SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 123:
Line 123: + + + + + + + + + +
Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 04:34, February 8, 2020
, 04:34, February 8, 2020Your vocabulary is exemplary; your writing style is impeccable; your scientific wisdom not so much.
#:
#:
#::::Regarding which, even the authorship of the theories of relativity is an example of the misrepresentations used to promote it to fuel the self-aggrandizement of physicists and their profit motive, to be attained by increasing the esteem of the physics profession on the questionable basis of making academic noise to attract research dollars by using the theories as their tympana.
#::::Regarding which, even the authorship of the theories of relativity is an example of the misrepresentations used to promote it to fuel the self-aggrandizement of physicists and their profit motive, to be attained by increasing the esteem of the physics profession on the questionable basis of making academic noise to attract research dollars by using the theories as their tympana.
#:::::I know that the author of the above objection is very careful and literate with the words he uses, so I'm baffled by a few things, such as his use of "supposed precession". This seems to indicate that he thinks this is fictional, and that the precession is actually zero. If so, he would seem to be trying to outdo the person who is perhaps the world's foremost relativity denier, Andy Schlafly. Andy gets into arguments over things like whether the precession is 42.98 or 42.99, but he does not claim that it is zero. In any case, celestial mechanics calculations are now so precise (as in the gravity-assist manipulations of the Cassini and Messenger spacecraft) that the positions of bodies in the solar system are now known to vastly more accuracy than the 18<sup>th</sup> century astronomers could make.
#:::::... "non-repeatable observations". Perhaps he means that the ''actual, original'' observations, dating back to 1700 or so, haven't been made since. This is true, especially since Leverrier is long dead. And we can no longer conduct the ''actual Michelson-Morley experiment'', though it has been repeated many times. And we can't go back and observe the actual Chicxulub asteroid strike.
#:::::The claim that the people (Urbain Leverrier and others) were "individuals with vested interests that the theories of relativity remain true" seems rather far-fetched. He died long before relativity was formulated.
#:::::... "The error bars of various predictions could have been shifted". Yes, it is possible to fudge experimental data, sometimes sufficiently to change a result. This has been done many times, in many fields. I suppose people could manipulate the precession data to make relativity look good, or to make relativity look bad. But modern data are so accurate that no one even needs to think about doing that.
#:::::... "such a step [fudging] is not only possible, but probable due to the observed vanity of scientists". That's a lot of scientists pursuing their vanity. All in some conspiracy to promote relativity?
#:::::... "falsification of the 1919 measurements". It is well known that Eddington's report on the eclipse involved data selection ("fudging") that wouldn't be acceptable today. And that he had a vested interest in promoting relativity. Fortunately, we have enormous amounts of vastly more accurate data on the bending of light. And the conspiracy to fake all this would have to be gigantic. Or do you actually believe that ''everyone'' who accepts relativity is part of a giant conspiracy?
#:::::... "rectifying the absence of a concrete example". How about "finding a concrete example", the way scientists routinely do?
#:::::... "promote it to fuel the self-aggrandizement of physicists and their profit motive". Yes, these people have jobs that pay money. Sean Hannity's salary last year was $36 million, for example.
#:::::... "making academic noise". I actually enjoy reading those articles. But I'm not involved in making decisions about where to spend research money.
#:::::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]])
#''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?''
#:True, the ''direct'' searches for gravitational waves had not yet yielded any clear results at the time that item was written (September 2012), though indirect observations had been made (the Hulse/Taylor observations.) Before people dismiss indirect observations, recall that no one has ever seen an electron.
#:True, the ''direct'' searches for gravitational waves had not yet yielded any clear results at the time that item was written (September 2012), though indirect observations had been made (the Hulse/Taylor observations.) Before people dismiss indirect observations, recall that no one has ever seen an electron.