![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can someone post a diagram. This is one of those things that is very easily explained on a blackboard, but hard to explain with words. Roadrunner 20:24, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
First the blob is moviong towards me and then the blob in on a path perpendicular to me. This doesn't seem to match another explanation I found but I don't fee comfortable changing it.
This result is not that intuitive (if the object is moving mostly towards you, the tangential velocity cannot be very high, and it is not obvious that the time interval decreases faster), so I think a quantitive treatment is necessary, something like the explanation here. I'll add that as a "See also" link before someone gets around to do a good explanation here. R6144 09:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
How to achieve real superluminal velocity of mass particles see:
http://www.petar-bosnic-petrus.com/science-articles/ conical-and-paraboloidal-superluminal-particle-accelerators/
See http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0031-9120/32/1/016/pe7103.pdf?request-id=536d1dcd-4580-4a47-b434-93dd3b9a89bd for another explanation, i find it clearer, and it includes quantitative analysis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.1.66 (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
The explanation relating to signal velocity is far more logical, at last. Nothing moves faster than C, but the information; 'change of position' can of course give the impression of something in a different inertial frame moving faster or slower. Interesting implications too.Nimsdixon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC).Reply
If the ideas proposed in the section "Laser ranging" are based on a mistaken calculation on the part of Gezari, as explained in Franklin's paper, rather than an actual observation, it seems a needlessly distracting detour.
The paper of Gezari was recently updated. (Bgeelhoed (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC))Reply
The section "Messier 87 etc. Gas Jets" appears to be based on a non-standard theory (the Wikipedia article on this theory is disputed as original research), but that isn't made clear in this article. Dependent Variable (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
The diagram shows OB=OC=D_L. If so, then the angle OCB cannot be a right angle. There must consequently also be an error in the derivation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.152.247.201 (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Technically, you're right. In practical terms, however, the distance DL is so large that angle ø is approximately zero, so the derivation is correct to a good approximation. For ø = 1 arc-minute, the two distances marked DL in the diagram differ by a factor of about 4E-08.
132.3.33.68 (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC) I think it is worth mentioning this in the derivation. It's good practice to always state your assumptions (especially when they're accompanied by a diagram that appears to contradict them). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.239.65 (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
The article equivovates on whether superluminal motion is observed or not. Are some jets truly superluminal? J Mark Morris (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
I've added the "Original research" tag because the section entitled "Derivation of the apparent velocity" is entirely unsourced. It looks like an impressive piece of work, but given the lack of any cites, I wonder if it is original research. Some citations are necessary to support it, in my opinion. WP:ORIGINAL Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply