On the right border collumn of December update of GPB website ( http://einstein.stanford.edu ) there is a graph showing
Einstein expectation:
-6571 +- 1*
4-gyro result (1 sigma) for 85 days (12 Dec 04 -- 4 Mar 05)
-6632 +- 43
Einstein expectation:
-6571 - 00 ± 1*
4-gyro result (1 σ) for 85 days (12 Dec 04 -- 4 Mar 05)
-6571 - 61 ± 43
So the result differs by prediction by 61 milliarc-second per year (0.000017 degrees per year), but the measurement error is expressed as 1 σ = 43 milliarc-second, so the "signal" is less that 1.5 σ and if the errors were normally distributed would happen 15% of the time. That's not cause to reject the null hypothesis that General Relativity is exactly correct.
Most researchers would chose 2.5 σ (1% of the time) to suggest that theory might be wrong and 5 σ (less than 0.0001% of the time) to confirm it. That's because real researchers care about their reputation.
Newton's expectation value (0) is rejected by over 150 σ.
Freshman physics student at my university are required to take coursework in error analysis and use of the Gaussian distribution. If Jin He doesn't know how to interpret these simple numbers, then I would certainly never accept his work involving statistical trends in galaxy shape or alignment.
-6571 - 00 ± 1*
4-gyro result (1 σ) for 85 days (12 Dec 04 -- 4 Mar 05)
-6571 - 61 ± 43
So the result differs by prediction by 61 milliarc-second per year (0.000017 degrees per year), but the measurement error is expressed as 1 σ = 43 milliarc-second, so the "signal" is less that 1.5 σ and if the errors were normally distributed would happen 15% of the time. That's not cause to reject the null hypothesis that General Relativity is exactly correct.
Most researchers would chose 2.5 σ (1% of the time) to suggest that theory might be wrong and 5 σ (less than 0.0001% of the time) to confirm it. That's because real researchers care about their reputation.
Newton's expectation value (0) is rejected by over 150 σ.
Freshman physics student at my university are required to take coursework in error analysis and use of the Gaussian distribution. If Jin He doesn't know how to interpret these simple numbers, then I would certainly never accept his work involving statistical trends in galaxy shape or alignment.
Good lord truth2K. Einstein was not WRONG! Get the thought right out of your head this very moment. He just may not have been right enough, anymore than Galileo or Kepler or Galieo were right enough or Plato or Aristotle or many others. The history of science is evolution and co-evolution made manifest, and "progressions" of knowledge are asynchronous in nature. Asynchronous through time, across disciplines, geographic laocales, etc. etc.
You think in terms of the implicate truth2K, that much is clear and you may or may not be on to something. I don't know, but what I do know is this:
Keep telling folks that Einstein was wrong when all one need do to know he was certainly more "right" than what came before is look at some pictures of Hiroshma and you will have little chance of being heard.
It's a question of framing and reference points and commonly accepted definitions. By way of example. QED, for instance, is a structural model that works. To say it is "wrong" would be absurd because it has been empirically verified via countless (by me, anyway) studies and "objective" measurements.
This does not mean, however, that it is complete. It is not in my opinion. We are yet missing the empirically verifiable "connection between things" This may be where E8 and other Lie algebras come in because, as root systems, they can be thought of as "translator" or "connector" or "transformation" tools. Or, in more mythological and Eastern vein, as the "Ma'at" from which springs forth all being; Ma'at being the Egyptian Goddess of Justice, Balance and Order,
I suggest, just as a thought, that you give at least E8 a bit of attention because it may provide you with the contextual framework by which to make your ideas accessible to others.
Best,
Raphie
You think in terms of the implicate truth2K, that much is clear and you may or may not be on to something. I don't know, but what I do know is this:
Keep telling folks that Einstein was wrong when all one need do to know he was certainly more "right" than what came before is look at some pictures of Hiroshma and you will have little chance of being heard.
It's a question of framing and reference points and commonly accepted definitions. By way of example. QED, for instance, is a structural model that works. To say it is "wrong" would be absurd because it has been empirically verified via countless (by me, anyway) studies and "objective" measurements.
This does not mean, however, that it is complete. It is not in my opinion. We are yet missing the empirically verifiable "connection between things" This may be where E8 and other Lie algebras come in because, as root systems, they can be thought of as "translator" or "connector" or "transformation" tools. Or, in more mythological and Eastern vein, as the "Ma'at" from which springs forth all being; Ma'at being the Egyptian Goddess of Justice, Balance and Order,
I suggest, just as a thought, that you give at least E8 a bit of attention because it may provide you with the contextual framework by which to make your ideas accessible to others.
