221
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 798:
Line 798: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 13:25, August 17, 2010
, 13:25, August 17, 2010→Reversion of my edit: open-mindedness quantified
::::::::::: RonLar, your comments lack logic and suggest to me a lack of an open mind about this topic, and I'm not going to spend forever in talk, talk, talk with you about this. May I ask what your score is on the quiz on [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:09, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::: RonLar, your comments lack logic and suggest to me a lack of an open mind about this topic, and I'm not going to spend forever in talk, talk, talk with you about this. May I ask what your score is on the quiz on [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:09, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::Though I don't know what this has to do with the subject at hand, here are my answers
::::::::::::{|class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
!Question
!Answer
|-
|Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a [[liberal]] one?
|No.
|-
|If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?
|If it is proved to ''my'' satisfaction, no, I wouldn't.
|-
|Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
|I wouldn't like to admit it - is this resistance? But of course, I would admit it.
|-
|Do you resist the possibility that [[Hollywood values]] result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
|Resist the possibility? How could one?
|-
| Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
|Impossible? No. Unlikely? Yes.
|-
| When President [[Ronald Reagan]] told Mr. [[Gorbachev]] to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?
|Impossible? No. But the speed was surprising!
|-
| Did you think, or still think, that the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] ("Star Wars") is impossible?
|Impossible? No. Hard to realise? Yes.
|-
| Do you think that it is impossible that the [[Shroud of Turin]] is authentic?
|Impossible? No. Very unlikely? Yes.
|-
| Do you think that there ''must'' be a purely material-based explanation (such as magnetism) for remarkable [[homing]] and [[migration]] behavior of birds and butterflies?
|A ''purely material-based explanation'' as opposed to what? Angels hinting the way? So, yes.
|-
| Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?
|Impossible? No. Very improbable? Yes.
|-
| Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?
|Impossible? No. With this test? Yes.
|-
| Do you think that evolution ''must'' have occurred?
|Must have occurred? No. Has most probably occurred? Yes.
|-
| Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r<sup>2</sup>, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r<sup>2.00000001</sup>?
|Impossible? No. Aesthetically unsatisfying? Yes.
|-
| Do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?
|No. There were errors, and there were (over-)simplifications
|-
| Do you deny that some widely required theories of science may actually impede the progress of science?
|Generally: Yes, Locally: No.
|-
| Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?
|Yes - think of synchronised diving and swimming!
|-
| Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may not have all the answers, and that the [[best of the public]] may have valuable insights to which experts are blind?
|Generally, the best of the public are called experts, so yes and no.
|-
| Do you think that if you read parts of the Bible years ago as a child, you can claim to "have read the Bible" and that you have no reason to read it regularly now?
|If you read only parts, you didn't read the Bible. Is there a necessity to read it regularly? No.
|-
| Do you think that it is impossible for an oppressing society (like [[Communism]] or [[theocracy]])
to become a [[democracy]]?
|No.
|-
| Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years?
|No.
|}
::::::::::::Looking at the subject of the questions - and at your convictions as stated here on Conservapedia, this quiz seems to measure the possibility to agree with you in any point. That isn't necessarily the same as being open-minded...
::::::::::::So, I have answered your questions. Could you now answer the following ones? You can regard it as my version of a test of open-mindedness - it shows that you are willing to climb on the shoulders of the giants (to use [[Newton]]'s picture)
::::::::::::*Who did the Newtonian calculations for the GPS? Please cite a source.
::::::::::::*In the official Specification of the GPS we read:
::::::::::::::::p. 13: ''To compensate for relativistic effects, the output frequency of the satellite's frequency standard -- as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite -- is 10.23 MHz offset by a Df/f = -4.4647 x 10<sup>-18</sup> or a Df = -4.567 x 10<sup>-3</sup> Hz.''
::::::::::::::::p. 39: ''The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the control segment two-frequency receivers for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated correction accounts for the deterministic satellite clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as well as for the satellite implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential group delay. Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function.''
:::::::::::::How can you reconcile this with your view that ''GPS is a work of engineering and any timing discrepancies between the satellite and ground are obviously better handled directly by synchronization rather than asking a physicist what he thinks of relativity.'' Please elaborate.
::::::::::::*Have a look at the paper ''Initial Results of the Navstar GPS NTS-2 Satellite'' by James A. Buisson, Roger L. Easton, Thomas B. McCaskill of tje U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) Washington, D.C. This is the primary source for results of the first GPS mission. The abstract states
::::::::::::::''NTS-2 was successfully launched on 23 June 1977 into a near 12-hour circular orbit. Precise frequency and timing signals are derived from the two cesium frequency standards. This paper discusses the launch and preliminary results which include verification of the relativistic clock effect.''
:::::::::::::How do you reconcile this with your statements that ''GPS satellite clocks were not built based on predictions made by the theory of relativity'' or that ''GPS never used the theory of relativity'' - when the very first clocks for the GPS were not only used to verify the effect, but after the initial phase to conduct such experiments were offset according to the ''predictions made by the theory of relativity''? Please elaborate.
::::::::::::Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:25, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::please, reconsider the block of my ISP at home (block ID #63109, intended blockee: 109.90.0.0/16)
=== Problems with Peer Review ===
(unindent) Andy and Roger, I appreciate both of your viewpoints, and I'd like to sidetrack this discussion to an important point about peer review and "refereed" journals. It is often argued that since idea X has no papers supporting it, to be found in scientific journals, it therefore is "unscientific", i.e., false (see [[pseudoscience]]). However, we are aware of a significant number of ideas which we know to be true (or at least likely), but which mainstream journals have refused to publish.
(unindent) Andy and Roger, I appreciate both of your viewpoints, and I'd like to sidetrack this discussion to an important point about peer review and "refereed" journals. It is often argued that since idea X has no papers supporting it, to be found in scientific journals, it therefore is "unscientific", i.e., false (see [[pseudoscience]]). However, we are aware of a significant number of ideas which we know to be true (or at least likely), but which mainstream journals have refused to publish.
*Ideas on global warming which run counter to the [[AGW]] hypothesis, such as [[sunspots and cosmic rays]] affecting cloud formation: several researchers have published reports showing a much stronger correlation between the sunspot cycle and earth atmosphere temperature than that between the carbon dioxide level and temperature, but ''Science'' spiked the most important such paper on the grounds that it would be "of no interest" to their readers!
*Ideas on global warming which run counter to the [[AGW]] hypothesis, such as [[sunspots and cosmic rays]] affecting cloud formation: several researchers have published reports showing a much stronger correlation between the sunspot cycle and earth atmosphere temperature than that between the carbon dioxide level and temperature, but ''Science'' spiked the most important such paper on the grounds that it would be "of no interest" to their readers!