results, the mathematical calculations and the curve fitting?
My dear sir, the results were set before the experiment even started.

Once the scientist's conscious accepts a negative frequency, which is
the reciprocal of negative time then that scientist's conscious is
elastic enough to hold all the **** a bull could handle.

Wave modulation of different velocities demands that the full cycles'
phases sweep each other interactively which takes positive time.
Therefore the wave envelope needs positive time to be created and we
can see that wave packets have envelopes that are less frequent than
the waves that combine.

I suggested taking the absolute value of the deltas to avoid the
illogical negative time concept being introduced.

When all mathematical manipulation are repeated by taking the absolute
value of the differentiation all results shall fit perfectly without
any paradoxes or anomalies that demand twisted logic and inverse
causality, or selling bull **** wrapped in shinolla.

EL

(Robert Clark) wrote in message . com...


Your suggestion may indeed work. What the experimenters appear to
have done in the Wang experiment was to note the time of departure at
the starting point and compare that to the time of the signals arrival
at the endpoint. To make that comparison you need some means of
synchronizing the starting and end points. The standard SR way is to
send a light signal (or some electromagnetic signal) from a point
midway between the two points both ways and the clocks will be started
when they each receive the light signal. This assumes that the light
signal will travel the same speed each way.
Suppose though that light speed is actually slower in the one
direction that the other. Then if there is a signal that travels at a
faster than light speed then it may *appear* to have reached the end
point before it left the start point.
The objection might be made that light speed has been measured and
has been found not to vary. But as discussed in the post by Speicher,
in reality what has been measured is the round trip light speed since
the starting and endpoints have to be synchronized and since this is
done by EM signals this results in a circularity when you deduce the
one way light speed by dividing the round trip travel time by 2.


Bob Clark

[EL]
I was under the impression that in all dispersive media the phase
velocity was a function of the wavelength, which also means that the
refractive index is a function of frequency.

If my information was correct then that is why a dispersion prism can
separate a compound wave into its components by separating each
frequency along a different angle of refraction.

If that was true then dispersive prisms should have no wave packets or
a group velocity at all.
Why in theory, the mathematical formulism does not state that the
angle of incidence must be normal to the plane of the dispersive
medium surface to avoid separating the packet into its components?

Also if FTL experiments are not fallacious then why is there no mixing
of blue and violet to obtain ultraviolet ahead of the group, which
should be separable by a prism?

Indeed I know why, because those waves are ink on paper only and
fabricated hoopla that is founded on hypnotized audience clapping for
every clown under the light spot in the modern physics circus.

Kind regards.

EL

EL:
(Robert Clark) wrote in message
.com...

Here they explain that the laser pulse exited the 6 cm long cesium
chamber 62 nanoseconds sooner than if the laser traveled the 6 cm in
vacuum. Since it takes only 0.2 nanoseconds for light to traverse 6 cm
in vacuum, this means the pulse exited the chamber before it entered
it.

[EL]
My problem with those supposedly scientists is that they do not feel
ashamed to say that nonsense and repeat it as if it was so normal
logic and they claim with boldness that it does not violate causality.
If that nonsense did not violate causality then what else does?

You actually have to read several of their papers to figure out what
they mean. The buzzword used is "rephasing". It's not clear to me that
"superluminal" applies to a signal that can carry information, or at least
carry information superluminally. The papers show some plots that give a
better idea of what's going on, but it's too hard to try and reproduce
them or describe them here. Search for "rephasing" and "superluminal"

(Bilge) wrote in message ...
EL:
(Robert Clark) wrote in message
.com...

Here they explain that the laser pulse exited the 6 cm long cesium
chamber 62 nanoseconds sooner than if the laser traveled the 6 cm in
vacuum. Since it takes only 0.2 nanoseconds for light to traverse 6 cm
in vacuum, this means the pulse exited the chamber before it entered
it.

[EL]
My problem with those supposedly scientists is that they do not feel
ashamed to say that nonsense and repeat it as if it was so normal
logic and they claim with boldness that it does not violate causality.
If that nonsense did not violate causality then what else does?

You actually have to read several of their papers to figure out what
they mean. The buzzword used is "rephasing". It's not clear to me that
"superluminal" applies to a signal that can carry information, or at least
carry information superluminally. The papers show some plots that give a
better idea of what's going on, but it's too hard to try and reproduce
them or describe them here. Search for "rephasing" and "superluminal"

[EL]
Thank you Bilge for giving me such valuable advice to do my homework.
However, I did not need to wait for a good man to push me to educate
myself before ranting.
My dear friend, that Wang group admitted to have set the results
before the experiment and that they tuned the experiment to provide
the data which they plugged into the equations, hence there was no
superluminal measurements of any credible sense.