Best,
Raphie
QUOTE (rpenner+Dec 6 2007, 10:18 PM)
Einstein expectation:
-6571 - 00 ± 1*
4-gyro result (1 σ) for 85 days (12 Dec 04 -- 4 Mar 05)
-6571 - 61 ± 43
So the result differs by prediction by 61 milliarc-second per year (0.000017 degrees per year), but the measurement error is expressed as 1 σ = 43 milliarc-second, so the "signal" is less that 1.5 σ and if the errors were normally distributed would happen 15% of the time. That's not cause to reject the null hypothesis that General Relativity is exactly correct.
Most researchers would chose 2.5 σ (1% of the time) to suggest that theory might be wrong and 5 σ (less than 0.0001% of the time) to confirm it. That's because real researchers care about their reputation.
Newton's expectation value (0) is rejected by over 150 σ.
Freshman physics student at my university are required to take coursework in error analysis and use of the Gaussian distribution. If Jin He doesn't know how to interpret these simple numbers, then I would certainly never accept his work involving statistical trends in galaxy shape or alignment.
1. I taught Probability theory And Statistics for over 4 yrs in a university.
2. One of my galaxy-shape papers is published:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/100241...Status=Accepted
Open-access: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510536
-6571 - 00 ± 1*
4-gyro result (1 σ) for 85 days (12 Dec 04 -- 4 Mar 05)
-6571 - 61 ± 43
So the result differs by prediction by 61 milliarc-second per year (0.000017 degrees per year), but the measurement error is expressed as 1 σ = 43 milliarc-second, so the "signal" is less that 1.5 σ and if the errors were normally distributed would happen 15% of the time. That's not cause to reject the null hypothesis that General Relativity is exactly correct.
Most researchers would chose 2.5 σ (1% of the time) to suggest that theory might be wrong and 5 σ (less than 0.0001% of the time) to confirm it. That's because real researchers care about their reputation.
Newton's expectation value (0) is rejected by over 150 σ.
Freshman physics student at my university are required to take coursework in error analysis and use of the Gaussian distribution. If Jin He doesn't know how to interpret these simple numbers, then I would certainly never accept his work involving statistical trends in galaxy shape or alignment.
1. I taught Probability theory And Statistics for over 4 yrs in a university.
2. One of my galaxy-shape papers is published:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/100241...Status=Accepted
Open-access: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510536
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Dec 7 2007, 09:45 AM)
Good lord truth2K. Einstein was not WRONG! Get the thought right out of your head this very moment. He just may not have been right enough, anymore than Galileo or Kepler or Galieo were right enough or Plato or Aristotle or many others. The history of science is evolution and co-evolution made manifest, and "progressions" of knowledge are asynchronous in nature. Asynchronous through time, across disciplines, geographic laocales, etc. etc.
You think in terms of the implicate truth2K, that much is clear and you may or may not be on to something. I don't know, but what I do know is this:
Keep telling folks that Einstein was wrong when all one need do to know he was certainly more "right" than what came before is look at some pictures of Hiroshma and you will have little chance of being heard.
It's a question of framing and reference points and commonly accepted definitions. By way of example. QED, for instance, is a structural model that works. To say it is "wrong" would be absurd because it has been empirically verified via countless (by me, anyway) studies and "objective" measurements.
This does not mean, however, that it is complete. It is not in my opinion. We are yet missing the empirically verifiable "connection between things" This may be where E8 and other Lie algebras come in because, as root systems, they can be thought of as "translator" or "connector" or "transformation" tools. Or, in more mythological and Eastern vein, as the "Ma'at" from which springs forth all being; Ma'at being the Egyptian Goddess of Justice, Balance and Order,
I suggest, just as a thought, that you give at least E8 a bit of attention because it may provide you with the contextual framework by which to make your ideas accessible to others.
Best,
Raphie
Ok, come to the point:
the most recent geodetic effect as indicated in the first post is larger than Einstein dictated. This new result involves the successful Flux Map Technique and over 85 days data. The April peek gives the samilar result. More important, Radar-Moon reflection indicates the samilar larger-than Einstein effect!!
These are accidents???
If geodetic effect is larger than the god's dictation, then there exists very possibly new gravity, e.g., my rotational gravity or WanChung's spinity. This possibly suggests new astrophysics. You know that everywhere there is shortage of gravity and relativists take dark matter and dark energy for missing gravity.
