Einstein Was Right

[Vigile]

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.

 

Wow yourself. Here you feel the need to elevate yourself over people who were indoctrinated at ages where they clearly were not independent of their mental faculties and even make the assumption that your experiences in youth were equal to theirs.

 

Perhaps I should apologize, but intellectual dishonesty brings out the smart ass in me.

[Paradox]

 

Wow yourself. Here you feel the need to elevate yourself over people who were indoctrinated at ages where they clearly were not independent of their mental faculties and even make the assumption that your experiences in youth were equal to theirs.

 

 

I always find psycho-babble a rather desperate course of action as criticism. I'm sure Dingle would agree, if he could read some of the things that have been said about him (eg. that he had become senile etc.).

[Ouroboros]

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.

I think I see what you're saying. If everything is relative, A in motion relative to B in rest would be the same as A in rest and B in motion.

 

But you have to include that rest and motion are relative to space too. Relativity address the relationship between the objects motion or rest in space-time.

 

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.

So why do you call Dingle "Sir"? Was he knighted? Is the Queen in on the Einstein-conspiracy?

[Ouroboros]

I always find psycho-babble a rather desperate course of action as criticism. I'm sure Dingle would agree, if he could read some of the things that have been said about him (eg. that he had become senile etc.).

Or perhaps had wanted to create a name for himself. He wanted to become famous as Einstein, so when Einstein died, the field was open to come up with a bunch of misguided criticisms.

 

Researching a bit about this anti-Einstein fringe science, I discovered that there's quite a bit of antisemitism and religious absolutism behind the movement.

[Paradox]

Researching a bit about this anti-Einstein fringe science, I discovered that there's quite a bit of antisemitism and religious absolutism behind the movement.

 

That's a very old, rather sick, and very desperate card that is played time and again. I seem to recall that a number of anti-relativist professors lost their jobs for their views, though ostensibly because they were said to be anti-semitic, which they weren't. I think it was Cornell -- one of the big univeristies in the US. The professors successfully sued the university.

[Paradox]

I think I see what you're saying. If everything is relative, A in motion relative to B in rest would be the same as A in rest and B in motion.

 

But you have to include that rest and motion are relative to space too. Relativity address the relationship between the objects motion or rest in space-time.

 

 

Your first sentence articulates the principle of relativity. (BTW it always surprises me how so many people comment on relativity without knowing the PoR.) The PoR is central to SR.

 

Your second and third sentences neglect the fact that GR is based on SR and fails if SR is wrong. In SR, the only criterion considered worthy of being incorporated in the theory is the relationship between two bodies in motion. There is no absolute space. An absolute space nullifies SR. This makes space-time an awkward concept. Philosophers of relativity square it with SR by saying that space-time is a patchwork of reference frames, each associated with an observer. But ultimately this fails because of the physics that ties all bodies of matter together in a single cosmos. All mainstream astrophysicists speak of an absolute reference frame (space) -- they can't avoid it.

 

So why do you call Dingle "Sir"? Was he knighted?

 

Yes. Probably by King George, who was no great astrophysicist.

[Ouroboros]

That's a very old, rather sick, and very desperate card that is played time and again. I seem to recall that a number of anti-relativist professors lost their jobs for their views, though ostensibly because they were said to be anti-semitic, which they weren't. I think it was Cornell -- one of the big univeristies in the US. The professors successfully sued the university.

Christopher Jon Bjerkness, "Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist" (2002).

 

From Christopher Jon Bjerkness' website: http://www.jewishracism.com/

 

MISSION:

 

*Expose the three deadly tenets of Judaism and Zionism*

 

Critique Jewish Racism, Jewish Tribalism and Jewish Censorship

 

Refute the claim that it is anti-Semitic to tell the truth

 

Establish a political movement to defend us from Zionism and Jewish Racism

 

An analysis of Bjerkness and his views: http://www.armenianweekly.com/2010/01/12/jacobs-the-outrageous-claim-of-christopher-jon-bjerkness-the-jewish-genocide-of-armenian-christians/

 

---

 

The connection between anit-Einstein-ism and antisemitism: http://www.anti-semitism.net/holocaust-revisionism/nazi-anti-einstein-%E2%80%9Cjewish-science%E2%80%9D-animus-reborn-on-the-christian.php

or: http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/allposts/nazi-anti-einstein-jewish-science-animus-reborn-on-the-christian-right-repackaged-as-a-liberal-conspiracy

[Guest Valk0010]

Paradox, the william dembski of physics.

