It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Moon - Why Einstein Was Wrong

page: 15
15
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Can you, or anyone else, prove that Einstein was right about any of this? I mean, without using the GR and SR theories, can you prove to me that these exist:
a) dark matter
b) time dilation
c) frame dragging
d) black holes
e) gravitational lensing
f) space-time
g) gravity waves exist
h) space can be bent by gravity/mass
i) gravity is a constant
etc...

[edit on 29-5-2010 by PplVSNWO]




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


a) dark matter : Mathematical invention

Dark matter was conceived when scientists realized that observations of the universe did not fit with Einsteins model of the universe. Rather than admitting that a nearly hundred year old model was wrong in light of new observations and discoveries, scientists opted to invent this new form of exotic matter that by it's very nature can never ever ever be directly observed.

b) time dilation : Proven non-existent

A 28 year study on over 900 quasars has shown the fallacy of 'time dilation'. Not a single quasar has shown any effect of time dilation. Many thing's about quasars defy what Einsteins model says of how the universe and objects within it *should* behave.

c) frame dragging : Has never been observed

Frame dragging, despite numerous attempts to observe it has never been observed. We keep spending millions to billions of dollars sending satellite after satellite in an attempt to measure this non-existent effect. The notion of bending space is preposterous to me as Einsteinian physics has no description as to what space is nor *why* it should bend in the presence of massive objects.

d) black holes : Mathematical Invention

The two people who are attributed to 'discovering' mathematically the existence of black holes, both did not believe black holes to be possible at all. Black holes were invented through faulty math and have never been observed. Saying "we think this is a black hole" does not make something a black hole. Black holes defy the known laws of physics and recently, Krauss has made calculations showing that black holes can never form.

e) gravitational lensing : Has never been observed

Supposed examples of definite gravitational lensing has only been observed within the gaseous confines of stellar and planetary objects. Should gravitational lensing be true, then such effect should be observable well outside atmosphere's of stars and planets. This has never been observed once and most claims of such rely heavily on showing a large picture of thousands of galaxies and cherry picking certain alignments to "show" this effect.

f) space-time : Does not exist

The attempt to 'marry' space and time together was a faulty concept. Scientists today are starting to realize that our previously held concept of time, born thousands of years ago with the invention of 'time-keeping' is woefully wrong. Time as a fourth dimension of temporal travel as postulated by Einstein, simply does not exist. All attempt to reconcile QM with GR/SR indicate the reality of time being an illusion born of the mind in the same sense that temperature is nothing more than an illusion of the mind.

g) gravity waves exist : Have never been observed

Gravity waves have never been observed despite billions of dollars spent on trying to find these illusive magical waves. The idea of a wave without a medium is ridiculous. They attempt to say that space is that medium, but they can't describe what physical properties space would contain in which to be an actual medium. Doing so would bring back aether physics, which should rightfully be done.

h) space can be bent by gravity/mass : Has never been observed

The idea of mass bending something that has no physical medium is ridiculous. Space has never been observed to bend and is only a mathematical invention. We don't even use 'bending space' for orbital models, we use Newtonian Gravity models to do such which do not mention a bending of space at all. Einstein decided that quiet a few real physical phenomena don't apply to space and invented quiet a few unobserved phenomena of his own. Tesla' Theory of Dynamic Gravity is plausibly more accurate, but the United States Government has classified his unpublished papers.

i) gravity is a constant : Is patently false

Gravity can be and has been demonstrated to be highly variable. The notion of a gravitational constant is nothing but arrogant stupidity.


Can you, or anyone else, prove that Einstein was right about any of this? I mean, without using the GR and SR theories, can you prove to me that these exist:


They can't and they've been trying to do so in this thread and in others. I value their arguments, but they don't make sense unless we hold onto unobserved invented concepts that simply don't exist. The universe observationally does not abide by Einsteinian physics at all without these unfalsifiable inventions.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 





Can you, or anyone else, prove that Einstein was right about any of this? I mean, without using the GR and SR theories, can you prove to me that these exist:


Um, if you take away GR and SR, what you are left with is Newton and Maxwell. What is the point of that?

How do you validate Einstein's work without testing the predictions of that work?

You just aren't making sense.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


That is my point exactly. If you take away Einstein, none of these things exist in the real world. None are observable (and there seems to be a lot of observations that nullifies the theories). If they did exist, you wouldn't need Einstein's theories to prove they exist, there would be testable(falsifiable?) evidence proving they exist.

Why didn't you take up my challenge and prove those things actually exist without Einstein?



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 




a) dark matter : Mathematical invention


Not a mathematical invention, a prediction based on hard observations. It isn't the only hypothesis vying to explain the 'missing mass', just the most popular. Dark matter has been observed indirectly through lensing.



b) time dilation : Proven non-existent


Incorrect. In fact particle accelerators demonstrate the proof many times every day of their working life, as do high accuracy GPS applications (most GPS applications don't need the accuracy afforded by allowing for relativistic affects, but some do).



c) frame dragging : Has never been observed


Incorrect. the Gravity Probe B experiment has confirmed both the geodetic effect (bending of spacetime; reported 2008) and frame dragging (reported 2009)



d) black holes : Mathematical Invention

Incorrect. Of course, black holes will never be observed directly from earth. But their effects, (including accretion disks, x-ray binaries, and the orbits of stars around a supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way) have been observed many times.



e) gravitational lensing : Has never been observed


Incorrect. Lensing has been shown to be caused by galaxies not just stars. I don't know of any claimed planetary lenses. Gravitational lensing occurs in the presence of mass and it is the gravity of that mass that causes the lensing. There is no such lensing relatively massfree interplanetary space.



f) space-time : Does not exist


Incorrect. And a really silly assertion, except on a philosophic level. We experience space. We experience time. They are the two fundamental 'atoms' of existence.



g) gravity waves exist : Have never been observed


Incorrect. So far gravity waves have only been observed indirectly, (in work which led to the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics). Experiments to directly detect gravitaional waves is ongoing.



h) space can be bent by gravity/mass : Has never been observed


Incorrect. This is the earliest and most certain result from Gravity Probe B. Spacetime does bend due to gravity and that is an observed fact.



i) gravity is a constant : Is patently false


Not sure what is meant by this. Isaac Newton showed that gravity varies with the square of the distance between the two masses. You weigh less on Mt. Everest than you do in Death Valley. Less on the Moon than on Earth. Where has anyone claimed gravity is a constant?