If May-2008 GPB confirms current results then Einstein Field Equation is totally wrong. This is not surprising because it is a guess equation. It requires Newton limit. However, there are many theories, if mainstream allows, which give Newton limit!
You know, the magical Big Bang is solely based on Einstein Field Equation. So, If May-2008 GPB confirms current results, the Big Bang religion is totally wrong!!!
Mr. Raphie Frank, you consider Mr. Einstein is not right enough??
You think in terms of the implicate truth2K, that much is clear and you may or may not be on to something. I don't know, but what I do know is this:
Keep telling folks that Einstein was wrong when all one need do to know he was certainly more "right" than what came before is look at some pictures of Hiroshma and you will have little chance of being heard.
It's a question of framing and reference points and commonly accepted definitions. By way of example. QED, for instance, is a structural model that works. To say it is "wrong" would be absurd because it has been empirically verified via countless (by me, anyway) studies and "objective" measurements.
This does not mean, however, that it is complete. It is not in my opinion. We are yet missing the empirically verifiable "connection between things" This may be where E8 and other Lie algebras come in because, as root systems, they can be thought of as "translator" or "connector" or "transformation" tools. Or, in more mythological and Eastern vein, as the "Ma'at" from which springs forth all being; Ma'at being the Egyptian Goddess of Justice, Balance and Order,
I suggest, just as a thought, that you give at least E8 a bit of attention because it may provide you with the contextual framework by which to make your ideas accessible to others.
Best,
Raphie
Ok, come to the point:
the most recent geodetic effect as indicated in the first post is larger than Einstein dictated. This new result involves the successful Flux Map Technique and over 85 days data. The April peek gives the samilar result. More important, Radar-Moon reflection indicates the samilar larger-than Einstein effect!!
These are accidents???
If geodetic effect is larger than the god's dictation, then there exists very possibly new gravity, e.g., my rotational gravity or WanChung's spinity. This possibly suggests new astrophysics. You know that everywhere there is shortage of gravity and relativists take dark matter and dark energy for missing gravity.
If May-2008 GPB confirms current results then Einstein Field Equation is totally wrong. This is not surprising because it is a guess equation. It requires Newton limit. However, there are many theories, if mainstream allows, which give Newton limit!
You know, the magical Big Bang is solely based on Einstein Field Equation. So, If May-2008 GPB confirms current results, the Big Bang religion is totally wrong!!!
Mr. Raphie Frank, you consider Mr. Einstein is not right enough??
QUOTE (truth2k+Dec 8 2007, 07:00 PM)
1. I taught Probability theory And Statistics for over 4 yrs in a university.
Can you prove that?
QUOTE (truth2k+Dec 8 2007, 07:00 PM)
the most recent geodetic effect as indicated in the first post is larger than Einstein dictated.
The indication is, at present, extremely weak. If I roll a die twice and both times get a 6, I cannot declare that the die is bias.
The indication is, at present, extremely weak. If I roll a die twice and both times get a 6, I cannot declare that the die is bias.
QUOTE (truth2k+Dec 8 2007, 07:00 PM)
If geodetic effect is larger than the god's dictation
Such comments do nothing but demonstrate you have to resort 'weasel words rather than justified physics.
QUOTE (truth2k+Dec 8 2007, 07:00 PM)
then there exists very possibly new gravity, e.g., my rotational gravity or WanChung's spinity
Does your model predict precisely the deviation you claim is being seen in the findings?
If not, then your theory is falsified. If so, prove it.
If not, then your theory is falsified. If so, prove it.
QUOTE (truth2k+Dec 8 2007, 07:00 PM)
If May-2008 GPB confirms current results then Einstein Field Equation is totally wrong.
'Totally wrong' is, as Raphie explained, wrong. It's obviously not 'totally wrong'. If it is wrong, it's wrong by less than 1 part per 100, otherwise we'd already have measured it. It's 'almost exactly right' or 'slightly wrong'.
You're having to resort to exaggeration.
You're having to resort to exaggeration.
QUOTE (truth2k+Dec 8 2007, 07:00 PM)
If May-2008 GPB confirms current results then Einstein Field Equation is totally wrong. This is not surprising because it is a guess equation. It requires Newton limit. However, there are many theories, if mainstream allows, which give Newton limit!
