| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Tom Roberts" |
| Date: |
24 Dec 2007 11:22:06 AM |
| Object: |
Update to the SR Experimental FAQ page |
There is now an update the the FAQ page "What is the experimental basis
of Special Relativity?".
There has been a renaissance in tests of Special Relativity (SR), in
part because considerations of quantum gravity imply that SR may well be
violated at appropriate scales (very small distance, very high energy).
It has been seven years since the last update of this page, and there
are over 60 new experiments, many of which are recent, ingenious, and
improve bounds on violations of local Lorentz invariance by several or
many orders of magnitude.
The update also includes a larger section on "Experiments Which
Apparently are not Consistent with SR/GR", giving MUCH better reasons
for dismissing many of the results -- in most cases errorbars or
considerations related to them provide a solid and compelling reason for
considering the experiment to be inconclusive or downright wrong.
The update can be found here:
http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
NOTE: All of the other FAQ mirrors are not updating. It has been almost
a month since the update was issued, but the mirrors are not updating.
It seems they are all broken, or use a manual mirroring strategy. If you
manage one of the FAQ mirrors, please update it.
Followups are set to sci.physics.relativity, where a thread with this
same subject has been posted. Replies in other newsgroups may be missed.
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Update to the SR Experimental FAQ page |
25 Dec 2007 01:58:26 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:476FF080.FF754C3@hate.spam.net...
Tom Roberts wrote:
There is now an update the the FAQ page "What is the experimental basis
of Special Relativity?".
There has been a renaissance in tests of Special Relativity (SR), in
part because considerations of quantum gravity imply that SR may well be
violated at appropriate scales (very small distance, very high energy).
All talk, no action. "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is,
it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with
experiment, it's wrong," Richard Feynman.
True. But when a theory is like relativity, both beautiful and in accord
with experiment (especially GR), it is guaranteed to bring a smile to a
scientists face, as GR does to virtually all exposed to it.
It has been seven years since the last update of this page, and there
are over 60 new experiments, many of which are recent, ingenious, and
improve bounds on violations of local Lorentz invariance by several or
many orders of magnitude.
Lorentz invariance has suffered not a single instance of empirical
falsification. It holds at all energies at all scales in all venues
observed to date.
The update also includes a larger section on "Experiments Which
Apparently are not Consistent with SR/GR", giving MUCH better reasons
for dismissing many of the results -- in most cases errorbars or
considerations related to them provide a solid and compelling reason for
considering the experiment to be inconclusive or downright wrong.
A list with zero legitimate entries.
"There is a common thread among most of these experiments: the
experimenters make no attempt to measure and quantify the systematic
effects which could affect or mimic the signal they claim to observe."
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
December 27-30 2007, inclusive. Three days to wait.
Direct assault upon isotropy of space, Lorentz invariance, BRST
invariance, the Equivalence Principle; conservation of angular
momentum, General Relativity, peturbative string theory. Uncle Al
says, "to criticize is to volunteer."
A perfectly valid experiment whose result will be interesting regardless of
what the outcome is, but probably a LOT more interesting if it violates
standard GR. The interplay between experiment and theory is the very
essence of science. I believe it will validate GR - but opinions are like
bums - everyone has one - it does not make it correct.
Thanks
Bill
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Update to the SR Experimental FAQ page |
25 Dec 2007 01:43:41 PM |
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:476FF080.FF754C3@hate.spam.net...
Tom Roberts wrote:
There is now an update the the FAQ page "What is the experimental basis
of Special Relativity?".
There has been a renaissance in tests of Special Relativity (SR), in
part because considerations of quantum gravity imply that SR may well be
violated at appropriate scales (very small distance, very high energy).
All talk, no action. "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is,
it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with
experiment, it's wrong," Richard Feynman.
True. But when a theory is like relativity, both beautiful and in accord
with experiment (especially GR), it is guaranteed to bring a smile to a
scientists face, as GR does to virtually all exposed to it.
It has been seven years since the last update of this page, and there
are over 60 new experiments, many of which are recent, ingenious, and
improve bounds on violations of local Lorentz invariance by several or
many orders of magnitude.
Lorentz invariance has suffered not a single instance of empirical
falsification. It holds at all energies at all scales in all venues
observed to date.
