Gee Sounds Familiar Persol, Gee sounds like H&K data which has been shown to not really support their claims, kinda fudged a bit to squeeze out what they wanted to see. The fact still is you are spouting a lot of hot air of "Maybe's". Show his conclusions are not the consequence of descovering ether. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
Finally Persol, Finally you posted some actual information. Now that wasn't that hard was it? Unfortunately I don't see any nubvers only statements, not to mention that the H&K clocks varied all over the map and no velocity affect was apparent. You know take an average, throw out a high and a low, that sort of stuff and then say "Hey, the numbers aren't right but in the right direction, we must have proved time dilation. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
He Does BlackHoleSun, ANS: Actually he does discuss these issues. You seem to have the opinion that he opposes time dilation. He doesn't, not do I. It is simply that there can be a physical explanation for why it occurs. Relativity is based on ether formulas but since (as admitted by Einstein) the mathematics works without knowing about the physical cause, so "what", lets ignore it. Big mistake. Here is the "what" and this is addressed to Persol and Canute that have openly stated they don't care about truth, that it has no signifigance. They couldn't be further wrong. Acknowledging an ether origin for relavistic principles and studying the Chiral Condensate may well lead to unlimited energy. Tesla thought so and current research seems to suggest that he was right. Just imagine being able to traverse around the universe and not having to transport fuel for energy. Imagine an earth that no longer consumes its resources and pollutes its enviornment. Imagine an earth where resources are no longer grounds for war. I think truth is very importatnt here. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
"Relativity is based on ether formulas but since (as admitted by Einstein) the mathematics works without knowing about the physical cause, so "what", lets ignore it. Big mistake." If you ever took your time to actually learn the theory, then you would know that this statement is false. For the 100000 th time: TIME DILATATION AND LENGTH CONTRACTION ARE NOT POSTULATES OF THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY BUT A CONSEQUENCE OF ITS POSTULATES. The physical cause is hence well known; the constancy of the speed of light for all observers. And the fact that the formulas were first developed for aether (which I am not convinced of, but ok, I could be wrong) does not change a thing, it is not because Einstein ignores certain details. But to understand that you would have to study that theory, something you seem unwilling to do in the first place.
Ok, this guy is scaring me now... How can science be anything but the ultimate quest for truth? I understand that philosophy and science are not the same thing, however, it is the job of the philosopher to pose the questions and the job of the scientist to solve them. How can a problem be solved if it is not yet percieved? The two work together. I still dont know enough physics to be able to comment whether De Wittes work is accurate but it is still relevant. It is about thinking outside the square. If we don't look out the window once in a while how will we know which questions need to be asked? Just because a truth isn't currently required doesn't make it any less valid. Truth is self-justifying. It is a sad day when someone says the truth is not needed.
Hi Blaah! "How can science be anything but the ultimate quest for truth?" Because truth is not an objectively measureable or detectable entity. You cannot distinguish between one truth or another by an independent, repeatable experiment. Ok, I am no good at expressing it, but I think you'd have to agree that truth is very subjective. Physics only is concerned with facts and how these facts can be modelled in a mathematical way in order to describe and predict the behaviour of nature. So in that sense there is something which you could call a truth, which is the experimental data, or the way nature behaves. Now, these experimental data are just that: data. Creating a huge catalogue of all events in nature is not really a good way of studying it, so you need some kind of model that fits the data well, and is able to make new predictions which in turn can be experimentally tested. For the physicist, it does not matter if the postulates of the theory are "the truth", it just matters that they work. Many people seem to confuse the postulates of a theory with "the truth", but it should be pointed out over and over again that they are merely models, simplifications, of nature. If you want to discuss the postulates of a theory, then there are two ways: either you come up with new experimental data that disproves (one of) those postulates, rendering the theory obsolete, or you can start talking and debating about the nature of the postulates. The former is science, the later is philosophy (of science). I mean, all the discussions about the interpretation of quantum mechanics (as an example) are totally irrelevant for the quantum physicist. It does not matter if it is the Many Worlds or Copenhagen interpretation, a fact is that the theory works and describes nature very accurately, irregardless of whether the postulates are "the truth" or not. I hope this more or less clarifies my point of view. This does not mean we don't care about the truth. It is quite challenging to enter in a debate about the interpretation of special relativity or quantum mechanics, but as so often nicely illustrated on the forums here, there is no end to such discussions, simply because the scientific method cannot rule out one "truth" from another simply by words. Bye! Crisp
I would have thought that if a scientific theory is not true then eventually counter-evidence to it will appear. Thus as scientific theories become more and more complete they must converge on the truth. (This assumes that there is only one truth of course). Therefore science is not unconcerned with the truth. It is groping towards the truth by the pragmatic method of developing partial theories and seeing if they work. It means that scienctists think a lot of practical work still needs to be done before worrying about The Truth too much. I don't agree, since I feel we have all the evidence we need. But I certainly don't think it's correct to say that science isn't concerned with the truth, except inasmuch as accepts the philosophical viewpoint that the 'noumenal' must remain forever beyond us.