The Einstein Field Equations are not a guess, they are the logical outcome of the postulates of relativity. The Newtonian limit is an essential part of the theory since any gravitational theory must limit to Newton's work. Why? Because it's 'mostly right'. Of course if I used your way of describing things, I'd have to say "Newton is totally wrong". But we both know that's not true. And if Newton isn't 'totally wrong', Einstein sure can't be.
But such level headedness would be asking too much from you.
But such level headedness would be asking too much from you.
QUOTE (truth2k+Dec 8 2007, 07:00 PM)
You know, the magical Big Bang is solely based on Einstein Field Equation. So, If May-2008 GPB confirms current results, the Big Bang religion is totally wrong!!!
Relativity provides a good framework within which to explain the phenomena we see in cosmology. That isn't the same as saying "The BB is falsified is relativity is falsified". Once again, you're resorting to exaggeration without justification.
How sad.
How sad.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 8 2007, 07:36 PM)
Can you prove that?
The indication is, at present, extremely weak. If I roll a die twice and both times get a 6, I cannot declare that the die is bias.
Such comments do nothing but demonstrate you have to resort 'weasel words rather than justified physics.
Does your model predict precisely the deviation you claim is being seen in the findings?
If not, then your theory is falsified. If so, prove it.
'Totally wrong' is, as Raphie explained, wrong. It's obviously not 'totally wrong'. If it is wrong, it's wrong by less than 1 part per 100, otherwise we'd already have measured it. It's 'almost exactly right' or 'slightly wrong'.
You're having to resort to exaggeration.
The Einstein Field Equations are not a guess, they are the logical outcome of the postulates of relativity. The Newtonian limit is an essential part of the theory since any gravitational theory must limit to Newton's work. Why? Because it's 'mostly right'. Of course if I used your way of describing things, I'd have to say "Newton is totally wrong". But we both know that's not true. And if Newton isn't 'totally wrong', Einstein sure can't be.
But such level headedness would be asking too much from you.
Relativity provides a good framework within which to explain the phenomena we see in cosmology. That isn't the same as saying "The BB is falsified is relativity is falsified". Once again, you're resorting to exaggeration without justification.
How sad.
The transition from Classical Mechanics to Quantum Mechanics is similar to the future one from General Relativity to What Farsight Might Contribute.
Are you excited about the physical revolution starting from GPB-May-2007 loud horning? I bet you are not, because you did not contribute anything to the revolution by now. So-called scientists are generally more selfish than labor workers. If a scientist did not contribute to some revolution he or she would be very dispointed and try to do something against the revolution.
Max Planck very possibly understood this and he wrote the following:
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised with the ideas from the beginning.''
By the Father of Quantum Mechanics: Max Planck
History did verify Planck words. He predicted quantum in 1900 but Quantum mechanics came 25 yrs later. If there had not had any resistance from the establishment the quantum mechanics would have had come before 1910.
Current gravity situation is much worse because general-relativity-cosmology is related to Genesis of the universe!!!!
Einstein is giant but he is not god. His great work helped the birth of quantum mechanics as well as special relativity 2 or 3 yrs earlier, but he delayed human understanding of the universe for almost 100 yrs!!!!
How sad is this!!! Can you feel this?
The indication is, at present, extremely weak. If I roll a die twice and both times get a 6, I cannot declare that the die is bias.
Such comments do nothing but demonstrate you have to resort 'weasel words rather than justified physics.
Does your model predict precisely the deviation you claim is being seen in the findings?
If not, then your theory is falsified. If so, prove it.
'Totally wrong' is, as Raphie explained, wrong. It's obviously not 'totally wrong'. If it is wrong, it's wrong by less than 1 part per 100, otherwise we'd already have measured it. It's 'almost exactly right' or 'slightly wrong'.
You're having to resort to exaggeration.
The Einstein Field Equations are not a guess, they are the logical outcome of the postulates of relativity. The Newtonian limit is an essential part of the theory since any gravitational theory must limit to Newton's work. Why? Because it's 'mostly right'. Of course if I used your way of describing things, I'd have to say "Newton is totally wrong". But we both know that's not true. And if Newton isn't 'totally wrong', Einstein sure can't be.
But such level headedness would be asking too much from you.
Relativity provides a good framework within which to explain the phenomena we see in cosmology. That isn't the same as saying "The BB is falsified is relativity is falsified". Once again, you're resorting to exaggeration without justification.
How sad.
