Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - RealScientist

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14]
391
The A-10 gravimeter is the industry standard with an accuracy well within the accepted limit of one part per million. By the way, realscientist, why are you trying so hard to become trig's alt?

For the fifth time or so I am agreeing with you that the A-10 gravimeter is well within one part per million in error. And for about the fifth time I am saying the same myself. Nobody is disagreeing with you in this fact, which also nobody cares to challenge.

The question continues to be: why did De Palma and his people not use an A-10 or similar gravimeter but instead made one by themselves which has an astounding 1 part in 300 minimum demonstrated error? It is as if I offered you a state of the art chronometer to time a race and you decided to use a sand clock instead.

And then you want to make some other kind of twisted appeal to authority? Because I seem to you like some other guy/gal you assign your trouble understanding basic experimental error to whatever you do not like about someone who is not even in this discussion?

If you want to rant about experimental error, rant against lorddave. He has shown your elemental mistakes in understanding experimental error as much as I have.

And the other readers of this thread, take this opportunity to learn a little bit about experimental error. Never mind whether the Earth is round, square or cubic. You will get a very simple lesson on one of the most important subjects in Science.

392
rc, you have shown yourself to be a fraud: you had no idea that the A-10 gravimeter has an accuracy of one part per billion, well within the accepted margin of error of one part per million.

And how on Earth does the accuracy of the A-10 gravimeter help de Palma's people, who did not use one and instead made a dreadfully poor machine for the experiment? Your argument still is that de Palma's experiment is accurate because the A-10 is accurate. That is the same as saying that I am the world 100 meter dash champion because Usain Bolt is the accepted champion and I declare myself better.

You have shown for the umpteenth time that you do not know the first thing about calculating experimental error, or even the first thing about understanding a scientific article.

393
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« on: October 15, 2012, 01:28:14 AM »

In 1921, Einstein wrote to a friend that if "the Miller experiments" produced positive results "the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." Miller's experiments produced
consistently positive results as we have seen here:

Once more, the only game you are playing is one of appeal to authority, and a very twisted one at that. Whether true or not, this comment from Einstein is worth nothing to Science. Science is made from experiments and observations, not from cult to figures of authority. And Miller's experiments are just some of many, almost all of them demonstrating Einstein's Relativity.

394
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« on: October 12, 2012, 06:39:13 AM »
And yet another wall of blabber?

Everything you are saying is great if it gives us a new set of theories that explains most of what the current theories explain, and also solves anomalies in current theories.

If you can show that your debunking of current theories gives us a new and improved set of theories, then please show me the new set.

Otherwise, if all you are saying is that some people do not like some theories, both from Einstein and elsewhere, do not work so hard. We all know that good and bad physicists are trying to find new theories and will tell us about them when they demonstrate them. In the case of the bad physicists, they will fill us with blabber and you will parrot it, and we will still see walls of blabber and ignore them.

395
It seems those 7 trials runs were enough to show that the rotating gyroscope does fall faster than its non-rotating counterpart.


I already explained that Kozyrev performed the rotating gyroscope experiments, while the research team of Dr. DePalma concentrated on the gyro drop experiment (in addition, of course to the superb Spinning Ball Experiment already discussed here).



Now, a complete confirmation that the LaCoste A-10 gravimeter does provide accuracy to within 1 PART PER BILLION.

http://scintrexltd.com/dat/content/file/Gravity%20in%20the%2021st%20Century.pdf (Jennifer Hare from Micro-g LaCoste Inc.)

Other specialized instruments such as the INO sea-floor gravity meter, Gravilog
borehole gravity meter, and the rugged A-10 portable absolute gravity meter can acquire part per billion (microGal) resolution data in environments that were considered inaccessible as recently as ten years ago. 


