In the article Simultaneity in Special Relativity 2 by Ardeshir Mehta, available at: http://wbabin.net/physics/mehta.htm, Mr. Metha commits the common mistake of assuming synchronization of clocks in the inertial frame.

He states: Let there be an inertial frame of reference -- which we shall designate as I -- in which there are two clocks C1 and C2, separated from one another spatially, and synchronized: so that whenever the clock C1 indicates a moment in time t1, the other indicates a moment in time t2 such that t1 = t2 = t.

Here is the ambiguity: the place in space where the two clocks are synchronized, so that they indicate: whenever the clock C1 indicates a moment in time t1, the other indicates a moment in time t2 such that t1 = t2 = t, depends upon exactly where in space the observer is within the inertial frame.

If the observer of this synchronization is anywhere on a plane perpendicular to the line between the two clocks, this plane being equidistant between the two clocks, and the synchronizing signal is sent from there, simultaneously, to both clocks, they will both be synchronized: so that whenever the clock C1 indicates a moment in time t1, the other indicates a moment in time t2 such that t1 = t2 = t. Now, from here on, these clocks will remain synchronized, with respect to anyone, anywhere on this plane. (Assuming well regulated clocks.)

The overlooked qualification to the above scenario is this:

The ambiguity is apparent because any observer any where other than the above specified plane will observe the clocks to be out of synchronization. This is true even though the observers that are outside the plane are at rest with the clocks.

The rest of his explanation is faulty, since this factor is not considered.

JR: would you be surprised to find a mistake in a paper from this web site?
Again, that's no news.
Till now I have not found one paper that deserve further reading.

Probably because there are few pictures.

I am sure you don't understand my point about simultaneity either.

Don't reverse the role.
It is you that is the stories teller, and I am the hard science lover.

Extreme stupidity:

"The ambiguity is apparent because any observer any where other than the above specified plane will observe the clocks to be out of synchronization."

JR would expect a synchronized clock 1 light-year away from earth to display for him in the sky the same time/date as his alarm clock. Otherwise he would consider there is an ambiguity.

At least there is no doubt about one thing: after so many years he has not yet understood anything about simultaneity and even less about elementary physics.

anonymous idiot "It is you that is the stories teller, and I am the hard science lover."

no you reverse the roles

Anonymous said: "JR would expect a synchronized clock 1 light-year away from earth to display for him in the sky the same time/date as his alarm clock. Otherwise he would consider there is an ambiguity."


Jose says: You deducted the above statement from where? It could not be from my statement. I was sure that you wouldn't follow the logic. You proved just now that you can not follow the logic. You are an incoherent fool.

Ambiguity in the reading and comparison of times of distant clocks in the inertial frame should be obvious but are never considered. The latency of a synchronizing signal to a distant clock is doubled by the time the distant clock's synchronized setting is returned to the master clock. The return time reading will not match the time on the master clock.

My point is that two distant clocks synchronized by a signal half way between them only appear synchronized from the half way position. Either clock will be ahead of the distant viewed clock by the latency between them. This is too simple for you to understand.

"My point is that two distant clocks synchronized by a signal half way between them only appear synchronized from the half way position."

Your point is useless since the "halfway method" is a reasonnable procedure to synchronize clocks. The fact that the two readings can be different on these two clocks is simply irrelevant.

Therefore JR, I can only conclude that:

- either you know a fabulous trick to avoid seeing different readings (making fun of yourself),
- or you have no need at all to synchronize clocks (you are using God's clock, for sure)

In any case you are lost for logic and science.
Go back to Sue Hellen and leave science for others.

Anonymous said: "Your point is useless since the "halfway method" is a reasonnable (sic) procedure to synchronize clocks. The fact that the two readings can be different on these two clocks is simply irrelevant."

Jose says: I never said the halfway point is unreasonable. What insane thing are you thinking? What I said is that the plane halfway between is the only place where an observer will see the two clocks agree on their set time.

If the readings on the two clocks are different, how in the world can you say they are "synchronized?"

The readings on the clocks may or may not be relevant. But for any observer to say they are synchronized, they have to be seen to be identical.

You must drink the same Koolaid that cinci drinks. You spell like cinci, too.

JR: "But for any observer to say they are synchronized, they have to be seen to be identical. "

The distance between moon and earth is about 1.255 seconds light.
If from the earth you read a clock placed on the moon,
and if you observe it is late by 1.255 seconds compared to your own clock on earth,
would you be such a bad boy as to deny these clocks are synchronized?

If you send a signal from earth to the moon at time t=t0,
would you be surprised if the receiver on the moon received the signal at time t=t0+1.255 seconds ?
And if that was the case, would you say the emitter and receiver clocks are "not synchronized"?
Or would you have another word for that special correlation?

JR, have you realized that physics is about making sense of our observations, not making nonsense from it?

Do you think you make yourself look smarter by reciting the obvious? You have not grasped what I have pointed out.

"You have not grasped what I have pointed out. "

Why should it matter?
Was there something intelligent in your stories?

Once the clocks are synchronized, the observer anywhere on the plane halfway between will see both clocks read identical times. If the observer moves toward one of the clocks, that one will lead the other in time. This is all I'm saying. You continue to post as if I don't understand. I have to believe you are non compos mentis.

If you understand the above logic, you should easily be able to see why there is a simultaneity problem between a point in one frame and points in an oppositely moving frame. The latency is always changing between the points in opposite frames.

JR1: "Once the clocks are synchronized, the observer anywhere on the plane halfway between will see both clocks read identical times. If the observer moves toward one of the clocks, that one will lead the other in time. This is all I'm saying. You continue to post as if I don't understand. I have to believe you are non compos mentis."

So you continue posting evidences just as if these were still a subject of debate.
This why I assume you did not understand this properly.
To be sure of your understanding, I would like to check how you comment the synchronization of three clocks (A,B,C).

JR2: "If you understand the above logic, you should easily be able to see why there is a simultaneity problem between a point in one frame and points in an oppositely moving frame. The latency is always changing between the points in opposite frames. "

And yes it is confirmed that you still have a difficulty.
This is specially apparent when comparing with your initial statement:

JR3: "The ambiguity is apparent because any observer any where other than the above specified plane will observe the clocks to be out of synchronization."

Yet there is progress.
In JR3, there was no mention of a moving frame, while there is one in JR2.

You are an arrogant klutz. Who are you to determine what is the subject of debate? I started this string and I will post whatever I wish. You are welcome to post what ever arrogant crap you wish. I don't care. Do not presume that I am the one making progress. As far as I am concerned, you are the one having to admit that I know what I am talking about.

What is obvious is that the time appears to speed up on the approached clock as the observer approaches one of the clocks as compared to his own, while the one receding appears to run slower. All this has nothing to do with velocity, contrary to SRT.

The subject is what you pointed, probably somewhere in these words:

"The overlooked qualification to the above scenario is this:

The ambiguity is apparent because any observer any where other than the above specified plane will observe the clocks to be out of synchronization. This is true even though the observers that are outside the plane are at rest with the clocks. "

Either this statement above is wrong, or it is ambiguous.
Therefore I repeat once more the obvious, to be sure you get it:

Clocks can be synchronous even though an observer outside their median plane don't see the same reading on these clocks. Synchronization has nothing to do with such readings.

I know screw ball. Geez, you are dense. What I am saying is that this is what confuses others.

The appearance of time slowing or speeding up happens in the inertial frame. It has nothing to do with velocity.

"The appearance of time slowing or speeding up happens in the inertial frame. It has nothing to do with velocity."

Wrong, even meaningless.

Like you would know.

Every point in the universe exists in the past of every other point, as far as information received by electromagnetic radiation. The further away the transmitting and receiving points are from each other, the further into the past they are to each other.

Don't tell me that the times read on the faces of the clocks don't matter, that's all we are talking about. You are too arrogant to even think straight.

People telling you where you are mistaken are often perceived as arrogant.

You just don't understand how to read the time: on your synchronized wristwatch.
More precisely you must read the time at the place you are with a synchronized clock.
If you read the time on a distant and synchronized clock, you should correct your measurement for the time delay. The reading in itself is not topic for discussion, it must be converted in a time value for you frame of reference.