The transition from Classical Mechanics to Quantum Mechanics is similar to the future one from General Relativity to What Farsight Might Contribute.
Are you excited about the physical revolution starting from GPB-May-2007 loud horning? I bet you are not, because you did not contribute anything to the revolution by now. So-called scientists are generally more selfish than labor workers. If a scientist did not contribute to some revolution he or she would be very dispointed and try to do something against the revolution.
Max Planck very possibly understood this and he wrote the following:
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised with the ideas from the beginning.''
By the Father of Quantum Mechanics: Max Planck
History did verify Planck words. He predicted quantum in 1900 but Quantum mechanics came 25 yrs later. If there had not had any resistance from the establishment the quantum mechanics would have had come before 1910.
Current gravity situation is much worse because general-relativity-cosmology is related to Genesis of the universe!!!!
Einstein is giant but he is not god. His great work helped the birth of quantum mechanics as well as special relativity 2 or 3 yrs earlier, but he delayed human understanding of the universe for almost 100 yrs!!!!
How sad is this!!! Can you feel this?
QUOTE (truth2k+Dec 8 2007, 10:20 PM)
I bet you are not, because you did not contribute anything to the revolution by now.
Neither have you. Besides, the work I do is in supergravity. How fields alter space-time and vice versa.
Neither have you. Besides, the work I do is in supergravity. How fields alter space-time and vice versa.
QUOTE (truth2k+Dec 8 2007, 10:20 PM)
is similar to the future one from General Relativity to What Farsight Might Contribute.
The fact you think Farsight might contribute anything but wasted bandwidth and exasperatingly delusional nonsense shows your lack of understanding of how science works.
QUOTE (truth2k+Dec 8 2007, 10:20 PM)
Max Planck very possibly understood this and he wrote the following:
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised with the ideas from the beginning.''
By the Father of Quantum Mechanics: Max Planck
History did verify Planck words. He predicted quantum in 1900 but Quantum mechanics came 25 yrs later. If there had not had any resistance from the establishment the quantum mechanics would have had come before 1910.
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised with the ideas from the beginning.''
By the Father of Quantum Mechanics: Max Planck
History did verify Planck words. He predicted quantum in 1900 but Quantum mechanics came 25 yrs later. If there had not had any resistance from the establishment the quantum mechanics would have had come before 1910.
Half a dozen times you've posted that quote and every time I've pointed out how that quote supports general relativity. It too was seen as a crazy idea. What got it to it's current position in physics is experiment after experiment after experiment supporting it.
It was shocking to the Royal Society when word reached them that the 1919 eclipse matched Einstein's predictions. There was uproar. Newton, one of their own, the greatest of them, was wrong?! Surely not.
But relativity won them over by it's ability to match experiment after experiment.
Every time you post that quote you do two things. You show you don't understand it and you show you don't bother to read what I say when I point out it doesn't support your claims.
It was shocking to the Royal Society when word reached them that the 1919 eclipse matched Einstein's predictions. There was uproar. Newton, one of their own, the greatest of them, was wrong?! Surely not.
But relativity won them over by it's ability to match experiment after experiment.
Every time you post that quote you do two things. You show you don't understand it and you show you don't bother to read what I say when I point out it doesn't support your claims.
QUOTE (truth2k+Dec 8 2007, 10:20 PM)
Einstein is giant but he is not god.
No physicist would claim he's a God. I have stated here many times that he was fallible. He made many mistakes in his life. His comments and views should not be canonised. You're the only one who keeps using the word 'god', as if it's something mainstream people say. It further demonstrates that you don't say truthful things, you have to put a spin on it.
QUOTE (truth2k+Dec 8 2007, 10:20 PM)
but he delayed human understanding of the universe for almost 100 yrs!!!!
Except for all those experiments which only relativity can explain.
Nice how you didn't address any point I made. I guess it's easier for you to just continue whining and endlessly repeat that Planck quote. Got nothing else to do apart from refreshing the Gravity Probe B page?
Nice how you didn't address any point I made. I guess it's easier for you to just continue whining and endlessly repeat that Planck quote. Got nothing else to do apart from refreshing the Gravity Probe B page?
QUOTE (truth2k+Dec 8 2007, 06:00 PM)
More important, Radar-Moon reflection indicates the samilar larger-than Einstein effect!!
Double exclaimation points <- Why are you trying to win a scientific argument by shouting when evidence is required?
