|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 03/07/2005 : 21:44:53 [Permalink]
|
Lawrules here is some more experimental results from the real world:
These are taken from http://astro.physics.sc.edu/selfpacedunits/Unit57.html
quote:
The second prediction is the deflection of light in a gravitational field as shown in the text Fig. H 19-31d. Since the effect is so small in the solar system, it can only be detected for light that just grazes the Sun. This is shown in Fig. 57-6. Solar eclipse expeditions took photographs that verified this prediction. Nowadays, with radio telescopes, we can measure this effect very accurately since the Sun occults several quasars and pulsars each year.
quote:
The third prediction of the theory is light should lose energy as it climbed out of a gravitational field. The gravitational red shift of light was first measured in the spectra of cool red dwarf stars. Accurate measurements were made on the Earth's surface by sending light up and down a tower. The Mossbauer Effect, which allows the frequency to be measured very accurately, was used.
quote:
The General Theory not only predicts a deflection of light as the light passes near a gravitating body, it also predicts that it should take the light longer to pass through the region near the star. Since then, the experiment has been repeated with other space probes and with the signals from the few pulsars that are occulted by the Sun.[...] The pulsar timing signals, like the signals from the space probes, arrive slightly later than they would have if the Sun were not present. The results are in agreement with the predictions of the General Theory.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the evidence indicates that Eistein was right and you are wrong.
By the way Lawrules said:
quote:
Clocks do not measure the passage of time. There is not a direct or indirect connection between clocks and any imaginary passage of time.
Could you elaborate on this I must not fully understand what you are saying. You see when I was late to a meeting I tried to tell my boss that I stopped wearing a watch because clocks have nothing to do with measuring the passage of time but he didn't buy it.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2005 : 04:54:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My sincere apology, but still you cannot justify the use of that word in your replies. I do not want to persist in this matter, but your replies like "sublimation" is to compare black holes with snow, the interpretation found in the dictionaries as "to disappear, vanish" which is a literary figure does not apply either to the implied process given to the imaginary black hole.
Seriously, if you are incapable of grasping this very basic concept of langauge (that words can have multiple meanings, and that word meanings can change/expand over time) then there is no point in discussing things with you. If we can't even agree on what the basics of language are, then there is no way we will ever agree on specific word definitions. And, if we can't agree on definitions, then the entire concept of discussion and debate is rendered meanigless.
quote:
Take a digital quartz watch, compare its functional work with a similar one for a week. After being sure that both work well and they are set at the same data, put one of them in the freezer compartment of your refrigerator.
Check both clocks data everyday. The clock in the freezer will start to give a disparate data. In an experiment made with my little boy for his school science project, the clocks slowed at a rate of 6 seconds per day.
Then, clocks are affected by changes in their environment.
The atomic clocks are made of matter. Matter is indeed affected in outer space. A fact which give us great surprises, for example liquid metals which won't mix on earth, can be mixed in outerspace.
Bwaahahahaaahahahah!
Oh... man. That's great. I haven't had this much of a chuckle in days.
Please, keepem comming.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Lawrules
New Member
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2005 : 10:07:54 [Permalink]
|
Posted - 03/07/2005 : 18:34:30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrules, do you have any evidence (I am a skeptic, after all) that word usage does not change over time? Can you answer this direct question, which I've asked three times now: why is it that so many scientific words mean more than one thing? After all, since you claim that Mir orbited Earth, it's quite obvious that you meant that Mir was an electron, and the planet is just a big blob of neutrons and protons. At least, that's what your tortured linguistic logic tells us.
On to the second issue. Do you have any evidence that the environment onboard a satellite would affect a highly precise atomic clock by exactly the same amount as Einstein's predicted time dilation would? Time dilation which is, of course, assumed to be due to the high velocity environment (oh, the irony!).
You do realize that the prediction made by the theory of relativity are not random, and that the tests of them - which far post-date the mathematics - suggest that Einstein was correct for a good reason, and not because he guessed? Because what you're implying is that the discrepancies with atomic clocks in orbit around Earth, and the discrepancies in Mercury's orbit around the Sun (two drastically different environments), just coincidentally agree with some math that's nearly a century old.
The same equaions of Einstein's tell us why both discrepancies are found.
So, how should we apply Occam's razor? Either Einstein was right, and space and time are truly interdependent, or you're correct, and there's something unknown which just happens to make the numbers work out exactly like Einstein tells us, even though he was - for whatever undetermined reason - wrong.
With all my respect, lets see.
Your first point.
The words do change meanings, the words do acquire new meanings, however, when that happens, the dictionaries do add or change the meaning of words in order to be in accord to the new change or invention.
You have new words as pions, kaons, v-particles, etc. All those new names were added in science after the discovery of unknown particles.
For an unknown event -which after all this discussion, and you must recognize this- which is nothing but an imaginary event, the use of the word evaporate is simply irrelevant.
I will ashow you how some relativists add imaginary characteristics to particles in order to justify their charts. Yes, those charts that you imply are the evidence that Relativity does not predict at random.
Nothing about black holes has been certify with solid evidence, and this applies much stronger to the imagination that black holes pull time.
Your second point.
Allow me to explain this in a clear method, because you still can't understand where is your position at this moment.
I used an analogy of Einstein as a builder to whom a fraudulent employee validated the foundation of Einstein's building and the construction started without the proper legal validation.
You seem to evade this fact. Look, if the foundation is false, the whole theory is false.
I can affirm this without any doubt, because I have researched Einstein's words about it. Don't you think that this is an idea of mine, this is what investigators do in crimes, frauds, accidents, and more. The veracity of any statement, event or phenomena must be proved with facts. Facts rule.
Einstein wrote in 1916, in his book Uber Die spezielle und allgemeine Relativitatstheorie, the following in reference to the displacement of stars in a total solar eclipse:
"First at all, it must be compared against reality. Even when a holding reflexion demostrates that the arc predicted by the General theory of Relativity for the rays is almost nothing in the gravitational fields according to experience, it has to ascent to 1.7 of arc to the rays which pass by near the Sun. This effect must be translated with the fact that fixed stars located near the sun, and that are observable in the total solar eclipses, must appear further from the Sun at this quantity, when are compared with their position when the Sun is located in the other side of the sky."
I want you to read very carefully the next text from Einstein which followed the above:
"The disprove of this result as true or false is a task of a maximum importance, to which the solution is expected to be given by astronomers."
I have tried to translate his words the best I can.
Well, listen to him. For Einstein, the 1.7 seconds of arc was his test of fire. If he did not passed, all his theory and consequences shall be false. If his calculations based in his theory were correct, then his theory should be considered as correct.
I imply this method of approval of his theory because one test is not enough, according to the scientific method. The tests must be many.
Well, the 1.7 seconds of arc did not happen. By consequence, the theory is false.
Regardless of how well the fraud was commited, regardless of how well the theory appears to be confirmed by other methods, the theory of Relativity is false. It is false because its foundation, the evidence that space-time exists was not validated with the correspondent factual evidence.
This is very serious, and you just cannot evade this reality.
I must add something more. At this moment there is no a scientist who can tell you exactly the duration of the rotation of earth. All the calculations are approximations. Reality is that nothing is fixed perfectly in the universe and two phenomenon do not repeat exactly the same. That is a fact.
Between Newton and Einstein in reference to Jupiter, both calculations fail by seconds anyway. It is not true that Einstein's calculations fit perfectly because such statement is not real, maybe an act of fanatiscism by some people, but it is not real. We cannot even measure the Mount Everest with exact numbers, and you must expect the same or less with the orbit of a planet far away from you and that is subjected to the Sun's behavior, its own internal changes, and more.
I have already included in my presentation about this matter, and other topics as "what are clocks", and much more.
So far, please think for a moment that the validation of the theory of Relativity was a fraud, the calculations made by Einstein failed. He did not pass the test, but someone made him to pass ilegaly.
As president Bush says, "you can run, but you can't hide".
Reality showes Einstein wrong.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2005 : 10:45:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules
The words do change meanings, the words do acquire new meanings, however, when that happens, the dictionaries do add or change the meaning of words in order to be in accord to the new change or invention.
You have new words as pions, kaons, v-particles, etc. All those new names were added in science after the discovery of unknown particles.
All added to standard dictionaries only decades after their coinage. Hawking's use of "evaporate" in a new way is still new and specialized. I notice that the term google bomb isn't in dictionaries at all, but it's not a meaningless term.
quote:
For an unknown event -which after all this discussion, and you must recognize this- which is nothing but an imaginary event, the use of the word evaporate is simply irrelevant.
Great! Then why are you arguing that Hawking must have meant that black holes are liquid? It is crystal-clear from his writing that it's not what he meant, but you're trying to discredit all of science using this straw man argument. It's obviously relevant to you.
quote:
Your second point.
No, you're missing the point.
Einstein's theories are in use every single day today. The "foundation" of them is the mathematics, which in a perfect world would give us perfect measurements, but we understand that our measuring tools are imprecise. The math is not.
You've been given many examples of special and general relativity in action, and have yet to state a convincing argument which posits an alternative mechanism which duplicates the results of Einstein's equations.
In other words, you're saying - in effect - "Einstein was wrong, but all of his mathematics work out correctly in real life for other reasons having nothing to do with space-time and/or gravity." This has, of course, very little practical difference from "Einstein was right."
