BREAKING NEWS: Error Undoes Faster-Than-Light Neutrino Results

reply to post by Anon77

they don't satisfy the evidence as much as the relativity theory.

Relativity theory doesn't satisfy any of the evidence.

(second line)

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Anon77

 

they don't satisfy the evidence as much as the relativity theory.

Relativity theory doesn't satisfy any of the evidence.

(second line)

Ok, care to enlighten me as to what evidence available (ie all the experimental data from testing relativity throughout the 20th century that agrees with relativity theory) doesn't agree with relativity theory?

Also as I said before, OK which alternative would you replace it with?

reply to post by Anon77

Ok, care to enlighten me... ...?

I thought you'd never ask:

1. Deflection of light by the Sun

This has been believed to confirm general relativity for 8 or so decades, that test being that the sun deflected light from behind the sun by the curvature of spacetime around the sun, causing light that would hav ebeen behind the sun at that time to be "Bent" to allow us to see it.

This is actually not a proof of general relativity, as anouther classical mechanism is actually responsible, that being Refraction.

The plasma in the outer surfaces of the sun causes the light from distant stars to bend while passing through the plasma layers of the sun.

2. Light travel time delay testing

In this next test, a radio wave was sent by a orbiting satellite to be reflected off of Venus.... the radio wave was delayed (opposed to time it would have taken in a vacuum) and the delay was attributed to the gravity well of the sun making the light slow down.

Again, they never took into account the refractive index of the solar wind between the Earth and Venus, nor the refractive index of the atmosphere (and ionosphere) of Venus itself that would have slowed the propagation speed of the radio wave.

3. Gravitational Redshift

The test here, was that light from distant objects was "Redshifted" due to the gravity well that the light had to escape from, and thus the mass of the object could be determined due to the frequency shift of the light from that object.

AGAIN, they did not take into account the refractive index of the plasma layers of the star, nor the hydrogen and helium plasma that fills the space within the Heliopause of that star.

Consequently, the density of the plasma, and it's falloff rate would be determined by the approximate mass of the star, and the surface temperature of the star.

So, there ya go.... Refutation, AND alternative explanation of the experiment results.

Any more questions?

1. Deflection of light by the Sun

There were experiments in 1919, 1922, 1960's (1960's era ones were with radio telescopes) and 1973 all of which totally agreed with relativity. I grant you that there was a lot of initial uncertainty about the results. But later re-analysis of the data has proved consistent with relativity.

2. Light travel time delay testing

Recently the Cassini probe has undertaken a similar experiment which gave a very close agreement with general relativity (0.0002% according to NASA).


3.Gravitational Redshift

Gravitational redshift was excellently and very accurately proved to be in agreement with relativity in the Pound–Rebka experiment in 1959.

You still didn't say what you would replace relativity with?

For the moment it's a 'best fit' for the observed effects. It doesn't entirely fit but it's a better explanation than any other theory out there and it is the simplest theory that is consistent with experimental data. Remember occam's razor? or put simply the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false.

That's good to see, now I can go out and see if neutrino's are faster than light; that is if they are faster than light. They may not be.

reply to post by Anon77

all of which totally agreed with relativity.

You mean that they agree with the theory of Refraction, right?

Find me a experiment that was done against the backdrop of a object that doesn't have a plasma atmosphere, and we'll talk.

Recently the Cassini probe has undertaken a similar experiment which gave a very close agreement with general relativity (0.0002% according to NASA).

Sure it did.... do you have any of the calculations to back it up?

Gravitational redshift was excellently and very accurately proved to be in agreement with relativity in the Pound–Rebka experiment in 1959.

Nope, I'm sorry but you are just trying to justify Relativity, when it is a ridiculous hypothesis.

You got appeals to authority galore.... but nothing substantial.

That test does not actually state what they pretend that it does, that the "gravity well" itself is responsible for the phase shift of the gamma ray emission, as there are other factors involved that just the "Gravity Well".

For example, the oscillation in the emitter would have increased the speed of the photons by the oscillation speed of the speaker, and thus the frequency of the photon being emitted by the Fe-57 would have been greater than the frequency to be absorbed by the Fe-57 underneath it.

Furthermore, IF they were wanting to prove that the Fe-57 emitted gamma rays actually shift their frequency just by going lower in the gravitational well ALONE, they would not have used the oscillating speaker in the emitter, as it would have been redundant, and they would only have had the oscillation in the detector, which they did not do.

The experiment was never designed to measure gravitational redshift, or blueshift from special relativity and general relativity.... As the experiment would not need an oscillating emitter, and just an oscillating detector to observe the "Gravitational Frequency Dilation"

This reeks of the same sort of experimental bias as the Michelson Morley experiment, in that it is not designed to actually TEST what it claims, but to give results that are pre-determined.

Keep trying if you want...

For the moment it's a 'best fit' for the observed effects.

Not

Even

Close

Remember occam's razor?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You have seriously got ot be kidding me....

You really think that Occams Razor, the postulate that states that the theory that makes the least amount of new assumptions is usually correct, somehow favours the theory of relativity, which makes the MOST amount of new assumptions?