Radar <- Why do you say Radar when Radar (Radio Detection And Ranging) cannot hope to match the accuracy of laser ranging?
samilar <- Why do you say similar when GP-B is less than 1% different than Einstein's prediction while laser ranging is more in agreement? They are similar in that neither technique has yet demonstrated a statistically meaningful deviation from exact agreement. In addition, these predictions are all measurements of Post-Newtonian parameter γ, which is better measured today by Shapiro time delay experiments with Cassini and VLBI of the deflection of light.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0509114
http://iau-comm4.jpl.nasa.gov/JGWSGTDHB.pdf
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...#x16-350003.7.2
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...06-3/fig_5.html
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/apollo.html
As of yet, I have not confirmed that the deviations from Einstein's predictions have the same sign in measurements of GP-B and whatever source material Jin He thinks he has.
For example, VLBI meaures γ-1 at -0.00017 ± 0.00045
The tentative GP-B results give γ-1 at +0.014 ± 0.0098
And because the GP-B results are over 20 times less precise than VLBI, and are consistant with γ=1 at the 95% confidence level, there is no reason to say Relativity has been overturned.
Shapiro, S.S., Davis, J.L., Lebach, D.E., and Gregory, J.S., “Measurement of the solar gravitational deflection of radio waves using geodetic very-long-baseline interferometry data, 1979-1999”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92, 121101, (2004).
Double exclaimation points <- Why are you trying to win a scientific argument by shouting when evidence is required?
Radar <- Why do you say Radar when Radar (Radio Detection And Ranging) cannot hope to match the accuracy of laser ranging?
samilar <- Why do you say similar when GP-B is less than 1% different than Einstein's prediction while laser ranging is more in agreement? They are similar in that neither technique has yet demonstrated a statistically meaningful deviation from exact agreement. In addition, these predictions are all measurements of Post-Newtonian parameter γ, which is better measured today by Shapiro time delay experiments with Cassini and VLBI of the deflection of light.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0509114
http://iau-comm4.jpl.nasa.gov/JGWSGTDHB.pdf
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...#x16-350003.7.2
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...06-3/fig_5.html
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/apollo.html
As of yet, I have not confirmed that the deviations from Einstein's predictions have the same sign in measurements of GP-B and whatever source material Jin He thinks he has.
For example, VLBI meaures γ-1 at -0.00017 ± 0.00045
The tentative GP-B results give γ-1 at +0.014 ± 0.0098
And because the GP-B results are over 20 times less precise than VLBI, and are consistant with γ=1 at the 95% confidence level, there is no reason to say Relativity has been overturned.
Shapiro, S.S., Davis, J.L., Lebach, D.E., and Gregory, J.S., “Measurement of the solar gravitational deflection of radio waves using geodetic very-long-baseline interferometry data, 1979-1999”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92, 121101, (2004).
QUOTE (rpenner+Dec 9 2007, 02:29 AM)
Double exclaimation points <- Why are you trying to win a scientific argument by shouting when evidence is required?
Radar <- Why do you say Radar when Radar (Radio Detection And Ranging) cannot hope to match the accuracy of laser ranging?
samilar <- Why do you say similar when GP-B is less than 1% different than Einstein's prediction while laser ranging is more in agreement? They are similar in that neither technique has yet demonstrated a statistically meaningful deviation from exact agreement. In addition, these predictions are all measurements of Post-Newtonian parameter γ, which is better measured today by Shapiro time delay experiments with Cassini and VLBI of the deflection of light.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0509114
http://iau-comm4.jpl.nasa.gov/JGWSGTDHB.pdf
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...#x16-350003.7.2
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...06-3/fig_5.html
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/apollo.html
As of yet, I have not confirmed that the deviations from Einstein's predictions have the same sign in measurements of GP-B and whatever source material Jin He thinks he has.
For example, VLBI meaures γ-1 at -0.00017 ± 0.00045
The tentative GP-B results give γ-1 at +0.014 ± 0.0098
And because the GP-B results are over 20 times less precise than VLBI, and are consistant with γ=1 at the 95% confidence level, there is no reason to say Relativity has been overturned.
Shapiro, S.S., Davis, J.L., Lebach, D.E., and Gregory, J.S., “Measurement of the solar gravitational deflection of radio waves using geodetic very-long-baseline interferometry data, 1979-1999”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92, 121101, (2004).