Because in reality, Einstein was wrong in a few places. He was wrong to insist that the randomness in QED shouldn't be there. He treated much of his family poorly. And if he was insisting that one instance of one experiment would disprove both special and general relativity, he was wrong about that, too.
So, why don't you tell us why you consider Einstein to be infallible on that point? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2005 : 16:08:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules
Please remember that we are discussing science, not philosophy, or poems, or unrealistic interpretations of words. I am skeptic, and I ask questions about science and the answers must be in accord to the proper scientific terms.
Though I can not speak for Hawking, I can speculate on the reasons behind his choice of wording.
While black hole does have mass, it does not have a volume. It's a singularity, a non-voluminous point in space. In fact, many scientists prefer 'singularity' as it is a more precise description of the phenomenon. As such, it can not be regarded as ordinary matter such as radioactive materials like uranium. Since black holes, and Hawking Radiation, does not conform to the conventional view of matter, then the conventional inferred state of matter will not conform to the terms used to describe it, other than the general idea conveyed by the word.
Evaporation usually implies a slow process for a body to lose it's mass. It is obvious to me that this was the intended implication of Hawking's use of that word.
quote:
If the escape of radiation is "evaporation", then, radioactive material in general evaporate,
Radioactive properties of uranium was defined more than 70 years before the term Hawking Radiation was coined. The use of scientific terms have had quite some time to settle in.
quote:
even the Sun evaporate,
With some stretch of the meaning yes, you could argue this is true, I wouldn't say it's wrong.
quote:
But, for the ones who use the proper scientific terms to describe phenomena, it is obvious that Hawking made a mistake by using that word.
No, he redefined it's meaning to include a new, previously unknown effect.
quote:
Please, can you provide who "reviewed" the writings of Hawking before these came out of the printer?
I know that at least one of the peer-reviewed journals practise anonymous review. This is done to ensure that the person submitting the paper have no influence on the review process. It has worked pretty well except in one case, unrelated to our discussion.
In answer to your question: No, we can not tell you who made the review. We only know that it was done by other experts in the same or closely related field. They obviously had no problem with the re-definition of the term.
You keep saying that Black Holes are imaginary. Can you elaborate on that? The term refers to a sphere around the singularity from which nothing can escape. In a sense, this sphere is imaginary since nothing in it really exist except in a transitional state. If you mean that Black Holes really does not exist, why do you insist they are liquid?
quote:
The measurements made in each opportunity have been different one from another. Even today, the measurements are not 1.7 as a rule but as a lucky chance after several observations. The Americans did not see any displacement in 1918.
Your statement suggests that you have disregarded two very important factors:
1) Measurements are inaccurate.
2) Calculations made with inaccurate inputs are inherently flawed.
The number you have presented: 1,7 is derived from Einstein's calculations made in the early 1900s.
At that time we didn't have an accurate measurement of the speed of light.
At that time we didn't have an accurate measurement of the gravity constant.
At that time we didn't have an accurate measurement of the mass of the Sun.
At that time we didn't have as good optics and photographic media we have today.
And you expect Einstein's calculations and the calculations made from the photos to be flawless?
quote:
Take a digital quartz watch, compare its functional work with a similar one for a week. After being sure that both work well and they are set at the same data, put one of them in the freezer compartment of your refrigerator.
The computer that is processing the deviation in time in the satellite in orbit does not use temperature offset to compensate the time drift. It's using relativity.
quote:
I used an analogy of Einstein as a builder to whom a fraudulent employee validated the foundation of Einstein's building and the construction started without the proper legal validation.
Yes, and we told you that your analogy was seriously flawed, and suggested alternative analogies. You have ignored them, then claiming we "evade this fact".
Why don't you acknowledge that we have presented counter-analogies, so we can explore the differences between them? I claim my analogy is more accurate, and is based on the chronological order of the event it was meant to convey. It also have more accurately described the function of the different characters involved.
quote:
if the foundation is false, the whole theory is false.
That may be true, as a proverb. However, it does not apply to Einstein's theory, because it's foundation was laid on mathematics, not Eddington's flaws.
In fact, the prediction Einstein made was calculated from inaccurate data in the first place. The flaws were in the inputted data, not in the formulae themselves.
quote:
Reality is that nothing is fixed perfectly in the universe and two phenomenon do not repeat exactly the same. That is a fact.
Yet you demand perfection of Einstein and Eddington in order in order to accept the theory of relativity!
The truth is, we both agree that two phenomenon do not repeat exactly the same. And when I say exactly, I mean really exactly. Quantum fluctuations will ensure that nothing can be exactly repeated. However, we know our methods of observing everything in the universe is inherently flawed, and in most situations we know how large the uncertainty is. That's why we can say that we know the speed of light with 6 or 8 digits accuracy.