My friend, you have just shot your own argument in the foot.

And that's not even counting for the Zeeman Effect.

In most atoms, there exist several electron configurations with the same energy, so that transitions between these configurations and another correspond to a single spectral line. The presence of a magnetic field breaks this degeneracy, since the magnetic field interacts differently with electrons with different quantum numbers, slightly modifying their energies. The result is that, where there were several configurations with the same energy, they now have different energies, giving rise to several very close spectral lines.

en.wikipedia.org...

Long story short, in the presence of a magnetic field, the emission and absorption spectrum of an element changes.

You know, like the magnetic field of the earth (that changes in flux density with altitude above sea level) or the magnetic field created by an oscillating electromagnetic speaker coil?

en.wikipedia.org...

This also explains the changes in the frequency of a caesium atomic clock, as the microwave emissions would have changed due to the changing magnetic flux density due to it's altitude above the surface of the earth.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Anon77

 

all of which totally agreed with relativity.

You mean that they agree with the theory of Refraction, right?

Find me a experiment that was done against the backdrop of a object that doesn't have a plasma atmosphere, and we'll talk.

Recently the Cassini probe has undertaken a similar experiment which gave a very close agreement with general relativity (0.0002% according to NASA).

Sure it did.... do you have any of the calculations to back it up?

Gravitational redshift was excellently and very accurately proved to be in agreement with relativity in the Pound–Rebka experiment in 1959.

Nope, I'm sorry but you are just trying to justify Relativity, when it is a ridiculous hypothesis.

You got appeals to authority galore.... but nothing substantial.

That test does not actually state what they pretend that it does, that the "gravity well" itself is responsible for the phase shift of the gamma ray emission, as there are other factors involved that just the "Gravity Well".

For example, the oscillation in the emitter would have increased the speed of the photons by the oscillation speed of the speaker, and thus the frequency of the photon being emitted by the Fe-57 would have been greater than the frequency to be absorbed by the Fe-57 underneath it.

Furthermore, IF they were wanting to prove that the Fe-57 emitted gamma rays actually shift their frequency just by going lower in the gravitational well ALONE, they would not have used the oscillating speaker in the emitter, as it would have been redundant, and they would only have had the oscillation in the detector, which they did not do.

The experiment was never designed to measure gravitational redshift, or blueshift from special relativity and general relativity.... As the experiment would not need an oscillating emitter, and just an oscillating detector to observe the "Gravitational Frequency Dilation"

This reeks of the same sort of experimental bias as the Michelson Morley experiment, in that it is not designed to actually TEST what it claims, but to give results that are pre-determined.

Keep trying if you want...

For the moment it's a 'best fit' for the observed effects.

Not

Even

Close

Remember occam's razor?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You have seriously got ot be kidding me....

You really think that Occams Razor, the postulate that states that the theory that makes the least amount of new assumptions is usually correct, somehow favours the theory of relativity, which makes the MOST amount of new assumptions?

My friend, you have just shot your own argument in the foot.

How exactly do you suggest testing the deflection of light by the Sun without using the backdrop of a object with a plasma atmosphere? Since all stars have plasma atmospheres.

Actually, yes I do have the calculations. Please follow this link.

It is the 'best fit' for the observed results, IF as you say it is not then what in your opinion is the best alternative? (A question that I have now asked you 3 times with no answer). (as a side note I'm pretty confident that about 99% of physicists would disagree with your statements).

Relativity makes the LEAST assumptions, not the most. My friend you have some interesting ideas about physics...

And also, the Stark Effect, which is the exact same as the zeeman effect, except with electrical fields, instead of magnetic fields.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
And that's not even counting for the Zeeman Effect.

In most atoms, there exist several electron configurations with the same energy, so that transitions between these configurations and another correspond to a single spectral line. The presence of a magnetic field breaks this degeneracy, since the magnetic field interacts differently with electrons with different quantum numbers, slightly modifying their energies. The result is that, where there were several configurations with the same energy, they now have different energies, giving rise to several very close spectral lines.

en.wikipedia.org...

Long story short, in the presence of a magnetic field, the emission and absorption spectrum of an element changes.

You know, like the magnetic field of the earth (that changes in flux density with altitude above sea level) or the magnetic field created by an oscillating electromagnetic speaker coil?

en.wikipedia.org...

This also explains the changes in the frequency of a caesium atomic clock, as the microwave emissions would have changed due to the changing magnetic flux density due to it's altitude above the surface of the earth.
en.wikipedia.org...

Yeah i've heard of the zeeman effect before, That could be removed from the experiment if it could be performed in deep space instead.

As a slight off topic, What's your opinion of Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect?

reply to post by Anon77

How exactly do you suggest testing the deflection of light by the Sun without using the backdrop of a object with a plasma atmosphere? Since all stars have plasma atmospheres.

Use the moon instead.... I'm pretty sure we have instrumentation that is sensative enough to capture that level of "Gravitational" deflection, or, you know.... you could just calculate the deflection of light from a star that is passing close enough to the sun for the "gravity effect" to work, but far enough away so that the plasma layer doesn't.

Actually, yes I do have the calculations. Please follow this link.