The whole scam is not their fault really because classical wave
mechanics already teaches that group velocities may exceed any and all
of the components velocities in special anomalous dispersive media,
which is utter nonsense.

Even if Jackson's was an almost perfect and impeccable reference, I
still demand to reserve my rights as a scientist to question
ambiguities and illogical assertions.

The official formalism of group velocity in dispersive media
overlooked the critical condition of the angle of incidence that would
prevent the wave separation into its components as we know with
prisms.

Let V stand for velocity, F for frequency, L for wavelength and N for
refractive index.

Reliable references state that

Vg = c / Ng

Some clever dude thought that if Ng fell below unity then a group's
velocity may exceed c.

To cut a long post short, the whole idea boils down to take Vg = delta
F Times delta L

So the trick is to find such a high frequency that is also related to
a long wavelength to exceed c.

All reliable sources prove that this case is impossible and beyond
impossible.

Fabrications go around finding a negative frequency such that its
reciprocal is negative time, which the mathematician may subtract from
the required period rather than adding it to the period of
propagation.

We all know that negative velocities are absolute speeds in the
relatively negative spatial direction, so why is time allowed to be
subtractive rather than qualitatively descriptive?

When Vg = V – L (dV/dL) we tend to overlook the fact that a negative
(dV/dL) is in fact a negative dF.

Negative frequency means negative time as well and rather than being
added it is subtracted and the velocity is increased rather than
decreased. But we do know that wave modulation envelopes are less
frequent than all of the contributing components, so why do we allow
this illogical formula to smear our books?

EL

EL:
(Bilge)
EL:
(Robert Clark) wrote in message
.com...

Here they explain that the laser pulse exited the 6 cm long cesium
chamber 62 nanoseconds sooner than if the laser traveled the 6 cm in
vacuum. Since it takes only 0.2 nanoseconds for light to traverse 6 cm
in vacuum, this means the pulse exited the chamber before it entered
it.

[EL]
My problem with those supposedly scientists is that they do not feel
ashamed to say that nonsense and repeat it as if it was so normal
logic and they claim with boldness that it does not violate causality.
If that nonsense did not violate causality then what else does?

You actually have to read several of their papers to figure out what
they mean. The buzzword used is "rephasing". It's not clear to me that
"superluminal" applies to a signal that can carry information, or at least
carry information superluminally. The papers show some plots that give a
better idea of what's going on, but it's too hard to try and reproduce
them or describe them here. Search for "rephasing" and "superluminal"

[EL]
Thank you Bilge for giving me such valuable advice to do my homework.
However, I did not need to wait for a good man to push me to educate
myself before ranting.

I'm not ranting. I'm pointing out that articles which describe
some of the details in the papers I've seen referenced on this
forum may be found by searching for "rephasing" and "superluminal".
None of the papers mentioned so far actually describe what the
authors mean by "rephasing". The term is only referenced.

My dear friend, that Wang group admitted to have set the results
before the experiment and that they tuned the experiment to provide
the data which they plugged into the equations, hence there was no
superluminal measurements of any credible sense.

It's impossible to discuss what they've written or what they are
claiming without discussing rephasing and how that might relate
to what they mean by signal propagation.

The whole scam is not their fault really because classical wave
mechanics already teaches that group velocities may exceed any and all
of the components velocities in special anomalous dispersive media,
which is utter nonsense.

Even if Jackson's was an almost perfect and impeccable reference, I
still demand to reserve my rights as a scientist to question
ambiguities and illogical assertions.

I offered a means to resolve the ambiguities over which the arguments
here have so far been based. The fact is, they _did_ measure something
and there is no reason to doubt that they measured what they claim
in the articles being discussed. It would be illogical to to deny that
they measured the pulse propagation through the dispersive media
to arrive earlier than the one in vacuum. However, their explanations
reference articles which aren't being discussed here.

The official formalism of group velocity in dispersive media
overlooked the critical condition of the angle of incidence that would
prevent the wave separation into its components as we know with
prisms.

It's actually irrelevant _how_ the pulse mangages to propagate through
the medium at an apparently superluminal velocity. All that matters is
whether it did without distorting the pulse shape and whether the pulse
shape can be used to propagate information at superluminal velocities.
They've obviously managed to acheive the former and the articles being
discussed here do not really address the latter. The articles referenced
in those papers address the latter in more detail.