Exactly what I have been saying in my last two messages proving that real(?!)scientist was playing with the numbers in order to falsify the data: the accuracy is ONE PART PER BILLION, and NOT one part per million.  Therefore we are well within the required/accepted margin of error.
This is absolutely hilarious. Let me separate it in small phrases so even levee understands his own logic:

  • Premise: there is a machine (the LaCoste A-10 gravimeter) that does exactly the same experiment that dePalma does (the non-rotating part), with a precision of about one part per billion
  • Premise: the gravitational pull on one given location is constant to less than one part per million for relatively short periods of time. This is basic to the analysis of fields where oil and other resources are explored.
  • Premise: dePalma's machine measures exactly the same (the acceleration of a falling ball) but gets to a totally different result: that the gravitational pull changes up to 0.55% between his 13 measurements.
  • Conclusion: dePalma's machine has the precision of the LaCoste machine, even though its results are totally different from LaCoste's machine
Where did levee learn logic? Where did he learn that the specifications and performance of one machine can be assigned to another?

In reality, every explorer who uses gravimetry knows that measurements of "g" that jump up to 0.55% are impossible on Earth unless they are taken in the middle of an earthquake, so an experimental setup that gets that kind of result is severely damaged or has insanely poor design.

396
I told you that tricks do not work with me.

You are embarrassing yourself. You are showing that you do not know what experimental error is, but want to rant about experimental error none-the-less.

In this post I will talk only about the non-rotating balls that were thrown, because it is the easiest part.

In this experiment they throw a box of some kind and get differences of up to 0.0036 seconds in a 0.66 second drop. This means that, at the very least, we know that there is an experimental error of at least 0.0036/0.66 = 0.0055, or 0.55%!  And this is just what you see when you look at the differences between their own results. This does not include any error which may have affected all results equally. And 0.55% error is one part in 182, which I generously improved to one part in 300 in my last post by not using the worst results (which is not valid in real scientific papers).

Now we are getting a wall of blabber about how in the exact same experiment (throwing a ball and timing its fall to calculate the local gravitational pull) others get errors in the range from 1 part in a million to 1 part in a billion. The fact that others do the same measurement several orders of magnitude better should be enough to get de Palma and his people running and hiding in total embarrassment. It should also send levee into accepting that these results are worth nothing, but he just writes another wall of blabber.

Whoever wants to repeat de Palma's experiment is welcome to do so. But he must know that the quality of the results has to be orders of magnitude better than what you see here. Whatever the acceleration of a ball is in your location, that acceleration is constant to within small fractions of one part in a million. If your experiment shows some balls fall 0.55% faster than others, and those are just plain balls without rotating pieces inside, you are doing an astonishingly bad experiment.

397
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« on: October 11, 2012, 06:13:10 AM »
This whole wall of blabber deserves just one comment: It is a continuous, unending appeal to authority. It is not even worth reading.

398


Runs 3-7 show clearly what is going on: the rotating gyroscope is falling faster than its non-rotating counterpart.

This gem requires a post just for itself. For anyone interested in serious Science, pay attention:

    The above is called cherry picking, and will get you dismissed from any serious Science program at any serious university!

You do not get to choose the results you like and discard the rest. Ever. If you additionally hide the results you do not like and get caught, any career in Science is over.

399

The nominal gravity is given as 980cm/s^2 = 980Gal.  Gravity measurements are often given in units of micro-gals:  1 μGal = 10^-6Gal.  One micro-Gal (µGal) precision requires a measurement of the earth’s field with a precision of 1 part in 10^9(1 part/billion).

http://www.microglacoste.com/pdf/A-10Manual.pdf

... and a lot of more of the same ...

http://www.agu.org/pubs/eos-news/supplements/1995-2003/99144e.shtml

J. M. Brown, T. M. Niebauer, B. Richter, F. J. Klopping, J. G. Valentine, and W. K. Buxton, “Miniaturized gravimeter may greatly improve measurements”: On the micro-g lacoste A-10 merits.

Such a long description on how the acceptable errors in this field are, at worst, of one part per million. I agree with you. And you show us an experiment with actual, measured experimental error of about 3000 parts per million! That is one part in 300! The experiment is orders of magnitude too filled with error to be compared with the worst acceptable measurements in the field, and you still argue?

