| Line 90: |
Line 90: |
| | #:The ICFR is described in [http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Publications/TechnicalNotes/tn32.html this] document, dated 2003. | | #:The ICFR is described in [http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Publications/TechnicalNotes/tn32.html this] document, dated 2003. |
| | #::'''REPLY:''' The year 1997 was nearly 20 years ago, and the observed data based on increasingly sophisticated technology was diverging from relativity's predictions even then. Recent data on this is not published because it would further disprove relativity and embarrass relativists who cling to the theory. | | #::'''REPLY:''' The year 1997 was nearly 20 years ago, and the observed data based on increasingly sophisticated technology was diverging from relativity's predictions even then. Recent data on this is not published because it would further disprove relativity and embarrass relativists who cling to the theory. |
| | + | #: |
| | + | #:::The cited Jurgens-Rojas-Slade-Standish-Chandler paper was published in April 1998, so it should come as no surprise that their data came to an end in 1997. They probably decided that, after collecting data for 10 years, it was time to publish. This is common in the scientific community. Galileo's experiment involving cannonballs and the Leaning Tower of Pisa is no longer being conducted. The Stern-Gerlach experiment (just to pick one random example) was conducted only a small number of times before being published. People don't continue to conduct it to see whether spin quantization of Silver atoms still occurs. |
| | + | #: |
| | + | #:::More recent Mercury data, particularly from the MESSENGER space probe, have provided positional data vastly better than anything Leverrier could have dreamed of. (In fact, Because of the many interplanetary spacecraft of the last few decades, we now have a huge amount of incredibly accurate data on a large number of bodies in the Solar System.) Perhaps Andy believes that the scientific community has been remiss in not continuing to analyze these Mercury data to the present day, presumably looking for evidence of whether relativity is true or false. |
| | + | #: |
| | + | #:::Perhaps Andy could provide his own ideas about why, other than relativity, the precession occurs. This would not just be a matter of quibbling over 42.98 and 42.99, but of explaining the discrepancy between 42.99 and zero. This point was brought up on the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Two_millionth_page_view_for_the_.22Counterexamples_to_Relativity.22_page Community Portal] in December, with no reply forthcoming. |
| | + | #: |
| | + | #:::Of course, even absent an alternative theory, showing a discrepancy between observation and theory would be interesting. |
| | + | #: |
| | + | #:::Now a possible approach, if one believes that the data are inconsistent with relativity, would be to bring the subject up in the many internet forums devoted to physics. One might be able to find out what further analyses are being done, suggest new analyses, or find out how to get the data to make one's own analysis. |
| | + | #: |
| | + | #:::Getting to the specific points of the note above, we are not aware of any evidence that the data were diverging from the theory back in 1997; perhaps Andy could provide supporting data. We see no evidence that the data exist but have not been published, and we see no evidence that any such lack of publication arises because it would embarrass anyone. Seeing discussion of these points in an internet physics forum might help clear these matters up. |
| | + | #: |
| | + | #:::It's one thing to speculate on science; it's quite another to speculate on the motives of scientists, particularly the idea that scientists are embarrassed by their knowledge that relativity is wrong, and that they are covering up this embarrassment as part of some political agenda. |
| | #: | | #: |
| | #''Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found. Sound like global warming?'' | | #''Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found. Sound like global warming?'' |
| Line 149: |
Line 163: |
| | #''The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.'' | | #''The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.'' |
| | #:It is utterly baffling how anyone could make such an assertion. The insights from relativity are multitudinous. Relativity forms the basis for astronomy, cosmology, electrodynamics, and many other fields. The interconnection between the electric and magnetic forces is now seen to be a straightforward consequence of relativity. Relativity combined with quantum mechanics are the basis of all of contemporary physics. | | #:It is utterly baffling how anyone could make such an assertion. The insights from relativity are multitudinous. Relativity forms the basis for astronomy, cosmology, electrodynamics, and many other fields. The interconnection between the electric and magnetic forces is now seen to be a straightforward consequence of relativity. Relativity combined with quantum mechanics are the basis of all of contemporary physics. |
| − | #:The Dirac equation, which gives rise to antiparticles and the theory of spinors, was an early example of introducing relatitivity into the Schrödinger equation. | + | #:The Dirac equation, which gives rise to antiparticles and the theory of spinors, was an early example of introducing relativity into the Schrödinger equation. |
| | #:More generally, special relativity was combined with quantum theory to produce [[quantum field theory]] (QFT). An example of a QFT is [[quantum electrodynamics]], the most precise theory in physics. Furthermore, string theory is Lorentz invariant and produces general relativity in the low energy limit. | | #:More generally, special relativity was combined with quantum theory to produce [[quantum field theory]] (QFT). An example of a QFT is [[quantum electrodynamics]], the most precise theory in physics. Furthermore, string theory is Lorentz invariant and produces general relativity in the low energy limit. |
| | #''The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.'' | | #''The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.'' |