Changes

Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)

Revision as of 14:01, June 24, 2016

23 bytes removed , 14:01, June 24, 2016

Spelling, grammar, and general fixes

Line 25: Line 25:

#:That astronomers have stopped looking for this phenomenon, after finding more than 10 examples of it, may or may not have been a wise decision regarding the allocation of telescope and satellite time.

#''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.

#::The objection has been raised that this would still be a counterexample to Relativity.

#:::Yes, if it were actually true that the Moon's orbit is undergoing some kind of anomalous perturbation, it would indeed be a disproof of Relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and, in fact, all of physics since Galileo.

−

#::::Actually, the average radius of the Moon's orbit is in fact increasing. By 38mm a year. This was first predicted in the late 19th century and actually measured since at least the early 1970's and more accurately thereafter thanks to the mirrors left for that purpose by the Apollo astronauts. The reason for this is well-known and simple enough to be explained on science-oriented TV shows from time to time. To put it simply: the Moon pulls on the Earth, causing the tides and slowing down its rotation slightly, lengthening it's day by 2 milliseconds every 100 years. Reciprocally, the Earth pulls on the Moon and accelerates it slightly thus increasing the height of its orbit and energy is conserved. For a more complete explanation see <ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124</ref>. This behavior, predicted over 100 years ago, observed and measured, is in no way "anomalous" and relativity, general, special or otherwise doesn't really concern itself with tidal mechanics so on that point at least physics, Galilean, Newtonian and [[Albert Einstein|Einsteinian]], are quite safe for now.

+

#::::Actually, the average radius of the Moon's orbit is in fact increasing. By 38mm a year. This was first predicted in the late 19th century and actually measured since at least the early 1970's and more accurately thereafter thanks to the mirrors left for that purpose by the Apollo astronauts. The reason for this is well-known and simple enough to be explained on science-oriented TV shows from time to time. To put it simply: the Moon pulls on the Earth, causing the tides and slowing down its rotation slightly, lengthening it's day by 2 milliseconds every 100 years. Reciprocally, the Earth pulls on the Moon and accelerates it slightly thus increasing the height of its orbit and energy is conserved. For a more complete explanation see.<ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124</ref> This behavior, predicted over 100 years ago, observed and measured, is in no way "anomalous" and relativity, general, special or otherwise doesn't really concern itself with tidal mechanics so on that point at least physics, Galilean, Newtonian and [[Albert Einstein|Einsteinian]], are quite safe for now.

#''The Pioneer anomaly.''

#:The "Pioneer anomaly" is the deviation in the motion of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft from their predicted motion, at the distance of Saturn and beyond. It should be noted that the anomaly is about 1000 times greater than the difference between the classical Newtonian prediction and the prediction of relativity, so this is not a problem with relativity ''per se''; it is more general than that.

#:Calculating the force caused by heat (that is, miniscule amounts of infrared radiation) from the radioactive power source was one of the first effects that was examined. The anomaly arose when this and other known effects could not fully explain the deviation.

−

#:The problem is believed to have been solved by taking into account the reflection of the radiation from the power source off of the back of the antenna dish<ref>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/</ref>. The solution is sometimes described as an application of "Phong shading", a technique of computer graphics that is now considered imprecise. But Phong shading itself is not what is important. The "ray tracing" computer graphics technique that underlies Phong shading was what inspired the scientists to take reflection into account.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly</ref>

+

#:The problem is believed to have been solved by taking into account the reflection of the radiation from the power source off of the back of the antenna dish.<ref>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/</ref> The solution is sometimes described as an application of "Phong shading", a technique of computer graphics that is now considered imprecise. But Phong shading itself is not what is important. The "ray tracing" computer graphics technique that underlies Phong shading was what inspired the scientists to take reflection into account.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly</ref>

#:<blockquote>The most detailed analysis to date, by some of the original investigators, explicitly looks at two methods of estimating thermal forces, then states "We find no statistically significant difference between the two estimates and conclude that once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for, no anomalous acceleration remains."<ref name="thermal">{{cite journal|doi=10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.241101|title=Support for the Thermal Origin of the Pioneer Anomaly|year=2012|last1=Turyshev|first1=Slava G.|last2=Toth|first2=Viktor T.|last3=Kinsella|first3=Gary|last4=Lee|first4=Siu-Chun|last5=Lok|first5=Shing M.|last6=Ellis|first6=Jordan|journal=Physical Review Letters|volume=108|issue=24|arxiv = 1204.2507 |bibcode = 2012PhRvL.108x1101T|pmid=23004253|pages=241101}}</ref></blockquote>

#''the solar flattening is ... too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation.''