This is as if I asked you what the world record in 100 meters is, and you answer "somewhere around 5 to 15 seconds, because I measured it by singing and counting my words".

Anyone with even a passing interest in experimental Physics should look at the results of this experiment and laugh. They were not even capable of letting a ball drop and get a reasonably precise measurement of the time it took to fall.

400
Quote from: levee
The gyro drop experiment was done by the team of engineers/scientists who worked with the late Dr. Bruce DePalma, PhD, researcher at MIT,  (read the link to see the perfect conditions for vacuum were complied with).

It was carefully performed, as we can see from the undeniable data:

http://www.depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html



This is the perfect example of the misunderstandings in Science for which I bother posting in this forum. The very bad science shown in this link should make any beginner or amateur scientist scream his head off. If you want to learn science you should look at these results and learn.

First, commercial gravimeters have a precision of some 10 microgals, which means a precision of about 0.01 parts per million. And this is a portable unit (Micro G LaCoste A-10), not even a state of the art non-portable unit! Even if you want to give yourself a good margin of error, you are measuring the acceleration of a ball falling through vacuum with an error of 0.1 parts per million. In this experiment the error is more than 3000 parts per million!

Your scientific knowledge should tell you immediately that this is a poorly implemented experiment. Four orders of magnitude worse than the commercially available gravimeter! Like measuring amoebas with your kid's ruler!

Now, look at the results in the table that shows all the 20 ball drops. All the results on the "rotating" column except for two are slower than the fastest result on the "non-rotating" column! Even a quick glance at this table should tell you that there is nothing compelling in these results, but the author tries to show them as the demise for known Physics!

I do not want to enter in a complex discussion on statistics, but I can tell you that the standard deviations shown here are a textbook example of the misuse of the Bell Curve and of the intent of standard deviations. The author has not even shown that the data follows a Bell Curve, and has not shown in the least that the calculated standard deviation is the phenomenon's deviation and not the sample's deviation!

As a simple example of the error in the standard deviation calculation, just think of this experiment:
 - I throw the ball twice on a roulette  with numbers from 1 to 40, and get the results 5 and 14.
 - I then calculate the average and standard deviation for my data, getting an average of 9.5 and a standard deviation of 6.4, so I declare that in this roulette a result of 40 is almost 5 standard deviations from the average, and it is an almost impossible result. But we know that 40 is exactly as probable as any other number. Standard deviations do not even have any significance in this case!

So, look at the table in the link given, and learn how bad science looks like.

401
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« on: October 10, 2012, 10:08:55 AM »

But Pound and Rebka ASSUMED that the speed of light is constant and not a variable.

If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation.
This is not a rebuttal of anything. If I say that the laws of physics are just so that the experiments give the results I want, but do not say what are the new laws are in such a way that most previous predictions are repeatable, I am just fooling myself.

It is absolutely true that some set of new theories will someday replace the current one (unless we have already reached the limits of human intellect). But saying that some change in these theories (in this case the speed of light) gives us a better theory, without saying what the new theory is, gives us nothing.

Real scientists are researching scenarios with variable speed of light, with variable gravitational constants, with and without strings, and so much more. But the existence of incipient hypothesis does not take away anything from the currently accepted theories.

402
Both the DePalma and the Kozyrev experiments were performed in full vacuum; this is a basic requirement, which does not even need to be mentioned...

You claim that they are scientists, but that the basic parts of the equipment used, such as the huge vacuum chamber where the balls are thrown, are irrelevant? No wonder why all of the real scientists who are looking for real anomalies in the known Physics theories are looking elsewhere.

Since no such thing as full vacuum exists, and this experiment requires a very sophisticated and big vacuum chamber, the barometric pressure inside the chamber during the test is a critical parameter. A reasonable estimation of the experimental error due to the residual gases inside the chamber should be a central part of the presentation of the experiment to peers.