[edit on 29/5/2010 by rnaa]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 





Why didn't you take up my challenge and prove those things actually exist without Einstein?


Experimental evidence shows them to be correct. Except dark matter on which the jury is still out. Even dark matter (or something equivalently massive) has been observed causing a gravitational lens.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by sirnex
 



i) gravity is a constant : Is patently false


Not sure what is meant by this. Isaac Newton showed that gravity varies with the square of the distance between the two masses. You weigh less on Mt. Everest than you do in Death Valley. Less on the Moon than on Earth. Where has anyone claimed gravity is a constant?


I heard the claim that measurements of the gravitational constant "vary wildly". I guess some people define "vary wildly" differently than I do:

www.npl.washington.edu...

Recently the value of G has been called into question by new measurements from respected research teams in Germany, New Zealand, and Russia. The new values disagree wildly. For example, a team from the German Institute of Standards led by W. Michaelis obtained a value for G that is 0.6% larger than the accepted value; a group from the University of Wuppertal in Germany led by Hinrich Meyer found a value that is 0.06% lower, and Mark Fitzgerald and collaborators at Measurement Standards Laboratory of New Zealand measured a value that is 0.1% lower. The Russian group found a curious space and time variation of G of up to 0.7% The collection of these new results suggests that the uncertainty in G could be much larger than originally thought. This controversy has spurred several efforts to make a more reliable measurement of G.


All these so-called "wild variations" are just a fraction of 1% and as far as I can tell may just be measurement errors:


The fact that this famous fundamental constant is still so uncertain testifies to the difficulty of gravitational measurements. The recent flurry of new ideas for measuring G would surely have pleased Isaac Newton (quite a clever experimenter himself) who started this whole enterprise over 300 years ago.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   



a) dark matter : Mathematical invention


Not a mathematical invention, a prediction based on hard observations. It isn't the only hypothesis vying to explain the 'missing mass', just the most popular. Dark matter has been observed indirectly through lensing.


So, treating predictions as if they are proven so that a model can exist that without their existence can't survive is "scientific"?




b) time dilation : Proven non-existent


Incorrect. In fact particle accelerators demonstrate the proof many times every day of their working life, as do high accuracy GPS applications (most GPS applications don't need the accuracy afforded by allowing for relativistic affects, but some do).


Could you be more specific about how particle accelerators demonstrate proof of time dilation?




c) frame dragging : Has never been observed


Incorrect. the Gravity Probe B experiment has confirmed both the geodetic effect (bending of spacetime; reported 2008) and frame dragging (reported 2009)


So, despite NASA finding no frame dragging or "space-time fabric" from Gravity Probe B data, you insist that it did?




d) black holes : Mathematical Invention


Incorrect. Of course, black holes will never be observed directly from earth. But their effects, (including accretion disks, x-ray binaries, and the orbits of stars around a supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way) have been observed many times.


If there is a "supermassive" black hole at the center of the milky way, where is the gravitational lensing observation to back this up? What about infinite densities break the rules of Special Relativity and therefore nullifies General Relativity(if black holes exist, SR/GR are wrong)?




e) gravitational lensing : Has never been observed


Incorrect. Lensing has been shown to be caused by galaxies not just stars. I don't know of any claimed planetary lenses. Gravitational lensing occurs in the presence of mass and it is the gravity of that mass that causes the lensing. There is no such lensing relatively massfree interplanetary space.


These effects that you call gravitational lensing can be attributed to refraction and non-gravitational lensing such as can be seen around galaxies like www.nrao.edu... and Saturn's Phoebe ring.




f) space-time : Does not exist


Incorrect. And a really silly assertion, except on a philosophic level. We experience space. We experience time. They are the two fundamental 'atoms' of existence.


See above about Gravity Probe B.




g) gravity waves exist : Have never been observed


Incorrect. So far gravity waves have only been observed indirectly, (in work which led to the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics). Experiments to directly detect gravitaional waves is ongoing.


Correct, so gravity waves are still being attributed despite the expensive failures to detect them. Just like dark matter.




h) space can be bent by gravity/mass : Has never been observed


Incorrect. This is the earliest and most certain result from Gravity Probe B. Spacetime does bend due to gravity and that is an observed fact.


Space is nothing and can't be bent. Show me this proof of bending space.




i) gravity is a constant : Is patently false


Not sure what is meant by this. Isaac Newton showed that gravity varies with the square of the distance between the two masses. You weigh less on Mt. Everest than you do in Death Valley. Less on the Moon than on Earth. Where has anyone claimed gravity is a constant?


I'm not sure where you are going with this, I wasn't implying that gravity doesn't decrease with distance, but the gravity is not a constant, but a variable.



[edit on 29-5-2010 by PplVSNWO]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 



Not a mathematical invention, a prediction based on hard observations. It isn't the only hypothesis vying to explain the 'missing mass', just the most popular. Dark matter has been observed indirectly through lensing.


Complete and utter nonsense. Allow me to demonstrate.


Dark matter, the material that makes up the majority of the matter in the universe, remains so mysterious that scientists don't even know how much of it there is, let alone how it behaves. However, using new calculations about the interaction between black holes and dark matter, scientists have deduced an upper limit on the amount of dark matter in the Milky Way.

The researchers calculate that the maximum dark matter density comes in with around seven times the mass of the sun dispersed through a cubic-light year of space. If a section of dark matter that dense filled the space of our solar system, it would weigh about 14,000 times more than the mass of the eight planets, the asteroids, and the Sun combined.
Clever Math Puts a Firm Number on the Amount of Dark Matter in Existence

This is not observation, this is purely math at play here, no model predicts missing matter in the form of some new exotic dark matter that can't be visibly seen.


Incorrect. In fact particle accelerators demonstrate the proof many times every day of their working life, as do high accuracy GPS applications (most GPS applications don't need the accuracy afforded by allowing for relativistic affects, but some do).


Archaic outdated thinking does not make something true, such as in the case for time, a system of belief first conceived many thousands of years ago that has stuck with mankind in the same manner as religious thought.


Hawkins took advantage of the fact that quasars blink. This blinking, or variability, can be viewed as the "ticking clock." He used data from quasar monitoring programs stored on photographic plates to measure the timescale of of the blinking. Looking at the timescales for two groups of quasars, one distant and the other even farther away, there was no measurable difference. That meant no time dilation: meaning that for both groups of quasars, the clocks were the same.

This could mean several things. It could be a sign that the universe is not expanding. Or, it could indicate that quasars are not really what we think they are. However, for either of these scenarios to be true, you'd have to explain away or disprove mountains of evidence in favor of these models.
No Time Dilation for Distant Quasars?

This is based on a 28 year study of over 900 quasars. No time dilation has ever been observed with any quasar. Our science, in it's infancy, assumes that thing's such as 'time' is a real physical aspect of the universe, much in the way we used to think temperature actually did make things hot or cold, which we now know temperature is an illusion born of the mind.


The possibility that time may not exist is known among physicists as the “problem of time.” It may be the biggest, but it is far from the only temporal conundrum. Vying for second place is this strange fact: The laws of physics don’t explain why time always points to the future. All the laws—whether Newton’s, Einstein’s, or the quirky quantum rules—would work equally well if time ran backward. As far as we can tell, though, time is a one-way process; it never reverses, even though no laws restrict it.
Problem with Time

Despite you personally not being aware, many physicists are very much aware that there is a problem with how we think of time and if it actually even exists to begin with. A clock does not measure time, a particle accelerator does not show time dilating. Your equating physical sequences with an illusive concept of the mind.


Incorrect. the Gravity Probe B experiment has confirmed both the geodetic effect (bending of spacetime; reported 2008) and frame dragging (reported 2009)



Last May, with the project, called Gravity Probe B (GP-B), looking like a US $650-million flop, a NASA review board recommended that all funding be cut off by the end of September.

...

Now, in a dramatic turnaround, the Gravity Probe B team has secured non-NASA funding to press forward with data analysis of an experiment that has been bogged down by unexpected sources of noise.

...

However, a more subtle effect, involving the tug of Earth’s rotation on space itself, has not yet been seen unequivocally. Because of an error in the gyroscopes’ manufacture, GP-B’s measurements have been riddled with wobbles that have made the ongoing data analysis for this ”frame dragging” effect tremendously challenging.
Gravity Probe B

Not even NASA would continue funding this failing experiment. The only results that have been unequivocally obtained for sure, is the researchers ability to say after funding ceased that it was all due to "noise" causing it's failure.


Incorrect. Of course, black holes will never be observed directly from earth. But their effects, (including accretion disks, x-ray binaries, and the orbits of stars around a supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way) have been observed many times.


Here is an excellent well written thread on ATS about this subject. Black Holes Don't Exist. It's filled with many great links providing a plethora of scientific research on the true nature of what we are observing out there.


Krauss’s answer: Hawking’s riddle is a trick question. Due to the relative nature of time under Einstein’s general theory, time should stop at the event horizon. Anything that approaches, therefore, should come to a halt before it falls into the black hole, effectively preventing the black hole from forming in the first place.

What we think are black holes, says Krauss in a paper co-authored with colleagues at Case Western Reserve, could be misidentified remnants of stars possessing a tremendous — but not infinite — amount of gravity.
Black Holes Don't Exist


Incorrect. Lensing has been shown to be caused by galaxies not just stars. I don't know of any claimed planetary lenses. Gravitational lensing occurs in the presence of mass and it is the gravity of that mass that causes the lensing. There is no such lensing relatively massfree interplanetary space.


Yes, and as I've explained as has been being previously discussed in this thread, we only can see gravitational lensing induced by galaxy clusters if we have a sufficiently large population density of galaxies in which to cherry pick a few galaxies in certain alignments to give rise to an arc like pattern as would be expected from gravitational lensing by galaxy clusters.


In fact, though the secular literature refuses to acknowledge this to this day, the creationist literature has already dealt with the gravitational-lensing allegations. In the Journal of Creation (2006), Ron Samec pointed out a major discrepancy in the gravitational-lens hypothesis. That discrepancy concerns the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation that is supposedly left over from the Big Bang--and would therefore be found at the limits of the universe. Samec quoted an article showing that the CMB has never been shown to be subject to gravitational-lens distortion. Gravitational lensing would not be able to affect some objects but not others. As Aristotle and other philosophers have observed, contradictions do not exist.

Samec concluded that the CMB was not the signature of the Big Bang at all, but resulted from far more local effects--thus explaining why gravitational lensing never affects it. But John Hartnett, also in 2006, showed that the alleged Bullet-cluster "proof" of "dark matter" was incomplete, and in fact was aimed at disproving other, perhaps even more erroneous theories put forward to explain the mass discrepancy. Hartnett repeated the question that Samec had raised: why isn't the CMB subject to gravitational lensing if other objects are?
CMB Gravitational lensing

As much as I really hate creationist theories, this is a rather valid point of observation. The CMB *should* be subject to lensing just like anything else in this universe, and as it being the furthest visible construct in our universe, it should be more readily seen. The CMB has never been observed to be subjected to gravitational lensing, it simply does not exist.