You were right to say that all this is obvious.
The surprise is your inability to express just one correct idea.

Probably what comes next is less obvious, but it is very well known.
The consequence of these simple ideas is called "special relativity".

The surprise is your inability to follow logic. You don't realize the ambiguity in the statement "More precisely you must read the time at the place you are with a synchronized clock."

Einstein visualized seeing the faces of distant clocks. So your story is a little golden book for your eyes only.


There are a number of time base references. There are a number of methods to "synchronize" clocks. The start of an epoch is arbitrary too. These are the seeds of ambiguity.

Relativity does not account for the fact that a transverse beam of light between oppositely moving frames remains perpendicular to the motion, if it is perpendicular to the motion upon emission.

Clocks at various distances can all be synchronized to the same time in the inertial frame. No problem. Thus, events can happen simultaneously at at various places in the inertial frame, too. My point is that these events will not necessarily be seen to happen at the same time by observers at various places in the inertial frame, even though they did. This is what is missed by most people trying to explain a Gedankin experiment.

"Clocks at various distances can all be synchronized to the same time in the inertial frame. No problem. Thus, events can happen simultaneously at at various places in the inertial frame, too."

Simultaneity does not depend on how clocks are synchronized.
Instead, clocks can be synchronized by using simultaneous event.
You could disynchronize every clock of the world, this will not prevent two simultaneous events from being simultaneous.

Therefore your use of the conjunction "thus" illustrates your pervasive confusions.

Re: Anonymous, Non simutaniety in the inertial frame June 24 2009, 8:19 AM

JR, "Clocks at various distances can all be synchronized to the same time in the inertial frame. No problem. Thus, events can happen simultaneously at at various places in the inertial frame, too."

Anonymous,
premise:
"Simultaneity does not depend on how clocks are synchronized."
reasoning:
"Instead, clocks can be synchronized by using simultaneous event."
example:
"You could disynchronize every clock of the world, this will not prevent two simultaneous events from being simultaneous."
conclusion:
Therefore your use of the conjunction "thus" illustrates your pervasive confusions."

The testing clocks must be synchronized to each other prior to the test, whereas, the simultaneity of the event being tested can only be determined by the synchronization of the clocks therefor, your premise is false and your conclusion is wrong, JR's "thus" is properly placed.

Sorry JR, I just could not resist!

Thanks Bob. This Anonymous could be a yoyo if he had a string.

I could go on but frankly I don't think Anonymous is worth the time. My point is simply this: Relativists confuse the actual event with the observation of it.

Suppose you are viewing an explosion in the photosphere of the Sun, and just as you see it explode, a mosquito bites you on the forehead. You assume the two events happened at the same time. You are inclined to swear that they are simultaneous. They are not. The event on the Sun happened 8 minutes before.

In fact, practically nothing we view in the inertial frame happens at the same time. All the events that we view in every instant of the present actually already happened at various times in the past. The further away they are the further in the past they are, even though we perceive them to be "simultaneous."

This is the ambiguity of simultaneity in the inertial frame. It is due to the latency of the light signal in the inertial frame over various distances. In the inertial frame, nothing moves except the light signals.

"This is the ambiguity of simultaneity in the inertial frame."

JR likes ambiguity for without it he would have nothing to say anymore and could not hide his ignorance anymore. Therefore he sees ambiguity everywhere and creates even new ambiguities.
JR is an ambiguity foam generator, creating new bubbles from the old ones.

So,Mr. Stringless. You think that distant events that you see, concurrently with close events, all actually happened at the same time? You think that everything you see in the present, only happens in the present? Regardless of the distance from you to the event?

To discover an event that occurred locally with an event that we see right now occurring on the Sun, we have to search our memory for events that happened eight minutes ago.

An event that we see 1000 feet away, actually happened 1000 nanoseconds ago. We see this event simultaneously with an event 2000 feet away, which actually happened 2000 nanoseconds ago.

This is the ambiguity of simultaneity of the present. It is true whether event making objects are stationary, or moving. How is that for the love of ambiguity, Mr. No-string-yoyo?

The truth is that events happen simultaneously throughout the Universe. These simultaneous events are not received at any point in the Universe in exactly the same order, nor time. This being irrespective of whether the objects related to the events are moving or stationary to the respective observers.

"So,Mr. Stringless. You think that distant events that you see, concurrently with close events, all actually happened at the same time?"

Never I said that.
If you understood that from my words, then I am not surprised you misunderstood everything that you read at your barber and that you watched on Science TV.

On the contrary, I said explicitely that the reading is not an indication of simultaneity.
I also added that correcting for the time lapse allows to check the simultaneity.
And I also said that simultaneity is independent on what you read on clocks.

I reacted to your claims, precisely because their were ambiguous on that point.
How could you try to understand SR if you miss the basics?

Anonymous said: "Never I said that."

Jose says: Oops, sorry. Unsanitary to put words into other's mouth.

You miss my point. The ambiguity is in the static, or inertial frame. Simultaneity is observed (Observed as opposed to actually being) when one is located halfway between two events and observes them to happen at the same time. Events can actually be simultaneous in the universal sense, and never be observed to happen at the same time. (if there is no observer on the normal plane halfway between.

The case of observers on the plane actually observe simultaneous events simultaneously. Every where else the simultaneous events are not observed simultaneously. I agree that synchronized clocks that time stamp the occurrence of events can be correlated after the fact to prove that certain events were indeed simultaneous. In GPS positioning, this is called post processing.

Anonymous: "And I also said that simultaneity is independent on what you read on clocks."

Jose: You would be wrong. But,then, you do not understand the subject of simultaneity in the inertial frame.

Nice picture of your mother. How did your dad do it? No wonder your knees went out.

cinci/Anonymous said: "How could you try to understand SR if you miss the basics?"

Jose says: If you don't understand that several events that are not simultaneous in the rest frame can appear, from certain vantage points in the same rest frame, to be simultaneous in that same frame; You cannot go on to understanding frames moving in opposite directions with any understanding.

"... events that are not simultaneous in the rest frame can appear, from certain vantage points in the same rest frame, to be simultaneous in that same frame ..."

In bold above you will see what's wrong.
Simultaneity does not depend on the point of observation but only on the frame of observation.

Again word lovers tend to make a mix of simple things.
Maths are much more effective.
Looking at the Lorentz transformation without even the details makes all that totally obvious:

x' = k x + l t
t' = m x + n t

Simultaneity of two events in frame R means: dt = 0.
However you have

dt' = m dx + n dt

and this does not imply simultaneity in the other frame, if m is not zero, unless the events occur at the same location (dx=0).
Note that no "vantage point" needs to be considered: dx refers to two events to checked for simultaneity.

Einstein explained once for all why the m should be there, on physical grounds and in a very pedagogical way.
The main point is that the coordinates in both frames need to be constructed by the same rules and leave c invariant.
Then you cannot escape the fact that m=/=0 .

Cinci/Anonymous said: "Simultaneity does not depend on the point of observation but only on the frame of observation."

Jose says: You are useless for correspondence. You have a priori decided that my comment does not make sense. Well it obviously doesn't to you. You are the fool. I am not addressing issues in another frame, I am strictly pointing out misunderstanding in one single frame.

Apparently you think that there can not be more than one observer in any frame. You and minimax are in the same imaginary universe. You don't acknowledge the difference between actual simultaneity, and various observers' assumed simultaneity. Events can be actually simultaneous at various distances. If an activating signal is delayed an equal amount of time to any or many places in one frame, the events triggered by the signal will all happen at the same time, regardless of the distance between.

Cinci/Anonymous said: "Simultaneity of two events in frame R means: dt = 0."

Jose says: This is a meaningless "statement." It is ambiguous. Are you saying that timers at each of the event sites are initially set to zero at the time of the initiation of each event? What exactly does that prove?

Please read §1 of "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES":

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Tell me than if you have any problem with what is explained there.

Anonymous/cinci:
"JR would expect a synchronized clock 1 light-year away from earth to display for him in the sky the same time/date as his alarm clock. Otherwise he would consider there is an ambiguity."


