The equations

  • 74 Replies
  • 7750 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: The equations
« Reply #60 on: December 08, 2008, 02:25:08 AM »
Quote
the Theory of Relativity is one of the (if not the) most tested theory of all history.

You mean like when Arther Eddington tested the Theory of Relativity?

Quote:

    "Arthur Eddington was so convinced of the theory of general relativity that he altered his data to support it. Eddington set out to put Einstein to the test by carefully measuring how light was bent during a solar eclipse.

    But apparently the examiner went soft. When the results were in, Eddington threw out 16 photographic plates that didn't support Einstein's theory. Even worse, he then published his research without those 16 plates and showed how Einstein's theory accurately predicted the resulting data. It was this experiment that helped launch the public acceptability of relativity. Strangely enough, the hoax still has legs. You can still find the experiment listed in current textbooks as 'proof' of Einstein's theory."
Relativity has been tested by far more than just 1 person.

There are many reasons that someone might throw out data, maybe the equipment was found to be faulty when they were taken. That would have given results that would have contradicted relativity, not be cause relativity was wrong, but because the recording device was malfunctioning (I know that in high school science classes I threw out a lot of data that disagreed with theory, but it was because the devices I was using to do the testing on were malfunctioning). Devices do malfunction and thus give incorrect results you know.

If you could supply more information on that incident that prove that he threw out the data for no other reasons that is disagreed with relativity.

There are many cases in science where someone did something really stupid without realising it and it gave incorrect data and the data had to be thrown out, and of course as the data was contaminated it showed results that were different form what theory predicted.

Just assuming that the only reason that someone threw out data because it disagreed with theory was because they were covering up a problem with the theory is really bad reasoning. Actually the Zetetic philosophy requires that you look at the evidence without making any assumptions before hand, the assumption that Eddington threw out the data as part of a cover up violates the Zetetic principals set out in Earth Not a Globe.

Tom, go read ENaG (page 1)

I'm not sure what your mumbling about. But all the mumbling in the world won't change the fact that the Arther Eddington test which made General Relativity famous was really nothing more than a hoax.

How much other selective data is out there?

http://science.slashdot.org/science/08/10/19/172254.shtml
« Last Edit: December 08, 2008, 02:34:04 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The equations
« Reply #61 on: December 08, 2008, 04:41:05 AM »
I caught up along time ago kidda.

In conclusion, Einstein, along with Newton, along with observation disagree with FE Theory. A "force" of attraction exists between all masses.
You just said there is still an attraction between masses without the force.

In conclusion, Einstein, along with Newton, along with observation disagree with FE Theory. A "force" of attraction exists between all masses.

Try the search button. Reopen the old threads and we can continue the debate there.
**uses Search**

Nope, I have yet to see a valid answer to any of my questions.

You'll never get a valid response because "valid" and "logical" are twisted in such a way as to mean jack-shit in Crazy-FE-Fucked-In-the-Head World.

Re: The equations
« Reply #62 on: December 08, 2008, 06:28:40 AM »
Quote
I'm not sure what your mumbling about. But all the mumbling in the world won't change the fact that the Arther Eddington test which made General Relativity famous was really nothing more than a hoax.

How much other selective data is out there?

So if relativity is incorrect and such an experiment proves so, why has nobody else managed to replicate what he did? Most scientists would dream of overthrowing relativity and finding evidence for the next big theory of gravitation.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: The equations
« Reply #63 on: December 08, 2008, 01:33:30 PM »
A "force" of attraction exists between all masses.
You just said there is still an attraction between masses without the force.

Search harder. Maybe buy "Searching For Things On The Internet, For Dummies" off ebay. You've been here a while Jack, I would have thought you'd got the search function sorted.
I'm still waiting...

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: The equations
« Reply #64 on: December 08, 2008, 01:39:04 PM »
So if relativity is incorrect and such an experiment proves so, why has nobody else managed to replicate what he did? Most scientists would dream of overthrowing relativity and finding evidence for the next big theory of gravitation.

Relativity isn't a theory of gravitation. Not sure what you're talking about.

Re: The equations
« Reply #65 on: December 08, 2008, 02:13:29 PM »
So if relativity is incorrect and such an experiment proves so, why has nobody else managed to replicate what he did? Most scientists would dream of overthrowing relativity and finding evidence for the next big theory of gravitation.

Relativity isn't a theory of gravitation. Not sure what you're talking about.

This just get's better and better! Maybe Tom is living his life backwards, born wise, then regressing to greater levels of stupidity as he ages.

Quote from: Wikipedia
General relativity or the general theory of relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916.
source

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: The equations
« Reply #66 on: December 08, 2008, 02:16:06 PM »
Tom meant there is a big difference between special relativity and general relativity.

Re: The equations
« Reply #67 on: December 08, 2008, 03:24:36 PM »
Quote
Relativity isn't a theory of gravitation. Not sure what you're talking about.