Incorrect. And a really silly assertion, except on a philosophic level. We experience space. We experience time. They are the two fundamental 'atoms' of existence.


That was not much of a rebuttal. As I pointed out earlier, time does not exist and physicists are beginning to realize this. Marrying a non-existent entity with another non-existent entity does not make a real entity. There is no description of what 'space' is and there is no description of what 'time' is.


[edit on 29-5-2010 by sirnex]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 



Incorrect. So far gravity waves have only been observed indirectly, (in work which led to the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics). Experiments to directly detect gravitaional waves is ongoing.



We show that the gravitational waves of general relativity are only analytical sinuosities generated by purely formal approaches. First of all, the emission mechanism of the gravitational waves is a real mystery. It is commonly asserted that any accelerated mass point must give out gravitational waves (cf. e.g. Bergmann, 1960, p.187), but in general relativity
acceleration does not have an intrinsic, absolute meaning (and the metric gik in an accelerated frame gives a curvature tensor equal to zero).
Gravitational Waves are fictitious


Incorrect. This is the earliest and most certain result from Gravity Probe B. Spacetime does bend due to gravity and that is an observed fact.


Please refer to earlier statement about Gravity Probe B.


Not sure what is meant by this. Isaac Newton showed that gravity varies with the square of the distance between the two masses. You weigh less on Mt. Everest than you do in Death Valley. Less on the Moon than on Earth. Where has anyone claimed gravity is a constant?



One of nature's venerable constants - gravity - may not be the same for every type of particle in the universe, suggest new calculations. The finding could explain a persistent mystery regarding how much helium was created in the first few minutes after the big bang, say physicists.

The gravitational constant (G) first estimated by Isaac Newton and also known as Newton's constant, describes the strength of the gravitational pull that bodies exert on each other. For particles - protons, neutrons and electrons - this relates to their mass. In the case of light - photons - it relates to energy.

In conventional models, the constant is the same for both particles of matter and photons of light. But John Barrow of Cambridge University, UK, and Robert Scherrer of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, US, wondered what would happen if it were different for matter and light.

"The original motivation was to test this idea and rule it out or restrict it somehow," Scherrer told New Scientist. But the pair was surprised to see that changing the gravitational constant in computer models had no unexpected effects on the overall development of the early universe. The models used protons and neutrons for matter.

If photons wielded a smaller value of G than do the protons and neutrons, their model could explain why helium appears to be less abundant in the early universe than theoretically predicted.
Gravity Constant called into question

What's not to understand?



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Can you, or anyone else, prove that Einstein was right about any of this? I mean, without using the GR and SR theories, can you prove to me that these exist:
a) dark matter
b) time dilation
c) frame dragging
d) black holes
e) gravitational lensing
f) space-time
g) gravity waves exist
h) space can be bent by gravity/mass
i) gravity is a constant


There is no conclusive evidence of "g" to the date, and experimental work continues. Item "b" is routinely observed in the lab. Item "i" doesn't make semantic sense at all (like saying "coca cola is constant"). Item "a" is a hypothesis (with data to support it, but no evidence of its possible nature yet). Item "d" is a hypothesis that does seem to explain a lot of things that we observe. Item "f" is a concept and when used in physics to do calculation it works really well. Item "e" is well covered in observational data. Item "c" I don't know too well so won't comment. Item "h" is one possibility how gravity works, and some of its predictions are born out in data.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 





I heard the claim that measurements of the gravitational constant "vary wildly". I guess some people define "vary wildly" differently than I do:


I agree. But the Gravitational Constant is not Gravity.

It is a fudge factor in an equation. With weird concocted units. And it is difficult to determine with any degree of precision. But it is well enough known for more than 99% of the calculations it is required for.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 




So, treating predictions as if they are proven so that a model can exist that without their existence can't survive is "scientific"?

No, making predictions based on hypotheses and testing those predictions is "scientific". Showing that related observations are explained by the hypothesis is evidence that the hypothesis 'may' be correct. No one is saying that Dark Matter is the one true answer yet, because it hasn't been unambiguously observed. It is just the most successful of the various alternatives so far.



Could you be more specific about how particle accelerators demonstrate proof of time dilation?


From www.phys.unsw.edu.au...


Particle accelerators generate some short lived particles (eg muons or pions) that travel within a fraction of a percent of c, and (in the laboratory frame) they survive for much longer than their lifetime when at rest in the lab frame.




So, despite NASA finding no frame dragging or "space-time fabric" from Gravity Probe B data, you insist that it did?

No. I am repeating the report that GP-B did in fact find the frame dragging effect. And this was reported in 2009. You can find the press release version here: einstein.stanford.edu...



If there is a "supermassive" black hole at the center of the milky way, where is the gravitational lensing observation to back this up?

As far as I know this has not been observed. Perhaps because a suitable object on the far side has not passed behind it (relatively to us?). Gravitational lensing is not the only observable consequence of a black hole. The orbits of nearby stars give this one away.



What about infinite densities break the rules of Special Relativity and therefore nullifies General Relativity(if black holes exist, SR/GR are wrong)?

A super massive black hole is not 'infinitely dense', it just has a very large mass to radius ratio. In fact, it may be less dense than air. General Relativity, contrary to breaking down, PREDICTS a black hole whenever the ratio of an object's mass to its radius becomes sufficiently large. That is when it is dense enough, the required escape velocity will exceed the speed of light. This does not mean infinitely dense.



from the Wikipeda article "Supermassive Black Holes"
The average density of a supermassive black hole (defined as the mass of the black hole divided by the volume within its Schwarzschild radius) can be very low, and may actually be lower than the density of air. This is because the Schwarzschild radius is directly proportional to mass, while density is inversely proportional to the volume. Since the volume of a spherical object (such as the event horizon of a non-rotating black hole) is directly proportional to the cube of the radius, and mass merely increases linearly, the volume increases by a much greater factor than the mass as a black hole grows. Thus, average density decreases for increasingly larger radii of black holes (due to volume increasing much faster than mass).