"I would have thought that if a scientific theory is not true then eventually counter-evidence to it will appear. Thus as scientific theories become more and more complete they must converge on the truth. (This assumes that there is only one truth of course)." Yes, a theory that is not "true" (I would rather say "correct") will eventually be overthrown by counter-evidence. In that sense, scientific theories converge towards the truth, which is an accurate description of nature. This is what I refered to as "facts" as being a form of truth. You will notice however, that little scientific theories do any real claims about interpretation. I am thinking on the meaning of the wavefunction in quantum mechanics, or (as I just read) whether spacetime really exists or really curves. This is something the theory or experiments cannot verify; they act as if it where thus or so, but there is no way to rule out one from another. So if you consider "the truth" to be answers like questions to "does spacetime really curve", "what is energy" or "what does the wavefunction mean", then I think one should not study science but rather philosophy, where these issues are indeed addressed. Bye! Crisp
Physics is not so much a quest for <b>The Truth</b> as it is a quest for what is useful. A physical theory is useful if it helps explain and predict what we see when we make observations and do experiments. If I throw a tennis ball near the Earth's surface, Newtonian gravity with the assumption of constant gravitational acceleration does a fantastic job of predicting what the flight path of the ball will look like: how fast it will go, where it will land, how high it will get to, and so on. If I only want to know about the flight of projectiles near the Earth's surface, constant gravitational acceleration and basic Newtonian laws are all I'll ever need. Is this "the truth"? A philosopher might care, but a practical "surface of the Earth" physicist doesn't need to know. Now, suppose I start launching tennis balls as intercontinental ballistic missiles. Suddenly, I find that my equations don't work any more. So, I modify them by dropping the assumption of constant gravitational acceleration, replacing that with an inverse-square law of gravity. Now I have Newtonian physics with inverse-square gravity, which is marvellous at predicting the flight paths of ICBMs. Is this the truth? Do I care? I get even more ambitious. I start launching tennis balls into high elliptical orbits of the Earth. After waiting several thousand years, I start to see puzzling variations in the orbits of my tennis balls - their orbits precess more than they should, using my Newtonian physics. So, it's back to the drawing board, and I eventually come to the conclusion that I need general relativity to properly predict the progress of the balls. Is general relativity the truth now? Probably not. After all, I've already had two previously useful theories overturned, so chances are this one isn't the final word either. What can we get from this example? Here are the points to take away: 1. Physics is progressive. A new theory replaces an old one only when it can explain all the same things as the old one, only more accurately. Hopefully, it also explains some things the old one couldn't explain. 2. A theory is a <b>good</b> theory if it is useful. That is the only criterion which is really relevant, since we can never know whether any theory is "the truth". Newtonian theory is a good theory - even better than relativity for many purposes where the full apparatus of relativity adds unnecessary complications. But overall, relativity is a superior theory because it explains things Newtonian physics can't explain. It enables us to calculate things more accurately. 3. Very successful and general theories (such as Newtonian physics) are rarely replaced. Instead they tend to be <b>subsumed</b>. General relativity completely contains Newtonian mechanics as low speed, low energy, low gravity limits. 4. The Truth is an unattainable thing in experimental science. All we have, ultimately, are observations and explanatory theories. We can never know if any particular theory is "true", because we can never test a theory under all possible conditions. Nor can we make infinitely accurate or infinitely many observations. Therefore, we can never know that at some stage in the future we won't come across an observation or piece of data which is not explainable by our favorite current theory. "The Truth" is a constantly shifting set of goal posts which is forever out of the reach of science. Since we can't get to the Truth (or know when we've arrived), the best we can do is to improve on the accuracy and explanatory power of our theories.
