xyzt Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Ok, lets talk about the science then. I was asked to do some timestamps (understandably) and what i linked above he talks about interferometer experiments. This is one of the main things sungenis focuses on, and was one of the things that grabbed my attention because of how long they have been doing these experiements with basically the same results. Is the experiement itself flawed? Were the instruments used flawed? How do they keep getting results that fly in the face of relativity? If anyone wants to watch the youtube clip i linked above that starts at 13:20 and goes to around 21:00, then just post your thoughts about what he is getting at with the inferometer experiements and why they seem to contradict relativity. There is no point in watching any youtube of this idiocy, there is no disproof of the current experiments. As an aside, the Michelson-gale experiment is supposed to produce a non-null experiment and...it produced a non-null experiment. As another aside, Michelson-Gale, like Sagnac, has NOTHING to do with relativity, so it cannot "disprove" relativity. As yet another aside, I cannot believe for a second that Sungenis is THAT stupid to be talking about Michelsod-Gale in his video, so you must be confused. Edited February 10, 2015 by xyzt
Scotty99 Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 I see the words idiocy, stupid, and quite a few caps locked words in there. Yet, as one of the people who asked me to do a time-stamp of the video (which i gladly did!) you still refuse to have a discussion about what sungenis puts forth in the video. I honestly expected a little more from this forum, cause hey its the first one that popped up on google remember? Yes the experiments were expecting one thing, but what they found was 1/6th of that, which a lot of times were described as null results. What sungenis is saying is that 1/6th is describing a 24hour period in the geocentric model, and that these results are consistent through like what, 80 years of testing? I bring up these interferometer experiments because it seems like what sungenis is holding onto the most (outside of the CMB data), he even notes how einstein said "if michaelson - morley is wrong, relativity is wrong". Did einstein actually say that?
xyzt Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) I see the words idiocy, stupid, and quite a few caps locked words in there. Yet, as one of the people who asked me to do a time-stamp of the video (which i gladly did!) you still refuse to have a discussion about what sungenis puts forth in the video. I honestly expected a little more from this forum, cause hey its the first one that popped up on google remember? Because you are lying, there is nothing on Michelson-Gale. Yes the experiments were expecting one thing, but what they found was 1/6th of that, Nope, you obviously have no clue. I bring up these interferometer experiments because it seems like what sungenis is holding onto the most (outside of the CMB data), he even notes how einstein said "if michaelson - morley is wrong, relativity is wrong". Did einstein actually say that? No, he didn't. And yes, you have no clue. One more thing, it is "Einstein", no "einstein". Get it? Edited February 10, 2015 by xyzt
Klaynos Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 When you measure something you also have an associated error. The "real" value falls somewhere in your measurement plus or minus the error. Therefore you can say whether an experiment is consistent with non null or not based on that, not just the measured value. Therefore I suggest you go read about the various experiments, the results and their errors to see what they tell you.
Mordred Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Here is a list of relativity tests. This site has a good list http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Edited February 10, 2015 by Mordred
Scotty99 Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) What i find very odd is that list mordred linked states " Contrary to popular myth, their result is not actually “null”—in their words “the relative velocity of the Earth and the aether is probably less than one sixth the Earth's orbital velocity". If you go to wiki it says null for almost every experiment, which is confusing to me. I realize it later goes on to link this : http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238which states " The key point of this paper is the need for a comprehensive and quantitative error analysis. The concepts and techniques used in this analysis were not available in Miller's day, but are now standard. These problems also apply to the famous measurements of Michelson and Morley, and to most if not all similar experiments; appendices are provided discussing several such experiments.". So they are just allowed to say not only this experiment needs quantitive error analysis so it lines up with relativity but ALL the experiments prior do as well? That whole paragraph sounds really sketchy to me. Edited February 10, 2015 by Scotty99
Mordred Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 It's stating the original analysis was wrong and gives the reasons why. You should read the entire article.
Klaynos Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 All measurements require error analysis of both the measurement and predictions to really state whether the measurement is consistent with the prediction. Measuring 0 is especially difficult in real physical systems and a good example if the usefulness of error analysis. 1
Scotty99 Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 I get that, but correct me if im wrong didn't they expect a number 6 times larger than what was observed? I get small variances, but 1/6th seems quite large.
ajb Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Sungenis is very convincing in that we have actually never measured the movement or rotation of the earth, if you could link me a study or experiment that unequivocally proves we have that is enough for me. Whats funny about what sungenis says tho, is that if you actually were able to prove that the earth was moving, it in itself would disprove relativity (i cannot remember exactly why, but i remember this quote). Assuming that there are no resultant forces on the body in question, then you can only show that that body is moving with respect to another body. To show absolute motion would be a challenge to relativity.