These effects that you call gravitational lensing can be attributed to refraction and non-gravitational lensing such as can be seen around galaxies like www.nrao.edu... and Saturn's Phoebe ring.

Gravitational Lensing is refraction. No one ever said that a gravitational lens is the only kind of lens. Gravitational lensing is only observable around objects with masses at least as large as stars. I cannot comment on galaxy www.nrao.edu because it seems to be web page, not a galaxy. Can you give me more information please? Here is an example of a galaxy serving as a gravitational lens: Einstein Cross in Wikipedia

EDIT: sorry, I missed that this was a link and I only went to the NRAO home page. Now that I have reviewed the link, it is not describing a lensing event, gravitational or not. It is describing a ring of matter, not the displacement of an image through a lens.



Correct, so gravity waves are still being attributed despite the expensive failures to detect them. Just like dark matter.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'attributed', Physicists are convinced they exist because they are predicted by Relativity, and Relativity has been confirmed so often and to such detailed accuracy that there is little room for doubt. Scientists continue to look for direct evidence for Gravity Waves however, that is how science works. They are hard to detect and so far the closest we hae come is indirect observation of the effects on the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar.



Space is nothing and can't be bent.

That statement is too sophomoric to bother addressing.



Show me this proof of bending space.

GP-B demonstrated the bending of space-time. See the GP-B home page link above.



I'm not sure where you are going with this, I wasn't implying that gravity doesn't decrease with distance, but the gravity is not a constant, but a variable.

This statement isn't any clearer, what is your point? Why do you feel the need to deny that gravity is a constant when no one has ever made that assertion, at least since Newton?


[edit on 30/5/2010 by rnaa]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





This is not observation, this is purely math at play here, no model predicts missing matter in the form of some new exotic dark matter that can't be visibly seen.


You are mistaking the calculation of the amount of Dark Matter that might be expected with the hypothesis of the existence Dark Matter.

Dark Matter is hypothesized because there doesn't appear to be enough mass in the universe to account for observed phenomena. In order to test that hypothesis, it makes sense to determine what its properties would have to be, because only then can you have any idea what to look for.

You have the cart before the horse.

Edit: your dismissal of GP-B is from 2008. Please review the current results in the GP-B home page linked on my post above. Science doesn't stand still you know, a progress report from 2008 is not fixed in concrete for all of time.

[edit on 30/5/2010 by rnaa]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





Gravity Constant called into question

What's not to understand?


The assertion was that Gravity was not a constant; it was not clear why the assertion needed to be made as no ever claimed it was so. No mention was made of the Gravitational Constant.

Your linked article describes a paper from 2004. I can't seem to be anything newer. This could be because it is just too esoteric or the initial paper was found to be wrong when it was followed up, or they researchers are still working on verifying it. Dunno, but it doesn't seem to have caused much of a ripple in the community.

There are, however, lots of alternative approaches with varying cosmological and gravitational constants and here is a summary of quite a few: Nonstandard Cosmology With Constant and Variable Gravitational and Variable Cosmological \Constants" and Bulk Viscosity

Just because someone comes up with an alternative approach to the problem and writes a paper showing how the approach has advantages in some cases doesn't mean that the entirety of the 'standard model' gets thrown out. That is just silly.

One day one of these papers might just trigger a paradigm shifting brainwave in someone, just like Maxwell's equations did for Einstein. That will be unlikely to overthrow Einstein anymore than Einstein overthrew Newton.

[edit on 30/5/2010 by rnaa]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 



You are mistaking the calculation of the amount of Dark Matter that might be expected with the hypothesis of the existence Dark Matter.

Dark Matter is hypothesized because there doesn't appear to be enough mass in the universe to account for observed phenomena. In order to test that hypothesis, it makes sense to determine what its properties would have to be, because only then can you have any idea what to look for.


Oh for crying out loud. This is common sense here! Dark matter was not inferred from pure observation, but instead from discrepancies between the math that predicted how much mass should be observed and the calculations (math) of how much mass there really is observed. Rather than admitting the quiet obvious, that the predicted model is wrong, dark matter was invented instead. No observation nor model predicts dark matter.


your dismissal of GP-B is from 2008. Please review the current results in the GP-B home page linked on my post above. Science doesn't stand still you know, a progress report from 2008 is not fixed in concrete for all of time.


Oh please, even the site itself says the same basic thing I said. After threats of stopping funding they "suddenly realized" the lack of results was due to "noise" that they "somehow" didn't think of before the experiment despite numerous experiments/instruments to detect these thing's are specifically designed to reduce noise as much as possible. What they admit to is mathematically taking out this so called noise in which to produce their "results". Come on... say it with me.. DUH.


The assertion was that Gravity was not a constant; it was not clear why the assertion needed to be made as no ever claimed it was so. No mention was made of the Gravitational Constant.


PplVSNWO had made mention of it and he is right, regardless of whether the issue was previously raised by anyone else.


Your linked article describes a paper from 2004. I can't seem to be anything newer. This could be because it is just too esoteric or the initial paper was found to be wrong when it was followed up, or they researchers are still working on verifying it. Dunno, but it doesn't seem to have caused much of a ripple in the community.


I was not aware newscientist was an esoteric publication, thank you for the clarification.



There are, however, lots of alternative approaches with varying cosmological and gravitational constants and here is a summary of quite a few: Nonstandard Cosmology With Constant and Variable Gravitational and Variable Cosmological \Constants" and Bulk Viscosity


I'll have to read that when I get the time, thanks for the link.


Just because someone comes up with an alternative approach to the problem and writes a paper showing how the approach has advantages in some cases doesn't mean that the entirety of the 'standard model' gets thrown out. That is just silly.