We can easily get most professional astronomers agree about the "duration of the rotation" of Earth if we agree to one second uncertainty. W |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2005 : 18:50:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
In that case Dave, Newton was right (or at least very close to being right) as well, as we can still use his equations everyday life when not traveling near the speed of light. But he was right for the wrong reason.
What wrong reason was that? That he couldn't predict relativistic effects 200-plus years before Einstein?
Seriously, Newton is correct to eight decimal places or more in the realm of the slow and non-massive (well outside the measurement error of his day). Einstein didn't make Newton "wrong," except at extremes. Also, Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect is still correct, despite QED having moved far beyond its parameters.
My point to Lawrules is that if there's no practical difference in two hypotheses, A and B, but A is thoroughly explained, and B isn't explained at all, then there's no practical (or theoretical, for that matter) reason to give credence to B. Lawrules is expecting us to dismiss Einstein's working theories in favor of... nothing.
For example, he tells us that clocks on satellites slow down because they're in a different environment than on Earth, but he doesn't offer even a single rational reason why that different environment slows the clock (temperature ain't it, as we know from the construction of atomic clocks). Einstein does, and he does so accurately, through two theories: both special and general relativity (if you ignore one or the other, the predictions aren't accurate anymore).
Lawrules is offering the physics version of creationism: just like we're supposed to ditch evolution in favor of "God did it," Lawrules tells us we're supposed to throw out Einstein in favor of an explanatory vacuum.
Or, maybe he'll eventually get to the real point of this thread, and introduce us to some sort of "new physics," and then we'll probably (my prediction) be able to show him how it is mathematically equivalent to Einstein's equations. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2005 : 03:10:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules:
Take a digital quartz watch, compare its functional work with a similar one for a week. After being sure that both work well and they are set at the same data, put one of them in the freezer compartment of your refrigerator.
Check both clocks data everyday. The clock in the freezer will start to give a disparate data.
Maybe the batteries don't work as well when you put them in a freezer. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2005 : 03:45:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules:
Take a digital quartz watch, compare its functional work with a similar one for a week. After being sure that both work well and they are set at the same data, put one of them in the freezer compartment of your refrigerator.
Check both clocks data everyday. The clock in the freezer will start to give a disparate data.
Maybe the batteries don't work as well when you put them in a freezer.
Actually, they don't. I'm in college right now, during class, so I'll come back at this when I'm home. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2005 : 10:26:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Newton described gravity as a pulling force. That is completely wrong. He was correct in describing the effects of gravity, but was completely wrong on why gravity happened. He was right, but for the wrong reason.
And yet, even as late as 20 years ago, scientists were still looking for "gravitons," particles which would transmit the force of gravity. I do not know whether such a quest is still on, or not. If so, it would imply that gravity is a "pulling force," and the "curvature" of space-time an emergent property of that force (rather than the apparent force of gravity being an emergent property of curved space-time).
Ah, gravitons are predicted by string theory.
And, for Lawrules, Wikipedia doesn't take issue with black hole evaporation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hal
Skeptic Friend
USA
302 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2005 : 13:21:24 [Permalink]
|
| I'm very new here, but Lawrule almost seems to have studied at the same, ahem, institutions as another prominent poster (http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/pop_profile.asp?mode=display&id=1541). Am I missing something here? Apart from the entertainment value, I find the opposition of illucid fantasy and reasoned response in these threads to be genuinely instructive. Is this poster for real, or is he a rhetorical invention of the SFN? |
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr.
 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2005 : 13:42:41 [Permalink]
|
Welcome to the SFN, Hal.
If someone is doing a Lawrules schtick for rhetorical or instructive purposes, more power to 'em. I wouldn't be able to do so without putting [giggle] in my posts. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2005 : 13:42:49 [Permalink]
|
| Yes in fact Dave, the search for Gravitons continues to this day, unsucessful. They are building some monster g-decector somewhere though. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2005 : 13:44:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hal
I'm very new here, but Lawrules almost seems to have studied at the same, ahem, institutions as another prominent poster
That thought occurred to me after the third post in this thread. They both confessed, and obviously share, a lack of understanding of the English language, and contextual comprehension. The logical mistakes that Lawrules has made, is more similar to Hovind/AiG kind of creationists though. It sets Lawrules apart from latinijral.
quote:
Apart from the entertainment value, I find the opposition of illucid fantasy and reasoned response in these threads to be genuinely instructive.
I agree, that's why I have nominated one of the posts to be post-of-the-month.
quote:
Is this poster for real, or is he a rhetorical invention of the SFN?
To my knowledge, this poster is for real. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