Line 66: Line 66:

#''Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity. The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement''.

#:This is an interesting observation. The world's best scientific minds are looking into it. That relativity is incorrect is not being taken seriously as a possible explanation.

−

#:'''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.

#:::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").''

Line 92: Line 92:

#:

#::::The above discussion notwithstanding, more sophisticated technology has measured a precession of 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01, which disproves the prediction of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Notice how publication of data stopped two decades ago when the observations diverged from the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

−

#:Measurements of planetary motion are now calculated relative to the "International Celestial Reference Frame" (ICFR), replacing the older, and much less accurate "equinoctial" frame. The older measurements got a value of about 5600 arcseconds/century for the precession of Mercury, nearly all of which (5025 arcseconds) was because of the rotation of the "equinoctial" frame. The ICFR frame removes that source of uncertainty, and, with the very accurate radar measurements conducted by NASA between 1987 and 1997<ref>http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf</ref>, gets a value of 574.10±0.65 arcseconds observed, in good agreement with the predicted 574.64±0.69 value.

+

#:Measurements of planetary motion are now calculated relative to the "International Celestial Reference Frame" (ICFR), replacing the older, and much less accurate "equinoctial" frame. The older measurements got a value of about 5600 arcseconds/century for the precession of Mercury, nearly all of which (5025 arcseconds) was because of the rotation of the "equinoctial" frame. The ICFR frame removes that source of uncertainty, and, with the very accurate radar measurements conducted by NASA between 1987 and 1997,<ref>http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf</ref> gets a value of 574.10±0.65 arcseconds observed, in good agreement with the predicted 574.64±0.69 value.

#: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.

Line 123: Line 123:

#::The objection has been raised that the experiments should not have been funded if scientists were going to ignore negative results.

#:::The results are only partly negative. The scientists knew all along that a certain amount of luck would be involved in finding a sufficiently strong signal within the time frame of the experiment. The failure so far does not mean that black-hole mergers do not emit gravitational waves; just that they haven't been lucky enough to find them. They will continue to search.

−

#:'''Update:''' Another, much more commonplace observation of gravitational wave emission has been reported<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19408363 BBC article</ref>. The article suggests that, since it shows detectable gravitational waves are more common than previously thought, there is optimism that the eLISA detector, when completed, might find one source per week.

+

#:'''Update:''' Another, much more commonplace observation of gravitational wave emission has been reported.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19408363 BBC article</ref> The article suggests that, since it shows detectable gravitational waves are more common than previously thought, there is optimism that the eLISA detector, when completed, might find one source per week.

#:

#:This has nothing to do with global warming.

Line 178: Line 178:

#: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.''

−

#:We are baffled that anyone would connect this problem with relativity. The non-relativity principle of conservation of mass has been known, in general, for hundreds of years, going back to the time of the alchemists, and has been a fundamental and accurate principle since the ~~19th~~ century. The principle of conservation of energy has also been a fundamental and accurate principle since the ~~19th~~ century. Relativity simply generalizes this to a principle of both together, with even greater precision. So, in principle, it is recognized that the mass of the standard kilogram could change if an energy transfer took place. But no combustion, corrosion, or nuclear decay is suspected of having taken place. In any case, the amount of energy that would have to have been released is 1.25 megawatt-hours, which would certainly have been noticed.