Phsaw.... The refractive index of the solar wind hydrogen and helium near the sun.

IT's the same thing, and I already answered that one.

It is the 'best fit' for the observed results, IF as you say it is not then what in your opinion is the best alternative?

Lol, you are too silly, I already provided the answer 5 times now.

Did you really not read it?

(as a side note I'm pretty confident that about 99% of physicists would disagree with your statements).

That's nice.... Appeal to authority some more...

Relativity makes the LEAST assumptions, not the most. My friend you have some interesting ideas about physics...

No, relativity makes the most assumptions that have not been vindicated by experiments....

And it's especially clear that they have not, when you realize that they clearly left out some pretty big segments of physics. (Like the aforementioned Refraction)

reply to post by Anon77

Yeah i've heard of the zeeman effect before, That could be removed from the experiment if it could be performed in deep space instead.

Possibly, but you would have to isolate the experiment from both magnetic and electrostatic charges, especially when working with measured frequencies in the gamma range. (Yikes)

As a slight off topic, What's your opinion of Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect?

Might have something to do with the reduction in speed of the solar wind as it nears the heliosphere, the solar wind could be bunching up as it approaches the heliosphere, and in turn slowing down, and creating significantly more drag on the spacecraft than was anticipated....

Combine this with the magnetic bubbles they found in that region, and you could have a significant drag effect.


Edit to add:

Well, it looks like they are measuring it's position with the dopplar shift of the radio wave... so... yeah... I'm thinking refractive index changes.... lol

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


You know what my friend, i graciously give up debating with you about relativity. I will never agree with your perspective. I can only go off what the majority of physicists believe to be true as observed from experiments and the experimental data I've read and understood.

I have read and understood what you've written but I don't agree with it.

Still, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. That's what makes debates like this fun. So perhaps you'd like to comment on another subject? Like the Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect?

reply to post by Anon77

You know what my friend, i graciously give up debating with you about relativity.

Fair enough....

I have read and understood what you've written but I don't agree with it.

Another day perhaps....

And I apologize if I came off as snippy.

So perhaps you'd like to comment on another subject? Like the Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect?

Ya, see above.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Anon77

 

Yeah i've heard of the zeeman effect before, That could be removed from the experiment if it could be performed in deep space instead.

Possibly, but you would have to isolate the experiment from both magnetic and electrostatic charges, especially when working with measured frequencies in the gamma range. (Yikes)

As a slight off topic, What's your opinion of Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect?

Might have something to do with the reduction in speed of the solar wind as it nears the heliosphere, the solar wind could be bunching up as it approaches the heliosphere, and in turn slowing down, and creating significantly more drag on the spacecraft than was anticipated....

Combine this with the magnetic bubbles they found in that region, and you could have a significant drag effect.

Hmmmm, ha! good point, that would be extremely difficult to do.

Yeah I was thinking along similar lines myself, I also read somewhere recently (new scientist I think) that thermal radiation pressure forces inherent in the spacecraft might be to blame. Tiny effect, but very odd. I think if the voyager craft hadn't been spin stabilized they might have noted an effect with them too.

reply to post by InSanE1


I don't blame them one bit. I would much rather get hammered for a loose wire or two than missing something so important. At this point, truth becomes far less important than concept or appearance.

So... light is faster, whether it is or not. Life goes on and people keep their jobs.

Well done!

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Snippy! Not at all my friend, very enjoyable debate. Something that on ATS these days seems to be a bit rare.

reply to post by Anon77

Hmmmm, ha! good point, that would be extremely difficult to do.

Yeah I was thinking along similar lines myself, I also read somewhere recently (new scientist I think) that thermal radiation pressure forces inherent in the spacecraft might be to blame. Tiny effect, but very odd. I think if the voyager craft hadn't been spin stabilized they might have noted an effect with them too.

Well, I was also thinking that the zeeman effect might come into play as well, since those magnetic bubbles in the heliosphere have been detected, they could be altering the emission spectrum of the radio emitter, and producing a altered frequency radio transmission, that would look particularly weird at the receiving end... messing with the Doppler measurements and all.

Snippy! Not at all my friend, very enjoyable debate. Something that on ATS these days seems to be a bit rare.

Excellent! I find it quite enjoyable as well!

reply to post by buddhasystem

Thanks for the update. That story sounds different than the story in the OP, but it seems that it should be a reliable source.

Hopefully the folks doing the replication experiments are also checking their connectors and their oscillators!?

Maybe we'll have some kind of resolution before the Mayan calendar recycles in December.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


In general that statement of them just trying to protect relativity, is ridiculous. As your assuming alot of people are very set in their ways, BUT it is EXTREMELY hard to gather funding for anything regarding Physics that doesn't have a direct Commercial or Military application. A major Physics break through would get funding on a MUCH greater scale. You have to realize that most of the people who provide funding have very little understanding of the subject. If you went in search of funding for a Physics project today, you'd be hard pressed to find more then a few donors. Now if you did the same thing the day after FTL movement was proved possible, you'd find 100 fold the amount of donors. If they were going to lie they would lie to where it benefits them the most, not hurt themselves.