Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Wilson
Thanks Steven,
Perhaps we should refute pseudoscience, as you call it, rather than ignore it. I hope you find the papers from which the following quotes were taken of interest.
Ernie.
.
"The most amazing thing I was taught as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale in the 1960s was that all gravitational interactions between bodies in all dynamical systems had to be taken as instantaneous." Van Flandern (Speed of Gravity)
"We conclude that the speed of gravity may provide the new insight physics has been awaiting to lead the way to unification of the fundamental forces. As shown in (Van Flandern, 1993, pp.80-85 and Van Flandern, 1996), it may also be connected with the explanation of the dark matter problem in cosmology. Moreover, the modest switch from SR to LR may correct the "wrong turn" physics must have made to get into the dilemma presented by quantum mechanics, that there appears to be no "deep reality" to the world around us. Quantum phenomena that violate the locality criterion may now be welcomed into conventional physics." van Flandern.
The Speed of Gravity - What the Experiments Say Tom Van Flandern tomvf@metaresearch.org Meta Research, Univ. of Maryland Physics, Army Research Lab
6327 Western Ave., NW / Washington, DC 20015-2456
(metaresearch.org)
The Gravitational Constant, the Chandrasekhar Limit, and Neutron Star Masses
S. E. Thorsett Physical review letters, 1996 - APS
Joseph Henry Laboratories and Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
"The Chandrasekhar mass limit sets the scale for the late evolutionary stages of massive stars,
including the formation of neutron stars in core collapse supernovae. Because its value depends on
the gravitational constant G, the masses of these neutron stars retain a record of past values of
G. Using Bayesian statistical techniques, I show that measurements of the masses of young and
old neutron stars in pulsar binaries limit ˙ G/G = (−0.6 ± 2.0) × 10−12yr−1 (68% confidence) or
˙ G/G = (−0.6 ± 4.2) × 10−12yr− 1(95% confidence)."
|
Ernie,
Pseudosciences are frequently refuted, through the application of logic, and by experiment and observation.
I find it intriguing that LR is based on a concept of an aether that cannot be observed or measured.
The experiments and observations that point to aether not existing however are quite overwhelming.
(1) Aberration of light.
(2) Fizeau convection coefficient.
(3) Michelson Morley test
(4) Kennedy Thorndike test.
(5) De Sitter spectroscopic binaries.
(6) Trouton_Noble experiment.
(7) Unipolar Induction.
(8) Meson decay at high velocities.
On the subject of the variation of G, I'm a bit confused. Your previous reference through Xavier Borg suggested that G varies in the short term.
Your current reference suggests a much longer time frame.
If G varies over a longer time frame how do we explain the observed type IA supernova light curves for galaxies of different z?
Regards
Steven