Jose: You make up absurd stuff and attribute it to me. You already know I never said anything like that. You must secretly understand what I say, and want to discredit me for some ulterior motive.

cinc/Anonymous: "Tell me than(sic) if you have any problem with what is explained there."

Yes, there are problem there, but my discussion is about misunderstanding in one single frame. You wish to ignore these problems and jump right into two or more relatively moving frames. You cannot conceive that it is merely the latency of light signals which correspond to the respective distances involved in the one frame. You in all of your self appointed authority of knowledge, miss my point.

Every point in the one frame has an existence that is incommunicado with other points in the same frame involving the distance and the latency of signals from and to these other points. Things go on everywhere without the instantaneous knowledge of distant events that only become known at a later time, at that point. Events happen simultaneously at distant points, unbeknown to either point until a later time. So, why would I state that a distant clock synchronized with a local clock would be seen to read the same as the local clock? This is not to say that the distant clock could be set to read the same as the local clock from the distance, however, when they are brought together they would not agree by the latency of the former distance.

My point is that the order of observed events will be different, depending on the location of the various observers in the one frame under discussion in this post.

"My point is that the order of observed events will be different, depending on the location of the various observers in the one frame under discussion in this post."

Your point is a restricted trivial day-to-day experience with delays.
It is not worth a thread, even in this forum.

If you try a phone call from China to the US, you will litterally ear your point.
If you do the same kind of experiment with fast electronics, you will be able to test the propagation delay in a small 20m² laboratory.

A nice and easy experiment I did as a student was measuring the transmission delay in a long cable: about 3.3 nanoseconds delay per meter of cable.
So, imagine you have two clocks separated by 10 meters.
Suppose also they have been synchronized by the Einstein method.
Clock A sends a message saying "it is noon: 43200000000000 nanoseconds".
When the message arrives at clock B, the clock B will shos the time: 43200000000033 nanoseconds.
What is so extraordinary with that?

Suppose now there is a third observer located at point C, and a fourth at point D.
Suppose clocks in A and B are sending a message simultaneously.(1)
Indeed, you are right, depending of the respective distances, C and D could receive the messages in different orders.
What's the matter with that?

And after all, why did you at first talk about a "common mistake of assuming synchronization of clocks in the inertial frame."
I told you right away (2) that it would be no surprise for me if the paper by Metha was wrong: just like any paper published on GSJ.
Such mistakes are only common on GSJ.
Your title "Non simutaniety in the inertial frame" doesn't any good to it.

(1) Simultaneaously means that a point at mid-distance will receive both messages simultaneously. Alternatively, these events could be triggered by a signal sent from a point at mid-distance.
(2)
"JR: would you be surprised to find a mistake in a paper from this web site?
Again, that's no news.
Till now I have not found one paper that deserve further reading."

Anonymous said: "Your point is a restricted trivial day-to-day experience with delays. It is not worth a thread, even in this forum."

Jose say: Moderator, please appoint Anonymous as the editor/ censor of this forum: He is obviously of such intelligence that it would save the forum provider much band width, if he is allowed the power to delete all posts that he deems not in need of further reading.

Sarcasm intended.

So, Anonymous, let's have you explain the nonsense in the following experiments, and criticize the Erdmann Brothers' conclusions as set forth in these papers:



http://wbabin.net/physics/erdmann2.pdf
http://wbabin.net/physics/erdmann.pdf

aerdmann(at)shockware.com

I think think the Erdmann brothers are quite ingenious.

You mean 'Deletor'; right?

Look, Jose!

To WANT to be anonymous is to want NOT to be bogged down by ANYTHING.

"So, Anonymous, let's have you explain the nonsense in the following experiments, and criticize the Erdmann Brothers' conclusions as set forth in these papers:

http://wbabin.net/physics/erdmann2.pdf
http://wbabin.net/physics/erdmann.pdf

aerdmann(at)shockware.com

I think think the Erdmann brothers are quite ingenious."

I liked to read this story, despite the lack of backgroud of the authors.
This lack of background explains their mistake.

My most important observation is that they simply have not proved the transmission of a signal faster than light. They are mainly observing a phase velocity, which can be higher than the speed of light. Simple waveguide are such an example: the phase velocity in waveguides is faster than light.

The transmission of a signal does not occur at the phase velocity, but at the group velocity. Again, for waveguides, as for any system, the group velocity is always smaller than the speed of light.

For the progpagation is vacuum, I mean also far from any interactive object, the group velocity and the phase velocity are equal to the speed of light (rays).

For their experiment, we are in a so-called near-field situation.
This means that there is a strong interaction, specially here with the ground.
Because of this interaction, the waves are propagating -very roughly speaking- like in waveguide, and the same observation applies then: the phase velocity maybe FTL, but not the group velocity.

The physical meaning is simple: what they observe is not simply the radiation from their antenna, but the effect of their antenna coupled with the surrounding.

Yet, this paper is quite interresting, even if it is wrong.
It is a nice quizz for students.
It could also be a difficutl exercice by asking more details of the fields geometry.
The model in this exercice could be simplified by for example: a sphere above a conducting ground.
The comparison with the standard antennes could also be a very nice topic.
As this would require at least two hours, I stop the discussion at this point.

http://www.crossedfieldantenna.com/pages/correction.html

CORRECTIONS OF MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS MISTAKES

Since two decades ago ( IJEEE , September 1990 ) we have deleted the J term from Maxwell's equations , because it is not a source of magnetic field, but it became only a charge flow rate term. So, ampere's law does not exist since early 1986, the time we originated the crossed field antenna in RGIT of Aberdeen.


It is a phenomenon when charges flow in a conductor, a magnetic field is induced , but it is the displacement current induced , around moving charges , which [is] creating the magnetic field. So the displacement current is only the source of magnetic field in both microscopic level charge motions, also in macroscopic level charges oscillation within RF capacitors plates. We have concluded this correction in our New Electromagnetic Equations, which are causality field reaction equations, their solutions are wave particle duality vortices.

Mr. Anonymous, or should I call you Mr. Know-it-all. You are making a number of assumptions. First of all, our experiments were not near field, we used a distance of more than three wave length. And then there is the experiment using the broadcast radio station, it was 10 Km away. Furthermore, we can communicate more than a quarter mile under water with the magnetic field antennas 10 feet under water. At that distance the signal is still strong and the voice as clear as a bell. Can you do that with a radio wave? I guess not. Our experiments were done out in the open; there was no interference from any objects near by. We have two types of antennas, one is the magnetic field antenna, and the other is the electrostatic antenna. In other words, our experiments prove that both magnetic fields and electrostatic fields propagate infinetely faster than the speed of light. Of course, you a staunch Einstein follower believe that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. This is an absurd statement in itself. In order to know that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, you have to know everything, and this would make you God. But we can actually prove that you are not God.

So please tell me who has measured the speed of magnetic fields and electrostatic fields, I would really like to know. I know you people like to quote Einstein, but what did he really know about radio waves when he wrote the Special Relativity Theory; and by the way it is still a theory as far as we know.

Oh, before I forget, Guenther Nimtz has sent signals faster than the speed of light too, his oscilloscope printouts look a lot like ours. So why don't you straighten him out too while you are at it.

Finally, why don't you let your students carry out our experiments, they are easy to do. You can then take out all the bugs and mistakes and prove that you are right. Of course, that will take courage, because, the outcome may not be as predicted, and your findings will be then taken apart by other armchair critics like yourself.

Adolf Erdmann

Dear Mr Erdmann,

I did not contradict the result of your experiment, nor did I ever mention the name of Einstein in my answer.
Instead, I said explicitely that it is a nice experiment, although it is absolutely not surprising.
And I add know that your paper can be considered as a valid scientific paper as far as the observations are concerned. However, it is totally wrong as far as the interpretation in concerned. You interpretation is missing mainly one basic fact: the sytem considered contains more that your antenna but also the "surrounding" which is mainly the (conducting) earth.
Note that I read your first paper only, as the second is not clear.
I will read the second with pleasure if you report your observations more clearly.