You did not make any point except lots of references which mostly are the eulogy of mainstream. The point is
"About the apparent extra 32 mas/yr - there's a '96 paper by Kenneth Nordtvedt, which shows that the analysis of the lunar laser ranging data done in the '80s also gave a precession slightly greater than the geodetic precession. Nordtvedt's explanation probably wouldn't cover both anomalies, but if he's wrong… I haven't got time to look into it, but Garth, you might want to see if in relation to context the two are equivalent. It would then be a new anomaly.
The paper is "On the 'geodetic precession' of the lunar orbit", Class. Quantum Grav. 13 (1996) 1317-1321." by JonathanK from physicsforums
You did not make any sense by displaying lots of gamma.
The gamma is the deceitful note of the eulogy, when all other non-mainstream theories are denied.
If you had problem to study the experimental tests of GR, see the
Einstein`s Geometrization vs. Holonomic Cancellation of Gravity via Spatial Coordinate-rescale and Nonholonomic Cancellation via Spacetime Boost
Radar <- Why do you say Radar when Radar (Radio Detection And Ranging) cannot hope to match the accuracy of laser ranging?
samilar <- Why do you say similar when GP-B is less than 1% different than Einstein's prediction while laser ranging is more in agreement? They are similar in that neither technique has yet demonstrated a statistically meaningful deviation from exact agreement. In addition, these predictions are all measurements of Post-Newtonian parameter γ, which is better measured today by Shapiro time delay experiments with Cassini and VLBI of the deflection of light.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0509114
http://iau-comm4.jpl.nasa.gov/JGWSGTDHB.pdf
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...#x16-350003.7.2
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...06-3/fig_5.html
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/apollo.html
As of yet, I have not confirmed that the deviations from Einstein's predictions have the same sign in measurements of GP-B and whatever source material Jin He thinks he has.
For example, VLBI meaures γ-1 at -0.00017 ± 0.00045
The tentative GP-B results give γ-1 at +0.014 ± 0.0098
And because the GP-B results are over 20 times less precise than VLBI, and are consistant with γ=1 at the 95% confidence level, there is no reason to say Relativity has been overturned.
Shapiro, S.S., Davis, J.L., Lebach, D.E., and Gregory, J.S., “Measurement of the solar gravitational deflection of radio waves using geodetic very-long-baseline interferometry data, 1979-1999”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92, 121101, (2004).
You did not make any point except lots of references which mostly are the eulogy of mainstream. The point is
"About the apparent extra 32 mas/yr - there's a '96 paper by Kenneth Nordtvedt, which shows that the analysis of the lunar laser ranging data done in the '80s also gave a precession slightly greater than the geodetic precession. Nordtvedt's explanation probably wouldn't cover both anomalies, but if he's wrong… I haven't got time to look into it, but Garth, you might want to see if in relation to context the two are equivalent. It would then be a new anomaly.
The paper is "On the 'geodetic precession' of the lunar orbit", Class. Quantum Grav. 13 (1996) 1317-1321." by JonathanK from physicsforums
You did not make any sense by displaying lots of gamma.
The gamma is the deceitful note of the eulogy, when all other non-mainstream theories are denied.
If you had problem to study the experimental tests of GR, see the
Einstein`s Geometrization vs. Holonomic Cancellation of Gravity via Spatial Coordinate-rescale and Nonholonomic Cancellation via Spacetime Boost
<<Mr. Raphie Frank, you consider Mr. Einstein is not right enough??>>
Theories are models of "reality," not reality itself. We often confuse the two, confusing the description for the thing. That, more or less, is Literary Criticism 101. That said, every theory, even wrong theories so long as they gain a hearing contribute to the overall discourse over time because they help to steer thought and guide the debate. Without string theory there would be no Peter Woit (in the public mind, that is...), for instance, who has made his name challenging the Dominance of the approach.
As for Einstein, every single Great Man or Woman through history has been shown to be "wrong" eventually, but without that "wrongness," as per above, we would never progress to greater levels of understanding. RELATIVE to human frame of reference prior to what came before, I believe Einstein was far more right than what had preceded, but RELATIVE to what may still yet come he may well be shown to have been as far out to left field as Kepler, although, ironically, Kepler, along with Ptolemy and others of such circular stripe may yet be shown to have been far less afield in principle than we give them credit for.
It's all a question of framing and perspective as I have repeatedly made note of on these boards. Einstein, for instance, believed the laws of physics apply to people, if not social systems. This aspect of his thinking was "tolerated" as the eccentricity of a genius. I happen to think he was far more right on that count than he was given credit for, so again it's relative.