James, As always, very well put. I think we have a common viewpoint on the issue of truth in science Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Now MacM, How about that, totally unwillingly I ran into a possible answer to this experiment. I think that De Witte has unwillingly used the Sagnac effect to measure the earth's rotation (or a mechanism very similary to the Sagnac effect). This is basically a proof that the earth's surface is not an inertial frame. I refer to "Gravity, an introduction to Einstein's General Relativity", James B. Hartle, Addison-Wesley (2003) page 35. You can also <A HREF="http://www.google.be/search?q=sagnac+effect&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta=">google</A> for the words to find more explanations, such as <A HREF="http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm">this nice explanation right here</A>. Bye! Crisp
I understand what you and James are saying. However I cannot believe that it is not the job of science to keep trying to answer these questions. To be pedantic - if 'does spacetime really curve?' is not a scientific question then why is 'spacetime curves' a scientific assertion. However I take your general point.
"To be pedantic - if 'does spacetime really curve?' is not a scientific question then why is 'spacetime curves' a scientific assertion." Well, that is the difference between working with a postulate and trying to ask questions about a postulate. If you postulate that "spacetime curves according to the Einstein equation" then you can develop an entire theory of general relativity <sup>(*)</sup> using mathematics, logic, theorems, proofs, all the horrible stuff Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Start the mathematical machinery and out comes Newton's law of gravitation, the perihelion shift of mercury, ... which all matches experimental data. Out come new predictions that are testable, reproducable, ... To be short: once you accept the postulate, you can unleash the scientific method on it to derive results. The postulate is part of, even the very foundation, this scientific framework. That is why the postulate is called a scientific assertion. If you ask why spacetime curves, then you are going deeper into the postulate and start asking questions that do not fall inside this scientific framework set up by the postulate. Hence, it falls outside the scope of the scientific method, i.e. it is not science. Bye! Crisp <sup>(*)</sup> I have this huge book on GR here on my desk, and I started to read it, but I am not familiar in great depth with the postulates of GR, so I am not sure of this is one of them. Nevertheless, the point still holds.
Re: Finally Originally posted by MacM Finally you posted some actual information. Now that wasn't that hard was it? Actually, it was a pain in the ass... as it is a very poor report and does not describe exactly what he did. He didn't even include his possible sources of error, which he obviously knew about because he posted about them on sci.physics. Unfortunately I don't see any nubvers only statements Looking at the actual statments, you should realize that no numbers are needed. There are enough other events which we KNOW happen (pathing, heat expansion, signal interference, errors in timing) that the rest is basically worthless. Given data, it may be possible to see if the result was obtained correctly... but no data has been given, only results. As you have accused me, he is only giving statements. I have no numbers to attack, because he has shown none. I have little hope that he treated his numbers correctly, seeing only the open ends he left in the experiment. This is the same debate we went thru with your gravity testing. not to mention that the H&K clocks varied all over the map and no velocity affect was apparent H&K had a less sccurate clock, so yes they did 'vary all over the map'. That being said, it is a fairly trival exercise to determine a 20min shift if it is there, buried in the 'static'. DeWitte used more accurate clocks, but somehow syncronized them wrong, as his accuracy was 50x worse then the spec. You know take an average, throw out a high and a low, that sort of stuff and then say "Hey, the numbers aren't right but in the right direction, we must have proved time dilation. Again, it is fairly trivial to figure out how accurate you result is when do these actions. Unlike the DeWitte experiment, that used no error analysis at all. Acknowledging an ether origin for relavistic principles and studying the Chiral Condensate may well lead to unlimited energy. First, you do not acknowledge an ether which simply complicates issues further... and which we can not detect. It is nice to say that relativic principles are due to an ether, but that doesn't DO anything. It's equivalent to saying that unicorns are responsible for it. In no way does it advance the theory if it is thae same theory anyhow. Second, people are researching the chiral condensate... but not for the reasons you seem to think. They say, in many places, that it is not a source of unlimited energy... but a null source. Tesla thought so and current research seems to suggest that he was right. Just imagine being able to traverse around the universe and not having to transport fuel for energy. Good old buddy Tesla, who magically knows every crackpots now think. This comment is still pointless, and doesn't at all address the issue that ether doesn't provide an answer to anything. As soon as you have moving/flowing ether, you have to ask what its medium is. Imagine an earth that no longer consumes its resources and pollutes its enviornment. Imagine an earth where resources are no longer grounds for war. Imagine a sciforums without all the quacks. Imagine a sciforums where people don't post shit reports. I think truth is very importatnt here. And I think you do not realize you are supporting an idea just because 'you like it'. The truth is fine and dandy, but you can't simply claim that you know it... and then not back it up. It your months here you have not shown us a single reason to throw out relativity for a theory which is, at best, incomplete. The point is to provide things that are actually USEABLE... not the search for truth. Sure, truth may be found along the way... but you are kidding yourself if you think nobody will ever find a more complete truth. One day relativity will go the way of HS physics. It will be kept for ease of use, but a more complete theory will be available. Ether is not this theory.