In contrast, you did not respond to my point about phase velocity and group velocity.
In contrast alos, you have named Einstein, maybe for the same ideological reason that you mentioned in your paper: a supposed opposition between experiment and theory. This last assumption is your Achilles' heel. An experiment has no value without theory, and your own theory is wrong.
Therefore, it seems you are happy in your beliefs and I wonder why I should comment further.
But I will.

Mr Erdmann,

Do you know that experiments like the one you describe are just very common?
I could give a long list of examples of electromagnetic waves propagating FTL, as far as phase velocity is involved.
I already mentioned waveguides, but plasma physics contains a huge list of other examples, including the famous Alfven wave.
And your measurement is indeed a phase velocity measurement: you are measuring a velocity based of phase observations.

It is important that you understand what is going on.

Let's start when you have switched you "FTL" emitter on.
You never claimed that the switch-on front would propage faster than light.
This is a very good thing as the front would never propagate faster than light!
Up to this point, no part of the system responded FTL.

After the first wavelength, some currents/charges will be induced in the surrounding, specially the ground.
After the second wave, the previously induced currents will be modified in amplitude as well as in phase.
This will continue like that till the 1000th wave, 10000 wave, ...
Then we come in the so-called steady state regime.
Then only phase velocities can be measured, and nothing in physics restricts phase volocities from being FTL.
This is easy to understand since you are measuring the effect not only only of the last wavelength emitted but the effect of the complete process that occured before the steady-state is reached.

In this process, nothing forbids the phase of the induced currents/charges from taking any value: these can be in-phase or out-of-phase or anything. This only depends on the details of the system but it is not constrained by any physical principle except the laws of electrodynamics.

All the parts of the system (antenna+surronding+receiver) has "seen" thousands of wavelength.
This does not only mean that the emitted wave was seen, but also the reactions of all parts of the system had enough time to propagate everywhere. For example, the currents/charges induced in the ground will act as antenae themselves and will feedback on any other part of the system.

Therefore, the phase that you are measuring somewhere in the system (antenna+surrounding) is not only the effect of the antenna, but it is also the effect of the reactions of all parts of the system since a long time during which many wavelengths had their influences.

You must remember that the signal you are observing is not only the result of your antenna emitting in vacuum but it includes the influence of the surrounding. From your experiment, you cannot pretend that the signal observed is an instantaneous response to the antenna. Your signal is a complex combination of the field from the antenna and all effect from the surrounding.

The same happens in plasmas. Plasmas are fully ionised and the electromagnetic waves (or even electrostatic waves) induce motions of the ions and electrons. These motions are often called "collective" because any charge displacement induce a strong field that effect the other charges. When the steady state situation is reached, the phase relationship between the excitation and the induced field can be very complex and FTL phase velocity is very common.

Dear Mr Erdmann,

I did not contradict the result of your experiment, nor did I ever mention the name of Einstein in my answer.
Instead, I said explicitely that it is a nice experiment, although it is absolutely not surprising.
And I add know that your paper can be considered as a valid scientific paper as far as the observations are concerned. However, it is totally wrong as far as the interpretation in concerned. You interpretation is missing mainly one basic fact: the sytem considered contains more that your antenna but also the "surrounding" which is mainly the (conducting) earth.
Note that I read your first paper only, as the second is not clear.
I will read the second with pleasure if you report your observations more clearly.

In contrast, you did not respond to my point about phase velocity and group velocity.
In contrast alos, you have named Einstein, maybe for the same ideological reason that you mentioned in your paper: a supposed opposition between experiment and theory. This last assumption is your Achilles' heel. An experiment has no value without theory, and your own theory is wrong.
Therefore, it seems you are happy in your beliefs and I wonder why I should comment further.
But I will.

Mr Erdmann,

Do you know that experiments like the one you describe are just very common?
I could give a long list of examples of electromagnetic waves propagating FTL, as far as phase velocity is involved.
I already mentioned waveguides, but plasma physics contains a huge list of other examples, including the famous Alfven wave.
And your measurement is indeed a phase velocity measurement: you are measuring a velocity based of phase observations.

It is important that you understand what is going on.

Let's start when you have switched you "FTL" emitter on.
You never claimed that the switch-on front would propage faster than light.
This is a very good thing as the front would never propagate faster than light!
Up to this point, no part of the system responded FTL.

After the first wavelength, some currents/charges will be induced in the surrounding, specially the ground.
After the second wave, the previously induced currents will be modified in amplitude as well as in phase.
This will continue like that till the 1000th wave, 10000 wave, ...
Then we come in the so-called steady state regime.
Then only phase velocities can be measured, and nothing in physics restricts phase volocities from being FTL.
This is easy to understand since you are measuring the effect not only only of the last wavelength emitted but the effect of the complete process that occured before the steady-state is reached.

In this process, nothing forbids the phase of the induced currents/charges from taking any value: these can be in-phase or out-of-phase or anything. This only depends on the details of the system but it is not constrained by any physical principle except the laws of electrodynamics.

All the parts of the system (antenna+surronding+receiver) has "seen" thousands of wavelength.
This does not only mean that the emitted wave was seen, but also the reactions of all parts of the system had enough time to propagate everywhere. For example, the currents/charges induced in the ground will act as antenae themselves and will feedback on any other part of the system.

Therefore, the phase that you are measuring somewhere in the system (antenna+surrounding) is not only the effect of the antenna, but it is also the effect of the reactions of all parts of the system since a long time during which many wavelengths had their influences.

You must remember that the signal you are observing is not only the result of your antenna emitting in vacuum but it includes the influence of the surrounding. From your experiment, you cannot pretend that the signal observed is an instantaneous response to the antenna. Your signal is a complex combination of the field from the antenna and all effect from the surrounding.

The same happens in plasmas. Plasmas are fully ionised and the electromagnetic waves (or even electrostatic waves) indude motions of the charges. These motions

To help you understand, try to imagine a simpler (hypothetical) situation that could be easier to analyse.
You have an emitter and no ground.
This emitter however is partly reflected by an element somewhere, and the the receiver receives signal from both the emitter and this scatterer. On this example, you can easily conceive that a FTL phase velocity could be observed, since you could even tune the phase by moving the scatterer.


Dear Mr Erdmann,

Above, I talked about what I know.
I also have an experimental background in plasma physics as well as in totally different areas of physics and enginering.
I know nothing about CB and Marconi element, altough I designed antennas in the mm wavelength range.
So, I leave you to your experiments, and I fully encourage you to make them ever better and report then in most precise and clear way.
But I also suggest you to abstain from theoretical interpretations if you do not have the taste for theory or even not the competence.

Sorry for the mixed up post above.
Below is a reviewed version
===========================================================================================
Dear Mr. Erdmann,

I did not contradict the result of your experiment, nor did I ever mention the name of Einstein in my answer.
Instead, I said explicitly that it is a nice experiment, although it is absolutely not surprising.
And I add know that your paper can be considered as a valid scientific paper as far as the observations are concerned. However, it is totally wrong as far as the interpretation is concerned. Your interpretation is missing mainly one basic fact: the system considered contains not only your antenna but also the "surrounding" which is mainly the (conducting) earth.
Note that I read your first paper only, as the second is not clear.
I will read the second with pleasure if you report your observations more clearly.

In contrast, you did not respond to my point about phase velocity and group velocity.
In contrast also, you have named Einstein, maybe for the same ideological reason that you mentioned in your paper: a supposed opposition between experiment and theory. This last assumption is your Achilles' heel. An experiment has no value without theory, and your own theory is wrong.
Therefore, it seems you are happy in your beliefs and I wonder why I should comment further.
But I will.

Mr. Erdmann,

Do you know that experiments like the one you described are just very common?
I could give a long list of examples of electromagnetic waves propagating FTL, as far as phase velocity is involved.
I already mentioned waveguides, but plasma physics contains a huge list of other examples, including the famous Alfven wave. The Alfven wave has an infinite phase velocity and a zero group velocity !!!
And your measurement is indeed a phase velocity measurement: you are measuring a velocity based of phase observations.

It is important that you understand what is going on.
Basically, you are not measuring the direct effect of your FTL emitter on your receiver.
You are measuring something much more complicated.

Let's start at the time when you have switched you "FTL" emitter on.
You never claimed that the switch-on front would propagate faster than light.
This is a very good thing as the front would never propagate faster than light!
Up to this point, no part of the system responded FTL, even apparently.

