Einstein Was Right

[Neon Genesis]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13286241

Nasa's Gravity Probe B has produced remarkable new confirmation of some key predictions by Albert Einstein.

 

The satellite's observations show the massive body of the Earth is very subtly warping space and time, and even pulling them around with it.

 

Scientists were able to see these effects by studying the behaviour of four perfectly engineered spinning balls carried inside the probe.

 

The results will be published online in the journal Physical Review Letters.

 

They are significant because they underline once again the genius of the great German-born scientist, but also because they provide more refined tools to understand the physics that drives the cosmos.

 

On a more human level, the findings represent the culmination of an extraordinary odyssey for the leading lights of the mission, some of whom have dedicated more than five decades to the quest.

 

These include Francis Everitt, the mission's principal investigator at Stanford University - a researcher who was there at the inception of the Gravity Probe B (GP- idea in the late 1950s.

 

"We've completed this landmark experiment, testing Einstein's Universe - and Einstein survives," he announced on Wednesday.

 

[SillyString]

Very cool.

 

Thanks for sharing.

[Paradox]

Always amuses me that a successful verification is claimed with these things. even before the data has been released!!!

[skepticalme]

Always amuses me that a successful verification is claimed with these things. even before the data has been released!!!

 

The paper has already been accepted for publication which means that it has already been peer-reviewed. Publishing the paper is how the data will be released to the general public.

[Ouroboros]

Always amuses me that a successful verification is claimed with these things. even before the data has been released!!!

 

The paper has already been accepted for publication which means that it has already been peer-reviewed. Publishing the paper is how the data will be released to the general public.

Paradox doesn't trust Standford, NASA, or Lockheed Martin, or even the scientific community. He thinks they're all biased and part some Einstein-glorification crusade.

[Paradox]

Always amuses me that a successful verification is claimed with these things. even before the data has been released!!!

 

The paper has already been accepted for publication which means that it has already been peer-reviewed. Publishing the paper is how the data will be released to the general public.

 

This is ultimately the same peer-review system that accepts, for publication, theogians' work citing Josephus' 'Golden Testimony' of the Risen Christ as being genuine, when it has been known for centuries to be a forgery.

[skepticalme]

Always amuses me that a successful verification is claimed with these things. even before the data has been released!!!

 

The paper has already been accepted for publication which means that it has already been peer-reviewed. Publishing the paper is how the data will be released to the general public.

 

This is ultimately the same peer-review system that accepts, for publication, theogians' work citing Josephus' 'Golden Testimony' of the Risen Christ as being genuine, when it has been known for centuries to be a forgery.

 

I am unfamiliar with this "golden testimony". Could you elaborate?

[Paradox]

Always amuses me that a successful verification is claimed with these things. even before the data has been released!!!

 

The paper has already been accepted for publication which means that it has already been peer-reviewed. Publishing the paper is how the data will be released to the general public.

 

This is ultimately the same peer-review system that accepts, for publication, theogians' work citing Josephus' 'Golden Testimony' of the Risen Christ as being genuine, when it has been known for centuries to be a forgery.

 

I am unfamiliar with this "golden testimony". Could you elaborate?

 

 

It's not difficult in these days of search engines to find out everything you need to. But it's too late at night for me to do that. If I recall correctly it's the one of only two -- and indeed by far the more significant -- passages in his supposed writings that mentions Jesus. It says something about how Jesus was seen again after his execution by various people, and had worked miracles and spoken wisdom in his lifetime. Only a short paragraph.

 

When I learnt that was a forgery, that was it for me, because it meant there was no extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus.

[skepticalme]

Always amuses me that a successful verification is claimed with these things. even before the data has been released!!!

 

The paper has already been accepted for publication which means that it has already been peer-reviewed. Publishing the paper is how the data will be released to the general public.

 

This is ultimately the same peer-review system that accepts, for publication, theogians' work citing Josephus' 'Golden Testimony' of the Risen Christ as being genuine, when it has been known for centuries to be a forgery.

 

I am unfamiliar with this "golden testimony". Could you elaborate?

 

 

It's not difficult in these days of search engines to find out everything you need to. But it's too late at night for me to do that. If I recall correctly it's the one of only two -- and indeed by far the more significant -- passages in his supposed writings that mentions Jesus. It says something about how Jesus was seen again after his execution by various people, and had worked miracles and spoken wisdom in his lifetime. Only a short paragraph.