Quote
Relativity may refer to:

  • Special relativity, a theory of physics formulated by Albert Einstein
  • General relativity, Einstein's theory of gravitation
  • Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, which refers to both special relativity and general relativity together

But of course, that has nothing to do with what I asked. If relativity is incorrect and such an experiment proves so, why has nobody else managed to replicate what he did?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: The equations
« Reply #68 on: December 08, 2008, 04:02:14 PM »
Quote
This just get's better and better! Maybe Tom is living his life backwards, born wise, then regressing to greater levels of stupidity as he ages.

Quote from: Wikipedia
General relativity or the general theory of relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916.
source

Who said anything about GR? I was just talking about the Theory of Relativity. The Theory of Relativity isn't specifically a theory of gravitation. It's actually an all encompassing theory of motion and energy, and how they interrelate. Parts of Relativity might try to define wild new mechanisms or ideas for gravity, but that's not what relativity as is as a whole. It's a theory of motion and energy.

From: www.regentsprep.org/Regents/global/vocab/topic_alpha.cfm

    "Theory of motion and energy developed by Albert Einstein in the 20th century."

From: www.ccel.us/gange.glossary.html

    "A set of mathematical relations showing that mass and energy come from equivalent space curvatures that can appear differently in different ..."

From: wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

    "relativity: (physics) the theory that space and time are relative concepts rather than absolute concepts"
« Last Edit: December 08, 2008, 04:22:27 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: The equations
« Reply #69 on: December 08, 2008, 04:08:40 PM »
Quote
But of course, that has nothing to do with what I asked. If relativity is incorrect and such an experiment proves so, why has nobody else managed to replicate what he did?

No one bothered to replicate Arther Eddington's work because everyone took his hoax experiment at face value and put it in their books as "proof" of Einstein's theory.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2008, 04:12:37 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: The equations
« Reply #70 on: December 08, 2008, 05:04:07 PM »
Search harder. Maybe buy "Searching For Things On The Internet, For Dummies" off ebay. You've been here a while Jack, I would have thought you'd got the search function sorted.
Still waiting...

Re: The equations
« Reply #71 on: December 08, 2008, 05:50:21 PM »
Quote
No one bothered to replicate Arther Eddington's work because everyone took his hoax experiment at face value and put it in their books as "proof" of Einstein's theory.

As far as I can tell, at the possibility of the data being incorrect, rather than taking it a face value, numerous groups reperformed the experiment and reanalysed the results to confirm and check it.(Link.)(Link.)

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: The equations
« Reply #72 on: December 08, 2008, 06:36:55 PM »
Quote
As far as I can tell, at the possibility of the data being incorrect, rather than taking it a face value, numerous groups reperformed the experiment and reanalysed the results to confirm and check it.(Link.)(Link.)

There's aren't any reperforming of the original experiments in those links. You just linked to a blog and a creative writing paper of a couple people claiming that Arthur Eddington was innocent.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2008, 06:40:14 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The equations
« Reply #73 on: December 09, 2008, 01:30:09 AM »
Quote
As far as I can tell, at the possibility of the data being incorrect, rather than taking it a face value, numerous groups reperformed the experiment and reanalysed the results to confirm and check it.(Link.)(Link.)

There's aren't any reperforming of the original experiments in those links. You just linked to a blog and a creative writing paper of a couple people claiming that Arthur Eddington was innocent.
Actually, they have been making measurements of the deflection of light in pretty much every eclipse since Eddington. And not just in visible light, but in radio and other parts of the spectrum. And all these confirm that Einstein's prediction was correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Gravitational_lensing

Tom, you are wrong.
Everyday household experimentation.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42324
Re: The equations
« Reply #74 on: December 09, 2008, 09:58:25 AM »
Quote
But of course, that has nothing to do with what I asked. If relativity is incorrect and such an experiment proves so, why has nobody else managed to replicate what he did?

No one bothered to replicate Arther Eddington's work because everyone took his hoax experiment at face value and put it in their books as "proof" of Einstein's theory.

Just out of curiosity, are you referring to gravitational lensing in general, or the specific example of gravitational lensing around our sun?
Quote from: http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinTest.html
But the Sun's gravity is relatively weak compared with what's out there in the depths of space. In the dramatic example of gravitational lensing below, the light from a quasar (a young, distant galaxy that emits prodigious amounts of radio energy) 8 billi on light years away is bent round by the gravity of a closer galaxy that's "only" 400 million light years distant from Earth.

Also:
Quote from: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-1998-12&page=node2.html
In the following decades, light deflection or gravitational lensing was only very rarely the topic of a research paper: In 1924, Chwolson [39Jump To The Next Citation Point In The Article] mentioned the idea of a ``fictitous double star'' and the mirror-reversed nature of the secondary image. He also mentioned the symmetric case of star exactly behind star, resulting in a circular image. Einstein also reported in 1936 about the appearance of a ``luminous circle'' for perfect alignment between source and lens [53Jump To The Next Citation Point In The Article], and of two magnified images for slightly displaced positions Popup Footnote  . Today such a lens configuration is called ``Einstein-ring'', although more correctly it should be called ``Chwolson-ring''. Influenced by Einstein, Fritz Zwicky [210, 211] pointed out in 1937 that galaxies (``extragalactic nebulae'') are much more likely to be gravitationally lensed than stars and that one can use the gravitational lens effect as a ``natural telescope''.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.