[...]
So the trick is to find such a high frequency that is also related to
a long wavelength to exceed c.

All reliable sources prove that this case is impossible and beyond
impossible.

Fabrications go around finding a negative frequency such that its
reciprocal is negative time, which the mathematician may subtract from
the required period rather than adding it to the period of
propagation.

The fact is, the investigators demonstrate a gaussian pulse traversing
a medium and then emerging undistorted in a time less than that of
a pulse in vacuum. How they explain it in the article apperently being
discussed might or might not be very clear, but I suggesting searching
for the terms "rephasing" and "superluminal" for that very reason.

(Bilge) wrote in message ...

[EL]
Thank you Bilge for giving me such valuable advice to do my homework.
However, I did not need to wait for a good man to push me to educate
myself before ranting.

I'm not ranting.

[EL]
I never meant that you were but I thought that you might consider that
I am ranting and need education.

I'm pointing out that articles which describe
some of the details in the papers I've seen referenced on this
forum may be found by searching for "rephasing" and "superluminal".
None of the papers mentioned so far actually describe what the
authors mean by "rephasing". The term is only referenced.

[EL]
Oh! But I did and all search take you into a full round fools picnic
and brings you back to where you started.

I strongly suggest that if you have some knowledge on the issue that
would add or change my stance you are strongly being encouraged to
bring it forth before I make my mind irreversibly on this matter.

The error is classic and all modern justifications brings in GR and
even unsettled issues concerning virtual particles and similar
fiction.

I apologise for snipping the rest of your responses together with mine
but I though that it would be a waste of time if you were just going
to refer me to a web search that yields nothing fruitful.

If I did not do my homework and know that vacuum is a homogenous and
isotropic medium that is affected by all forms of fields that can
populate it such as magnetic and or gravitational fields, when long
distances are the case along which propagation takes place, I would
have swallowed the re-phasing issue but the best that can affect EMR
as far as I know empirically is bending the path without affecting the
speed or the wave-shape.

So this excludes the hoopla of virtual particles effect and the
general-relativity negative time.

Now we were talking about a caesium gas in which light is claimed to
propagate with a superluminal group velocity and I have pointed out my
reasons for rejecting all their fundamental explanations and the
formula they are using, so what is the merit of searching for
irrelevant explanations like a fool unless I was a fool in your eyes.

Bring your argument and let us settle this Bilge because I am willing
to learn from you or teach you something new. I can admit a mistake if
I made one and I can teach you how to say {NO This Is Not Science}.

EL

I dont know if you fellows are talking about this paper from a
year or so ago but maybe this will help.

Rationale of Lijun Wang's experiment on
superluminal light propagation July 20,, Nature,

1) An advance( or delay) of phase of a received oscillation
appears
as if the arrival of a hypothetical
wave at the receiver occurred after a delay that is less(or
greater) than the
speed of light delay.
This advance(delay) of phase is relative to that which would
occur if
the received oscillation was
transmitted through air instead of a medium with a value of the
refraction
index less than(greater than) one.
It is important to note that the wave description is a
metaphor and is not
something directly observed as a wave in water.
The effect of such a medium is to produce secondary
oscillations
in the atoms of the medium that produce oscillations at a
distance that
interfere with each other and the oscillations produced by the
source.
The observed effect of such a medium is to bend the normal
direction
of the hypothetical wave fronts which requires, for an equal
boundary,
a change in the velocity to c/n and wavelength to (lambda)/n
between wave
fronts of the hypothetical waves.
If Wang's 6cm long paraffin coated pyrex container (of
ceasium) had an index of
refraction of n, then n-1 times
6(10^-2)/8.52(10^-7) is the difference in the number of
wavelengths in the
medium versus that in a vacuum and the fractional value here
would
give the advance or delay of phase of the individual
oscillations.
852nm is the Cesium D2 oscillation.
The diffraction index value is due to the dispersion equation
and the
relative oscillator strength of an oscillator in the material
just a little
lower in frequency than the transmitted frequency and to the
damping
coefficient characteristic of the material of the medium.


2) If you are adding two waves of slightly different
wavelengths and the
longer wavelength wave is moving faster( slower), the sum of the
crests will
move back(forward) somewhat because of this but forward also
because both
waves are moving forward.
In the forward-forward case, if the individual waves are
faster than
light in the sense above, then the group velocity would also be
faster than
light in the sense above contrary to statements in some texts
that the phase
velocity may exceed the speed of light but the group velocity
doesn't.
But again the result of the effects of the source and
secondary
scatterers on the receiver is what is being observed. The
resulting 'faster
than light speed' delay between two wave peaks of the group wave
is not
the same as observing a faster than light speed delay between a
light
pulse leaving the source and a light pulse occuring at the
receiver.