The update also includes a larger section on "Experiments Which
Apparently are not Consistent with SR/GR", giving MUCH better reasons
for dismissing many of the results -- in most cases errorbars or
considerations related to them provide a solid and compelling reason for
considering the experiment to be inconclusive or downright wrong.
A list with zero legitimate entries.
"There is a common thread among most of these experiments: the
experimenters make no attempt to measure and quantify the systematic
effects which could affect or mimic the signal they claim to observe."
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
December 27-30 2007, inclusive. Three days to wait.
Direct assault upon isotropy of space, Lorentz invariance, BRST
invariance, the Equivalence Principle; conservation of angular
momentum, General Relativity, peturbative string theory. Uncle Al
says, "to criticize is to volunteer."
A perfectly valid experiment whose result will be interesting regardless of
what the outcome is, but probably a LOT more interesting if it violates
standard GR. The interplay between experiment and theory is the very
essence of science. I believe it will validate GR - but opinions are like
bums - everyone has one - it does not make it correct.
Today the smart money is on Einstein. In two days the smart money
will be on the experiment's observation. Posted odds don't determine
the winner of a horse race. The finish line camera determines the
winner after the results are Referee-reviewed.
The 10-in-1 mob of Einstein-bashing idiots, given a theory-allowed
challenge to General Relativity reduced to practice, deny their own
perverse obsession. Einstein is wrong, but not THAT way! Bashing is
not about challenging content, it is about denying achievement.
Little people elevate themselves by standing upon piles of corpses.
Scientists mount the shoulders of giants to peer further.
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars," Edward Young
(1745).
"They climbed aboard their starship and headed for the skies," Styx
(1977)
NASA ain't gonna do it. To criticize is to volunteer.
"I did it to annoy," Uncle Al, (2007)
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: Update to the SR Experimental FAQ page |
26 Dec 2007 01:09:50 AM |
|
|
On Dec 25, 9:43=A0pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Uncle Al" <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:476FF080.FF754C3@hate.spam.net...
TomRobertswrote:
There is now an update the the FAQ page "What is the experimental bas=
is
of Special Relativity?".
There has been a renaissance in tests of Special Relativity (SR), in
part because considerations of quantum gravity imply that SR may well=
be
violated at appropriate scales (very small distance, very high energy=
).
All talk, no action. =A0"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory i=
s,
it doesn't matter how smart you are. =A0If it doesn't agree with
experiment, it's wrong," Richard Feynman.
True. =A0But when a theory is like relativity, both beautiful and in acc=
ord
with experiment (especially GR), it is guaranteed to bring a smile to a
scientists face, as GR does to virtually all exposed to it.
It has been seven years since the last update of this page, and there=
are over 60 new experiments, many of which are recent, ingenious, and=
improve bounds on violations of local Lorentz invariance by several o=
r
many orders of magnitude.
Lorentz invariance has suffered not a single instance of empirical
falsification. =A0It holds at all energies at all scales in all venues=
observed to date.
The update also includes a larger section on "Experiments Which
Apparently are not Consistent with SR/GR", giving MUCH better reasons=
for dismissing many of the results -- in most cases errorbars or
considerations related to them provide a solid and compelling reason =
for
considering the experiment to be inconclusive or downright wrong.
A list with zero legitimate entries.
"There is a common thread among most of these experiments: the
experimenters make no attempt to measure and quantify the systematic
effects which could affect or mimic the signal they claim to observe."=
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
December 27-30 2007, inclusive. =A0Three days to wait.
Direct assault upon isotropy of space, Lorentz invariance, BRST
invariance, the Equivalence Principle; conservation of angular
momentum, General Relativity, peturbative string theory. =A0Uncle Al
says, "to criticize is to volunteer."
A perfectly valid experiment whose result will be interesting regardless=
of
what the outcome is, but probably a LOT more interesting if it violates
standard GR. =A0The interplay between experiment and theory is the very
essence of science. =A0I believe it will validate GR - but opinions are =
like
bums - everyone has one - it does not make it correct.
Today the smart money is on Einstein. =A0In two days the smart money
will be on the experiment's observation. =A0Posted odds don't determine
the winner of a horse race. =A0The finish line camera determines the
winner after the results are Referee-reviewed.
The 10-in-1 mob of Einstein-bashing idiots, given a theory-allowed
challenge to General Relativity reduced to practice, deny their own
perverse obsession. =A0Einstein is wrong, but not THAT way! =A0Bashing is
not about challenging content, it is about denying achievement.