 

I have never got the whole, its a conspiracy thing, its the type of thing stated by people who are usually full of shit and called on it, but don't want to give up there shit.

[stryper]

Paradox, the william dembski of physics.

 

I have never got the whole, its a conspiracy thing, its the type of thing stated by people who are usually full of shit and called on it, but don't want to give up there shit.

 

 

[Vigile]

Paradox, the william dembski of physics.

 

I have never got the whole, its a conspiracy thing, its the type of thing stated by people who are usually full of shit and called on it, but don't want to give up there shit.

 

 

 

Careful guys, he's gonna get pretentious on your asses and put you back in your rightful places.

[Paradox]

Every time someone posts to a thread on which I have contributed I have got to go through the clicking-on text process and there's a load of anticipation, waiting for pages to download and scrolling. And at the end of it, it quite often feels like a waste of time (or worse). I am sure I'm not the only one.

[Vigile]

My point exactly. You use pretensions to cover for the fact that you haven't backed up your extraordinary claims. It's a form of brow beating your opponents.

 

But I'd offer two solutions to your dilemma, a faster internet connection or evidence. As I pointed out already, expert opinion by marginalized academics does not amount to evidence, it amounts to, well, opinion.

[Paradox]

My point exactly. You use pretensions to cover for the fact that you haven't backed up your extraordinary claims. It's a form of brow beating your opponents.

 

But I'd offer two solutions to your dilemma, a faster internet connection or evidence. As I pointed out already, expert opinion by marginalized academics does not amount to evidence, it amounts to, well, opinion.

 

I don't know what these pretentions are. I don't pretend to be anything. All I ask for, to echo your words, is evidence. The onus is on the proposer of the theory to produce the proof.

 

See the other thread in this section, on Einstein and the big bang, that has been running concurrently to this one.

[Vigile]

There are mountains of evidence accepted by essentially the entire scientific community. You just don't accept it. You are the one making the extraordinary claim that the process is corrupted. The scientific community has already met their burden of proof.

 

Anyway, this is just turning into another tit for tat so it seems pretty pointless to continue. As for your pretensions, I was referring to the air of superiority you use as an ad hom mechanism.

[stryper]

Paradox, the william dembski of physics.

 

I have never got the whole, its a conspiracy thing, its the type of thing stated by people who are usually full of shit and called on it, but don't want to give up there shit.

 

 

 

Careful guys, he's gonna get pretentious on your asses and put you back in your rightful places.

 

He already thinks I am an idiot because I screwed up a name refernece in the other thread, and I already called him out on his arguementation style.

[AlphaToOmega]

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

 

The results were calculated without knowledge of the path of the guide star making it a blind calculation.

The guide star path was cancelled out afterwards to extract the results.

This makes it impossible to fudge the data or results prior to finishing the calculations.

[Paradox]

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

 

The results were calculated without knowledge of the path of the guide star making it a blind calculation.

The guide star path was cancelled out afterwards to extract the results.

This makes it impossible to fudge the data or results prior to finishing the calculations.

 

Can you explain this?

[AlphaToOmega]

The experiment used an on-board telescope to keep the satellite pointed at the guide star with extreme accuracy.

The telescope mirror was divided into 4 equal parts so that when one part showed more light than the other the onboard electronics could correct it to maintain equal intensity across all four parts.

That part of the system was real time correction using a digital based control system with analog sensors for the light intensity.

 

There is no way for the scientists to know what the corrections were required to keep it pointing at that extreme precision.

 

The scientists then measured the change in the gyros which was their main source of data.

 

From there they did the required calculations but they could not factor out the drift in the guide star.

 

The way that was done was by using an array of radio telescopes on Earth to measure the drift (movement) of the guide star relative to Earth.

This array measured the guide star movement and was effectively the key to extracting the actual result from the experimentally calculated results..

 

Only when these two data streams are taken into consideration do the results mean anything. One without the other is useless.

Till then the experimental data and calculations have no key and as such have no meaning.

It is effectively encrypted because they do not know the movement of the guide star w.r.t. Earth.

So the scientists had no way of knowing if their calculations were correct or not.

Because they were not given this data till they finished their calculations its called a blind test.

When they calculated their figures only then were they given the data they needed to decrypt the actual experimental results from the raw result that they calculated.