Let's now look at what happens as time goes on, observing from the same place.
After the first wavelength, some currents/charges will be induced in the surrounding, specially the ground, in front of your receiver as well as behind or to the left or to the right.
After the second wave, these previously induced currents will be modified in amplitude as well as in phase.
This will continue like that till the 1000th wave, 10000th waves until we come in the so-called steady state regime where the amplitude or the phase do not change anymore.
Then only phase velocities can be measured, and nothing in physics restricts phase velocities from being FTL.
This is easy to understand since you are measuring the effect not only of the last wavelength emitted but the effect of the complete process that occurred before the steady-state is reached, including many delayed signals from everywhere else than the emitter.

In this process, nothing forbids the phase of the induced currents/charges from taking any value: these can be in-phase or out-of-phase or anything. This only depends on the details of the system but it is not constrained by any physical principle except the laws of electrodynamics.

All the parts of the system (antenna+surrounding+receiver) have "seen" thousands of wavelengths.
This does not only mean that the emitted wave was seen, but also the reactions of all parts of the system had enough time to propagate everywhere including to your receiver. For example, the currents/charges induced in the ground will act as antennae themselves and will feedback on any other part of the system.

Therefore, the phase that you are measuring somewhere in the system (antenna+surrounding) is not only the effect of the antenna, but it is also the effect of the reactions of all parts of the system since a long time during which many wavelengths had their influences. What you measure is a delay effect from the emitter superposed to many other signals from the surrounding that can be even more delayed. Yet the total signal can be in phase even if each component has been delayed.

You must remember that the signal you are observing is not only the result of your antenna emitting in vacuum but it includes the influence of the surrounding. From your experiment, you cannot pretend that the signal observed is an instantaneous response to the antenna. Your signal is a complex combination of the field from the antenna and all effect from the surrounding.

The same happens in plasmas. Plasmas are fully ionized and the electromagnetic waves (or even electrostatic waves) induce motions of the ions and electrons. These motions are often called "collective" because any charge displacement induce a strong field that effecst the other charges even at long distance. When the steady state situation is reached, the phase relationship between the excitation and the induced field can be very complex and FTL phase velocity is very common.

To help you understand still better, try to imagine a simpler (hypothetical) situation that could be easier to analyze.
You have an emitter and no ground.
This emitter however is partly reflected by an element somewhere, and the receiver receives a signal from both the emitter and this scatterer. On this example, you can easily conceive that a FTL phase velocity could be observed, since you could even tune the phase by moving the scatterer. To get the same result at different place of observation, you simply need more scatterers.

Dear Mr. Erdmann,

Above, I talked about what I know.
I also have an experimental background in plasma physics and mm wavelength technology as well as in totally different areas of physics and engineering.
I know nothing about CB and Marconi element, although I designed (waveguide) antennas in the mm wavelength range.
So, I leave you to your experiments, and I fully encourage you to make them ever better and report them in the most precise and clear ways.
But I also suggest you to abstain from theoretical interpretations if you do not have the taste for theory or even not the competence.
If you want to give a theoretical interpretation, then give it the same care as for your experimental work.

Cinci/Anonymous said "However, it is totally wrong as far as the interpretation in concerned. You interpretation is missing mainly one basic fact: the sytem considered contains more that your antenna but also the "surrounding" which is mainly the (conducting) earth."

Jose says: So just because light doesn't travel through the ground, the electric and magnetic signals can, at damn near instantaneously, is that right? You are the one with the fairytail.. And fairy wings to boot. Your tutu is too tight.

Mr. Erdmann is testing modulated signals. Therefore, the passing wave fronts are unique. He can distinguish and identify each part of the passing wavefront uniquely; and the proof is that the "voices sound clear as a bell."

"So just because light doesn't travel through the ground, the electric and magnetic signals can, at damn near instantaneously, is that right?"

This is not the conclusion I have written, but only your poor understanding of it.
I never said the currents can go FTL, on the contrary.

My point is that the signal observed is not the direct emission from the emitting antenna, but the emission from the antenna + the surrounding.
This point alone nullifies the conclusion of the paper.

But this point can be analysed further to see how it can reproduce the observations.
The phase observed by the receiver is the superposition of all these signals from emitter and surrounding.
So maybe, let's try formulas this time, since you did not understand it without.
The explanation below is not very rigourous because of obvious problems to explain that here.
But the essentials will be quite apparent.
Any course in electrodynamics will however give the full details.

Assume the initial signal is s0(t).
Here t is the time and s0 denotes the signal from the emitter.
This initial signal produces currents and charges that "scatter" or "reflect", producing new signals.
These signals act on the receiver as any other source like similar an antenna would do.

Let us call s1(t), s2(t), s3(t), ... the signals produced by these "secondary sources".
Let us also call t0, t1, t2, .... the delays between the signal emission from all these source and the receiver.
Let us finally call a0, a1, a2, ... the "influences" of these signals on the receiver.

With these notations, the receiver will detect the following signal r(t):

r(t) = a0*s0(t-t0) + a1*s1(t-t1) + a2*s2(t-t2) + a3*s3(t-t3) + ...

My (first) point is that the signal r(t) can simply have any phase relationship with the initial signal s0(t).
The exact relationship will depend on the physics behing the excitation s0 and all the responses.
(this may include further delays, like wave propagating in the ground)

Now let us simulate the measurement of the phase velocity as in the paper.
In this case, the signal must be observed at two positions -say A and B-, for comparison.
The phase relationship between the signals observed at A or B will then be explained by comparing two expressions as above.
I hope the notations in the two formulas below are obvious:

rA(t) = a0*s0(t-ta0) + a1*s1(t-ta1) + a2*s2(t-ta2) + a3*s3(t-ta3) + ...
rB(t) = b0*s0(t-tb0) + b1*s1(t-tb1) + b2*s2(t-tb2) + b3*s3(t-tb3) + ...

My point is that the signals rA and rB can have exactly the same phase, or any other phase as well, depending only on the system.
This is true even if the delays in these formulas are given by the speed of light.
This is even possible if these delays were determined by the speed of sound!!
And to make my point even stronger: the same observation could be done with sound waves or with surface wave on water.

I go back to words now and explain again.
The signals received at two points A and B are the supersions of many delayed signals.
The phase of the signals received at A and B can be the same without implying there is a FTL transmision from A to B or from the emitter to A and B.

If the phases are the same it simply means the oscisllations are in phase, nothing more!
And if they are in phase, this is just the result of how the whole system responded to the emitter.

Finally let me stress how different the situation in a "switch-on" experiment.
In this case, the various signals (s0, s1, s2, ...) may not even had the time to respond.
Therefore, many of the term in the formulas would disappear until the staedy-state is approached.
Therefore, in the phase relationship (if only obsevable !!) could be quite different and the propagation delay would become quite obvious.

A bad theory or a good theory are both theories.
The theory (interpretation) from Erdmann is also not more than a theory, but it does not resist an elementary analysis.

What I have explained above is not a "big theory", this elementary physics.

"Mr. Erdmann is testing modulated signals. Therefore, the passing wave fronts are unique. He can distinguish and identify each part of the passing wavefront uniquely; and the proof is that the "voices sound clear as a bell." "

Childish.

For JR, in place of a physics book:

Yes and I would use the test on you, Gufus. What you are describing are what people in outlying areas see on their TV's as ghosts. Sure it messes up the signal. The time returns from various reflecting objects mess up the phase. In a pure sinusoidal signal, the phases will arrive at different times. One cannot differentiate because all are identical. In a modulated signal, as in communications, each "crest" and "valley" of the signal is unique.

Any route other than a direct route, delays the signal. Your "explanation" of how this causes "FTL" phase arrival is B.S.

You are the free idiot, but soon they'll come for you, then you'll be all right, or should I say we'll be all right with you put away.

Well, indeed it is a bit like a TV ghost, but by design.
A phase is a number that is the result of the whole system reaction to the excitation.
You cannot escape this fact and discard my explanation.