Strange Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 So they are just allowed to say not only this experiment needs quantitive error analysis so it lines up with relativity but ALL the experiments prior do as well? That whole paragraph sounds really sketchy to me. ALL experiments need error analysis. This is something I learned at school, never mind university. But these experiments are testing what is known more generally as Lorentz invariance. Modern experiments have tested this to much higher levels of accuracy than 1/6th. I think I have seen errors of 10-36 (in other words 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000th). So, although one might be able to criticize the original experiments (which were impressive at the time) we have moved on since then. What im trying to figure out is there more resistance to geocentrism because of the religious implications or is the science of it what is holding it back. (again referencing my original post of how ive never seen this talked about). As noted, it is the science. IF the data indicated that the Earth was in a special place in the universe, that wouldn't necessarily have any religious implications. There is no "divine revelation" needed to come to that conclusion; the writers of the Bible just wrote down what was "common sense" at the time. There are some things that are correct in the Bible and some things that are wrong. Common sense is sometimes right and sometimes it is wrong. (In this case, it appears to be wrong). And even if one considers the religious implications, it doesn't say anything special about Sungenis's oddball religion because many other traditions place the Earth at the centre of the universe (for obvious reasons).
Scotty99 Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 ALL experiments need error analysis. This is something I learned at school, never mind university. But these experiments are testing what is known more generally as Lorentz invariance. Modern experiments have tested this to much higher levels of accuracy than 1/6th. I think I have seen errors of 10-36 (in other words 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000th). So, although one might be able to criticize the original experiments (which were impressive at the time) we have moved on since then. As noted, it is the science. IF the data indicated that the Earth was in a special place in the universe, that wouldn't necessarily have any religious implications. There is no "divine revelation" needed to come to that conclusion; the writers of the Bible just wrote down what was "common sense" at the time. There are some things that are correct in the Bible and some things that are wrong. Common sense is sometimes right and sometimes it is wrong. (In this case, it appears to be wrong). And even if one considers the religious implications, it doesn't say anything special about Sungenis's oddball religion because many other traditions place the Earth at the centre of the universe (for obvious reasons). That's not what i was saying, didn't the original experiments expect to detect a 30km's result and what they got was 1/6th of that? Just trying to figure out why sungenis said in the video if they actually could detect movement that would disprove relativity when they were expecting a 30km's result originally (bit confused on this one).
Strange Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Just trying to figure out why sungenis said .... Because he lies? Edited February 10, 2015 by Strange
Scotty99 Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Ya you aren't following. Try and make this more clear. Those original experiments expected to come back with a 30km's result to explain the earths movement around the sun, but what they got was 1/6th of this (which was deemed null at the time). But later in the video, and even from a guy in this thread, is that if they were able to prove the earth is moving that in and of itself goes against relativity. Im just trying to clear up some confusion on my end lol. Wait im an idiot, relativity wasnt invented yet. Doh! This is starting to make a bit more sense now with that out of the way LOL. Assuming that there are no resultant forces on the body in question, then you can only show that that body is moving with respect to another body. To show absolute motion would be a challenge to relativity. I find this exceedingly odd, but that is the nature of relativity i guess. Does it bother no one else in here we cant actually measure the earths movement? Edited February 10, 2015 by Scotty99
Strange Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 I find this exceedingly odd, but that is the nature of relativity i guess. Does it bother no one else in here we cant actually measure the earths movement? This fact was first pointed out by Galileo, nearly 400 years ago. (I think he used the example of being in a ship; if you can't see nearby land you have no way of telling if you are moving or not.) Einstein refined the idea 100 years ago. I guess we have had time to get used to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance
Scotty99 Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 Well thats what sungenis is getting at, that galileo was wrong.
Strange Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Well thats what sungenis is getting at, that galileo was wrong. And yet there is no evidence to support this. All the evidence is consistent with Galilean and Lorentz invariance. To riduculously high levels of accuracy. Ask Sungenis why he doesn't challenge the modern tests; why does he pick on specific, old experiments that had larger errors (for easily understood reasons). Could it be that he is being deliberately dishonest? This is why I suggest you employ a more critical approach to thinking about this: you accept the word of a proven liar who provides no hard data, and yet you ignore or reject hundreds of years of experimental confirmation of well-substantiated science. Why don't you apply the same standards to both sides?
ajb Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 I find this exceedingly odd, but that is the nature of relativity i guess. Does it bother no one else in here we cant actually measure the earths movement? We can measure the Earth's movement, just it needs to be relative to something. There is no notion of an absolute velocity. That is the point and as Strange points out it, this is written into Galilean relativity, which is the foundation of standard classical mechanics. The ship is a good example, as long as you cannot see something to act as a reference, and that you are not subject to external forces, so not accelerating, you have no way of deciding if you are moving or not. Moreover, the speed you measure will depend on the object you use as a reference. For example, if we sat opposite to each other on a train that is travelling along at constant speed relative to the ground, and I throw you a ball, how fast is that ball travelling?