I gather that Lijun Wang's experiment shows a specific example
of this
possibility involving the Raman effect in molecules of a cesium
gas medium
and subject to an applied magnetic field etc.

"EL" wrote in message
om...
(Bilge) wrote in message
...

[EL]
Thank you Bilge for giving me such valuable advice to do my
homework.
However, I did not need to wait for a good man to push me
to educate
myself before ranting.

I'm not ranting.

[EL]
I never meant that you were but I thought that you might
consider that
I am ranting and need education.

I'm pointing out that articles which describe
some of the details in the papers I've seen referenced on
this
forum may be found by searching for "rephasing" and
"superluminal".
None of the papers mentioned so far actually describe what
the
authors mean by "rephasing". The term is only referenced.

[EL]
Oh! But I did and all search take you into a full round fools
picnic
and brings you back to where you started.

I strongly suggest that if you have some knowledge on the issue
that
would add or change my stance you are strongly being encouraged
to
bring it forth before I make my mind irreversibly on this
matter.

The error is classic and all modern justifications brings in GR
and
even unsettled issues concerning virtual particles and similar
fiction.

I apologise for snipping the rest of your responses together
with mine
but I though that it would be a waste of time if you were just
going
to refer me to a web search that yields nothing fruitful.

If I did not do my homework and know that vacuum is a
homogenous and
isotropic medium that is affected by all forms of fields that
can
populate it such as magnetic and or gravitational fields, when
long
distances are the case along which propagation takes place, I
would
have swallowed the re-phasing issue but the best that can
affect EMR
as far as I know empirically is bending the path without
affecting the
speed or the wave-shape.

So this excludes the hoopla of virtual particles effect and the
general-relativity negative time.

Now we were talking about a caesium gas in which light is
claimed to
propagate with a superluminal group velocity and I have pointed
out my
reasons for rejecting all their fundamental explanations and
the
formula they are using, so what is the merit of searching for
irrelevant explanations like a fool unless I was a fool in your
eyes.

Bring your argument and let us settle this Bilge because I am
willing
to learn from you or teach you something new. I can admit a
mistake if
I made one and I can teach you how to say {NO This Is Not
Science}.

EL

[EL]
Hello Ralph Sir.


"ralph sansbury" wrote in message ...

It is important to note that the wave description is a
metaphor and is not something directly observed as a
wave in water.

[EL]
A metaphor!
You mean it is not really a thing with a Wave-length and a
Wave-frequency and a Wave-velocity!
Oh! Then there is nothing to worry about since this should lead to a
Hype O' theatrical faster than light speed.
How comforting!

The effect of such a medium is to produce secondary
oscillations in the atoms of the medium that produce
oscillations at a distance that interfere with each other and
the oscillations produced by the source.

[EL]
Very interesting indeed (as if I did not know smiling).
This means that both the source signal and OTHER signals (echoes)
originating from the resonant gas cavity must coexist to interact and
that also means that the timing at which the source signal enters the
cavity is irrelevant to what we can see on the output as a result of
the resonant gas cavity originated waves.
So we may leave the cavity to oscillate for let us say 315 times
before we send another source signal to trigger the comparator for
time interval measurements and we pretend to be very surprised that
there was output before we even send an input.
How nice!


But again the result of the effects of the source and secondary
scatterers on the receiver is what is being observed.
The resulting 'faster than light speed' delay between two wave
peaks of the group wave is not the same as observing a faster
than light speed delay between a light pulse leaving the source
and a light pulse occuring at the receiver.

[EL]
This is fabulously priceless.
Thank you sir for being so informative.
My retarded mind deluded me into understanding wrongly that faster was
an adjective that concluded a race.
You know, like on your MARKS, get SET and GO!
In my rotten and old fashioned mind, faster meant covering the same
distance in less time or covering more distance within the same time
interval.
How silly of me!


I gather that Lijun Wang's experiment shows a specific example
of this

[EL]
You mean cheating in a wave race competition!
Yes they certainly succeeded in giving us an example but we need to
make an example of those scientists to deter others from repeating
such deceit.
I suggest putting them in a caesium chamber, where caesium is pure and
not mixed with oxygen.
Then shower them with LASER waves faster than light so that they die
before even entering the chamber.

LOL.
It was nice having fun with you sir, and I do hope to read your posts
around a new scam and have a couple of laughs, if you do not mind of
course.

EL.