# How to have light move faster than C **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 24, 2014, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160 "2014-02-24T21:53:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 39
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/762 "2014-03-15T10:20:15Z")
> [@mythoughts](#): > > Interesting: > The anisotropy of the speed of light at 1 part in 10^3 has been detected by Michelson and Morley (1887), Miller (1925/26), Illingworth (1927), Joos (1930), Jaseja et al. (1964), Torr and Kolen (1984), De Witte (1991) and Cahill (2006) using a variety of experimental techniques, from gas-mode Michelson interferometers (with the relativistic theory for these only determined in 2002) to one-way RF coaxial cable propagation timing. All agree on the speed, right ascension and declination of the anisotropy velocity. > > That is no error! How do you know? You’re quoting Reginald Cahill’s paper with no source atrribution, have you had access to the whole paper? Have you evaluated the work yourself? Ensured there’s no bias in selection? Noticed that the paper is in response to results contradicting this claimed agreement on anisotropy? Noticed the author clearly states: “_ **The key point here is not whether the predicted Special Relativity effects are valid or invalid, for the experimental evidence is overwhelming that these predictions are valid** _”? You’re shotgunning us with citations we know you have insufficient understanding to evaluate beyond grasping at bits you believe confirm to your bias. Do you understand how utterly uninteresting it is to follow those threads other than as an exercise in showing the remaining readers and participants in this thread how disingenuous your actions are? ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/763 "2014-03-15T10:38:33Z")
Has anyone other than mythoughts read that [Cahill paper](http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0612201.pdf)? If you haven’t I recommend you look at the introduction and conclusion, but to summarize: Introduction There’s this pet theory I have where anisotropy of light has been consistently shown to be one part in 1000 in the same direction, in this paper I’ll look at an experiment with a totally different result. Conclusion This other experiment gives a totally different result than what my pet theory says, and I haven’t figured out why, but it looks like it’s aligned with the absolute motion detected in CMB. Nevermind that though, let me talk about my pet theory that mainstream physics hasn’t accepted for the rest of this conclusion. I’m not kidding, that’s basically what he writes. > [@](#): > > The re-analysis herein of the Marinov one-way light-speed anisotropy experiment has left unexplained why his anisotropy velocity is so different from that detected by 8 other experiments. However we note that it is quite similar to the anisotropy vector arising from the CMB detections. The observed light-speed anisotropy in all the experiments is very large being in excess of 1 part in 10[sup]3[/sup]. This effect continues to be denied by mainstream physics, despite its detection involving at least 8 experiments extending over more than 100 years. What this effect shows is that reality involves a dynamical 3-space, as Lorentz suggested, and not a spacetime as Einstein suggested. [… and so on for a lot longer than he spends on the paper’s purported topic] So, mythought, you’re quoting a professor who doesn’t agree with you, and is so obviously biased he probably needs to take three left turns to make a right. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/764 "2014-03-15T10:52:04Z")
> [@Itself](#): > > {…} You just cited the “[Orgone](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone) Lab” _and_ Free Republic. There are no words. Well, it is an improvement\* over citing Stormfront! - For amazingly generous definitions of the word _improvement_. CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/765 "2014-03-15T10:57:57Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Well, it is an improvement\* over citing Stormfront! > > - For amazingly generous definitions of the word _improvement_. > > CMC fnord! I’d say it’s more of a sidecrease in content quality. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/766 "2014-03-15T13:57:23Z")
> [@mythoughts](#): > > [Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments](http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm) > > more: [Re-Analysis of the Marinov Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2270920/posts) Can scopie’s law kill this thread? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/767 "2014-03-15T19:53:22Z")
> [@naita](#): > > . . . Do you understand how utterly uninteresting it is to follow those threads other than as an exercise in showing the remaining readers and participants in this thread how disingenuous your actions are? FWIW, thank you for making the effort. At least some of us appreciate it. Truth is worth…well…maybe this degree of suffering, although admittedly not a whole lot more. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/768 "2014-03-15T19:57:52Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Can scopie’s law kill this thread? I’d never heard of Scopie’s Law or of whale.to. Thank you (ouch) for the (ouch) enlightenment. ---
**Author:** ![mythoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@mythoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mythoughts)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/769 "2014-03-15T20:18:12Z")
I am going to take today off with respect to this thread, but I will post this: In 1993, Thomson et al. suggested that the (outer) jet of the quasar 3C 273 is nearly collinear to our line-of-sight. Superluminal motion of up to ~9.6c has been observed along the (inner) jet of this quasar.[3] Superluminal motion of up to 6c has been observed in the inner parts of the jet of M87. To explain this in terms of the “narrow-angle” model, the jet must be no more than 19° from our line-of-sight.[4] But evidence suggests that the jet is in fact at about 43° to our line-of-sight. > **[Superluminal motion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion)** > > In astronomy, superluminal motion is the apparently faster-than-light motion seen in some > radio galaxies, BL Lac objects, quasars, blazars and recently also in some galactic sources called microquasars. Bursts of energy moving out along the relativistic jets emitted from these objects can have a proper motion that appears greater than the speed of light. All of these sources are thought to contain a black hole, responsible for the ejection of mass at high velocities. Light echoes can also produce... 