SR does not limit velocities to less than c. It limits the transmission of information to below c.
The event of rapid dipole discharge represents information.
In principle, we can replace the spark gap by a high-voltage thyristor switch and start discharge on purpose, e.g. in order to transmit a warning signal superluminally over a few meters.
Also given the enormous variation in the calculated speeds from run to run, doesn't this indicate that the experiment was operating on the very edge of what would be necessary for this kind of study?
"The enormous variation in the calculated speeds" is primarily an artefact of the concept
speed which is rather ill-suited for simultaneity at different locations.
The distance of the
main experiment is always Δx = 1.65 m.
Light and radio waves need Δt = 5.5 ns for 1.65 m. If measurement errors were e.g. ± 1 ns then measurements of such transversal electromagnetic radiation would result in speeds between 0.82 c and 1.18 c (corresponding to Δt = 5.5 ns + 1 ns and Δt = 5.5 ns – 1 ns).
In the case of
instantaneous Coulomb-field "propagation" let us assume that the dipole must discharge e.g. 0.5 ns longer for a field-change being detectable at the remote measurement point. In this case, the measured speeds would range between 3.7 c and -11 c (corresponding to Δt = 0.5 ns + 1 ns and Δt = 0.5 ns – 1 ns).
In the spreadsheet, the corresponding formula results in
99.9 c instead of
division by zero or negative values. Averaged speeds are independent from such individual speed values. Average speed is v = 5 Δx / (Δt
1+Δt
2+Δt
3+Δt
4+Δt
5).
I think it makes more sense to provide the original data than to present questionable statistical values.
- No explanation for the large range in values per configurations.
For example, there is bad science in hiding that "config e" has values of v/c from 1 to 99 in a spreadsheet.
If you look at the screen-shot of measurement 2 of
config_e, you can see that at t = -6 ns (resp. at t = 44 ns if counted from left instead from middle) the red signal goes shortly up. As the signal hasn't previously reached this value, I chose t = 44 ns = -6 ns + 50 ns as signal start. The blue signal moves analogously half a nanosecond later. Bad luck!
As I mentioned in the report: "Certain arbitrariness in determining the signal-start from screen shots cannot be denied, but it is hardly possible to interpret the data in such a way that it does not entail superluminal propagation."
The experiment is performed only two meter above ground. As the distance between dipole center and remote detector sphere is 8 m in
config_e,
image charge complication becomes substantial. If one repeated this experimental configuration with a minimal distance of 8 m from all sides of a big enough Faraday cage, the result would almost ideally agree with simultaneity of signal-arrivals.
Perhaps the more important information would be that you have the courage to allow working scientists to review your experiment by submitting it to an appropriate peer-reviewed journal and reporting its success or failure.
Does the validity of an experiment depend on what peer reviewers think about it? The peer-review system is also a modern, sophisticated variant of censorship. For instance, if you were a peer reviewer, in any case you would do all you can in order to render my application a "failure".
By the way, if somebody knows "an appropriate peer-reviewed journal" interested in the experiment, let me know. In theory, every journal of physics should be interested in finally resolving by experiment the most fundamental question of physics:
instantaneous actions at a distance or
contact actions mediated by fields propagating at c.
To decide whether rapidly collapsing Coulomb fields of dipoles have instantaneous or retarded effects is a child's play with modern technology. Clock cycles of less than one nanosecond render propagation at light-speed rather "slow" (only centimeters per clock cycle). In this sense, the difference between simultaneity and 1 ns / 30 cm is enormous.
Cheers, Wolfgang
!
!
!
