Science is close-minded

James Putnam · 06-13-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeztar

I believe you've got it backwards, James.
When Einstein presented his theories, it was not a done deal. Many scientists did not agree with what he was presenting and asked for empirical proof. Scientists predicted that if his theory was right, we would observe light being 'bent' by gravity. And indeed it is. Many, many tests have been executed and all have failed to falsify the theories. Nonetheless, the theories of Einstein demand constant revision (the mass-density problem).

Yes you are correct. I think his theoretical interpretations are incorrect, but, the use of transform equations helped him to forcibly arrive at equations that made his mythical interpretation match, at least mathematically, with empirical evidence. But, here again my opinion about this is for another place and time.

Quote:

(I've already provided an answer for your first question...several posts back)

Sorry I missed seeing it. I thought you had not answered. I will look back.

Quote:

In the face of supporting empirical evidence, it would be scientific to challenge the theory of time dilation. Such evidence does not exist, though. But yet, the Standard Model is at odds with Relativity, in regards to gravitation. The unification is currently being sought. These things take time. Science is not ~~close-minded~~ unreasonably dismissive because of time constraints. Baby steps...

I think that challenging the theory of time dilation should be easy to accomplish considering that 'time' is not a part of physics equations. The 't' in the equations represents a physical occurance and not 'time'. Anyway, I do not think that you are close minded. I have enjoyed this discussion. Thank you.

James

InfiniteNow · 06-13-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Putnam

I think that challenging the theory of time dilation should be easy to accomplish...

Have at it. That's what people have been doing for a century since Einstein's paper was first published.

You know what? It's withstood every test thrown at it.

I point you now toward the Hafele-Keating experiment.

Hafele-Keating experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is a nice and quick video summary of that experiment:

YouTube - Time dilation experiment

A blogger whom I follow, who is very well versed in the physics of time (has a few post docs even, and literally builds atomic clocks as part of his job), wrote a post about this back in January, showing how even a trip in your car or van results in time dilation, and you can learn A LOT by reading that. Here is the link:

Swans on Tea The Relativistic Van

Here are a few additional studies supporting the idea:

Haefele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (Proposal); Science Vol. 177 pg 166--170 (1972) (Experiment).
They flew atomic clocks on commercial airliners around the world in both directions, and compared the time elapsed on the airborne clocks with the time elapsed on an earthbound clock (USNO). Their eastbound clock lost 59 ns on the USNO clock; their westbound clock gained 273 ns; these agree with GR predictions to well within their experimental resolution and uncertainties (which total about 25 ns).

Vessot et al, "A Test of the Equivalence Principle Using a Space-borne Clock", Gel. Rel. Grav., 10, (1979) 181-204; "Test of Relativistic Gravitation with a Space borne Hydrogen Maser", Phys. Rev. Lett. 45 2081-2084.
They flew a hydrogen maser in a Scout rocket up into space and back (not recovered). Gravitational effects are important, as are the velocity effects of SR.

C. Alley, "Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields with Atomic Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses," in Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory, eds. Pierre Meystre and Marlan O. Scully, Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981, 1983 Plenum Press New York, ISBN 0-306-41354-X, p363-427.
They flew atomic clocks in airplanes which remained localized over Chesapeake Bay, and also which flew to Greenland and back.

Bailey et al., "Measurements of relativistic time dilatation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit," Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg 301; Nuclear Physics B 150 pg 1-79 (1979).
They stored muons in a storage ring and measured their lifetime. When combined with measurements of the muon lifetime at rest this becomes a highly-relativistic twin scenario (v ~ 0.9994 c), for which the stored muons are the traveling twin and return to a given point in the lab every few microseconds.

Muon lifetime at rest:Meyer et al., Physical Review 132, pg 2693; Balandin et al. JETP 40, pg 811 (1974); Bardin et al. Physics Letters 137B, pg 135 (1984). Also a test of the clock hypotheses (below).

The Clock Hypothesis
The clock hypothesis states that the tick rate of a clock when measured in an inertial frame depends only upon its velocity relative to that frame, and is independent of its acceleration or higher derivatives. The experiment of Bailey et al referenced above stored muons in a magnetic storage ring and measured their lifetime. While being stored in the ring they were subject to a proper acceleration of approximately 1018 g (1 g = 9.8 m/s2). The observed agreement between the lifetime of the stored muons with that of muons with the same energy moving inertially confirms the clock hypothesis for accelerations of that magnitude.

Sherwin, "Some Recent Experimental Tests of the 'Clock Paradox'", Phys. Rev. 129 no. 1 (1960), p17.
He discusses some Moessbauer experiments that show that the rate of a clock is independent of acceleration (~1016 g) and depends only upon velocity.

From: Experimental Basis of Special Relativity

So, I showed you my hand.
What cards are you holding?

Doctordick · 06-14-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

You know what? It's withstood every test thrown at it.

You miss a very significant point. Just because Einstein's theory yields the correct answers to some questions does not mean his theory is correct. For example, the gravitational red shift is no longer considered a defense of Einstein’s general relativity as any theory of gravity consistent with conservation of energy can be shown to require that very same red shift.

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

So, I showed you my hand.
What cards are you holding?

Just because a theory is consistent with what you know of the physical phenomena can not be taken as proof the theory is correct. There are other problems with Einstein's theories which cause thinking people to doubt. The overwhelming opinion that Einstein could not possibly be wrong does a disservice to science resulting in their failure to look for alternatives which could also yield these same results.

Have fun -- Dick

InfiniteNow · 06-14-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctordick

You miss a very significant point.

Dick,

I thoroughly appreciate the gist of your point, and quite agree overall with both its tone and implications. However, it seems more that it was you who missed my point.

James specifically challenged time dilation, and I specifically showed empirical data validating that it happens.

Have fun, indeed!

Mike C · 06-14-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexander

Science therefore can be influenced, you can't "hijack" science, it's not a physical deity, it's a way of thinking.

Influence dollars can control the content. This is a form of censorship.
This says about the samr thing.

Mike C

..

Mike C · 06-14-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeztar

I believe your confusing science and scientists, Mike.

Well yes, science is the object of study while the scientists determine what to teach.
The people in power are the ones that determine what to teach.
But dollars and religion can influence them.

An error they teach is the flow of electricity in solid state electronics that ellectricity flows from positive to negative.
The OPPOSITE is true.
'Positive here identifies with the popes and their church.
And the proton identifies with the priests? Ha ha.

Mike C

Doctordick · 06-14-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I thoroughly appreciate the gist of your point, and quite agree overall with both its tone and implications. However, it seems more that it was you who missed my point.

You could not be more correct; I appologize sincerely.

Have fun -- Dick

DFINITLYDISTRUBD · 06-14-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Haefele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (Proposal); Science Vol. 177 pg 166--170 (1972) (Experiment). [/B

They flew atomic clocks on commercial airliners around the world in both directions, and compared the time elapsed on the airborne clocks with the time elapsed on an earthbound clock (USNO). Their eastbound clock lost 59 ns on the USNO clock; their westbound clock gained 273 ns; these agree with GR predictions to well within their experimental resolution and uncertainties (which total about 25 ns).

Man that's cool!