Is Relativity Wrong?

[newts]

In a word, Bullshit. You don't get to make that claim without backing it up with some really good evidence. You need to show that (1) they fraudulently manipulated the data (the implication here is that this is not the kind of manipulation scientists normally do, like subtracting a known offset, or averaging, etc. or that isn't/wasn't normal operating procedure for timekeeping) and (2) that they did so so that they could achieve fame. (How "famous" are they, really?) Do you have access to a diary or something?

 

http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i5_en/

 

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/H&KPaper.htm

[Endy0816]

Optical Clocks and Relativity

 

 

Observers in relative motion or at different gravitational potentials measure disparate clock rates. These predictions of relativity have previously been observed with atomic clocks at high velocities and with large changes in elevation. We observed time dilation from relative speeds of less than 10 meters per second by comparing two optical atomic clocks connected by a 75-meter length of optical fiber. We can now also detect time dilation due to a change in height near Earth’s surface of less than 1 meter. This technique may be extended to the field of geodesy, with applications in geophysics and hydrology as well as in space-based tests of fundamental physics.

[swansont]

 

http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i5_en/

 

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/H&KPaper.htm

 

As far as I know, Kelley has no experience in analyzing clock data. Much of his critique seems to be based on this lack of knowledge.

 

He hangs a lot of this on two quotes, both taken out of context. (I am shocked, shocked that that happened)

 

"Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree that the time gained by any one of these clocks is indicative of anything"

 

is actually taken from a broader statement about the reasoning behind taking four clocks so that they can be averaged, because the precision of one clock was insufficient to do the experiment.

 

"the difference between theory and measurement is disturbing"

 

is taken from a section where he has prefaced his discussion by saying it after the preliminary analysis; the westward time delay is centered at 150 nsec, with large error bars. In the final analysis, published in Science, it ended up at 273±7 nsec.

(edit to add: the preliminary nature is abundantly clear if you read the entire paper; it is specifically discussed in the transcript of the Q&A at the end)

 

 

Read for yourself. p279 and p283, respectively

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1971/Vol%2003_17.pdf

 

Also included in that paper is the statement that the east and west differences are clear

 

"In any event, this experiment verifies unequivocally the existence of the predicted east-west directional asymmetry; only more precise magnitudes remain to be established. "

 

There are other quotes, and not particularly careful examination is needed to show that these, too, are taken out of context so as to change the meaning.

 

So, the one person who thinks this is a fraud has to rely on quoting out of context to be able to claim that. It's pretty clear to me where the fraud is happening.

[ajb]

So H&K had large error bars, they demonstrated the principal and were consistent with theory. Lets be aware that more accurate test have been performed with better accuracy and even better agreement with theory. Wikipedia lists them!

 

In short, relativity still looks good...

[PureGenius]

Relativity is the most innovative original and cohesive set of formulas that explain how the universe functions ever created, when someone comes up with a better measuring stick than the speed of light and the universal constants such as time dilation and invariant frames of reference, using words regular people can understand. In elegant explanations like the glass elevator concept, until then we'll have to give einstien his due and admit he is the father of modern physics , and possibly the most intelligent man to ever pick up a pencil.

Edited August 23, 2013 by PureGenius

[newts]

All inertial observers can assume that their reference frame is stationary, and it will make no difference in what the physics predicts. Which is precisely true in LET, too.

 

Look to the beam in your eye before trying to remove the mote in others.

 

I would not say the physics is the same, as SR is surely based on the constancy of one-way lightspeed. It is just that no experiment can be done to distinguish between the theories if the followers of SR decree that both theories make the same experimental predictions.

 

This thread is really bringing out the best in people. First Swansont makes a joke, now Uncool acknowledges the wisdom of the Bible. Perhaps you would like to apply the beam and mote theorem to Dawkins’ ridicule of religion and the Cool Fox’s lambasting of astrology, in light of the fact that both appear to accept the possibility of time travel because they have been told it is allowed by GR.

 

I have never seen a relativity denier who actually knew anything at all about relativity. Nor have I ever seen one who could actually articulate any problem with relativity. They don't even argue it, they just make pronouncements out of ignorance and an total inability to understand. After all, if they can't get it, it MUST be wrong.

 

A silly answer fitting well a sheep.

 

So H&K had large error bars, they demonstrated the principal and were consistent with theory. Lets be aware that more accurate test have been performed with better accuracy and even better agreement with theory. Wikipedia lists them!

 

In short, relativity still looks good...

 

Since the physics is not in dispute, I am disinclined to spend a long time analysing the data. But in your expert opinion would you say that Wikipedia is justified in saying that H+K verified relativity to within 10%, or not?

[Endy0816]

I think LET is dead in the water without an Aether that differs from the background.

 

It might be there, but how and in what ways does it impact the math?

 

 

I really don't like discussing articles of faith, anyone else have some debate points?

[uncool]

I would not say the physics is the same, as SR is surely based on the constancy of one-way lightspeed.

LET also assumes the constancy of one-way lightspeed.

It is just that no experiment can be done to distinguish between the theories if the followers of SR decree that both theories make the same experimental predictions.

I have already addressed this, in the very post you were quoting; it seems that you are content to wallow in ignorance rather than respond to the point.

This thread is really bringing out the best in people.

I'd say that it seems to bring out the worst in you, but constant insult, deflection, defamation, and misrepresentation seem to be your preferred method of discourse.

First Swansont makes a joke, now Uncool acknowledges the wisdom of the Bible. Perhaps you would like to apply the beam and mote theorem to Dawkins ridicule of religion and the Cool Foxs lambasting of astrology, in light of the fact that both appear to accept the possibility of time travel because they have been told it is allowed by GR.

I have discussed what they are actually saying with you before; it seems that this, like so many other things, has not managed to pierce your delusions of grandeur.

A silly answer fitting well a sheep.

Not that silly, given that both his description and yours fit you quite well.

 

Since the physics is not in dispute, I am disinclined to spend a long time analysing the data.

You seem disinclined to spend any time analyzing any data that has a chance of falsifying your claims, from my past experience with you.

=Uncool-

[Unity+]

Since the physics is not in dispute, I am disinclined to spend a long time analysing the data.

Then you would be disinclined in taking a look at scientific observation, which is required to prove a specific hypothesis that is being disputed. Therefore, the debate cannot go on any further because of a refusal to look at the evidence.

[swansont]

 

Since the physics is not in dispute, I am disinclined to spend a long time analysing the data. But in your expert opinion would you say that Wikipedia is justified in saying that H+K verified relativity to within 10%, or not?

 

And yet you are willing to claim fraud while admitting that you have not spent a long time analyzing the data. Merely on the say-so of a single person who lacks the qualifications and experience to do so. Wow.

[ajb]

But in your expert opinion would you say that Wikipedia is justified in saying that H+K verified relativity to within 10%, or not?

Yes, the experiment mathced the theory to within about 10%.