Re: C S Lewis


"al" <almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dq1ed6$2qt$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dpvq5b$549$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > "guscubed" <james.prendergast@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1136856788.366521.253390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > al wrote:
> > > > "VoiceOfReason" <papa_fox@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > news:1136838330.637330.28850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >
> > > > > al wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <...>
> > > > >
> > > > > > What you call "facts" are what I would call scientific data.
This
> > data
> > > > is
> > > > > > forced into the outrageous theories that are extant today and
> > becomes
> > > > "The
> > > > > > Facts" although what they have really become is fallacies; these
> > > > fallacies
> > > > > > are then presented as the facts supported by the original data.
> This
> > is
> > > > the
> > > > > > reason there is no all encompassing basic theory that fits. You
> > cannot
> > > > > > complete a jigsaw puzzle the wrong way and this is why I am told
> by
> > > > > > contributors to this NG that science is hard and that I don't
> > understand
> > > > it.
> > > > > > The truth is, that no one understands it; that's why we have so
> much
> > > > > > specialisation and why this said specialisation causes even
> greater
> > > > > > divisions. It's the theories that are wrong and not the data.
The
> > facts
> > > > that
> > > > > > you cling to are based on erroneous theories.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sweeping generalities are meaningless. Cite a specific example of
> > what
> > > > > you think is an "erroneous theory" and discuss.
> > > >
> > > > OK. All that's required is an enquiring mind that says let's check
> this
> > out.
> > > > Incidentally, all that you need to check for the most of the info is
> > Google.
> > > > Lets look at the cream of science, physics and in particular Mr.
> > Einstein's
> > > > general relativity.
> > > > The theory predicted that light would bend as it passed a large body
> > such as
> > > > the sun.
> > > > Eddington was asked to run the experimental proof in 1919 and he
> > measured
> > > > the apparent displacement of the distant stars as their light passed
> > close
> > > > to the sun during a total eclipse. The prediction of General
> Relativity
> > is
> > > > 1.74 seconds of arc from their true position. Eddington is said to
> have
> > > > confirmed the latter value to within 20%.
> > > > This was hailed as a triumph for Einstein and physics and the
> scientific
> > > > way.
> > > > In fact it proved nothing, as the stars that were obedient to the
> theory
> > and
> > > > confirmed to within 20% were only a small sample of the majority
that
> > > > rebelled and moved in other directions. Eclipses are very
inconvenient
> > > > things and tend not to arrive over observatories when required.
> > Eddington
> > > > had to set up his telescope out in the open with all the problems
that
> > arise
> > > > through exposure to the elements. In short, he fudged the results
and
> > picked
> > > > out the stars that supported the theory. But that did not prevent
> > Einstein's
> > > > theory becoming the greatest achievement since sliced bread.
> > > > There were further checks on stellar positions that claimed even
> greater
> > > > accuracy, but who is going to argue with the great Eddington and the
> now
> > > > even greater Einstein and lose a well paid job?
> >
> > Actually, if someone could come up with irrefutable proof that Einstein
> was
> > wrong he or she would get a Nobel Prize or similar.
> >
> > S. Chandrasekhar did argue with Eddington, and he turned out to be the
one
> > who was right and Eddington wrong. Chandra did eventually get a Nobel.
> >
> > His argument seems to be that any evidence contrary to Einstein's GR was
> > hushed up through fear of unemployment or ridicule. Now that's paranoia
> of
> > a breathtaking order!
> >
> > > > A further thought occurs to me, in that stars are seen out of
position
> > on a
> > > > regular basis when close to other smaller bodies such as the planets
> and
> > our
> > > > moon and even the moons of other planets. These are all well known
and
> > are
> > > > agreed by all to be optical effects.
> >
> > I'm not sure what the writer was referring to, but I'm a professional
> > astronomer, and beyond minor relativistic effects and refraction when
very
> > close to the limb of a planet with an atmosphere, I have never heard of
> any
> > such effect. The original poster is making this up or quoting some very
> > unreliable sources.
> >
> > There have been verifications of Einstein GR time shifts as space probes
> > passed behind giant planets. Other than that, some cites would be
> required.
> >
> > > Light bending due to the warping of space-time IS an optical effect.
> > > The reason why an Eclipse was chosen as proof of the space-time
warping
> > > effect (as evidenced by the apparent moving of stars as their light is
> > > bent around a large mass) was because it meant that Eddington could
> > > observe the light from stars close to the sun (which makes up 99.8% of
> > > the mass of the solar system) that couldn't normally be seen in
> > > non-eclipse conditions.
> > > Eddington may have fudged his figures initially, but this experiment
> > > has been repeated several times since as well as several others that
> > > confirm this consequence of general relativity.
> >
> > There is no evidence that Eddington or Dyson fudged anything. Some
years
> > ago (during the Einstein centenary, if memory serves) the Royal
Greenwich
> > Observatory found most of the original photographs from 1919 in its
> > archives, and they were remeasured. The result was a determination from
> the
> > original data that confirmed the GR prediction to within experimental
> > errors, and that agreed with the original measurements within the mutual
> > errors of both. So that is evidence against any fudge of the data.
What
> > was observed was honestly reported.
> >
> > This was purely a historical exercise, because the predictions of GR
have
> > been verified to much higher precision since then. The most notable of
> > these include various radio-astronomy observations of the positions of
> > quasars near the ecliptic, which yielded measurements, of the
> light-bending
> > shift, of much higher accuracy than anything that could be done through
> > eclipse photographs.
> >
> > Rebelling stars? What the hell?
> >
> > >
> > > Gravitational microlensing has been observed all over the sky - what's
> > > your explanation?
> > >
> > > > Notwithstanding, other so called proofs were devised such as the
> > perihelion
> > > > of Mercury and all went the way of the dinosaur,
> > >
> > > Umm, the advance of the perihilion of Mercury was a mystery UNTIL
> > > general relativity...
> > > '...it was discovered in the 19th century that interplanetary
> > > perturbations could not account fully for the turning rate of
Mercury's
> > > orbit, leaving unexplained about 43 seconds of arc per century. The
> > > general theory of relativity, however, accounts exactly for this
> > > discrepancy.'
> > >
> > > http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-28934
> > >
> > > >but the theory remained and
> > > > remained in spite of the proofs that everyone knows but cannot name.
> > This
> > > > theory is not just erroneous, it's fraudulent.
> > > > P.S. I don't want to hear about GPS.
> > > > I can do other theories if required.
> > >
> > > Please, go ahead.
> > >
> > > > al
> > >
> > > Scientific fraud does exist, but what do you know? peer-review and the
> > > questioning nature of science itself tends to root out frauds and
> > > mistakes in the long run. If only the same could be said about
scripture
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Mike Dworetsky
> >
> > (Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
>
> I'm a professional
> > astronomer, and beyond minor relativistic effects and refraction when
very
> > close to the limb of a planet with an atmosphere, I have never heard of
> any
> > such effect. The original poster is making this up or quoting some very
> > unreliable sources.
>
> I have in front of me 20 examples of stars and planets hanging on the
Moons
> limb (no atmosphere) for appreciable lengths of time before occultation.
> Ref's are British Astronomical Association, Observatory, Astronomical
> Register, Royal Astronomical Register, Report of the British Association,
> and so on.

