A search of the article for the word "relativity" showed 0
John C. said:A search of the article for the word "relativity" showed 0
occurrences. JP
John said:A search of the article for the word "relativity" showed 0
occurrences. JP
John said:A search of the article for the word "relativity" showed 0
occurrences. JP
Sam said:Cite your sources!
Bhanwara said:"Claims frequently made that the theory is supported by experimental
evidence do not withstand a close scrutiny. There are grave doubts
about Eddington's claim, both as regards the predicted value which was
increased by a factor of 2 from that first given by Einstein and the
way the results were analysed - some of the readings being discarded.
The same criticism applies to a more recent experiment performed, at
considerable expense, in 1972. Four atomic clocks were flown round the
world and the times recorded by them were compared with the times
recorded by similar clocks in Washington. The results obtained from the
individual clocks differed by as much as 300 nanoseconds. This absurdly
optimistic conclusion was accepted and given wide publicity in the
scientific literature and by the media as a confirmation of the clock
paradox. All the experiment showed was that the clocks were not
sufficiently accurate to detect the small effect predicted."
[Aside: If a factor of 2 error could easily be handled in the very
ORIGINAL
verification of GR, how many factors could be math-hacked away these
days?]
Bhanwara said:So, from all the experimental data, all I can manage to
conclude so far is that I don't need to reconsider
anything about my own work.
Bhanwara said:The results obtained from the
individual clocks differed by as much as 300 nanoseconds. This absurdly
optimistic conclusion was accepted and given wide publicity in the
scientific literature and by the media as a confirmation of the clock
paradox. All the experiment showed was that the clocks were not
sufficiently accurate to detect the small effect predicted."
[Aside: If a factor of 2 error could easily be handled in the very
ORIGINAL
verification of GR, how many factors could be math-hacked away these
days?]
Thanks. It says the publication acceptance
date is 2003. But in reading through the list of
references, I couldn't tell if there was an early
one that did the original prediction before the
data was known.
Bhanwara said:Ok, I did find one:
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/scientists/essen/essen.html
Note that this is by the inventor of the atomic clock.
Also note that there was world-wide synchornization of
atomic clocks going on before its use in the GPS, so he
is familiar with synchronization issues.
He says about relativity:
"Claims frequently made that the theory is supported by experimental
evidence do not withstand a close scrutiny. There are grave doubts
about Eddington's claim, both as regards the predicted value which was
increased by a factor of 2 from that first given by Einstein and the
way the results were analysed - some of the readings being discarded.
The same criticism applies to a more recent experiment performed, at
considerable expense, in 1972. Four atomic clocks were flown round the
world and the times recorded by them were compared with the times
recorded by similar clocks in Washington. The results obtained from the
individual clocks differed by as much as 300 nanoseconds. This absurdly
optimistic conclusion was accepted and given wide publicity in the
scientific literature and by the media as a confirmation of the clock
paradox. All the experiment showed was that the clocks were not
sufficiently accurate to detect the small effect predicted."
[Aside: If a factor of 2 error could easily be handled in the very
ORIGINAL
verification of GR, how many factors could be math-hacked away these
days?]
After the article, there is a quote from the web-site:
"Even though Dr. Louis Essen OBE was one of our top scientists, the
inventor of the atomic clock, he was only allowed to criticise
Einstein's hopelessly outdated Theory of Relativity in
small-circulation papers and magazines. This article would be censored
in 'Nature' magazine. The students and public are only allowed access
to scientific information that is harmless to a tiny handful of
powerful, scientific tyrants."
To me, personally, it proves:
1) Open publication is not the norm in relativity related physics.
2) From (1), and the fact that nothing questioning relativity
appears in physics journals, it follows that relativity
establishment is not honest. An honest establishment
in science would give equal time to dissident views, and then
would OPENLY refute the dissident views. Or would OPENLY
accept them if they are true.
3) "Tainted source" argument: From (2) it follows that the
experimental claims of the relativity establishment cannot
be just taken at faith value.
When experimental data is contradicting logic, and
the details of the data are not easily verifiable, and
are indeed highly suspect, the experimental data
cannot be given too much weight.
This is also proven by the fact that many other relativity
"proving" experiment are associated with very high
contention (i.e. a few honest people are found in
the establishment, they are then shouted down
and/or politically nullified.)
E.g. Hafele-Keating.
If the data clearly proved an established theory,
there would have been no need for massaging
the data, thereby causing contention.
So, from all the experimental data, all I can manage to
conclude so far is that I don't need to reconsider
anything about my own work.
Bhanwara said:I was just requesting a reference. The equations and
there interpretations are very malleable, and the
said malleability does predate GPS by a lot, but
can someone point out a reference to a paper that
was published and that accurately predicted the
correction before it was learned experimentally?
J. J. Lodder said:Given the anti-scientific mood now prevalent in the USA
that would not at all be surprising.