+

#:We are baffled that anyone would connect this problem with relativity. The non-relativity principle of conservation of mass has been known, in general, for hundreds of years, going back to the time of the alchemists, and has been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. The principle of conservation of energy has also been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. Relativity simply generalizes this to a principle of both together, with even greater precision. So, in principle, it is recognized that the mass of the standard kilogram could change if an energy transfer took place. But no combustion, corrosion, or nuclear decay is suspected of having taken place. In any case, the amount of energy that would have to have been released is 1.25 megawatt-hours, which would certainly have been noticed.

#:Relativity does not promise uniformity of the universe any more strongly than classical physics did. The apparent change in mass of the standard kilogram is simply a mystery.

#''The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.''

Line 200: Line 200:

#:The topology of wormholes is an interesting topic, widely discussed among theoretical physicists and mathematicians. There is much speculation about what they would be like (if they could exist at all under quantum gravity), and what kind of "cosmic censorship" or "chronology protection" theorems might make practical time travel impossible. The nature of these theorems seems to be intertwined with theories of quantum gravity and "grand unification", so the exact form of the "cosmic censorship", if it exists, can't be known until quantum mechanics and relativistic geometry are unified. It is an exciting field of research. No one believes that the "cosmic censorship" will take the form of relativity not being a true non-quantum approximation to reality.

#''The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.''

−

#:Since the 70's much work has been done on the subject of black hole thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973CMaPh..31..161B</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9307035v1.pdf</ref>, most notably by the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge [[Stephen Hawking]]. When quantum field theory is added to the analysis of black holes it is found that they do not possess "low entropy" (quite the opposite, in fact) and are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...7.2333B</ref>. The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article has labelled this work in a footnote as "[c]ontrived explanations", with no explanation for this characterization given.

+

#:Since the 70's much work has been done on the subject of black hole thermodynamics,<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973CMaPh..31..161B</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9307035v1.pdf</ref> most notably by the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge [[Stephen Hawking]]. When quantum field theory is added to the analysis of black holes it is found that they do not possess "low entropy" (quite the opposite, in fact) and are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...7.2333B</ref> The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article has labelled this work in a footnote as "[c]ontrived explanations", with no explanation for this characterization given.

#''Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.''

#:Please read the cited paper carefully. It is a survey of their observations over a 30 year period. They point out that their data matches general relativity to within 0.2 percent, and is now down in the "noise" of other effects, such as lack of accurate knowledge of just how far away the pulsars are, and lack of accurate knowledge of galactic constants. As they say in the abstract, "tighter bounds will be difficult to obtain." The paper, written in 2004, also notes that, because the pulsar beams are slowly tilting out of the line of sight to Earth, "A core component [of the emission] is quite prominent in the data taken in 1980-81, but it faded very significantly between 1980 and 1998 and was nearly gone by 2003."

Line 206: Line 206:

#:The data are not diverging from the predictions.

#''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.''

−

#:The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses general relativity to achieve greater accuracy<ref>http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html</ref>.

+

#:The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses general relativity to achieve greater accuracy.<ref>http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html</ref>

#:In fact, relativity is what makes the magnetic force necessary. The magnetic force is used in, among other things, electric motors and generators.

−

#:Even if it were the case that no practical applications have come from relativity, that is irrelevant. The validity of a theory is not based on the creation of useful devices. It is based on its ability to accurately predict the results of an experiment. Relativity "has held up under extensive experimental scrutiny" <ref>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/</ref>.

+

#:Even if it were the case that no practical applications have come from relativity, that is irrelevant. The validity of a theory is not based on the creation of useful devices. It is based on its ability to accurately predict the results of an experiment. Relativity "has held up under extensive experimental scrutiny".<ref>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/</ref>

#:If scientific theories were judged by their application in useful devices, the following Nobel-worthy theories would be rejected:

#::cosmic inflation

Line 279: Line 279:

*[[E=mc²]]

*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]

−

*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E~~%3Dmc²~~]]

+

*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]

== References ==

DavidB4-bot

Block, SkipCaptcha, apieditor, Automoderated users, Bots, edit, ratelimit-exempt

58,343

edits

Changes

Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)

Revision as of 14:01, June 24, 2016

Navigation menu

Search