The phase velocity in a waveguide can also be measured by a similar procedure as that used by Erdmann.
I did that when I was student on a transmission line and also on a coax cable.
Unfortunately for the fun, in these cases the result are close to the speed of light, because "high order modes" are involved (see the theory).

Anybody knows the result of measuring phase velocities in waveguides: Faster Than Light.
Yet, you will not be able to beat Wall Street with a waveguide!
The group velocity is smaller than the speed of light and you will never be able to communicate a financial information faster than light by using a waveguide.

If you want to learn more about that, read this introduction on waveguides:

http://www.ece.rutgers.edu/~orfanidi/ewa/ch09.pdf

Even without reading the details, you should be able to find the information related to the phase velocity and check what I said. Note also that all this has been verified extensively in many labs around the world.

By the way, if you have difficulties with this material, instead of try larning physics, have you considered gambling at wall street?

Anonymous:
"I already mentioned waveguides, but plasma physics contains a huge list of other examples, including the famous Alfven wave. "

Sorry for being so stupid: the phase velocity of the Alfven wave is slower than the speed of light.
It is essentially a pressure wave where the magnetic pressure is taken into account.
(see the "Afven velocity")
The so-called plasma oscillations are a better example.

There is not just one near field at the site of emission, another forms at the receiving end of the system. Once the signal transitions to the far-field, it is tuned to the impedance of the ether. At the receiving end, the signal has to transition back to the impedance of the material at that end. The mode in the far field is that the magnetic and electric are parallel. They become transverse again in the near field at the receiving end. The near field is the result of the interaction of changing electric or magnetic fields with the inductance of matter.

Current moving in a conductor via the electron sea is a whole different process than the lower frequency transmission of "photons" in a transparent medium. Or is it? It seems to me that the transmission in transparent material must proceed completely in the near field, since the wave is reacting with matter the whole distance.

You didn't discuss the success of the "Cross-field" antenna.

Having browsed all pages from the "Official Crossed Field Antenna" web site, I found nothing interresting to comment on.
It is even not wrong: it is mainly confusing.
A vague statement about Maxwell's equation is not substantiated.

Maybe that's a mix of antennae and patent folklore.
(just one more)

The wiki summary is very lucid in the respect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossed_field_antenna

My comment on Erdmann experiment and interpretation can even go further than what I expected.
Actually, the observation by Erdmann is simply a common near-field behaviour.
This paper develops an exercice on the simple dipole antenna to illustrate this point:

http://ceta.mit.edu/PIER/pier56/05.0505121.Sten.H.pdf

It could be interresting to make the definition of the "near field" a bit more precise.
Considering only distances smaller that a wavelength is a little bit too short I think.
Anyway, this does not threaten my conclusion.
The FTL phase velocity behaviour is understood, and the general conditions for it to happen is only a refinement of its understanding.

On the philosophical aspect, I would like to stress that Erdmann was much too fast to conclude and much too fast in his comment about theory and experience and practical science:

"The point that I want to make here is that practical science differs from theoretical science in a way that practical science has to produce practical results which may not always agree with what we have come to believe in regard to theory and mathematical formulas."

This comment was at least short-sighted, since the theory just explains his observations.
Even worse, this theory is more than 100 years old.
This means that 100 years ago many physicist could already have explained the observations of Mr Erdmann.
Yet, today, Mr Erdmann missed this fact. That's the result of underestimating the value of theory.
After all, theory is just an ultimate summary of all the known experiments.
And what Erdmann explained is known since very long.

Mr Erdmann:
" Of course, you a staunch Einstein follower believe that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. This is an absurd statement in itself. In order to know that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, you have to know everything, and this would make you God. But we can actually prove that you are not God. "

Anonymous:

I repeated so many times that a phase velocity can go FTL, and that this is simply standard and elementary physics.
However, never has a signal been propagated at the phase velocity, except in vacuum.
Never a physical change has been propagated from one body to another at the phase velocity (except in vacuum).
Such a physical change (a force) never goes faster than light, and the experiment by Mr Erdmann does not contradict this fact.
Mr Erdmann has measured phase velocities.
Mr Erdmann did not measure a FTL influence from one body on another.
Mr Erdmann did not beat Wall Street!

The phase velocities Mr Erdmann has measured is an observation of how a complete system behaves in steady state.
The complete system is the antenna together with anything in the surrounding.
The steady state is the state reached by the system when the amplitudes and the phases reach a constant level.
Before this steady state is reached, each part of the complete system has plenty of time to see the emitter wave as well have many cycles from the (multiple) reflections from the surrounding. Therefore the phase (and amplitude) acquired by each part of the system is not an instant influence from the emitter but the result of the complete history since the emitter has been switched on (at least a period of time much larger than a single wavelength).
Therefore, comparing the phases at different locations cannot lead to the conclusion that a signal (influence) has been propagated FTL.
From a phase difference, one can indeed calculate something called "phase velocity"

vph = 2.pi.f.(x1-x2)/phaseDifference

This phase velocity -to talk in the Mr Erdmann way- is "nothing more than a calculation" and does not represent the speed of propagation of an influence.

The quote above illustrates very well the prejudices some people can built merely based on their poor understanding of physics.
It illustrates also that big news advertised on GSJ are often not more than a lack of background in elementary physics.

Of course I am not God, I don't know everything.
Yet I know elementary physics, that's not so bad.

Mr. Anonymous Please answer the following questions:
1. When and by whom was the speed measured by which magnetic fields propagate?
2. When and whom was the speed measured by which electric fields propagate?
3. Do high frequency radio waves travel similar distance under water as in the air or vacuum?
4. Do you know what causes the so called picketfencing in regard to radio waves?

I cannot comment too much on your explanations since I don't have the back ground as you say, but I know one thing, if the wave fronts where as mixed up as you say you wouldn't be able to watch clear television or listen to good music on the radio. So it is not as bad as you make it out to be.

We were able to prove that radio waves travel at the speed of light with our control experiment. I suppose this test does not prove anything either. So was it just a coincidence that we measured a. 11 metre wavelength for the 27 megahertz radio wave?

Now let's look at the magnetic field test briefly. A 27 megahertz alternating current in the transmitting loop produces a quasi static alternating magnetic field. The magnetic lines of force pass through both receiving loops and induce a 27 megahertz alternating current simultaneously in both loops regardles of the physical location of the individual loops. the current of each coil is fed into a dual trace oscilloscope which shows the sinewaves to be in synchronism. There are no radio waves involved whatsoever, the process is simply induction. So your whole wave theory does not apply. Communication by induction is used in Bluetooth devices, and also by the Canadian Department of National Defence in cooperation with "Ultra Electronic" a large company of 3200 employees. Maybe you would want to set them straight too.

Now, let us look at our other experiment which uses electric (also known as electrostatic) fields. This type of communication works on the capacitor principle. Capacitors can pass ac through but not dc, this is what we are told. But on closer inspection we realise that the elelectrons are only entering and leaving the plates. The energy is passed through via the electrical charge. In our experiment,a 27 megahertz alternating electrical charge is applied to the transmitting sphere, this in turn creates an alternating electrical charge of opposite polarity (at any given moment) in both receiving spheres simultaneously regardless of the physical location of the individual spheres. The rest is the same as in the first experiment. Again, there are no radio waves involved, and the rules of radio waves do not apply here also. So why do you keep referring to radio waves.

Again too fast in conclusion Mr Erdmann:

"... but I know one thing, if the wave fronts where as mixed up as you say you wouldn't be able to watch clear television or listen to good music on the radio. "

When you see ghost on your television, the delays involved can be thousands of wavelenghts.
This is precisely the reason you are seeing ghosts.
The delay is large enough as to perturb the signal itself (which is at a lower frequency than the carrier).
During an horizontal scan of the beam on your TV screen, many "pixels" have to be transmitted.
For each pixels several wavelengths of the carrier are needed to carry the information.
Therefore, observing ghosts on you TV implies reflection from very distant scatterers as compared to the wavelength in vacuum.

I will not develop the same argument for music as it would become really ridiculous since the sound frequencies are so much smaller than your radio wave frequencies. Huge delays are needed to perturb the sound (it term of the number of wavelengths).

On the contrary, in your near field experiments, the delays between the various scattered waves need not be large to produce FTL phase velocities.