Teach the controversy in every American school!
Jan
[...]Tom said:Here is how Galileo's 200 year old equation does the job.
======================================
The "classical" "gravitational red shift" equation is:
f = f0 * ( 1 + 1/2 * g * distance / C^2)
where "g" is about 9.8 meters per seconds^2
Tim said:[...]Tom said:Here is how Galileo's 200 year old equation does the job.
======================================
The "classical" "gravitational red shift" equation is:
f = f0 * ( 1 + 1/2 * g * distance / C^2)
where "g" is about 9.8 meters per seconds^2
Priceless. Do you have a reference? I'd like to read more. I've not
been able to find anything Galileo wrote after about 1642.
And just to tidy up the question of Relativity: If I measure the speed
of light, I get 299792458m/s. Suppose I was travelling along at some
very high speed whilst doing the measurement -- what would I get then?
(Please, not a cracker)
-Tim
Nor, in fact, any reason to expect he did. Keep in mind that:Tim said:[...]Tom said:Here is how Galileo's 200 year old equation does the job.
======================================
The "classical" "gravitational red shift" equation is:
f = f0 * ( 1 + 1/2 * g * distance / C^2)
where "g" is about 9.8 meters per seconds^2
Priceless. Do you have a reference? I'd like to read more. I've not
been able to find anything Galileo wrote after about 1642.
And just to tidy up the question of Relativity: If I measure the speed
of light, I get 299792458m/s. Suppose I was travelling along at some
very high speed whilst doing the measurement -- what would I get then?
(Please, not a cracker)
-Tim
Don't hold your breath for a reply. When I pointed out the first
mention of redshift was 1780's, he went silent. There is no published
reference anywhere that Galileo developed this supposed formula.
From this page:
Phineas said:Tim said:[...]Tom said:Here is how Galileo's 200 year old equation does the job.
======================================
The "classical" "gravitational red shift" equation is:
f = f0 * ( 1 + 1/2 * g * distance / C^2)
where "g" is about 9.8 meters per seconds^2
Priceless. Do you have a reference? I'd like to read more. I've not
been able to find anything Galileo wrote after about 1642.
And just to tidy up the question of Relativity: If I measure the speed
of light, I get 299792458m/s. Suppose I was travelling along at some
very high speed whilst doing the measurement -- what would I get then?
(Please, not a cracker)
-Tim
Don't hold your breath for a reply. When I pointed out the first
mention of redshift was 1780's, he went silent. There is no published
reference anywhere that Galileo developed this supposed formula.
Also I pointed out his so called formula is a first-order binomial
simplification of the relativistic z formula, save a factor of 2.
He goes strangely silent then.
Nor, in fact, any reason to expect he did. Keep in mind that:Tim said:Tom Potter wrote:
Here is how Galileo's 200 year old equation does the job.
======================================
The "classical" "gravitational red shift" equation is:
f = f0 * ( 1 + 1/2 * g * distance / C^2)
where "g" is about 9.8 meters per seconds^2
[...]
Priceless. Do you have a reference? I'd like to read more. I've not
been able to find anything Galileo wrote after about 1642.
And just to tidy up the question of Relativity: If I measure the speed
of light, I get 299792458m/s. Suppose I was travelling along at some
very high speed whilst doing the measurement -- what would I get then?
(Please, not a cracker)
-Tim
Don't hold your breath for a reply. When I pointed out the first
mention of redshift was 1780's, he went silent. There is no published
reference anywhere that Galileo developed this supposed formula.
1) Galileo didn't even know whether the speed of light is finite or
not.
2) Even assuming it is finite, he certainly had no idea what the
value is (neither did anybody else till quite a while later).
3) There was no reason for Galileo to assume that there is anything
especially interesting about the speed of light anyway.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is interesting to see that Phineas T Puddleduck
is ignorant of the fact that Galileo discovered over 300 years ago
that acceleration affected the periods of oscillating systems,
and that the "Galileo Effect" is sometimes called
"gravitational red shift".
Apparently Phineas T Puddleduck is also ignorant of the fact
that the names applied to things vary in time and space.
And apparently Phineas T Puddleduck is also ignorant of the fact
that the term "red shift" came about when people observed
that the spectral lines in star light was shifted, and that the term
"red shift" began to also be applied to the Galileo effect.
And apparently Phineas T Puddleduck is also ignorant of the fact
that most of the "red shift" that he is referring to
is a function of distance, and relative velocity,
and should properly be called the Doppler and Hubble effects.
In other words, the Galileo Effect is a function of acceleration,
the Doppler Effect is a function of relative velocity,
and the Hubble Effect is a function of distance.
I suggest that Phineas T Puddleduck is wasting his
time, money, and mind on trying to rationalize an auguring system,
and that he would be better served to
use his time, money and mind on understanding and using
models that correlate one physical property to another,
and provide him with the tools to change, rather than augur,
his environment.