No, perhaps one alternative doesn't do it alone, but when many pop up giving alternatives that are simpler and reproducible compared to pure unfalsifiable inventions of mainstream cosmology, then these alternatives should be given more seriousness. Occam' Razor determines which theory is more correct, case in point, an invented unfalsifiable entity is not correct when an alternative that IS reproducible exists.


One day one of these papers might just trigger a paradigm shifting brainwave in someone, just like Maxwell's equations did for Einstein. That will be unlikely to overthrow Einstein anymore than Einstein overthrew Newton.


Tesla, in my opinion was probably more correct than Einstein. He is pretty much the father of modern technology, whereas Einstein is the father of modern scientific religious invention.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
No, making predictions based on hypotheses and testing those predictions is "scientific". Showing that related observations are explained by the hypothesis is evidence that the hypothesis 'may' be correct. No one is saying that Dark Matter is the one true answer yet, because it hasn't been unambiguously observed. It is just the most successful of the various alternatives so far.

Come on, it's a way to save a failed model. If the the GR/SR had never been invented, neither would dark matter, there would be no need for it to exist.



From www.phys.unsw.edu.au...


Particle accelerators generate some short lived particles (eg muons or pions) that travel within a fraction of a percent of c, and (in the laboratory frame) they survive for much longer than their lifetime when at rest in the lab frame.

I'm not sure how that demonstrates time dilation, but time itself is not physical. Time is a manmade measurement, it only goes in one direction- the future. If time could slow down, or speed up for a mass based upon speed, then why does anything exist to me that is moving faster or slower than I am? If time slows down for a particle, then my timeline should pass it by and it should no longer exist, if it's time speeds up then it should pass me by and no longer exist.



No. I am repeating the report that GP-B did in fact find the frame dragging effect. And this was reported in 2009. You can find the press release version here: einstein.stanford.edu...

Ah, so you are basing this on the hypothetical data, not raw data. Now I see where you are coming from. After the raw data was run through a hypothetical model to eliminate "noise" that probably never existed, the results are only hypothetical not scientific.



As far as I know this has not been observed. Perhaps because a suitable object on the far side has not passed behind it (relatively to us?). Gravitational lensing is not the only observable consequence of a black hole. The orbits of nearby stars give this one away.

That's because it is assumed that gravity is what holds the galaxy together. Why is it assumed that a weak force(gravity) holds galaxies together?



A super massive black hole is not 'infinitely dense', it just has a very large mass to radius ratio. In fact, it may be less dense than air. General Relativity, contrary to breaking down, PREDICTS a black hole whenever the ratio of an object's mass to its radius becomes sufficiently large. That is when it is dense enough, the required escape velocity will exceed the speed of light. This does not mean infinitely dense.

Wrong, the math proves Relativity doesn't allow black holes to exist. It has been pointed out several times on ATS and perhaps in this thread that Einstein himself wrote a paper that didn't agree with the existence of black holes.



Gravitational Lensing is refraction. No one ever said that a gravitational lens is the only kind of lens. Gravitational lensing is only observable around objects with masses at least as large as stars. I cannot comment on galaxy www.nrao.edu because it seems to be web page, not a galaxy. Can you give me more information please? Here is an example of a galaxy serving as a gravitational lens: Einstein Cross in Wikipedia

EDIT: sorry, I missed that this was a link and I only went to the NRAO home page. Now that I have reviewed the link, it is not describing a lensing event, gravitational or not. It is describing a ring of matter, not the displacement of an image through a lens.

That link is showing a ring of matter around a galaxy that looks exactly like some of the images that were showed earlier that supposedly showed gravitational lensing. This one is just closer up and was posted to show how other phenomenon can cause what is being claimed to be gravitational lensing.
If you are calling gravitational lensing "refraction", then you must be implying that space is refracting the light. That seems silly to me to think that the absence of something can be bent and in turn refract light when we already know that matter is capable of refracting light. Einstein's Cross looks exactly like 5 quasars that are close together, no amount of fictitious objects that exist only mathematically will convince me that I am not seeing what I am seeing. Occam's razor?



I'm not sure what you mean by 'attributed', Physicists are convinced they exist because they are predicted by Relativity, and Relativity has been confirmed so often and to such detailed accuracy that there is little room for doubt. Scientists continue to look for direct evidence for Gravity Waves however, that is how science works. They are hard to detect and so far the closest we hae come is indirect observation of the effects on the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar.

Relativity has been confirmed by inventing things that don't exist and manipulating data to prove the existence of those very things. And now, Relativity is being dismantled by Plasma physicists and Cosmologists.




Space is nothing and can't be bent.

That statement is too sophomoric to bother addressing.

Why? Because I don't believe that nothing is something? Prove to me that space is something.



GP-B demonstrated the bending of space-time. See the GP-B home page link above.

GPB was a failure, NASA admitted such.


[edit on 30-5-2010 by PplVSNWO]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The standard theory violates the known laws of physics.

It is impossible.

To continue accepting it in the face of overwhelming evidence in support of the plasma model is FRAUD.

It is CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR on the part of the mainstream State funded cosmologists.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by mnemeth1]


In order to hide gravity manipulation technology, the government has found it necessary to defraud all of science education - formal and informal. When true scientists arise who note the discrepencies in the false model being fronted about gravity especially (or any other aspect of physics or mathematics which would reveal the truth), they are immediately attacked, even swarmed, by disinformation agents of the most virulent kind. That is what has been happening on this thread.

And it has been extremely ugly to watch. While you have endeavored to discuss the science, they have focused their efforts on vicous presonal attacks, and multiple levels of insults. Their hypocrisy is stark - while pretending to be injured, they seek to injure you; while deriding a supposed lack of mathematics, they provide none themselves; while demanding strict respect for their every word, they speak disdainfully and contemptuously; and above all, while demanding every level of proof, they not only provide zero proof of their own, but only ever offer the merest pablum of utterly subjective, completely opinionated positions for which they claim absolute authority simply because they are repeating the status quo - and this CRAP is what they call 'real" science and scientific "scepticism," when it is nothing but the most extreme, paid-for bias and suppression of true logical thinking.