Such cases can be due to the following non-relativistic phenomena:

1. stars of large angular diameter, e.g., bright red giants;
2. binary stars, especially those not previously suspected;
3. stars in grazing occultations;
4. diffraction (lunar occultations provide a natural method of measuring
stellar angular diameters).

You can't use a planetary occultation by the moon to test GR.

Specific references (author, date, volume, page) are required. Each of the
journals mentioned above comprise detailed records of many metres shelf
length. You can't expect me to take your word for it, that's what specific
references are for. Kindly take on board this essential requirement in
science.

> Radio signals from moon orbiting spacecraft do not end on occultation but
> continue for some time after.

Radio waves diffract around the limb of the moon. I don't know what
specialism you claim, but I am quite sure that you are not a radio engineer.

These phenomena have nothing to do with relativity.

> Does this mean that lunar occultation measurements are invalid and if so
> where does this leave the observations of stars near the sun?
> I am led to believe, by your fellow astronomers, that the sun has an
> extended atmosphere that is far and away greater than any planet.

The corona. At angular distances of a degree or more, it doesn't cause any
significant displacement of light due to refraction, that's for sure. It's
far too thin. If you had a bucket of it you would proclaim yourself
possessed of the best vacuum on Earth. It may be a slight problem for
quasar measurements by radio astronomy, but it can be taken into account
fairly accurately.

> I also understand that the advance in the perihelion of Venus and Mercury,
> once said to be proofs of relativity are now explained by the sun's
> oblateness and so that's another two to strike off the list.

Where did you read that? Completely false. Read the recent paper by E. V.
Pitjeva (english transl.) in Astronomy Letters -- May 2005 -- Volume 31,
Issue 5, pp. 340-349. (Google on solar oblateness to find it). The author
used a long series of high-precision radar observations of the inner solar
system and found solutions that yield both accurate post-Newtonian
confirmation to 4 decimal places and an estimate of solar oblateness
quadrupole moment J2 ~2 x 10^-7. The solution for the inner solar system
planets is consistent with GR and only this one measure of oblateness. A
similar value has been found from direct measurement of the solar diameter
with a precision instrument: See Lydon and Sofia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 177
(1996). The fact that two independent methods of measurement give the same
value for J2 is an extremely powerful and precise confirmation of the
predictions of GR.

I'm still waiting for you to provide the references that you claim say
something different.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Fundamental Flaw of SR
    ... Your thought measurements are based on Galilean ... > what it means to have a reference frame and coordinate system. ... It is based on Galilean Relativity. ... > rulers from the origin to an event. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: More speed confusion
    ... the error bars in Michelson's measurements. ... This is how all theories in science are put to test. ... The strength of relativity is that it makes a huge number ... if my formula falsifies the Lorentz transforms as derived from MMX ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Difference between predictions of SR and LET - perhaps!
    ... general scientific principle that measurements have to be ... "The rejection of the manifestly Lorentz-covariant approach ... spacetime lattice would violate the symmetry ..." ... Relativity the metric is symmetric and that is one way to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: WYSIWYG in Relativity
    ... relativity, not just *special* relativity. ...  And experimental measurements confirm ... time dilation, ... interpretation, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Parallax
    ... The astronomer would measure x,y relative to the ... measurements could have been done differentially. ... forefront insofar as global climate explanations depend on the motions ... The neccessity of recognising the Earth's motions in isolation to ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)
Loading