ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 15th January 2017, 02:17 PM   #81
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 12,346
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
That "GR really doesn't have any meaning to it. It's just a mathematical description." from michaelsuede does sound like unthinking parroting of Wal Thornhill. For example look at the ignorant and irrational rant Thornhill wrote when the detection of gravitational waves was announced.
  • The delusion that spacetime has to be a physics concept - an actual fabric!
  • The delusion that observational data fitting a mathematical computer model is not evidence that the physics used to create the model is correct.
  • Cites the handyman/gardener and part-time amateur scientist Stephen J. Crothers as a source rather then using his own brain ! This is the part of the rant where he denies the real world where even classical physics such as electromagnetism have solutions for single bodies in a otherwise empty universe.
  • Lies about Einstein not understanding gravity or light.
  • An ignorant lie that the 2 LIGO detectors would have detected the signal at the same time.
    GR states that the speed of gravitational waves is the speed of light - not infinite as is assumed in Newtonian gravitation.
  • A lie that QM terms are used to explain gravitational waves!
  • The delusion of "the dogma of relativity".
  • Quotes a description of what we expect as a signal of gravitational waves from any merging objects - a chirp. But then he denies the science and rants.
  • The ignorant delusion that light needs something to wave in.
  • A lie that the vacuum has the properties of a dielectric medium. There constants defined for the propagation of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum.
  • An abysmally ignorant delusion of the "dielectric medium of the vacuum is a plenum of neutrinos".

It doesn't matter that michaelsuede doesn't accept GR. He doesn't accept or understand basic Newtonian gravity either. This is evidenced by e.g. his insistence that the fact that the sun's gravity pulls twice as hard on the moon as earth's gravity does means that the moon should be pulled out of earth orbit toward the sun, unless there's some electromagnetic orbit-stabilizing force in effect. That's just simple failure to do the vector arithmetic of what Newtonian gravitation predicts should actually happen.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2017, 03:14 PM   #82
jonesdave116
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 831
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
It doesn't matter that michaelsuede doesn't accept GR. He doesn't accept or understand basic Newtonian gravity either. This is evidenced by e.g. his insistence that the fact that the sun's gravity pulls twice as hard on the moon as earth's gravity does means that the moon should be pulled out of earth orbit toward the sun, unless there's some electromagnetic orbit-stabilizing force in effect. That's just simple failure to do the vector arithmetic of what Newtonian gravitation predicts should actually happen.
TBF, if EU supporters actually understood *real* science, then they wouldn't be EU supporters! It is all based on a total misunderstanding of science, and an adherence to totally unscientific neo-Velikovskian type woo.

Anyways, I previously mentioned the changing potential on the Rosetta spacecraft whilst seamlessly carrying out bound orbits around 67P. Here is Fig. 2 from a paper that describes it well:


(click to enlarge)

The paper is:
Evolution of the plasma environment of comet 67P from spacecraft potential measurements by the Rosetta Langmuir probe instrument
Odelstad, E. et al (2015)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...5GL066599/full (paywalled)
There is a free version of this paper, however, the figures do not seem to be included:
https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstr...ft_revised.pdf
(I have the p/w version if anyone wants it)

So, according to Wal (http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electr...ic-universe/):
Quote:
But when we apply force to a body, how is that force transferred to overcome inertia? The answer is ‘electrically’ by the repulsion between the outer electrons in the atoms closest to the points of contact. The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass strongly suggests that the force of gravity is a manifestation of the electric force.
And yet, here is a spacecraft, in a gravitationally bound orbit, that is seeing its potential going up and down like the proverbial, and it is making no difference to its orbital parameters. This is the equivalent of the suggestion on the Thunderbolts forum of charging a piece of tinfoil. However, this 'experiment' is taking place in situ around a body that is central to Wal's Velikovskian fantasies.
Outcome? Electric comets don't exist, their density is as measured, and electric gravity is a non-starter. Back to the drawing board for Wal. At least he doesn't have to alter any equations.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

Last edited by jonesdave116; 15th January 2017 at 03:16 PM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2017, 02:23 PM   #83
Jules Galen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,223
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
I mean whether you use G taken from a beam balance that was produced in the 18th century or G taken from a high tech atomic fountain, it makes no difference.

Measurements of G are all over the place. The Scientific American has done several articles and podcasts about this. I made this claim in reference to G not being proven to be a constant, which it is not. It is simply defined, not empirically proven, to be a constant.
You are doubling down on a losing hand.

I suggest you re-think your approach.
Jules Galen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2017, 02:50 PM   #84
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 20,375
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
You are doubling down on a losing hand.

I suggest you re-think your approach.
Variation in G is apparently periodic, and perhaps explainable.
https://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravit...tant-vary.html
Quote:
The official value of G is 6.673889 × 10−11 N·(m/kg)2, but the 13 measurement values analyzed in this study range from approximately 6.672 × 10−11 N·(m/kg)2 to 6.675 × 10−11 N·(m/kg)2, which is a percentage variation of about 10-4.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravit...-vary.html#jCp
ms thinks that 10-4% is significant?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2017, 03:45 PM   #85
jonesdave116
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 831
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Variation in G is apparently periodic, and perhaps explainable.
https://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravit...tant-vary.html


ms thinks that 10-4% is significant?
No, it isn't particularly significant. It is certainly well within the limits that we need to know it for most (all?) purposes.
However, I think Thornhill's position, that is being supported by ms, is essentially the following:
He is the leading scientific thinker in EU circles ();
he is avowedly a big fan of the fruitloop Velikovsky;
comets are a central part of his and David Talbott's 'Thunderbolts of the Gods' woo;
in this fantasy, during a game of interplanetary billiards, sometime within the last 10 000 years, planets were zooming around, getting close to each other, and huge lightning bolts between the planets blasted mountain sized pieces of rock into space;
these are his comets. They need to be rock. And then all sorts of electric woo happens, due to an unobserved varying electric charge between aphelion and perihelion;
comets have a measured density that is nowhere near that of rock;
therefore he needs G to be (very) variable.

tl;dr? It all comes down to Velikovskian woo.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

Last edited by jonesdave116; 16th January 2017 at 03:47 PM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:10 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.