Scotty99 Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 I don't accept anything, just putting forth what sungenis believes to be true to have a conversation about it lol. Ive been accused many times in here about being a sungenis proponent when im just trying to figure out things myself. I didnt say "sungenis is right, he said galileo was wrong!" i said "thats what sungenis is getting at, that galileo was wrong". Sure i have some problems with how relativity works, its almost like faith in religion you have to just take it at face value because you cant test it. Also im pretty sure he does mention lorentz in the video.
ajb Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 And yet there is no evidence to support this. All the evidence is consistent with Galilean and Lorentz invariance. To riduculously high levels of accuracy. Ask Sungenis why he doesn't challenge the modern tests; why does he pick on specific, old experiments that had larger errors (for easily understood reasons). Could it be that he is being deliberately dishonest? This is quite common with relativity deniers; they pick holes in papers that are very old and/or criticise the original experiments. We have had general relativity for 100 years now and we have improved upon what Einstein originally wrote down as well as having much better experiments that those preformed many decades ago. Sure i have some problems with how relativity works, its almost like faith in religion you have to just take it at face value because you cant test it. But we can test many aspects of it and so far there is no compelling evidence that general relativity is not a good model of gravitational phenomena for the expected domain of validity. There are direct tests and indirect tests so far nothing has shown up that is not expected. This is somewhat annoying as we know general relativity not to be complete, but what can you do?
Scotty99 Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 I am going to do a bit of my own research on lorentz variance as it seems (at least on this forum) the interferometer experiments are considered outdated and unreliable? I am not sure if sungenis touched on these, i know i remember hearing him mention lorentz but not sure how into detail he went.
ajb Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 I am going to do a bit of my own research on lorentz variance as it seems (at least on this forum) the interferometer experiments are considered outdated and unreliable? I am not sure if sungenis touched on these, i know i remember hearing him mention lorentz but not sure how into detail he went. For example, the mathematical structure behind the standard model of particle physics is a Lorentz invariant quantum field theory. As this model is well tested and agrees with nature very well we can assume that the framework of special relativity is a good framework. Maybe more 'down to Earth' is the fact that classical electromagnetism is based on a Lorentz invariant classical field theory. In fact, special relativity was discovered by Maxwell, he just did not know it! Again, as classical electrodynamics is well tested this implies that special relativity is a good framework. You use electromagnetic theory all the time in applications, so we know it works.
swansont Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Well, let's see. We can't count the data in his Principia, since that's what was used to derive the formula. The first actual test of Newton's gravity was the Cavendish experiment which took place 111 years after Newton's Principia was published and only 40 years before stellar parallax was first observed. So, pushing the first evidence back only 40 years doesn't do much to defeat the point that this is an area of science where the actual acceptance of the theory is long before any evidence came around. I'm still missing something. 111 years is a long time, and ~215 years isn't? Or 150 vs 175?
Strange Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Sure i have some problems with how relativity works, its almost like faith in religion you have to just take it at face value because you cant test it. No, it is almost the exact opposite of faith: you don't have to take it at face value because you CAN test it. For example: http://leapsecond.com/great2005/ Edited February 10, 2015 by Strange
xyzt Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) I am going to do a bit of my own research on lorentz variance It is called Lorentz "INvariance". as it seems (at least on this forum) the interferometer experiments are considered outdated and unreliable? Not at all, what gives you this idea? I am not sure if sungenis touched on these, i know i remember hearing him mention lorentz but not sure how into detail he went. There is nothing to be learned from Sungenis, he's an ignorant and a crank. Yes the experiments were expecting one thing, but what they found was 1/6th of that, which a lot of times were described as null results. What sungenis is saying is that 1/6th is describing a 24hour period in the geocentric model, and that these results are consistent through like what, 80 years of testing? I bring up these interferometer experiments because it seems like what sungenis is holding onto the most (outside of the CMB data), he even notes how einstein said "if michaelson - morley is wrong, relativity is wrong". Did einstein actually say that? Let me set your many confusions straight: 1. The experiment in cause is Michelson-Morley. 2. Michelson-Gale is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT experiment and sungenis says NOTHING about it. 3. Michelson and Morley expected to "detect" the move of Earth through "aether", or a speed of about 30km/s. This was due to INCORRECT applications of a laws of physics. 4. Instead, they "detected" a much lower speed. Subsequent experiments detected even lower speeds converging to ....ZERO. 5. The reason is that Michelson used the wrong theory, when one uses the correct theory (Special Relativity) , one gets the correct prediction....ZERO!. 6. An exact zero can never be measured due to the fact that all experiments are subject to statistical errors. Nevertheless, over the years, the measurements have steadily converged towards zero. Start reading here. 7. sungenis is not only an idiot, he's also a despicable liar, there is nothing that can be learned from him and his acolytes. Edited February 10, 2015 by xyzt 1
Recommended Posts