The reason is, of course, that fairly advanced anti-gravity technology and ships, trans-dimensional portals, and contact and interaction with extra-terrestrials is not only long established, but the norm of the black ops world. And the pressure, by the ETs, for them to come clean to the world is immense. But their lies are so thick, and so vast, and the damage and horror they have unleashed upons billions of people to satisfy their own sick addictions and lusts is so unforgiveable, that they simply cannot even imagine telling the truth about any of this, ever.

So they order their flying monkeys to attack, attack, attack, and throw bailout billions behind the suppression effort, like countless terrified, wet-pantied tyrants have before them.

Nevertheless, it doesn't matter anymnore - the wheel is turning far beyond their power to stop, or even slow it. They are seriously runningly out of time, and too stupid to take whatever precautions they have left to spare themselves from the dawning of the Light.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 




Oh for crying out loud. This is common sense here! Dark matter was not inferred from pure observation, but instead from discrepancies between the math that predicted how much mass should be observed and the calculations (math) of how much mass there really is observed. Rather than admitting the quiet obvious, that the predicted model is wrong, dark matter was invented instead. No observation nor model predicts dark matter.


This is getting boring. The amount of mass as directly observed is too small to account for observed phenomena.

from Wikipedia article on Dark Matter
Dark matter was postulated by Fritz Zwicky in 1934, to account for evidence of "missing mass" in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters. Subsequently, other observations have indicated the presence of dark matter in the universe, including the rotational speeds of galaxies, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet Cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

Notice that Zwicky was postulating an answer to a problem in an observed phenomenon.

Now, galaxies move fast, but not at relativistic speeds, therefore we are basically talking about Newtonian Physics. So you are saying that Newton is wrong and we should throw him out? Fine:


from Wikipedia article on Galaxy Rotation Curve
The rotation curve of a galaxy can be represented by a graph that plots the orbital velocity of the stars or gas in the galaxy on the y-axis against the distance from the center of the galaxy on the x-axis. Stars revolve around the center of galaxies at a constant speed over a large range of distances from the center of the galaxy. Thus they revolve much faster than would be expected if they were in a free Newtonian potential. The galaxy rotation problem is this discrepancy between the observed rotation speeds of matter in the disk portions of spiral galaxies and the predictions of Newtonian dynamics considering the visible mass. This discrepancy is currently thought to betray the presence of dark matter that permeates the galaxy and extends into the galaxy's halo. An alternative explanation is a modification of the laws of gravity, such as MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics).


The problem with MOND is that even though it works well as an alternative to DM in many cases, it does not match the observed rate of rotation and temperature of galaxies in the Virgo Supercluster (which includes our own Milky Way) which the Dark Matter hypothesis does.

To solve the rotation curve anomoly, MOND doesn't overthrow Newton, it Modifies Newton - that's why its called "MOdified Newtonian Dynamics". The modification MOND introduces to Newtonian Physics is no less of a modification than the modification that Dark Matter introduces to cosmology. That is what scientific endeavor does: modifies our understanding of the universe in response to new data. MOND, or some other alternative hypothesis, may turn out 'better' that the Dark Matter hypothesis, but that doesn't mean that everything we understand about the universe is going to have to go back to square one. It just means that we will have a better understanding.

At any rate, the jury is still out on Dark Matter and it is not the only hypothesis under consideration, only the most popular, solving the most problems with the least fuss. The mathematics for properties of Dark Matter, including how much there should be, FOLLOWED the hypothesis, not the other way around as you would lead your readers to believe.



Oh please, even the site itself says the same basic thing I said.

It doesn't say anything of the sort.

It unequivocly says that the "geodetic effect was clearly visible in the data" and that that was reported in April 2007, before your article from 2008. FYI the geodetic effect is the the curvature of spacetime. It also unequivocly says that as of 2009 they can "now clearly show both frame-dragging and geodetic precession in all four gyroscopes".

You deny either effect exists, so they are not saying the same basic thing as you, they are saying exactly the opposite thing as you.

Yes, it has taken 2 and a half years to filter the Newtonian effects out of the Relativistic effects, but do you think that because you can buy an outlandishly priced pair of 'noise reducing' headphones that do a lousy job of reducing noise that they can just pass the data through a gross filter and boost the bass a little bit to make the relativistic effects stand out? That is just plain ignorant. We are talking incredibly small tolerances here and every potential source of error has to be identified and quantified. Every filter has to be carefully thought out, justified and tested. That takes time and time takes money. What does an explicit political decision by the Bush administration to eviserate pure research in America have to do with whether the findings are valid or not? Come on say it with me...DUMB



I was not aware newscientist was an esoteric publication, thank you for the clarification.


I didn't say New Scientist was an esoteric publication. I said the topic may be to esoteric to have found much follow-up on the web. Is English not your first language? "New Scientist" is a pop-sci magazine, not a journal of record. They were describing a research paper and reporting an interesting hypothesis. I can find no evidence that any follow-up has been done by anyone nor what the scientific community response has been.



No, perhaps one alternative doesn't do it alone, but when many pop up giving alternatives that are simpler and reproducible compared to pure unfalsifiable inventions of mainstream cosmology, then these alternatives should be given more seriousness.

Hooray! You are starting to get the picture, except for the 'pure unfalsifiable invention' part. Remember that at one time, the idea of the Earth orbiting the Sun was 'pure unfalsifiable invention'. Everybody can see that the Sun is orbitting the Earth, it is intuitively obvious.