===

"So why do you keep referring to radio waves."

The term radio wave is simply refering to the frequency used.
Anyway, what I explained you is totally independent from the exact nature of the wave.
Even with sound waves, you could perform an experiment showing FTS (S for sound) phase velocity.
You could, in principle, even perform and FTL phase velocity with sound.
But this would be impossible for practically reasons like: how to measure such high speeds from such low frequencies, how to prepare such a system with the required mechanical precision (emitter+surrounding), ....

I have the feeling asking "So why do you keep referring to radio waves." is like saying you are a complete idiot and asking "do you realize?".
Beside, it is completely off-topic as it doesn't contradict anything from what I have explained you.
Looks like you have no arguments and want to picture me as incompetent, which I am definitively not.

===

"1. When and by whom was the speed measured by which magnetic fields propagate?
2. When and whom was the speed measured by which electric fields propagate? "

Your questions above are completely meaningless.
The mere fact that an electric field propagates implies there is a magnetic field.
Conversly, a propagating magnetic field implies an electric field.
It is the coupling between magnetic field and electric field that causes the propagation, at least in the vacuum.

There are however situations where the propagation occurs by some other mechanism.
However, never such a mechanism would imply a FTL effect.
One example are the electrostatic waves in plasmas. In this case, it is the coupling between the electric field and the motion of the charges (electrons most often) that produce the propagation effect. Roughly speaking, the electrons motion build a space charge and the resulting electric field slows down this motion, all this in an oscillating way.
Another example are "magnetic waves" in plasmas. They are usually called sound waves, because the magnetic pressure (B²/2µ) and the kinetic pressure are involved.
All the physics involved is STL (slower than light) and never violates the STL principle. However, this does not forbit FTL phase velocities, and this is actually very common.

Your sphere+earth experiment is a nearly electrostatic experiment, at least in the near field. Again, all parts involved in this experiment are satisfying the STL principle, and this does not forbit FTL phase velocities.

Please understand that you have not proved FTL transmission of a signal, and you will never be able to prove such a thing.

===

"3. Do high frequency radio waves travel similar distance under water as in the air or vacuum? "

That's a trivial question. I wonder why you ask, as it is not related to FTL.
Note that evanescent waves are very common too and that the evanescence length depends on the type of excitation.
Also, evanescent waves do not escape the STL principle.

===

"4. Do you know what causes the so called picketfencing in regard to radio waves? "

I even don't know what this is. I never pretended I know everything.
Is that related to this topic?

============================

I hope you understand why nobody will ever buy you an FTL system.

Cinci claims: "The phase velocities Mr Erdmann has measured is an observation of how a complete system behaves in steady state."

Jose says: There is nothing steady state about the signals. They are modulated radio waves. The experiments are done in real time, with all the variables of the passage of time. You really like to make stuff up don't you, cinci?

By steady-state, I meant purely harmonic signals.
This means amplitudes and phases constant.

When you switch on this experiment there is a transient phase where the amplitudes grow and the phases are adjusting themselves. This process is complex because of all the interactions in the whole system. This is -by defintion- the transient or "un-steady" phase.

These interactions that take place, each part adjusting its phase, is precisely what produces in the end the observations by Mr Erdmann during the steady state. Just elementary. Had Mr Erdmann be able to analyse the transient phase, he would have seen what the difference is between phase velocity and groupd velocity. (note: actually things are even a bit more complicated when sharp wave front -switchon- are involved: then the complete dispersion characteristics of the system must be considered, not only the group velocity)

I explained that at length already.
If you preffer another vocabulary, just chose your preffered one.

I can be naïve too.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1247777232/last-1247777232/A+na%EFve+belief+-++nothing++FTL

Even clearer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_velocity

Conclusion from (1) is particularly clear:

"The law of causality thus has suffered some very serious assaults, but so far it has survived. However, the old rule that I learned in graduate school, requiring that the group velocity must always be less than c, has been broken definitively. The new rule that the front velocity must always be less than c may also have been broken. But Einsteins rule that the signal velocity must be less than c remains in place. At least, for the moment "

I also learned about group velocity being STL.
This is very surprising since Sommerfeld and Brillouin near 1914 have both estabished that the group velocity could be FTL without any violation of classical physics. They also showed that however never a signal velocity can be FTL.

No hope for FTL communication.
At least for the moment?

(1)http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw105.html

A quote from the conclusion in Erdmann (1):

"This booklet will without a doubt be received with much skepticism. This is the way it should be. We have no problem with that, as long as people check out what we are saying and make an effort to do some of the tests; that is all we ask. Of course, people have a right to their opinion, and if they chose to ignore us, so be it. We believe, that having a closed mind toward new discoveries without looking at test results, because these findings may contradict present believes, is ignorance of the worst kind. Our discoveries are not some far fetched ideas which would make no difference to the world whether they are true or not, but are actually useful inventions which will eventually benefit mankind, no matter whether the scientific community accepts them or not."

What Mr Erdmann did not expect is that:

- phase velocities faster than light is simply nothing new
- that this is known since 1914
- that this fact will not benefit mankind in any substantial way (except for education)
- that the scientific community accepts the fact without any problem
- that this doesn't contradict any principle of known physics
- that even more surprising results could and have been obtained that are not surprising at all after analysis, they were even guided by standard theory

And the rest of the conclusion confirms that Mr Erdmann though he was a pioneer while he simply was a beginner:

"I cannot see how our discoveries can be viewed as something destructive; and yet this is the attitude with get from people. If our tests destroy some of the presently held believes in the nature of the universe, it is only because these believes no matter how long and how widely held were false to begin with. This is the price of progress. However, we feel that the people, whose theories may have been replaced by facts, should not fall from grace just because of that, because their work may have in some way contributed to the new discoveries. If someone creates a new theory, he does so with the facts at hand. That person can then not be faulted for something that was not known at the time. I think we should look ahead and be grateful for any new discovery."

Mr Erdmann must be one of the few to believe the FTL antenna is a discovery.
It is not more than a late experimental re-discovery, while this was known and understood since nearly 100 years!

(1)http://wbabin.net/physics/erdmann.pdf

"Sound faster than light":

http://frank.mtsu.edu/~wroberts/Sound%20beyond%20the%20speed%20of%20light%20Measurement%20of%20negative%20group%20velocity.pdf

and yet, it doesn't violate any law of classical physics.

"When a load is placed on the secondary, current flows through it and a magnetic flux is generated opposing the flux generated by the primary current. The secondary's opposing flux causes a reduction in dB/dt at the primary and the corresponding induced opposing voltage, thus causing increased primary current flow, so that the net flux through the core is unchanged from the no-load condition. (This should be understood to be working instantaneously.) If the primary's source can supply the necessary current, the output waveform reflects the input waveform, since the same dB/dt is seen by both the primary and secondary windings, regardless of how linearly or non-linearly B and H are related." From:http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/non-linear_transformer_behavior.htm#Magnetic_Flux_Inside_the_Transformer_

Emphasis: "(This should be understood to be working instantaneously.)"

> The near field action seems to be instantaneous. This is what the Erdmann brothers show.

"The near field action seems to be instantaneous. This is what the Erdmann brothers show."

You may say so if you want, even if it poor physical language.
It is better to say that signals were observed to be "in-phase".

The problem with Mr Erdmann lies in his conclusions.
He believes he will offer instantaneous communication to Mars.
This is not only impossible, on the basis on all known physics, but also Mr Erdmann didn't prove that at all, even on a shorter scale.

There is only one clear-cut way to prove FTL communication.
You connect a switch to an emitter.
You prepare the receiver to switch on something (like a lamp) when the signal is received.
You prepare everything needed to measure the time lapse.
You push on the emiter switch and measure the time until the lamp lights up.

All the observations by Mr Erdman are nice and useful for pedagogy but do not come even close to proving FTL communication.
These observations were only dealing with periodic or quasi-periodic signals and their relative phases.

Long before Einstein it was already know that the kind of observation as by Mr Erdman are not in any way a indication of signal propagation time.
Therefore the wrong conclusion by Mr Erdman doesn't even concern modern physics.
Instead it is a very basic misunderstanding about elementary wave physics.

