Centre of Gravity

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

The original paper in question (this time), by Cahill, is here.

Cheers

Had a quick read of the paper.

The paper is "relatively" old and was waiting on predictions of the Gravity B probe which incidentally are in agreement with GR. So I assume the predictions made by "Process Physics" are incorrect.

The idea of associating space as a fluid (or as a quantum foam alias aether) leads to strange ideas regarding gravity. For example is this space "conserved" like mass or energy?
If so it must conform to a continuity equation where all the fluid sources in the Universe are cancelled out by fluid sinks. How does gravity behave in the vicinity of a sink (inflow) and a source (outflow)? Inituitively it suggests that gravity can act as either as a attractive force or a repulsive force.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Interestingly, the final results of GP-B were only announced a couple of months ago (4 May 2011), after a launch date of April 2004.

The announcement is here.

(GR vindicated).

Interesting … it took a while, but the results are there for all to see.
Perhaps Mr Cahill will get a bit quieter from now on ?

From the Faq's section:

I have my own alternative theory of gravitation and/or cosmology; how can I get someone at GP-B or the broader physics community to take my ideas seriously?

Answer: As noted in the answer to Question #2 just above, the refereed or peer-reviewed journal article constitutes a well-established methodology for communicating with other scientists about theoretical and experimental research ideas. If you have an alternative to Einstein's general theory of relativity that you feel better explains the phenomena of gravitation, we suggest that you follow long-estabished scientific procedures for communicating with other physicists—namely join a professional society of physicists, such as the American Physical Society, attend physics meetings, and submit a paper for peer review, presentation at a physics meeting and/or publication. Question #2 above contains a list of physics journals that cover the field of gravitational physics.

Finally, if you wish to analyze the GP-B data with regards to your theory, see Question #5 in the Program Status & Experimental Results section above for links to obtaining the GP-B data from the National Space Sciences Data Center.

.. haven't seen Cahill publishing in the American Physical Society journal .. I think his papers have been reviewed in other publications though ..

Cheers

[CraigS]

As I mentioned before, it seems that M. Consoli has taken up the challenge of trying to measure quantum noise, which might be used as an indiator for the basic properties of the quantum vacuum state:

His recent paper (June 2011) is here.
The abstract is:

We reconsider the idea that quantum fluctuations might reflect the existence of an ‘objective randomness’, i.e. a basic property of the vacuum state which is independent of any experimental accuracy of the observations or limited knowledge of initial conditions.

Besides being responsible for the observed quantum behaviour, this might introduce a weak, residual form of ‘noise’ which is intrinsic to natural phenomena and could be important for the emer- gence of complexity at higher physical levels.

By adopting Stochastic Electro Dynamics as a heuristic model, we are driven to a picture of the vacuum as a form of highly turbulent ether, which is deep-rooted into the basic foundational aspects of both quantum physics and relativity, and to search for experimental tests of this scenario.

An analysis of the most precise ether-drift experiments, operating both at room temperature and in the cryogenic regime, shows that, at present, there is some ambiguity in the interpretation of the data. In fact the average amplitude of the signal has precisely the magnitude expected, in a ‘Lorentzian’ form of relativity, from an underlying stochastic ether and, as such, might not be a spurious instrumental effect.

This puzzle, however, should be solved in a next future with the use of new cryogenically cooled optical resonators whose stability should improve by about two orders of magnitude. In these new experimental conditions, the persistence of the present amplitude would represent a clean evidence for the type of random vacuum we are envisaging.

… the search for the 'ether' goes on, eh ?
Mind you, the quantum fluctuations of the vacuum state is what they are talking about here. Seems to me that Cahill (maybe Consoli) are transferring the term 'aether' over to the quantum vacuum properties and attempting to breathe new life into to the old 'aether'.

Talk about obfuscation ! (Did I just use that term ?? )


Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Interestingly, the final results of GP-B were only announced a couple of months ago (4 May 2011), after a launch date of April 2004.

The announcement is here.