 

When I learnt that was a forgery, that was it for me, because it meant there was no extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus.

 

Actually I was hoping that you could tell me more about this peer-review process that the "golden testimony" went through, who did it and when? It seems to me that it would be incredibly difficult to peer review testimony. There is no 'data' to go over other than the testimony itself, which you either except or reject. The only thing that I can see that would come close to a scientific peer-review process would be if there was some sort of parchment that could be forensicly examined.

[Paradox]

Actually I was hoping that you could tell me more about this peer-review process that the "golden testimony" went through, who did it and when? It seems to me that it would be incredibly difficult to peer review testimony. There is no 'data' to go over other than the testimony itself, which you either except or reject. The only thing that I can see that would come close to a scientific peer-review process would be if there was some sort of parchment that could be forensicly examined.

 

It is taught, as standard, on undergraduate theology courses that the Josephus 'testimony' is reckoned to be persuasive evidence of Jesus' existence and whatnot. But this is all cobblers. See

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

All these supposedly early Christian testaments were, so it seems, compiled by Eusebius & co. in the 4th Century, under the commission of the Emperor Constantine.

[Vigile]

Is everything taught in Theology courses thoroughly peer reviewed? And is that peer review process held to the same strict standards that something such as relativity is?

 

For example, ToR is a major theory that has been tested, vetted, reviewed, by countless scientists from hundreds of universities from virtually any angle that is currently conceivable. I have serious doubts one simple passage from Josephus that in reality only matters to nutters because it supports their nutty beliefs, has been vetted with anything close to the tenacity that ToR has been vetted.

 

Bottom line, it's a logical fallacy to conclude that the entire process is tainted because you can show one example where it didn't work. This is akin to the anti global warming committee who believes that a few emails rained on the entire GW parade or the creationists who continue to cite piltdown man.

[Paradox]

Is everything taught in Theology courses thoroughly peer reviewed?

 

At degree level, yes.

 

And is that peer review process held to the same strict standards that something such as relativity is?

 

No, it's generally more accepting of criticism, dissent and reason.

 

For example, ToR is a major theory that has been tested, vetted, reviewed, by countless scientists from hundreds of universities from virtually any angle that is currently conceivable.

 

See the other thread in this part of the forum, initiated by Ouroboros.

 

I have serious doubts one simple passage from Josephus that in reality only matters to nutters because it supports their nutty beliefs, has been vetted with anything close to the tenacity that ToR has been vetted.

 

It's had a almost fifteen hundred more years and many millions more people having their knees pummelled on walk-all-the-way-on-my-knees pilgrimmages hinged upon its being true.

 

Bottom line, it's a logical fallacy to conclude that the entire process is tainted because you can show one example where it didn't work.

 

The whole peer-review system is replete with such examples. That's why, in large numbers, some of the most talented scholars are leaving the profession. That's why such organisations as the Natural Philosophy Alliance was set up.

 

This is akin to the anti global warming committee who believes that a few emails rained on the entire GW parade

 

I'm afraid the whole thing is thoroughly indicative of the structure of research funding. Money talks. End of story.

[Vigile]

No, it's generally more accepting of criticism, dissent and reason.

 

Sorry, I can't accept that as a claim without evidence to support it.

 

It's had a almost fifteen hundred more years and many millions more people having their knees pummelled on walk-all-the-way-on-my-knees pilgrimmages hinged upon its being true.

 

If you are arguing that the entire xian faith hinges on a single passage from Josephus you don't know xianity well. At best it stokes their confirmation bias. Yes, I know you are a theology PhD. I'm writing rhetorically.

 

Bottom line, as I see it, the scientific process has produced astonishing progress in the form of useful technologies and accurate predictions that are second to none. Yet you claim the entire process is corrupted. Observable reality doesn't seem to mesh with your claims.

[stryper]

 

Bottom line, as I see it, the scientific process has produced astonishing progress in the form of useful technologies and accurate predictions that are second to none. Yet you claim the entire process is corrupted. Observable reality doesn't seem to mesh with your claims.

 

Thanks Vigile.

 

OB and I have been trying to get him to see that in the other thread.