And the graph you are presenting shows that the two balls did not leave the device used to throw them at the same speed. Any half competent scientist sees this graph and immediately finds a lot of questions you have not answered.

403
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« on: October 09, 2012, 06:15:29 PM »
Here is the entire story of the fake data of the 1919/1922 eclipses.

Who cares about the 1919 and 1922 eclipses? The measurements have been repeated every few years by several independent groups of astronomers who have much better equipment than Eddington. And none of them have denounced Relativity, even though they would earn Nobel prizes for demonstrating that Relativity is wrong.

I have heard stories about Eddington being wrong, possibly with his maths after the measurements, but science has no interest in the battle of personalities. If we give the most implacable critics every benefit of doubt and declare every observation by Eddington invalid we still have no way to dismiss the dozens of repetitions that have been made of the observations, in general with better equipment than Eddington ever had.

404

To invalidate the law of attractive gravity, we only need a single counterexample (fakescientist, do your homework...).

You continue to play with your totally wrong claim. One counterexample would be a devastating blow for a theory if the corresponding experiment is verified to a scientific certainty. In the end, when scientific certainty is achieved a lot of independent experiments have been done. That includes a lot of hard work on all the possible sources of error, which your example has not shown. And it includes independent experiments that show that the anomaly is not just a weird phenomenon caused by poor experiment design. One experiment done by one person is a counterexample, but is not enough to invalidate anything.

But the claim that somebody did an experiment with unknown protocols to control error, and with no verification by peers, with no response to such simple questions as why the experiment was not done in a vacuum, is the same as nothing. There is not even some clarity as to whether the momentum of the rotating ball includes the rotational momentum or just the vertical and horizontal momentum.

405
On the other hand, the size of the curvature that you can measure increases in an approximately exponential scale. While there is nothing measurable in 2 km, you have some 20 meters at 15 km (enough to see a clear appearance of a sinking boat).

In conclusion, the whole argument for the design of this experiment is totally wrong. Measuring stretches of 2 km, no matter how many of them, is totally useless as a method to calculate the circumference of the Earth.

On the contrary, something should be measurable on that scale if the Earth is in fact curved. It seems that whenever Round Earthers are confronted with direct evidence of a flat earth they attempt to discredit the evidence.
You are plainly talking out of your posterior hole. You have been shown clearly that the curvature you could measure is in the order of a few centimeters while the sources of error are more than a few centimeters, making your whole experiment void.

If you want to say something "should be measurable" you have to show a valid estimation of the expected experimental errors. Even if you just take into account the 10 cm or so of the waves you are already measuring something much smaller than the size of the waves. And you have not even explained how you are going to level your theodolite to a precision of less than 0.002 degrees. The level it has inside does not even come close.

406
Just out of curiosity, were any measurements taken across the full 15 km from the first marker to the last?

No, at that distance too much light refraction would have rendered the experiment null and void. The purpose of measuring one segment at a time and summing the total was to avoid any dispute about what might be attributed to light refraction. Since the effects of refraction are nonlinear, the summation of each segment will result in significantly less refraction than a single measurement across the entire survey would.
This is a very sneaky claim. You are right when you say the effects of refraction are non-linear. But you forget to say that the non-linearity is not increasingly worse with distance, but the exact opposite. No matter what you do, the maximum temperature differential you might get between any two places in the whole 15 km stretch is less than 5 degrees centigrade, and this is the equivalent of making a prism out of a material with refractive index of 1.00026666 and putting it in air with refractive index of 1.000271373. (you can use the calculator at http://emtoolbox.nist.gov/Wavelength/Ciddor.asp). And this is true no matter what distance you are looking through.

So, even in the perfect situation in which the air suddenly changes 5 degrees Celsius at the perfect height above the lake, producing the maximum refraction possible with such a small change in refractive index, the total refraction would be 0.2 degrees. (this comes from n2/n1*arcsin(Theta)=1). In fact, you would see more a mirage than a subtle refraction. And even if you had a lake of several hundreds of kilometers, you would not be able to get more than 0.2 degrees of refraction.