Little people elevate themselves by standing upon piles of corpses.
Scientists mount the shoulders of giants to peer further.
They mount but sometimes, when on the top, they see this:
http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=3D6603
Harvey R. Brown: "Physical Relativity: Space-time Structure from a
Dynamical Perspective"
"According to (what Brown alleges is) the dominant view among
substantivalists, the geometrical structure of Minkowski spacetime
plays some role in explaining why moving rods shrink and why moving
clocks run slow. Brown rejects this view. He asserts, instead, that in
order to explain why moving rods shrink we must appeal to the
dynamical laws governing the forces that hold the parts of the rod
together. The geometry of Minkowski spacetime plays no role in this
explanation.......I'm not sure what Brown thinks about geometrical
answers to the first why-question, but he certainly thinks that
geometrical answers to the second two why-questions are bad
explanations. He thinks that good answers to these questions say
something about the way in which the forces holding the parts of the
rod together depend on velocity of the rod. Only that is a story of
what causes the particles to get closer together, and so what causes
the rod to shrink."
Do you think Master Harvey Brown will prove Divine Albert wrong in the
end? Could length contraction, as Master Harvey Brown understands it,
be RECIPROCAL, as Divine Albert would want it to be? (Note that Master
Harvey Brown would not be happy if you call him an "Einstein-bashing
idiot".)
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry" |
|
| Title: Re: Update to the SR Experimental FAQ page |
25 Dec 2007 04:50:32 AM |
|
|
On Dec 25, 1:58=A0am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
"Uncle Al" <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:476FF080.FF754C3@hate.spam.net...
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
December 27-30 2007, inclusive. =A0Three days to wait.
Direct assault upon isotropy of space, Lorentz invariance, BRST
invariance, the Equivalence Principle; conservation of angular
momentum, General Relativity, peturbative string theory. =A0Uncle Al
says, "to criticize is to volunteer."
A perfectly valid experiment
I have to disagree...
whose result will be interesting regardless of
what the outcome is, but probably a LOT more interesting if it violates
standard GR. =A0The interplay between experiment and theory is the very
essence of science. =A0I believe it will validate GR - but opinions are li=
ke
bums - everyone has one - it does not make it correct.
Uncle Al has provided exactly ZERO citations to peer-reviewed
publications demonstrating a coupling between Einstein-Cartan
theory, teleparallel gravitation, and other such speculative
alternative theories with GEOMETRIC parity. Coupling between these
alternative theories and angular momentum in the form of SPIN
parity is a well-known prediction, and Einstein-Cartan in
particular appears to have received considerable support among
the theoretical gravitation community.
Unfortunately, a negative result of Uncle Al's experiment WILL
NOT DISPROVE Einstein-Cartan, and a measurably positive result
would be inconsistent with nearly ALL of physics, not merely GR.
Anapole moments due to the weak interaction already imply
(currently un-measurable) differences between left and right-hand
forms of chiral molecules. Measurements of nuclear spin parity
non-conservation and electron spin PNC have provided hints of
physics beyond the Standard Model [eg., see Science 275, 1759
(1997)] but the purported effects are extremely subtle.
The chemistry of chiral molecules has been studied since Pasteur
separated right and left-hand crystals of tartaric acid in 1847.
There is simply no way that Uncle Al's crude bench-top experiment
will reveal anything new.
Jerry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Update to the SR Experimental FAQ page |
25 Dec 2007 08:48:57 AM |
|
|
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:042d9adc-3ca3-4f3b-ad27-9eb7233aa5a1@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 25, 1:58 am, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@junk.com> wrote:
"Uncle Al" <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:476FF080.FF754C3@hate.spam.net...
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
December 27-30 2007, inclusive. Three days to wait.
Direct assault upon isotropy of space, Lorentz invariance, BRST
invariance, the Equivalence Principle; conservation of angular
momentum, General Relativity, peturbative string theory. Uncle Al
says, "to criticize is to volunteer."
A perfectly valid experiment
I have to disagree...
Good to see to you butting in and arguing with your fellow
cranks before they've said anything.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: Update to the SR Experimental FAQ page |
25 Dec 2007 01:18:50 AM |
|
|
On Dec 25, 12:16=A0am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Uncle Al wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
There is now an update the the FAQ page "What is the experimental basis=
of Special Relativity?".