Truth Persol, It has already been made clear by you, Canute, Ryans and now James that truth and science in your view are incompatiable. Let me just say that without truth there is no science, only guess work without any substance. For what it is worth I too don't accept De Witte's paper but that is really beside the point I wanted to make. I have just made it. This site seperates what you call science from truth and hence is clearly not science in any useflul way. And you have the guts to call me Crackpot. Science based on lies or falsehoods, I AM IMPRESSED. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
"And you have the guts to call me Crackpot. Science based on lies or falsehoods, I AM IMPRESSED." Man, get your grip together, this is not some Shakespearean play filled with death, betrayal and deception.. Nobody is saying that scientists are interested in lies or falsehoods, there is a slight difference with the philosophical truth some people try to look for in science. You do realize that those lies that all physical theories are based on according to you give a nearly perfect description of reality in the cases where we can actually perform the calculations ? Or are you going to blame this on a divine coincidence ? Bye! Crisp
De Witte Crisp, ANS:While I am not overly impressed with De Witte's writtings he made an excellent point which addresses your statement. His is a rather long winded version so I'll try to paraphrase it here. Two team of young students (having no scientific knowledge about the existance of air, etc) are given an assignment to develope a theory and mathematical formulas to explain the following: A car is equipped with an anemometer on its roof. The students are in the middle of a large parking lot on a day when there is no wind. The car drives past them several times at different speeds. The question they are assigned to explain is why does the anemometer turn at different rates as the car passes by. Team "A" concludes that the rotation of the anemometer is a function of the relative speed of the car to them as observers and they write a formula that seems to support that view. Their formula is tested and their postulate regarding relative velocity is verified. Team "B" takes another view. They develoope this theory that there is a medium which they can't see or feel that the car must be moving through and that the velocity of the car through this medium causes it to rotate. They write their formula and it too is verified. So there are two ways to view the problem and each provides a workable explanation but there are a number of problems with one of the views. 1 - It is view "A" as "postulate" that the action is due to relative motion between the car and them as an observer. That is an affect without a cause. 2 - They find out on another day that their formula doesn't work because the wind happens to be blowing and it rotates even though the car isn't moving relative to them and the speeds don't compute the same at previously measured relative velocites. 3 - On another day when the wind isn't blowing they try their postulate again. this time instead of standing still and letting the car drive by they run first in the same direction as the car then they run in the opposite direction the car and "surprise" their relative velocity to the car didn't seem to affect the rotation rate. 4 - Team "B" notes that their "Theory" based on an action with a cause seems to work regardless of the conditions of the test. 5 - One view is based on a "postulate" where action is without a cause the other a "theory" where action has a cause. One is false, the other is truth. That is why science and truth MUST be one and the same thing and to be science one MUST move beyond the postulate level. At one time there is no absolute point of rest, then there is every observer is his own point of rest or the center of a spinning disk is a point of rest. This is the view of Team "A" above with a bunch of band-aids thrown in. I would think that you would agree that Team "A" above has a flawed understanding of reality using a mere postulate and not a theory. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
Very obvious flaw in your analogy. People have observed the medium of air, and can observe the lack of it. Anybody has yet to demonstrate the presence of ether. If you do not know about air, the correct course of action is to assume there is none. If you finally do detect wind, then you have more information, and a reason to make a different assumption. Otherwise, you are just guessing that a medium exists. If you have 2 guesses (medium/no medium) and both give the same results... then you use the simpler version of the two. Why complicate the situation for an event which may or may not be there? Plus, you are avoiding the basic question. If everything has a medium, in what medium is ether?
Good Crisp, Yours is the first reasonable response. This is the type of response others should strive to emulate, not: CRACKPOT THREAD CRACKPOT THREAD CRACKPOT THREAD You see there are others reading this board and my views aside it is also important that responses be scientific, not childish. Thanks. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
I have to disagree with that. This wasn't a closed loop. Supposedly it was also coaxial, not fiber. Even so, you would (I think) get a constant phase difference, not an increasing one.