[Vigile]

 

Bottom line, as I see it, the scientific process has produced astonishing progress in the form of useful technologies and accurate predictions that are second to none. Yet you claim the entire process is corrupted. Observable reality doesn't seem to mesh with your claims.

 

Thanks Vigile.

 

OB and I have been trying to get him to see that in the other thread.

 

I got into a small discussion with him a few months ago when he first arrived here and haven't really followed up on his conversations since until now. But as I see it, he arrives on a message board, speaks authoritatively about the scientific method and expects us to just accept his claims because he's been on the inside, yet he offers no compelling evidence. He's using the power of conviction and authority and appeals to authority to try and make his case. This will fly with people who lack confidence, but it's certainly not a rational method of making a point. He's a smart guy, but I can't help but think he's a nutter.

 

To Paradox, not you Stryper: Sorry Paradox. I think you are a very interesting person. I'm not saying this with any animosity, but rather as a blunt perspective that I think many here probably share. I don't doubt your sincerity, but I do doubt whether most in the scientific/academic community arrive at the same conclusions you do.

[Paradox]

 

If you are arguing that the entire xian faith hinges on a single passage from Josephus you don't know xianity well.

 

 

There is a reason why (presumably) Eusebius went ahead and did such a thing as forge a passage in the work of a well-respected historian, and a reason why the 'testimony' is referred to as 'Golden': the whole Christian story doesn't stand up on its own -- it needs extra-Biblical corroboration. That passage was it.

 

Bottom line, as I see it, the scientific process has produced astonishing progress in the form of useful technologies and accurate predictions that are second to none. Yet you claim the entire process is corrupted. Observable reality doesn't seem to mesh with your claims.

 

I would like to hear exactly what you have observed that you yourself can call relativistic.

If you don't want to listen to a 'nutter' like me, then I refer you -- as I have done with people on the other thread -- to this classic article:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity.html

It begins

"Genuine physicists—that is to say, physicists who make observations and experiments as well as theories—have always felt uneasy about 'relativity'

and cites many well-respected figures in physics whio have seen the flaws in th etheory over the years. And it was delivered as

"The substance of lectures given to the Royal Institute of Philosophy, University College Chemical and Physical Society, The Institute of Science Technicians, etc." -- i.e. it was presented to people who could hardly be said to be a bunch of crankophiles.

 

I shall leave you with the thought that I was trying to impress upon people on the other thread: all these so-called verifications of relativity reference nothing more than mathematical values that are casually tied to a few terms that are described as relativistic. They never present a step-by-step rationale as to how the core concepts in relativity -- particularly, the notion that time is relative -- should in any way produce those particular values.

 

Oh, and I note also that you don't respond to my point about how money talks via research funding. I trust that you accept that it does, because I don't know any academic that would disagree.

[Paradox]

This will fly with people who lack confidence, but it's certainly not a rational method of making a point. He's a smart guy, but I can't help but think he's a nutter.

 

Wow. And I am the only person on this whole forum, at least as far as I know (agreed, there are very probably others) who was not for a single moment taken in by all the arm waving, Bible-slinging, tongue-waggling evangelical crap that I saw in church, but stood back and was prepared to think objectively, rationally, and never once like the crazed, mesmerised nutters I saw around me.

[Vigile]

Oh, and I note also that you don't respond to my point about how money talks via research funding. I trust that you accept that it does, because I don't know any academic that would disagree.

 

I'm sure I missed it amongst the paranoid rantings. I'm also quite sure that there are foundations dedicated to the cause of the Theory of Relativity and are throwing money at universities hand over fist in order to continue receiving favorable outcomes. It probably gains almost as much support as gravity and the study of Fibonacci ratios.

[Paradox]

No, it's generally more accepting of criticism, dissent and reason.

 

Sorry, I can't accept that as a claim without evidence to support it.

 

Time to present, again, the quote of Professor Sir Herbert Dingle, who was for most of his life -- before his famous 'deconversion' -- the biggest name in pure relativity of his era:

 

"Science will not tolerate criticism of special relativity, while Theology talks freely about the death of God, religionless Christianity, and so on (on which I make no comment whatever)"

 

If you scroll down this page

http://russamos.narod.ru/l-dingle.htm#contents

you can find the full English text of his memorable anti-relativity book, Science at the Crossroads; and it's written in plain language throughout.