9.6 times the speed of light is quite a bit to explain away. And I must say, the websites hosting a scientific data (or your opinion of the website) is not a reflection of the data as **itself** tries to suggest. naita: Yes you are correct that the Marinov data doesn’t fit with the 8 others that all do produce the same velocity and direction, Marinov’s result is close to the direction and velocity of the CMB apparenly. Still the odds that the 8 others produced the same result seems (astronomically) unlikely if they were due to some error, the arguments the author makes seem sound, and enough to make me reconsider a mostly entrained aether as I have preferred, to one with significant background velocity, but I am unwilling to do so yet. This is why I initially avoided addressing experiments for and against SR, because there are many alternative possibilities and there is no certainty that my pet theory is correct, or well enough defined. All I know is that SR is wrong and there is an aether. Cahill’s arguments about why Michelson-Morley experiments get a fringe shift in gas but not in vacuum do make plenty of sense, which makes my more seriously consider Lorentz Length contraction in from absolute velocity. No matter what anyone thinks I am actually very open to changing my mind once the evidence shifts in favour of another interpretation, you guys show SR way too much faith. ---
**Author:** ![mythoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@mythoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mythoughts)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/770 "2014-03-15T23:34:27Z")
Still taking the day off as I focus on thinking about the aether and consider what real world experiments to do. But I have found this aether theory that is too math heavy to fully assess, so I may object to it on the same grounds as I object to SR since it is meant to harmonize with SR, but some may find it interesting. [http://www.cellularuniverse.org/AA5Contradiction\_Ranzan.pdf](http://www.cellularuniverse.org/AA5Contradiction_Ranzan.pdf) I still will not reply to anything today. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/771 "2014-03-16T00:16:11Z")
I look forward to your next post in a couple of hours, explaining why you’re still not posting anything today. ---
**Author:** ![mythoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@mythoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mythoughts)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/772 "2014-03-16T12:44:36Z")
I have the following argument. If we made a model space ship about a 12th of the circumference of a Sagnac fibre loop, placed it where loop starts/ends as if the photons are coming out each end of the model space ship. Now we set the fibre loop and spaceship rotating at near the speed of light, such that in one direction the photon leaves the rear of the spaceship almost immediately, but the photon in the direction of rotation takes a few loops before the photon leaves the ship! Now let’s do the same with a spaceship, but rather than have it move in a circle, it will move in a straight line (inertial frame) passing but making 90 degree turns to form a galaxy sized square. And we will have a light channel though the center of the ship. Now the photons are emitted from the center of the spaceship as it is moving very very near C. Now the same thing must occur, the photon moving in the direction of travel will take a couple of times around the Galaxy before it leaves our spaceship, but the other one will clearly leave in the first moments of the first leg of travel! But this means that one photon must leave the ship before we even turn a corner, where the other must still be in the ship based on how we know everything works! But it is a perfectly inertial frame, which demands that both photons leave at the same instant before the first turn! SR makes to separate predictions based on what we are going to do next! I guess the photon reads our pilots mind and decides how it should move? The problem is that this dilemma must exist, if you argue that the photon leaves the ship just as swiftly, then we can easily show the 2 photons will pass (if the exited one is kept on track) in different places in the rotating and stationary frames, but SR does not make this prediction because the Sagnac effect was established about the same time as SR was getting to it’s feet. Further problems exist, if the spaceship passengers observe the rate of time in the center of the galaxy, because they are in pure inertial frames for almost the entire trip they will see the rate of time in the center of the galaxy slowed the whole time and they would be sure that there clocks would be more advanced, but according to the rest of the galaxy it is the spaceship that has experienced slow time. Again SR has placed it’s cards on the table and said the spaceship will be in the wrong. But it is important to note that since they are in an inertial frame most of the time (if we decide inertial frames exist in reality which they don’t) they MUST see time in the galaxy almost entirely as lots of time passes for them. This leaves us with one option, the space ship crew when they stop, or maybe each time they turn a corner must see the time rate in the rest of the galaxy speed to an insane degree to not only advance to the amount of time they have experienced, but to go ahead of them! But that can’t happen because they would see that light is now greatly exceeding C. Look, you aren’t too stupid to see the solution. The only solution is that Special Relativity is inherently flawed. It not only has experiments that contradict it and is not the best explanation for the evidence, all that is beside the fact that it is not possible. It is a social phenomena, hero worship, defending dearly held beliefs, clever people holding the theory together with brilliant but flawed arguments. Ultimately deceiving themselves. It is a religion. It has not had the degree of criticism it should have had, it was accepted too lightly and then defended from a position of authority. I can’t tell you why a theory that proposed the literally impossible was so readily accepted, but it was and here we are, are we going to get real? Give up the facade of an established physics that tells you it has it all together, when it is held together by intentional blindness? I am intelligent, but it is not my intelligence that has allowed me to prove this theory wrong. I am not putting myself up on a pedestal. It is simply that I am willing to do something that you all think I am crazy to do, to disrespect the work of those who went before. And that is precisely the reason I get so much flack, that I dare challenge the God of physics, Einstein, and all the high priests. And here in lie the greatest clue to how this has gone on for so long, challenging the status quo is not encouraged, it is something you must be insane to do, a crank, or worse (as I have been accused, here, by a therapist!). The very reaction that I get when challenging the official line is precisely why it is not challenged, and why it stands uncorrected. And because it is not challenged is precisely why it deserves no respect. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/773 "2014-03-16T12:48:21Z")
> [@mythoughts](#): > > Word salad and conspiracy theories Yep, a post three pages long in MS Word that most people won’t get through two paragraphs of containing pretty much the same shit you’ve failed to convince anyone with for the last 16 pages is sure convincing. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > And that is precisely the reason I get so much flack, that I dare challenge the God of physics, Einstein, and all the high priests. Yes, because thought experiments legitimately “challenge” the “god of physics”. Dude, you have your theory based on your own common sense. Go apply common sense to the double-slit experiment and see how far you get. :rolleyes: In order to get anywhere you need _experimental evidence_. Which, you know, is what Einstein actually provided. If his theory didn’t work, neither would GPS. ---
**Author:** ![mythoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@mythoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mythoughts)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/774 "2014-03-16T12:55:16Z")
Accidental duplicate post. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/775 "2014-03-16T13:35:55Z")
> [@mythoughts](#): > > It is a social phenomena, hero worship, defending dearly held beliefs, clever people holding the theory together with brilliant but flawed arguments. > > Ultimately deceiving themselves. > > It is a religion. > > It has not had the degree of criticism it should have had, it was accepted too lightly and then defended from a position of authority. > > I can’t tell you why a theory that proposed the literally impossible was so readily accepted, but it was and here we are, are we going to get real? > > Give up the facade of an established physics that tells you it has it all together, when it is held together by intentional blindness? > > I am intelligent, but it is not my intelligence that has allowed me to prove this theory wrong. I am not putting myself up on a pedestal. > > It is simply that I am willing to do something that you all think I am crazy to do, to disrespect the work of those who went before. > > And that is precisely the reason I get so much flack, that I dare challenge the God of physics, Einstein, and all the high priests. You are so incredibly fucking delusional. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/776 "2014-03-16T13:44:58Z")
> [@mythoughts](#): > > But this means that one photon must leave the ship before we even turn a corner, where the other must still be in the ship based on how we know everything works! > > But it is a perfectly inertial frame, which demands that both photons leave at the same instant before the first turn! No, this is relativity, where “at the same instance” only applies within one reference frame. If someone thought you’d understand and accept the results, they could do the math and show what observations actual SR predicts for your thought experiments, but you’re happier sticking with your intuitive replacement of core concepts like simultaneity with whatever pleases you. You’re not arguing from open mindedness, you’re arguing from ignorance and a close minded refusal to accept the constancy of the speed of light in inertial reference frames in vacuum. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/777 "2014-03-16T13:58:13Z")
> [@mythoughts](#): > > I am intelligent No you are not ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/778 "2014-03-16T17:28:16Z")
I’m pretty good at killing threads. Let me give it a try. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/KhWArBhPWu0/maxresdefault.jpg "Hawkwind: 'Orgone Acumulator'") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhWArBhPWu0) (Hawkwind: Orgone Accumulator) ---
**Author:** ![Itself](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d07c76/32.png) [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/779 "2014-03-16T18:02:02Z")
> [@mythoughts](#): > > I am intelligent No, you [aren’t](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect). An intelligent person would be able to follow high-school math, find experimental data supporting his claims (Googling posts on Free Republic doesn’t count; you have to actually read and understand the data), explain the data, explain his theory instead of ranting about zealots or religion, read an actual text on relativity and be able to determine what SR actually predicts, or use his intelligence to become an _actual_ physicist rather than a self-proclaimed pretend Internet physicist. You’re in deep denial about your intelligence, your validity of your thought-experiments, and the validity of the criticisms we’ve raised against. If you were sincere or competent, you would just present one simple and concise experiment, work out the details, and stop ranting about how everyone dismisses you because they’re all unthinking zealots of the religion of SR. Everyone is dismissing you because you’re a fucking idiot. Ranting and whining won’t change that. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/780 "2014-03-16T18:02:37Z")
Damn ---
**Author:** ![Itself](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d07c76/32.png) [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/781 "2014-03-16T18:09:41Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > Damn Sorry, bobot. I think that’s it from me for a while, at least. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160.md?page=38) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160.md?page=40)