On the other hand, the size of the curvature that you can measure increases in an approximately exponential scale. While there is nothing measurable in 2 km, you have some 20 meters at 15 km (enough to see a clear appearance of a sinking boat).

In conclusion, the whole argument for the design of this experiment is totally wrong. Measuring stretches of 2 km, no matter how many of them, is totally useless as a method to calculate the circumference of the Earth.

407
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« on: October 08, 2012, 06:55:25 AM »
And now, the most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html

As I read the first sentences of this article, this is what I found:
Quote
What is particularly clear is that it is probable that Eddington fudged the data to make it conform to Einsteins work on general relativity.

So, who faked the data, Eddington or Einstein? And who convinced all scientists from 1919 to 2012 to fake the data once and again and again? Every time there is a total solar eclipse there are at least a few astronomers repeating what Eddington did, and everyone can gain fame and fortune by finding an anomaly. Why are all of them faking the data and staying in anonymity?

408

To invalidate a theory, according to the accepted principles of science, it is necessary to present a single counterexample.

To invalidate a mathematical theorem it is only necessary to present a single counterexample. To invalidate a scientific theory you need a lot more. What you are saying is a pop culture claim that sounds good but has no substance.

Every scientific theory has a range of conditions for which it has been tested and a number of known experimental errors that are expected. A single experiment with currently unexplained results does not invalidate a whole theory. The experiment has to be repeated several times under different conditions and several steps have to be taken to look for sources of error before the theory is even acknowledged to have an anomaly. If it were not like this, every time a science student tries an experiment a theory would be invalidated.

This is the old logical argument that says that I can never say that all swans are white. Of course, from a logical perspective the argument is true. But from a scientific standpoint it is perfectly reasonable to say that swans are generally white, even though a few black swans were found somewhere in the far East.

If you were truly interested in the science of any of the three or four subjects you are showing you could repeat the experiments here, now, with a good scientist looking at the possible sources of error. Just like with Rowbotham, experiments that were supposedly done decades ago, with no analysis of experimental errors at all, are worth nothing.

409

Brownian motion, the slow settling of gases is possible ONLY in the absence of the permanent effect of attractive gravity.

Brownian motion is not the slow settling of gases. And Brownian motion works through forces that are many orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational pull for gas molecules. You gave the article that made the calculations where a heavy gas molecule inside a lighter gas settles (sediments) to the bottom of the container, but does so at such a slow speed that it is essentially zero.

You are not helping anyone with this discussion. Whether the Earth is flat and finite, flat and infinite, round or square, the only thing that enters this calculation is the existence of acceleration of the molecule towards the floor of the container (which nobody, not even in this forum, denies) and the Brownian movement of the gas that fills the container.

410
Your own post exemplifies my previous statement; the subterfuge of diverting the discussion to the settling of microscopic particles does not work with me.


Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.”  Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.

The ozone layer is kept in a stable balance. And, moreover, in the stratosphere, the ozone layer concentrations are about 2 to 8 parts per million, which is much higher than in the lower atmosphere.

The ozone is not kept in a stable layer. It is created in large quantities in the upper atmosphere, in exactly the same way as it is created in home water purifiers: by high voltage electrical discharges, or with ultraviolet light. It then slowly descends and mixes with the surrounding air by the action of the wind, but in a matter of days it decomposes into O2. There is nothing unusual going on. The only unusual property here is the relatively fast rate at which it is created and decomposed, before it reaches the lower atmosphere in large quantities.

411
There are scientific papers dedicated to this subject, gas mixture settling:

http://webserver.dmt.upm.es/~isidoro/bk3/c07/Mixture%20settling.pdf

In this article, on page 13, vsed, the velocity of sedimentation, is calculated as 0 for atoms and molecules. This means that larger molecules, like oxygen, will not sediment under the smaller molecules, like nitrogen at any significant speed. Even a slight breeze is many orders of magnitude faster than this sedimentation speed.

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14]