[Ouroboros]

Interesting read about Dingle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Dingle

 

Is he really a "Sir"?

 

Another interesting article about Dingle: http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath024/kmath024.htm

 

And this: http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath317/kmath317.htm

[Paradox]

Oh, and I note also that you don't respond to my point about how money talks via research funding. I trust that you accept that it does, because I don't know any academic that would disagree.

 

I'm sure I missed it amongst the paranoid rantings. I'm also quite sure that there are foundations dedicated to the cause of the Theory of Relativity and are throwing money at universities hand over fist in order to continue receiving favorable outcomes. It probably gains almost as much support as gravity and the study of Fibonacci ratios.

 

Well as a matter of fact, NASA, which can be regarded as being at the top of many of the power-pyramid of many of the funding bodies, loves relativity, because it enables them to play around in space at the cost of billions of dollars, doing things it may or may not like us to know about, and at the end of it, they can say, as though we are not sick of hearing it, that their work has borne fruit in the form of the umteenth confirmation of the validity of relativity theory (as though all the preceding confirmations weren't true confirmations after all).

 

And many popular science writers like it, because relativity smacks of something rather mysterious and intellectually intriguing --- and they make a packet from it. And then there are the academics who have built their reputation on the same pile of crap.

 

In any case, power games don't necessarily need huge amounts of money. The same censorship goes on in archeaology, anthropology, etc. etc., - anywhere where people are terrified of having levelled against them the term 'lunatic fringe' (which doesn't happen in mathematics or, for the most part, abstract philosophy).

 

I find your criticisms rather nebulous, Vigile.

[Ouroboros]

Well as a matter of fact, NASA, which can be regarded as being at the top of many of the power-pyramid of many of the funding bodies, loves relativity, because it enables them to play around in space at the cost of billions of dollars, doing things it may or may not like us to know about, and at the end of it, they can say, as though we are not sick of hearing it, that their work has borne fruit in the form of the umteenth confirmation of the validity of relativity theory (as though all the preceding confirmations weren't true confirmations after all).

Except that Probe-B was controlled and developed by Stanford University. It's true that NASA funded it, but NASA didn't do it for making the money themselves. So it was Stanford who loved to play around with NASA's money, at least in the case of Gravity Probe B. Oh, wait. I think NASA ended the funding for it in 2008, and started to get funding from KACST instead (Saudi Arabia of all places).

[Vigile]

No, it's generally more accepting of criticism, dissent and reason.

 

Sorry, I can't accept that as a claim without evidence to support it.

 

Time to present, again, the quote of Professor Sir Herbert Dingle, who was for most of his life -- before his famous 'deconversion' -- the biggest name in pure relativity of his era:

 

"Science will not tolerate criticism of special relativity, while Theology talks freely about the death of God, religionless Christianity, and so on (on which I make no comment whatever)"

 

If you scroll down this page

http://russamos.narod.ru/l-dingle.htm#contents

you can find the full English text of his memorable anti-relativity book, Science at the Crossroads; and it's written in plain language throughout.

 

This is just more of what I accused you of before, an appeal to authority. Evidence in this case is stats that show the peer review process is corrupted using a control group of studies that contrast results; or at least something of that nature. If its as corrupted as you say, surely it's been studied by at least one of the millions of scientists on the planet and peer reviewed by at least one other honest soul.

[Paradox]

Interesting read about Dingle: http://en.wikipedia..../Herbert_Dingle

 

Is he really a "Sir"?

 

Another interesting article about Dingle: http://www.mathpages...24/kmath024.htm

 

And this: http://www.mathpages...17/kmath317.htm

 

This is symptomatic of an ailment in the system and of resentment among the misguided. Notwithstanding the ludicrous way in which Dingle has been traduced, his logic is impeccable: if two clocks are in motion relative to one other, relativity has it that each is running slower than the other, which is impossible.

 

To some extent it's human nature: just think of the supercillious way in which Christians treat people who start doubting the various beliefs associated with that faith. Anything to do with overturning beliefs is an intellectual threat to people, and they clothe themselves in their armour, a la St Paul. Dingle had the guts and intellectual integrity to speak his mind.

[Vigile]

I find your criticisms rather nebulous, Vigile.

 

That's ok, as I find your paranoia tiresome and your opinion of my criticisms on par with your audacity to presume such a wide-reaching conspiracy.