Talk:Superluminal motion

message: 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)
thread_title: Diagram

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. From current explanation it is not clear that there would be any apparent superluminal velocity involved. In fact, as usual with physics wikipedia pages, the explanation is dim and dense.Crusty007 (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More explanation needed

message: 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.
:Agree. I just read his paper at http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3934.pdf and I'm thinking, what is this guy doing at NASA for so many years? It'd be good if some of his peers can review this crap so that Wikipedia can get rid of this section.-Dhatsavan (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But it remains mistaken, and it does not address the criticisms in the Franklin paper.  The Gezari paper and the Franklin rebuttal should both be removed as wastes of space, or regrouped under a new section heading, "Mistaken claims of Superluminal Motion", which could include other examples, too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.25.51 (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious sections?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Error in diagram 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm not sure how you say that it equivocates: "is the apparently faster-than-light motion" in the lede, and "jets traveling very near the speed of light" in the first main paragraph. None of them are truly superluminal, they're all due to projection effects. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In the contrary evidence section and the history section there are several mentions of superluminal events that are not explained away.J Mark Morris (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superluminal or not?  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Original research?