 

Which was extremely close to predicted values.

[bornagainathiest]

The experiment used an on-board telescope to keep the satellite pointed at the guide star with extreme accuracy.

The telescope mirror was divided into 4 equal parts so that when one part showed more light than the other the onboard electronics could correct it to maintain equal intensity across all four parts.

That part of the system was real time correction using a digital based control system with analog sensors for the light intensity.

 

There is no way for the scientists to know what the corrections were required to keep it pointing at that extreme precision.

 

The scientists then measured the change in the gyros which was their main source of data.

 

From there they did the required calculations but they could not factor out the drift in the guide star.

 

The way that was done was by using an array of radio telescopes on Earth to measure the drift (movement) of the guide star relative to Earth.

This array measured the guide star movement and was effectively the key to extracting the actual result from the experimentally calculated results..

 

Only when these two data streams are taken into consideration do the results mean anything. One without the other is useless.

Till then the experimental data and calculations have no key and as such have no meaning.

It is effectively encrypted because they do not know the movement of the guide star w.r.t. Earth.

So the scientists had no way of knowing if their calculations were correct or not.

Because they were not given this data till they finished their calculations its called a blind test.

When they calculated their figures only then were they given the data they needed to decrypt the actual experimental results from the raw result that they calculated.

 

Which was extremely close to predicted values.

 

Very interesting, AtoO!

 

As a keen space buff I'm familiar with the use of guide stars to keep satellites and planetary probes on track. However, up to now I had no real idea how this was done. So your explanation of the fourfold measurement of the light intensity from stars like Canopus or Vega fills that gap in my understanding. Thanks for that!

 

I think I can see what you mean about the blind test.

There are simply too many variables for the scientists to accurately predict the guide star's drift w.r.t. Earth and the orbiting satellite. Even comprehensive measurement of the guide star's past motion would be of no help in predicting it's future motion. So they used (the V.L.B.T, Very Long Baseline Telescope?) array of radio telescopes to measure this drift after they made their GR calculations. Then they compared the data sets, which yielded a result very close to the predicted values. Is that, more or less, it?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[AlphaToOmega]

That's the process in a nutshell yes.

There was no data for the drift of the guide star available that has sufficient precision for the results of this experiment to be worth using in the past.

So even if it was predictable the errors would be greater than what they are trying to measure anyway.

 

Basically even if they knew the exact time of each thrust burst of correction they could not know the exact effect on the satellite alignment due to external factors.

e.g. say some solar wind pushed X degree's in one plane. Because they don't know the vector force on the satellite they cannot tell how much the satellite moved.

Since they have no way to separate the external effects on the satellite from the path of the guide star all the data in the world would not help them calculate the guide star path.

 

I did simplify the guide star pointing a bit. The guide star path had to be referenced to a quasar to get suitable precision. Its simply one more step in the process.

They couldn't make the on-board telescope track a quasar because they are too dim thus would have required a much larger telescope to do.

 

Here's a link to the official site that covers the experiment more thoroughly: http://einstein.stanford.edu/TECH/technology1.html

 

Oddly, if you follow the links, they also discuss the problems with the theory that are yet to be resolved.

 

 

[Paradox]

The experiment used an on-board telescope to keep the satellite pointed at the guide star with extreme accuracy.

The telescope mirror was divided into 4 equal parts so that when one part showed more light than the other the onboard electronics could correct it to maintain equal intensity across all four parts.

That part of the system was real time correction using a digital based control system with analog sensors for the light intensity.

 

There is no way for the scientists to know what the corrections were required to keep it pointing at that extreme precision.

 

The scientists then measured the change in the gyros which was their main source of data.

 

From there they did the required calculations but they could not factor out the drift in the guide star.

 

The way that was done was by using an array of radio telescopes on Earth to measure the drift (movement) of the guide star relative to Earth.

This array measured the guide star movement and was effectively the key to extracting the actual result from the experimentally calculated results..

 

Only when these two data streams are taken into consideration do the results mean anything. One without the other is useless.

Till then the experimental data and calculations have no key and as such have no meaning.

It is effectively encrypted because they do not know the movement of the guide star w.r.t. Earth.

So the scientists had no way of knowing if their calculations were correct or not.

Because they were not given this data till they finished their calculations its called a blind test.

When they calculated their figures only then were they given the data they needed to decrypt the actual experimental results from the raw result that they calculated.

 

Which was extremely close to predicted values.

 

I don't see how any of this contradicts what I have said about Grossman and so on.

 

Note also that for many of these kinds of expriments the relativistic correction is taken into account, as standard, in the co-ordinates of reference points, and quite often they don't get removed in the calculations, so there are 'deviations' of relativistic proportions.

 

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what we are assessing on this thread is the logical substance of the theory -- not experimental findings and whether or not they yield a close match.

[stryper]

The logical substance of the theory is proven by the experimental findings and comparing those finding to predictions maybe by the theory.

 

This is how science is done.

 

But then you should know that.

[bornagainathiest]

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what we are assessing on this thread is the logical substance of the theory -- not experimental findings and whether or not they yield a close match.

 

Now I could be making some sort of rookie-level blunder here Paradox, but as far as I can see the logical substance of Xeno's Arrow appears sound...

 

...until you stand between the archer and the target!

 

If a real world test produces results that are incompatible with the theory, which is suspect, the theory or the practice?

 

Which should be retained and which should be dropped?

 

 

BAA.

[Paradox]

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what we are assessing on this thread is the logical substance of the theory -- not experimental findings and whether or not they yield a close match.

 

Now I could be making some sort of rookie-level blunder here Paradox, but as far as I can see the logical substance of Xeno's Arrow appears sound...

 

The assumptions of Zeno's paradox are not sound. The assumption is that velocity is a fundamental, measurable property of objects. It is not. No object has a velocity at any instant (because instants don't really exist as final realities); velocty is always calculated as an average taken over a time period, and is never an absolutely precise measurement.

 

If a real world test produces results that are incompatible with the theory, which is suspect, the theory or the practice?

 

Which should be retained and which should be dropped?

 

Interesting you say that because Einstein himself said that the experiment would be at fault under these circumstance (hence prompting an online article by Roberto Monti entitled 'The Real Einstein'.

Anyhow, the pre-Galilean 'natural philosophers' (astronomers, in this case) always got results that matched their flawed conception of the cosmos. I'm afraid there is no general rule that states that results found to be consistent with any given theory will prove that theory.

 

The mathematics of GR are inconsistent with the theory in any case, because the theory is inconsistent with any common-sense conception of reality. So-called space-time has got nothing to do with time -- if you analogise it to a sheet (as did Einstein) that has depressions on it where massive bodies reside, there has got to be a dimension of time, removed from space-time, in which cosmological bodies *move through (over)* space-time.

[AlphaToOmega]

I don't see how any of this contradicts what I have said about Grossman and so on.

I don't see how scientists long dead can contradict an experiment done long after their demise. Its the experiment that contradicts them. IOW its advancement.

Nor do I see how any scientist's that work was published before the experimental results came out contradict the results of an experiment that came after.

Nor can I see how anyone can refute an experiment before analysing the data and results. That is being biased and is totally non scientific.

Over 4 decades of work dismissed by a wave of the hand because, "I don't like what it means".

That's not science, that's religion.

 

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what we are assessing on this thread is the logical substance of the theory -- not experimental findings and whether or not they yield a close match.

Ever tried describing a theory that you find pretty simple to understand and logical yet someone totally rejects it because they either can't fully understand it or they don't like what it says, i.e. Its not logical?

I have. Many times. Do I now have to dismiss the theory because of the lowest common denominator?

How exactly do we expand our knowledge if we do that?

Einstein was wrong because Jow Blogs doesn't get it.

Newton was wrong because Peggy Sue reckons he got hit with the wrong sized apple.

I have issues with relativity just like I have issues with the big bang and dark matter and dark energy but when experimental data follows through there is a basis for the theory to be accepted.

If you want to really debate this at the level where you may find answers I can direct you to a site that does exactly this.

Its frequented by physicists, astronomers, mathematicians and research scientists.

Its here: http://www.bautforum.com/

Go to against the mainstream, read the rules in there first.

Then post your concerns.

If you ask them to explain or refute the evidence that you are presenting (referencing: Arp, Gossmann etc) that doesn't agree with relativity you will find they will be far more helpful than if you proclaim that relativity is wrong and here is my evidence.

After years of debunking the sources that you have provided they get a little short with flat out accusations of error.

Tackle it the right way and you'll find people in the top of their fields explaining the concepts with patience and just maybe you might change your position on this.

 

If you're truly compelling, ask the right questions, give the right answers you may convert some people.