I have listed a number of websites of people who have claimed FTL communication. Their results are almost identical to ours. So, they all must therefore be wrong. Guenter Nimtz is an educated man in this field. Would he make a simple fundamental mistake like this. I think not; he has a reputation to consider.

Further more, take our experiments with a local AM broadcast station which was located 10 Km away from us. Our tests showed that the signal received with the electrostatic (FTL) antenna was 35 wavelength ahead of the regular radio wave signal. Mr. Anonymous seems to ignore that experiment. Take another look:http://www.wbabin.net/erdmann/erdmann2.pdf

Here are are the other links.

http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/qo02/nimtz/pdf/Nimtz.pdf

http://ceta.mit.edu/pier/pier56/05.0505121.Sten.H.pdf

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0311061

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0603240

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0702166

Finally, I like to say again (I have said it before) that we are able to communicate a distance of a quarter mile under water using 3 watt CB radios. That distance is not possible using radio waves. This should be proof enough that we are not using radio waves. No radio waves, no wave fronts, it is as simples that.

I have talked to a number of people over the last couple of years, mainly by email but also in person. I am sorry say that most physicists don't know the difference between a radio wave and a magnetic field.

Device Makes Radio Waves Travel Faster Than Light:
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/06/30/device-makes-radio-waves-travel-faster-than-light/

Dear Mr. Erdmann,

I had only a quick glance at the first of your links.
This link, as for sure all the others, simply don't prove any FTL communication. (1)
At best they will illustrate very well known physics.

There is only one way to prove FTL communication.
This can only be done by an experiment similar to this simple sketch:

- on the emitter side a signal is emitted coding something like "switch on light nr 1 or 2, .or 3, ..."
- the distant receiver receives the signal and reacts according to the signal
- the delay between the emission and the reaction is measured and compared to equivalent light delay

None of your papers or your links, Mr Erdman, come even close to demonstrate such a FTL communication.

I have already given you myself references to FTL propagation based on sound, yet this did not imply any possibility for FTL communication.

I also gave you a link (2) illustrating quite well how a composite signal made of subluminal components can build a structure propagating faster than light.
Yet, if you observe well this applet, you should understand why this will never offer any FTL communication means.
Have you noticed that the FTL structure appear very much after the start of the different wave componenents?
If you can understand why a FTL structure appears in the composite signal (in this applet), then you can understand nearly all erroneous FTL communication claims, including yours.

With my best regards.

Lal

PS: please don't hesitate to document your experiments in more detail, as they are quite interresting despite your erroneous conclusions.

____________
(1) Your first link simply builts nonsense on a well known fact: near fields often show FTL phase velocities. This does in no way contradict the fact that the speed of light is a universal constant and the consequences of this. Special relativity is very easy to understanding, but it is still easier to misunderstand it.

(2)http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/20/20.html

Mr. Erdmann,

Here is another FTL feature observed in a lab:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6793/full/406277a0.html

The conclusion is particularly interresting even though it is incomplete:

"Finally, we note that the observed superluminal light pulse propagation is not at odds with causality or special relativity. In fact, the very existence of the lossless anomalous dispersion region given in equation (1) is a result of the KramersKronig relation which itself is based on the causality requirements of electromagnetic responses3, 5. Remarkably, the signal velocity4 of a light pulse, defined as the velocity at which the half point of the pulse front travels, also exceeds the speed of light in a vacuum, c, in the present experiment. It has also been suggested4, 16 that the true speed at which information is carried by a light pulse should be defined as the "frontal" velocity of a step-function-shaped signal which has been shown not to exceed c (ref. 4). The implications of the present experiment on signal propagation and its speed will be further analysed, particularly for the case when the light pulse consists of only a few photons."

Although never an FTL communication will be achieved, this paper shows clearly that surprises and misconceptions still have a lot of room in this topic. The question about defining what an "information signal" mean has been tackled by many people and seem still unclear today as this conclusion illustrates.

However, the simplest defintion, that I have reproduced several times here, remains unchallenged.

Dear Mr Erdmann,

I have a "back to the lab" question.
I am refering to The figure (6) of "erdmann.pdf".
Have you checked what happens if you modify in some way the "moving receiver antenna".
For example:

- what happened if you leaved the 20 ft cable without the receiving antenna ?
- what happened if you decreased the length of the second cable to 15 ft or 10 ft ?
- have you performed other similar tests ?

My question is to be sure that the receiving element is really the moving antenna and not something closer to the plug on the oscilloscope.
As this antenna mainly generates electric fields, it could have an unsusual influence on your instruments.

A few further questions are:

- the distance between emitter and first receiver
- the nature of the ground: sand, vinyl, dry or wet, ...
- the type of environment, are there hidden metalic pipes, ...

More details would be useful to think about your experiment.

With my thanks and best regards,

Lal

Mr. Anonymous,

Here are some answers to the questions you asked.

Question: Have you checked what happens if you modify in some way the "moving receiver antenna".
For example:

- what happened if you leaved the 20 ft cable without the receiving antenna ?
No signal was received. If there were, the oscilloscope did not pick it up, because we did not use any amplification ahead of the oscilloscope.

- what happened if you decreased the length of the second cable to 15 ft or 10 ft ?
When the coax cable was shortened, the sine wave on the screen shifted to the left according to the length of cable which was removed, after all the signal travels at the speed of light through the cable. Shortening the cable by 9 ft will put it 90 degrees out of phase and so on.

- have you performed other similar tests ?
We did a number of tests lengthening and shortening the cables and found the results quite consistant. In other words we had definite proof that the signals traveled at or near the speed of light. Of course, our equipment is not that accurate, but we believed it was close enough.

-My question is to be sure that the receiving element is really the moving antenna and not something closer to the plug on the oscilloscope.
As this antenna mainly generates electric fields, it could have an unsusual influence on your instruments.

We did the tests out in the open and always placed the cables on the ground and far as possible away from each other. And since our control test using regular radio antennas showed phase shifts that corresponded to the signal travelling at the speed of light, we believed that there was no signal getting into the system another way.

A few further questions are:

- the distance between emitter and first receiver

We did a number of tests using different distances between the emitter and the first receiving antenna. In our original tests, we started with about 10 feet or so and gradually increased the distance to about about a wavelength (36 feet) However, a professor from a university asked us to see if we could increase the distance further. He said that at nearfield, this phenomenon is known as an evanescent wave, but if we could show the same thing beyond nearfield, there was no explanation for it, and his colleges would not be too happy about it. I have not heard from him since I emailed him that we carried out experiments with distances of more than three wave length (108 feet)with the exact same results.

- the nature of the ground: sand, vinyl, dry or wet, ...

Dry normal soil type ground.

- the type of environment, are there hidden metalic pipes, ...

We made sure that there where no pipes or any metalic objects in the vicinity. We were once asked to show the experiment to grade 9 students. We tried to carry out the experiment in the Gym of the school, but we had no success getting accurate reading, since there were too many reflections in this room.

More details would be useful to think about your experiment.

I can't think of anything at the moment, but if you have more questions please let us know.

Thanks a lot Mr Erdmann,

Right now, I still have a few more questions:

- I could not read the units of the capacities on fig 1: is it pF ?
- the diameter of the inductance loop is 3 cm (read in your patent),
but what is the diameter of wire, less than 1 mm ?

With my thanks and best regards,

Lal

Mr Erdmann,

One more question.
Could you specify more clearly the nature of the ground, if possible.

Was it sand, concrete, clay, or "saturated sand" ...
Was it a road, or a parking, ...
Was the ground made of several layers, ...

Maybe I don't need the full details, I am still thinking.
Yet, some materials like clay can have a very high permittivity, and I guess this should not be overlooked.

With my thanks and best regards,

Lal
____

Maybe you like to read this:

http://mysite.du.edu/~lconyers/SERDP/RDP.htm

Anon: "However, the simplest defintion,(sic) that I have reproduced several times here, remains unchallenged."

Jose: Or; Has not been challenged properly.

Never the less, all in the world the Relativists are discussing is the signal delay attributed to light pulses over distance. These occur whether there is change (or changing) in distance or not.