But we still have to figure out how to define what you mean about being 'given more seriousness':


  • Do you mean more space in High School textbooks before these alternatives have been evaluated? That will happen when the idea gets enough momentum.
  • Do you mean more articles in New Scientist and the like so the general public can be in on every hypothesis not matter how little merit it holds? Take that up with the editorial staff.
  • Do you mean that Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannia Online aren't comprehensive enough? These are encyclopedias, not textbooks. Wiki can get a fairly detailed article on any hypothesis you want. What is missing or in what way are they not given a serious airing?
  • Do you mean more papers written and discussed at conventions? How do you know they aren't being taken seriously? Do you attend the conventions on mathematics and physics and cosmology?


The summary article on alternative hypotheses about the values about the Cosmological and the Gravitational constants is an example that demonstrates that alternative hypotheses are kept in front of mainstream researchers, that the implications, strengths, and weaknesses are understood. So the bottom line here is, I'm curious: what exactly are your qualifications to decide for the world where the strengths of a particular alternative cosmological hypothesis outweigh the weaknesses to such an extent that they should be given more seriousness than they currently are?



Tesla, in my opinion was probably more correct than Einstein. He is pretty much the father of modern technology, whereas Einstein is the father of modern scientific religious invention.

Its my turn to exclaim: Oh for crying out loud.

Tesla was a technologist and inventor, exactly right. His rival was Edison, another technologist and inventor, not Einstein who was a scientist and researcher. It is really boring when Tesla fans seek to give him credit for every thing under the sun and he has nothing to contribute this discussion about things above the sun.



[edit on 30/5/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 30/5/2010 by rnaa]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 



This is getting boring. The amount of mass as directly observed is too small to account for observed phenomena.


Your right, this is getting boring. The amount of mass is too small to account for observed phenomena as calculated by Einsteinian physics.

I finished the sentence for you as you left that crucial part out.


The problem with MOND is that even though it works well as an alternative to DM in many cases, it does not match the observed rate of rotation and temperature of galaxies in the Virgo Supercluster (which includes our own Milky Way) which the Dark Matter hypothesis does.


Not because of observation, but because of math. Math can be used to prove and disprove a lot of things, like proving that heavier than air flight is impossible. Yup, it's been done before. No wonder "dark matter" works so well, IT'S ALL MATH!


To solve the rotation curve anomoly, MOND doesn't overthrow Newton, it Modifies Newton - that's why its called "MOdified Newtonian Dynamics". The modification MOND introduces to Newtonian Physics is no less of a modification than the modification that Dark Matter introduces to cosmology. That is what scientific endeavor does: modifies our understanding of the universe in response to new data. MOND, or some other alternative hypothesis, may turn out 'better' that the Dark Matter hypothesis, but that doesn't mean that everything we understand about the universe is going to have to go back to square one. It just means that we will have a better understanding.


Wow, no duh! This is what I'm saying. I even brought up MOND earlier as a viable alternative to inventing new unobserved exotic matter that is not predicted by observation.


At any rate, the jury is still out on Dark Matter and it is not the only hypothesis under consideration, only the most popular, solving the most problems with the least fuss. The mathematics for properties of Dark Matter, including how much there should be, FOLLOWED the hypothesis, not the other way around as you would lead your readers to believe.


What is this, backward thinking month? The model came first with the prediction, then the observation showed a discrepancy, then dark matter was invented from the discrepancies. Dark matter wasn't thought up before Einstein made his calculations.


It doesn't say anything of the sort.


Your not to bright are you?


The latest results, based upon treatment of 1) damped polhode motion, 2) misalignment torques and 3) roll-polhode resonance torques, now clearly show both frame-dragging and geodetic precession in all four gyroscopes (see figure at top right).


Oh noes, our funding is being taken away! Quick, let's say it was noise all this time and mathematically take out a certain percentage of this "noise" to get those "real" results!


Yes, it has taken 2 and a half years to filter the Newtonian effects out of the Relativistic effects, but do you think that because you can buy an outlandishly priced pair of 'noise reducing' headphones that do a lousy job of reducing noise that they can just pass the data through a gross filter and boost the bass a little bit to make the relativistic effects stand out? That is just plain ignorant. We are talking incredibly small tolerances here and every potential source of error has to be identified and quantified. Every filter has to be carefully thought out, justified and tested. That takes time and time takes money. What does an explicit political decision by the Bush administration to eviserate pure research in America have to do with whether the findings are valid or not? Come on say it with me...DUMB


Ah, OK I'll bite. Your dumb. Seriously. Every single experiment is purposefully designed to reduce and account for possible sources of noise from the get go. This one particular experiment flops hard, get's funding cut and WHOA! Magically it's due to noise without any previous mention prior to funding getting cut. Come on... seriously? You buy that garbage? I have a bridge in the everglades to sell you real cheap if you want.


I can find no evidence that any follow-up has been done by anyone nor what the scientific community response has been.


Really? Your doing it wrong then. I can find quiet a few articles with the search term 'gravity constant variable'.


Hooray! You are starting to get the picture, except for the 'pure unfalsifiable invention' part. Remember that at one time, the idea of the Earth orbiting the Sun was 'pure unfalsifiable invention'. Everybody can see that the Sun is orbitting the Earth, it is intuitively obvious.


Actually, both trains of thought were due to observation.


what exactly are your qualifications to decide for the world where the strengths of a particular alternative cosmological hypothesis outweigh the weaknesses to such an extent that they should be given more seriousness than they currently are?


Occam' Razor


Tesla was a technologist and inventor, exactly right. His rival was Edison, another technologist and inventor, not Einstein who was a scientist and researcher. It is really boring when Tesla fans seek to give him credit for every thing under the sun and he has nothing to contribute this discussion about things above the sun.



Actually, he has quiet a bit to offer to this discussion. Unfortunately, he never got the chance to publish his Dynamic Gravity Theory and the United States government currently has it classified. OK, now my turn "Oh for crying out loud for making an erroneous statement that Tesla has nothing to contribute!"



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join