(GR vindicated).

Interesting … it took a while, but the results are there for all to see.
Perhaps Mr Cahill will get a bit quieter from now on ?


.. haven't seen Cahill publishing in the American Physical Society journal .. I think his papers have been reviewed in other publications though ..

Cheers

It's GRrrrrrrr, vidicated!!!!!!!

And, nope.....he'll get louder, if anything. Now he and others will start looking for faults in the probe's design, the experimental methodology, the data etc etc. Or he and others will "massage" the data to agree with their ideas.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

It's GRrrrrrrr, vidicated!!!!!!!

And, nope.....he'll get louder, if anything. Now he and others will start looking for faults in the probe's design, the experimental methodology, the data etc etc. Or he and others will "massage" the data to agree with their ideas.

But Carl …. this Cahill guy is a respected Academic Professor of Physics at Flinders University … here he is, right here ….
Don't these types head up those courses in Astrophysics you guys are always doing ?

Cheers

PS: What's more, he's a 'Godel ler' .. ie: a devotee of one of my heros .. Kurt Godel ! A better run down of his "Process Physics" is here. Wiki lists 'Process Physics' as one definition of pseudoscience, interestingly. He's also been funded by the Australian Research Council Discovery Grant !

[renormalised (Carl)]

It would be a turn up if Consoli and Co's work is found to be the case. Especially once the detector sensitivity advances technologically to the point they can routinely probe at the level they need. What it would basically mean is that the vacuum, at a quantum level, behaves in a quasi liquid fashion. That doesn't mean that an "aether" exists, but that the QM properties of the vacuum at these levels is similar to the way a liquid behaves.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

But Carl …. this Cahill guy is a respected Academic Professor of Physics at Flinders University … here he is, right here ….
Don't these types head up those courses in Astrophysics you guys are always doing ?

Cheers

Yes he is...but that doesn't mean he has to tow the established line. Not everyone in academia is a conservative, orthodox theorist or experimentalist. In some ways, it's good he's not a line tower, however it can end up leading those types up paths that are dead ends a little too often.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by renormalised

It's GRrrrrrrr, vidicated!!!!!!!

And, nope.....he'll get louder, if anything. Now he and others will start looking for faults in the probe's design, the experimental methodology, the data etc etc. Or he and others will "massage" the data to agree with their ideas.

Of course the experts at Thunderblogs have it all figured out.

Getting the distance right was the least of their problems.

Satellite orbits are not the accurate calculations that the mainstream makes them out to be. The satellite would have required a number of orbital adjustment just as every satellite does because of anomalous orbital drift. How did these affect the gyroscopes? Potential fudge 1.

The gyroscopes had 2 inherent anomalous drifts. These needed to be removed from the data and they were exponentially greater adjusments then the effect they were looking for. Potential fudges 2 & 3.

During the mission there were something like 127 other anomalies/errors that may or may not have had an effect on the data. Potential fudges 4-130.

This is why I say the measurement is highly suspect. They were explicity looking for an effect and they found it. Otherwise it would have been a very expensive failure.

If someone paid me £500m to find the effect of someone dropping a pebble in the Atlantic off the coast of Florida and detecting it off the coast of Portugal, believe me, I would find it in the data.

[renormalised (Carl)]

You mean, they've figured out where all their socks go after sticking them in a washing machine???!!!!

They're all talk, but not one of them will submit a paper outlining their criticisms of the data, nor will they submit their own theories and experimental methodologies to test. Basically, because they're incapable of doing so. Not one of them is qualified in any field of science, either at all or sufficiently enough for them to be able to carry out any counterarguments and experiments.

[sjastro]

Although I disagree with Cahill, I respect the man for doing the "hard yards".
Compare this to those ignorant knuckleheads at Thunderblogs who spew such ill informed garbage.....

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Of course the experts at Thunderblogs have it all figured out.

Actually Steven, I am overwhelmed by the numbers of Aether/Ether devotees there are around the various physics forums, (not just TBolts).