There has been a renaissance in tests of Special Relativity (SR), in
part because considerations of quantum gravity imply that SR may well b=
e
violated at appropriate scales (very small distance, very high energy).=
All talk, no action.
No, there has been A LOT OF ACTION. Just read the FAQ page -- there are
a lot of recent experiments.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is,
it doesn't matter how smart you are. =A0If it doesn't agree with
experiment, it's wrong," Richard Feynman.
To date, SR agrees with each and every reproducible experiment within
its domain of applicability.
Roberts Roberts if you were honest, in your updated FAQ page:
http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
you would have explained how exactly special relativity "agrees with
each and every reproducible experiment". Especially when experiments
essentially confirm the equation c'=3Dc+v given by the emission theory
of light and contradict Einstein's 1905 light postulate. You often
hint at the problem but never discuss it in detail:
http://groups.google.com/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_frm/thread/128cc9ce0b8=
36800?
Pentcho Valev:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
Tom Roberts: Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible
with other theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full
experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not
relativity.
Pentcho Valev: THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN
EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.
Tom Roberts: Sure.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: Update to the SR Experimental FAQ page |
25 Dec 2007 01:39:14 AM |
|
|
On Dec 25, 9:18=A0am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
On Dec 25, 12:16=A0am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Uncle Al wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
There is now an update the the FAQ page "What is the experimental bas=
is
of Special Relativity?".
There has been a renaissance in tests of Special Relativity (SR), in
part because considerations of quantum gravity imply that SR may well=
be
violated at appropriate scales (very small distance, very high energy=
).
All talk, no action.
No, there has been A LOT OF ACTION. Just read the FAQ page -- there are
a lot of recent experiments.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is,
it doesn't matter how smart you are. =A0If it doesn't agree with
experiment, it's wrong," Richard Feynman.
To date, SR agrees with each and every reproducible experiment within
its domain of applicability.
Roberts Roberts if you were honest, in your updated FAQ page:
http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
you would have explained how exactly special relativity "agrees with
each and every reproducible experiment". Especially when experiments
essentially confirm the equation c'=3Dc+v given by the emission theory
of light and contradict Einstein's 1905 light postulate. You often
hint at the problem but never discuss it in detail:
http://groups.google.com/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_frm/thread/128cc9ce0=
b836800?
Pentcho Valev:http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.p=
df
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
Tom Roberts: Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible
with other theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full
experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not
relativity.
Pentcho Valev: THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN
EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.
Tom Roberts: Sure.
Roberts Roberts are there experiments that confirm your 2006 discovery
according to which, even if "light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform", special relativity "would
be unaffected":
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034d=
c146100e32c
Tom Roberts, Feb 1, 2006: "If it is ultimately discovered that the
photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but
both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their
domains of applicability would be reduced)."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dono" |
|
| Title: Re: Update to the SR Experimental FAQ page |
25 Dec 2007 01:40:14 AM |
|
|
On Dec 24, 11:39 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Same old , Paco:
http://www.secularsobriety.org/mdavey_drunk2.jpg
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Update to the SR Experimental FAQ page |
24 Dec 2007 11:39:39 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:22:06 -0600) it happened Tom Roberts
<tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in <vVRbj.959$6%.345@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>:
There is now an update the the FAQ page "What is the experimental basis
of Special Relativity?".
<snub>
The update also includes a larger section on "Experiments Which
Apparently are not Consistent with SR/GR", giving MUCH better reasons
for dismissing many of the results -- in most cases errorbars or
considerations related to them provide a solid and compelling reason for
considering the experiment to be inconclusive or downright wrong.
Just saying: 'No error bars', and I am to lazy to repeat it myself,
is typical Einstein devotional babble.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
With a badly written publication like yours, biased at that,
wit out true error anaysis of the experiments you critise, I would
not update your mirrors either,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Update to the SR Experimental FAQ page |
24 Dec 2007 04:07:31 PM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:22:06 -0600) it happened Tom Roberts
<tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in <vVRbj.959$6%.345@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>:
There is now an update the the FAQ page "What is the experimental basis
of Special Relativity?".
The update also includes a larger section on "Experiments Which
Apparently are not Consistent with SR/GR", giving MUCH better reasons
for dismissing many of the results -- in most cases errorbars or
considerations related to them provide a solid and compelling reason for
considering the experiment to be inconclusive or downright wrong.
