Superluminal motion shows that Einstein's Relativity is bull****

Added: sci.physics, sci.astro

What I'd like to know is how did they measure the velocity of the jet
in the first place that got them this *apparent* velocity? I
understand that they're saying it's an optical illusion, etc. But how
do you measure the velocity of the jets? Is it a red or blue shift of
the spectra? And if so, how much of a shift do you need to get an
apparent velocity greater than light?

Yousuf Khan

On May 27, 2:37*pm, PD wrote:
On May 26, 3:50*am, Albertito wrote:



HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE Observations of Superluminal
Motion in the M87 Jethttp://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/520/2/621/

* * * * ABSTRACT.
* * * * We present observations of the M87 jet made with the
* * * * Faint Object Camera on board the Hubble Space Telescope
* * * * at five epochs between 1994 and 1998. These observations
* * * * reveal 10 superluminal features within the first 6'' of
* * * * the jet, with eight of these having apparent speeds in
* * * * the range 4c-6c. Two additional features within the first
* * * * arcsecond of the jet have subluminal speeds of 0.63c and
* * * * 0.84c. The latter of these, named HST-1 East, appears to
* * * * emit new superluminal features moving at 6c, which
* * * * subsequently fade with a half-intensity timescale of ~2 yr.
* * * * The fastest speeds we observe require a Lorentz factor
* * * * gamma 6 for the bulk flow and a jet orientation within
* * * * 19° of the line of sight, in the context of the relativistic
* * * * jet model. Finding such large gamma in an FR I radio source
* * * * like M87 strongly supports BL Lac/FR I unification models.
* * * * These large speeds help to mitigate the particle lifetime
* * * * problem posed by the optical emission, as well as the jet
* * * * confinement problem.

My comment follows,
We can't refute the above observation arguing tricks like
the "narrow angle" must be less than 19° from our line-of-sight.
This "narrow angle" counterargument is no longer credible.

I'm not sure what you find incredible. These results do not
distinguish between being in compliance with relativity and being not
in compliance with relativity. If the jet orientation is less than 19°
from the line of sight, then the results are consistent with
relativity; and if greater than 19°, then the results are not
consistent with relativity. Only if you have some *other* evidence
that the jet orientation is greater than 19° do you have any grounds
for saying that relativity is countermanded.

The
above paper provides evidence that the jet is in fact at about
43° to our line-of-sight. The observed superluminal motion in
that M87 jet is NOT an apparent superluminal motion, but a real
one, and that proves that Einstein's Relativity is bull****.