As such, I might add, do not confuse the the "cult" of "Big Bang," for Einstein himself and his views. He struggled to the very end trying to reconcile quantum with relativity. The point being, he knew above all others that he didn't have it all figured out.
As a man of his time, though, he was about as "right" as one could possibly hope for. Don't forget, when Einstein was practicing his art, five-fold symmetry was deemed to be physically impossible.
I say nothing is impossible, but some things are certainly far more likely.
Incidentally, that the Big Bang will be disproven, I do not believe will be the case, but I do believe that people may well believe it to be the case as our collective Knowledge level attains the point that we are able to see beyond the beginning and, poetically speaking, back to the end.
Best,
Raphie
Theories are models of "reality," not reality itself. We often confuse the two, confusing the description for the thing. That, more or less, is Literary Criticism 101. That said, every theory, even wrong theories so long as they gain a hearing contribute to the overall discourse over time because they help to steer thought and guide the debate. Without string theory there would be no Peter Woit (in the public mind, that is...), for instance, who has made his name challenging the Dominance of the approach.
As for Einstein, every single Great Man or Woman through history has been shown to be "wrong" eventually, but without that "wrongness," as per above, we would never progress to greater levels of understanding. RELATIVE to human frame of reference prior to what came before, I believe Einstein was far more right than what had preceded, but RELATIVE to what may still yet come he may well be shown to have been as far out to left field as Kepler, although, ironically, Kepler, along with Ptolemy and others of such circular stripe may yet be shown to have been far less afield in principle than we give them credit for.
It's all a question of framing and perspective as I have repeatedly made note of on these boards. Einstein, for instance, believed the laws of physics apply to people, if not social systems. This aspect of his thinking was "tolerated" as the eccentricity of a genius. I happen to think he was far more right on that count than he was given credit for, so again it's relative.
As such, I might add, do not confuse the the "cult" of "Big Bang," for Einstein himself and his views. He struggled to the very end trying to reconcile quantum with relativity. The point being, he knew above all others that he didn't have it all figured out.
As a man of his time, though, he was about as "right" as one could possibly hope for. Don't forget, when Einstein was practicing his art, five-fold symmetry was deemed to be physically impossible.
I say nothing is impossible, but some things are certainly far more likely.
Incidentally, that the Big Bang will be disproven, I do not believe will be the case, but I do believe that people may well believe it to be the case as our collective Knowledge level attains the point that we are able to see beyond the beginning and, poetically speaking, back to the end.
Best,
Raphie
GPB website withdrew the original diagram which showed that Einstein is wrong and replaced it with one which does not show the claim:
Did anyone happen to have downloaded the original one?
Did anyone happen to have downloaded the original one?
QUOTE (truth2k+Dec 10 2007, 05:55 PM)
GPB website withdrew the original diagram which showed that Einstein is wrong and replaced it with one which does not show the claim:
Did anyone happen to have downloaded the original one?
Did anyone happen to have downloaded the original one?
I happen to have downloaded the original one but it is a partial one:
QUOTE (human+Dec 10 2007, 11:24 PM)
I happen to have downloaded the original one but it is a partial one:
truth2k sockpuppet
truth2k sockpuppet
Excuse me for freshing the thread. Merry christmas!!
I am considering to change my career into business!
Eventhough Gravity Probe B may generally confirm my theory, I do not think that those established big figures will subdue easily and let me share the sky with theirs.
Bye bye, Physorg friends. Wish your dreams of science exploration coming true and your future success!
I am considering to change my career into business!
Eventhough Gravity Probe B may generally confirm my theory, I do not think that those established big figures will subdue easily and let me share the sky with theirs.
Bye bye, Physorg friends. Wish your dreams of science exploration coming true and your future success!
QUOTE (truth2k+Dec 16 2007, 07:16 PM)
Excuse me for freshing the thread. Merry christmas!!
I am considering to change my career into business!
Eventhough Gravity Probe B may generally confirm my theory, I do not think that those established big figures will subdue easily and let me share the sky with theirs.
Bye bye, Physorg friends. Wish your dreams of science exploration coming true and your future success!
Bye. Don't let the screen door hit you in the behind on your way out.
I am considering to change my career into business!
Eventhough Gravity Probe B may generally confirm my theory, I do not think that those established big figures will subdue easily and let me share the sky with theirs.
Bye bye, Physorg friends. Wish your dreams of science exploration coming true and your future success!
Bye. Don't let the screen door hit you in the behind on your way out.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.