Just saying: 'No error bars', and I am to lazy to repeat it myself,
is typical Einstein devotional babble.
No, errorbars are ESSENTIAL in physics today. And if you bother to read
what I wrote, you'll see that in most cases it is not mere absence of an
error analysis that is important, it is the ability to compute errorbars
from their data and see that those errorbars negate the supposedly
anomalous result.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
That does not apply to SR.
With a badly written publication like yours, biased at that,
wit out true error anaysis of the experiments you critise,
READ THE PAGE. You'll find at least a rudimentary error anlysis for most
of the anomalous experiments.
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Update to the SR Experimental FAQ page |
24 Dec 2007 06:02:43 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:07:31 -0600) it happened Tom Roberts
<tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<b5Wbj.1014$6%.443@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:22:06 -0600) it happened Tom Roberts
<tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in <vVRbj.959$6%.345@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>:
There is now an update the the FAQ page "What is the experimental basis
of Special Relativity?".
The update also includes a larger section on "Experiments Which
Apparently are not Consistent with SR/GR", giving MUCH better reasons
for dismissing many of the results -- in most cases errorbars or
considerations related to them provide a solid and compelling reason for
considering the experiment to be inconclusive or downright wrong.
Just saying: 'No error bars', and I am to lazy to repeat it myself,
is typical Einstein devotional babble.
No, errorbars are ESSENTIAL in physics today.
In the experiment I referred to, a factor thousands x what is expected from GR
is measured.
Quite a bit different from a graffity^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H gravity probe B,
where not only the tech was screwed, but also the math could not
undo the screwing IIRC, and hardly of any use despite the millions and 20 years.
And if you bother to read
what I wrote, you'll see that in most cases it is not mere absence of an
error analysis that is important,
Tom I give you 'most cases', I have read only a few, over the years.
But *ONE* experiment can invalidate your GR or SR (you mentioned both see top this posting),
So I do not give a *h*t for all you experiments that 'prove' GR or SR is right.
I only care about this one that shows it is NOT right.
You cannot prove a theory, but you can invalidate a theory.
I am sure you know that.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
That does not apply to SR.
With a badly written publication like yours, biased at that,
wit out true error anaysis of the experiments you critise,
READ THE PAGE. You'll find at least a rudimentary error anlysis for most
of the anomalous experiments.
Obviously we still have no clue what gravity is, what causes it, and how fast it is,
if it has speed in that sense.
We see no gravity waves in LIGO either.
One more reason to repeat that ESA experiment.
I'd say merry Christmas, it has started here already.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Update to the SR Experimental FAQ page |
24 Dec 2007 11:19:00 PM |
|
|
On Dec 24, 3:02 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:07:31 -0600) it happened Tom Roberts
<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<b5Wbj.1014$6%....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:22:06 -0600) it happened Tom Roberts
<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in <vVRbj.959$6%....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>:
There is now an update the the FAQ page "What is the experimental basis
of Special Relativity?".
The update also includes a larger section on "Experiments Which
Apparently are not Consistent with SR/GR", giving MUCH better reasons
for dismissing many of the results -- in most cases errorbars or
considerations related to them provide a solid and compelling reason for
considering the experiment to be inconclusive or downright wrong.
Just saying: 'No error bars', and I am to lazy to repeat it myself,
is typical Einstein devotional babble.
No, errorbars are ESSENTIAL in physics today.
In the experiment I referred to, a factor thousands x what is expected from GR
is measured.
Christ. The results have never been replicated and the work never
published in any journal, much less a peer-reviewed journal. A press
release is not valid science.
Quite a bit different from a graffity^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H gravity probe B,
where not only the tech was screwed, but also the math could not
undo the screwing IIRC, and hardly of any use despite the millions and 20 years.
More ignorant hyperbole. Gravity probe B worked.
And if you bother to read
what I wrote, you'll see that in most cases it is not mere absence of an
error analysis that is important,
Tom I give you 'most cases', I have read only a few, over the years.
But *ONE* experiment can invalidate your GR or SR (you mentioned both see top this posting),
Not when the one experiment is contradicted by dozens more
experiments, has flimsy and/or sloppy technique and analysis, and
whose signal is swamped out by the error.
