Changes

Unlike most essay pages, anyone is welcome to contribute.  We ask that you abide by the usual guidelines—do not remove non-vandal, non-parody, non-libelous material without discussing it first on the talk page, or explaining after-the-fact for serious problems.

Unlike most essay pages, anyone is welcome to contribute.  We ask that you abide by the usual guidelines—do not remove non-vandal, non-parody, non-libelous material without discussing it first on the talk page, or explaining after-the-fact for serious problems.

#(vague example about black holes)

#''Computer simulations based on the theory of relativity predict far more black holes than are observed''.

#:The cited article says absolutely nothing about the ''number'' of black holes, modeled or observed.  It is about a discrepancy between computer models predicting the ''masses'' of black holes at the centers of galaxies and the observed masses.  The article suggests a heretofore-unmodeled mechanism whereby galaxy evolution would cause less mass to go into the black holes.  The article in no way suggests that black holes don't exist.

#''The orbital radius of the Moon's orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts''.

#''The orbital radius of the Moon's orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts''.

#:This could be a counterexample to both GR and Newtonian gravity--in both, the radius is defined in terms of conserved quantities.

#:This could be a counterexample to both GR and Newtonian gravity--in both, the radius is defined in terms of conserved quantities.

#:'''Update:'''  The problem seems to have been caused by a faulty cable connection between a computer and a GPS unit.  When the connection was repaired, the travel time increased by 60 nanoseconds, which had been the amount of the anomaly <ref>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/22/technology-faster-than-light-neutrinos.html</ref> <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/22/loose-wire-led-to-stunning-faster-than-light-particle-finding/?intcmp=features</ref>.  The claims of faster-than-light neutrinos have now been refuted very thoroughly<ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html</ref><ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/once-again-physicists-debunk.html</ref>.

#:'''Update:'''  The problem seems to have been caused by a faulty cable connection between a computer and a GPS unit.  When the connection was repaired, the travel time increased by 60 nanoseconds, which had been the amount of the anomaly <ref>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/22/technology-faster-than-light-neutrinos.html</ref> <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/22/loose-wire-led-to-stunning-faster-than-light-particle-finding/?intcmp=features</ref>.  The claims of faster-than-light neutrinos have now been refuted very thoroughly<ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html</ref><ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/once-again-physicists-debunk.html</ref>.

#:The objection has been raised that a recent news report from the BBC ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is also contradictory, since neutrinos have mass and are therefore forbidden by relativity to travel at exactly the speed of light.  Since the neutrino energies were 17GeV, and the current estimate for the neutrino mass is about 0.25eV, the deviation from the speed of light would be about 1 part in 10²².  This means that the neutrinos would arrive at the detector about .26x10^-24 seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself.  This is one quarter of a billionth of a femtosecond, or about .26x10^-15 of a nanosecond.  The accuracy of the GPS units and cesium clocks used in the measurement is greater than a nanosecond, so the discrepancy cannot possibly be detected.  It is unfortunate that the claim "the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos" was taken so literally.

#:The objection has been raised that a recent news report from the BBC ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is also contradictory, since neutrinos have mass and are therefore forbidden by relativity to travel at exactly the speed of light.  Since the neutrino energies were 17GeV, and the current estimate for the neutrino mass is about 0.25eV, the deviation from the speed of light would be about 1 part in 10²².  This means that the neutrinos would arrive at the detector about .26x10^-24 seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself.  This is one quarter of a billionth of a femtosecond, or about .26x10^-15 of a nanosecond.  The accuracy of the GPS units and cesium clocks used in the measurement is greater than a nanosecond, so the discrepancy cannot possibly be detected.  It is unfortunate that the claim "the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos" was taken so literally.

#:::The politicized rush to rehabilitate the Theory of Relativity was far from convincing, and the "resolution" was a clear statement that is flatly contrary to the Theory.

#:::A "counter-rebuttal" has been made: ''The politicized rush to rehabilitate the Theory of Relativity was far from convincing, and the "resolution" was a clear statement that is flatly contrary to the Theory''.  Just what statement is being referred to as the "resolution" is not clear, but our best guess is that it is the statement by Sandro Centro, quoted by Jason Palmer in the cited BBC article.  As noted above, that statement is in error by about 15 orders of magnitude less than the resolution of the measurement.  None of the assertions of relativity denies that anyone could ever make a statement that is not precisely correct.

#''Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").''

#''Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").''

#:This may be another case of the Pioneer anomaly, or it may be something else.  However, it is very unlikely that it shows that relativity is wrong and Newtonian mechanics is correct. Saying that, every time someone finds some phenomenon that is puzzling, that shows that relativity is wrong, is not a convincing way to do science.  The cited paper is about unexpected behavior of some spacecraft as they use "gravity assists" in near-Earth flybys.  The hypothesized causes involve errors in the mathematical models to calculate such effects as relativistic effects (the detailed calculation of them, not the question of whether they exist), tidal effects, Earth radiation pressure, or atmospheric drag.  The paper suggests that most of those can be ruled out, though there could be round-off and integration errors, or errors in the spherical harmonic representation of Earth's gravity field.

#:This may be another case of the Pioneer anomaly, or it may be something else.  However, it is very unlikely that it shows that relativity is wrong and Newtonian mechanics is correct. Saying that, every time someone finds some phenomenon that is puzzling, that shows that relativity is wrong, is not a convincing way to do science.  The cited paper is about unexpected behavior of some spacecraft as they use "gravity assists" in near-Earth flybys.  The hypothesized causes involve errors in the mathematical models to calculate such effects as relativistic effects (the detailed calculation of them, not the question of whether they exist), tidal effects, Earth radiation pressure, or atmospheric drag.  The paper suggests that most of those can be ruled out, though there could be round-off and integration errors, or errors in the spherical harmonic representation of Earth's gravity field.

#''General Relativity fails to predict the Allais Effect.''

#''General Relativity fails to predict the Allais Effect.''

#:A quick Google search will show that there is no "concerted effort to suppress knowledge about the phenomenon".  Tom van Flandern (no darling of those who accept relativity; he has been cited at Conservapedia in the "Lack of evidence for Relativity" section) explains the phenomenon in his 2003 paper [http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v67/i2/e022002 Allais gravity and pendulum effects during solar eclipses explained]: "Here we show that an unusual phenomenon that occurs only during solar eclipses, rapid air mass movement for the bulk of the atmosphere above normal cloud levels, appears to be a sufficient explanation for both the magnitude and behavior of the anomaly previously reported in these pages."

#:A quick Google search will show that there is no "concerted effort to suppress knowledge about the phenomenon".  Tom van Flandern (no darling of those who accept relativity; he has been cited at Conservapedia in the "Lack of evidence for Relativity" section) explains the phenomenon in his 2003 paper [http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v67/i2/e022002 Allais gravity and pendulum effects during solar eclipses explained]: "Here we show that an unusual phenomenon that occurs only during solar eclipses, rapid air mass movement for the bulk of the atmosphere above normal cloud levels, appears to be a sufficient explanation for both the magnitude and behavior of the anomaly previously reported in these pages."

 

== References ==

== References ==