Its interesting (& quite brutal) to see how mainstream debunkers decompose their arguments and leave them in a crumpled heap …

I've learned that the term 'ether' is used by many of them as a cure-all for all of mainstream's supposed Relativity malaises.

I might have lotsa hand-ups, but getting stuck on non-acceptance GR/SR ain't one of 'em (thank goodness).

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

You know, Craig, they want to be very careful. Sniffing ether is no good for them, especially if they do it too often and too much

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by renormalised

You mean, they've figured out where all their socks go after sticking them in a washing machine???!!!!

They're all talk, but not one of them will submit a paper outlining their criticisms of the data, nor will they submit their own theories and experimental methodologies to test. Basically, because they're incapable of doing so. Not one of them is qualified in any field of science, either at all or sufficiently enough for them to be able to carry out any counterarguments and experiments.

They don't have to. It's an anti science site.
I'm astounded how they readily embrace any idea which opposes mainstream, yet appear blissfully unaware the same ideas may contradict EU.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Although I disagree with Cahill, I respect the man for doing the "hard yards".
Compare this to those ignorant knuckleheads at Thunderblogs who spew such ill informed garbage.....

Regards

Steven

Precisely. At least he has the knowledge to do the work and understand it, plus the front to stand up and say what he thinks. All credit to him. The idiots at Thunderfarts couldn't blow out a candle with their collective abilities or brain power, and not one of them has the ability or temerity to actually submit anything of their own to the contrary.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

They don't have to. It's an anti science site.
I'm astounded how they readily embrace any idea which opposes mainstream, yet appear blissfully unaware the same ideas may contradict EU.

Regards

Steven

True.

Well, that only goes to show you how ignorant they really are.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sjastro

They don't have to. It's an anti science site.
I'm astounded how they embrace any idea which opposes mainstream, yet appear blissfully unaware the same ideas contradict EU.

Regards

Steven

Like grabbing Robitaille's CMBR ideas as a defence against WMAP's direct empirical support underpinning the Standard Cosmo Model.

All this whilst not seeing that Robitaille's ideas run counter to EU beliefs, eh ?

Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Like grabbing Robitaille's CMBR ideas as a defence against WMAP's direct empirical support underpinning the Standard Cosmo Model.

All this whilst not seeing that Robitaille's ideas run counter to EU beliefs, eh ?

Cheers

Craig,

That's the example I had in mind.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

Maybe they've been sniffing too much ether

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

True.

Well, that only goes to show you how ignorant they really are.

You know, I've been trying to understand how all this anti-science/pseudoscience phenomena starts up.

One idea I've had is that when forum posters start up discussions about some theory, principle, hypothesis, the discussion may seem like its just words being used to convey some ideas about how the universe works, but there's a lot more going on behind the words than what appears in the words themselves. If the viewer doesn't possess the knowledge/background/distinctions/experience to understand what's really going on in the background, which ultimately leads to the appearance of words from a keyboard, they walk away with the conclusion that all the conversation was about was a story concocted between those in the conversation.

I know that there's a lot more referencing going on in my mind, once I see words written .. all of which either results in my agreeing or disagreeing with the output of the conversation. If the onlooker isn't doing this (or is only doing some of it), they get the impression that its all just opinion.

This idea underpins my contention here that Science is NOT some story told to me by the last person who told me a story.

We are actually doing science here in this forum in some of our conversations .. (well sometimes anyway).

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Another reasons is this....they don't understand what's being discussed because they've never been smart enough to understand it and/or they couldn't get past 1st base at school in any of the courses they took. However, they believe they know better than those who do understand the science and have actually done the required learning and research. Because it's all just opinion anyway, isn't it. So, they do a little bit of reading, become armchair experts and then think they have a monopoly on what's really happening in the world. They fall for any crackpot idea that sounds good and appeals to their ignorance, then become faithful devotees to the cause. At the expense of logic, rationality and good science/scientific principles. In this case, what little imagination they do have becomes a liability.