So I do not give a *h*t for all you experiments that 'prove' GR or SR is right.
I only care about this one that shows it is NOT right.
So which experiment takes precedence? The one apparent weak
contradiction or the dozen confirmations whose resolution and error
bars surpass the weak observation which both measure the same thing?
You cannot prove a theory, but you can invalidate a theory.
I am sure you know that.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
That does not apply to SR.
With a badly written publication like yours, biased at that,
wit out true error anaysis of the experiments you critise,
READ THE PAGE. You'll find at least a rudimentary error anlysis for most
of the anomalous experiments.
Obviously we still have no clue what gravity is, what causes it, and how fast it is,
if it has speed in that sense.
We see no gravity waves in LIGO either.
LIGO's sensitivity isn't there yet and the analysis of the S4 science
run isn't finished yet, and the processing of S5 isn't close to be
finished. People like you LOVE to ***** all over LIGO like there is a
direct equality between "LIGO hasn't seen anything yet" and "GR is
wrong", despite being completely ignorant of the realities of the
project.
The orbital decay of objects like PSR 1913+16 as well as other objects
show very strong indirect evidence of gravitational radiation.
One more reason to repeat that ESA experiment.
Yes - repeat the experiment. Let's see if we can get some actual
_confirmation_ and a published entry in a journal as opposed to a
preliminary press release with no actual followup.
I'd say merry Christmas, it has started here already.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Update to the SR Experimental FAQ page |
24 Dec 2007 07:08:42 PM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:22:06 -0600) it happened Tom Roberts
<tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in <vVRbj.959$6%.345@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>:
There is now an update the the FAQ page "What is the experimental basis
of Special Relativity?".
The update also includes a larger section on "Experiments Which
Apparently are not Consistent with SR/GR", giving MUCH better reasons
for dismissing many of the results -- in most cases errorbars or
considerations related to them provide a solid and compelling reason for
considering the experiment to be inconclusive or downright wrong.
Just saying: 'No error bars', and I am to lazy to repeat it myself,
is typical Einstein devotional babble.
No, errorbars are ESSENTIAL in physics today. And if you bother to read
what I wrote, you'll see that in most cases it is not mere absence of an
error analysis that is important, it is the ability to compute errorbars
from their data and see that those errorbars negate the supposedly
anomalous result.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
That does not apply to SR.
With a badly written publication like yours, biased at that,
wit out true error anaysis of the experiments you critise,
READ THE PAGE. You'll find at least a rudimentary error anlysis for most
of the anomalous experiments.
Outrageous claims require outrageous validations. When a heterodox
sparrow fart is pulled out of an orthodox hurricane we want to see
error bars then reproducibility by an otherwise disinterested party.
Those who ignored the lessons of Galloping Gertie built the Millennium
Bridge. The universe didn't care how many faggots lisped about
artistic inevitability and resonance with universal architecture
space. The universe smote the stupid, again, without breaking
cadence.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Update to the SR Experimental FAQ page |
24 Dec 2007 12:03:28 PM |
|
|
On Dec 24, 8:39 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:22:06 -0600) it happened Tom Roberts
<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in <vVRbj.959$6%....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>:
There is now an update the the FAQ page "What is the experimental basis
of Special Relativity?".
<snub>
The update also includes a larger section on "Experiments Which
Apparently are not Consistent with SR/GR", giving MUCH better reasons
for dismissing many of the results -- in most cases errorbars or
considerations related to them provide a solid and compelling reason for
considering the experiment to be inconclusive or downright wrong.
Just saying: 'No error bars', and I am to lazy to repeat it myself,
is typical Einstein devotional babble.
"No error bars" is a perfectly valid reason to dismiss a publication.
If you can't find any publications that support you that have error
bars, then /just maybe/ there is nothing there.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
Why oh why do folks like you continue to mention this? I have seen
this URL so many times I can practically repeat it by heart.
The results are UNPUBLISHED and UNVERIFIED. The results were submitted
to Physical Review C by Tajmar and were never published. The press
release doesn't deserve even a fraction of the attention it gets on
this newsgroup.
With a badly written publication like yours, biased at that,
wit out true error anaysis of the experiments you critise, I would
not update your mirrors either,
This is a laughably pathetic attempt at mirroring Tom's criticism back
at him. He has DONE the analysis on the experiments he criticizes -
you have not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
