🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 6, 11:48 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 6:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 2:03 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > No, you don't get it.  The absurdity is in how to interpret the data.
> > > The how is grossly biased by the politically correct or the religious
> > > sound expectations.  <shrug>
>
> > Nah, experiments are designed to probe the place where two models make
> > DISTINCT and DIFFERENT predictions. One model says quantity Q will
> > have value X, another model says the same quantity Q will have value
> > Y. Then the data are taken and they are either consistent with X or
> > consistent with Y.
>
> The above statements do not refute what I said.  <shrug>
>
> > There's not much room for interpretation of that.
>
> However, the above statement is so ignorant.  Indeed, it would come
> from a professor of physics is quite astonishing.  All data is subject
> to interpretations with data being experimental results.  <shrug>

I'm sorry, but either a measurement is consistent with the prediction
of value X or it is consistent with the prediction of value Y. If you
think there is wiggle room in there, then you've got a real detachment
from reality problem.

>
> For example after your nonsense below.
>
> > If you have two models that make the same prediction about quantity Q,
> > then you probe the models until you find they place where they make
> > different predictions and you test there. This again removes the room
> > for interpretation.
>
> Photon deflection requires such interpretation of experimental data.
> In this case, the experimental data is the delay of electromagnetic
> signals such as Shipiro's Venus-RADAR-bouncing experiment.  Here we
> go.  Let's say the Schwarzschild metric is the actual representation
> of real life (which it is not so but just pretending).  It gives a
> deflection twice of Newtonian result.  That means the actual path of
> the photon increases by two times a small amount which is (U = G M /
> c^2 / R, with all parameters self-explanatory).  Given the gravitation
> time dilation nature of the metric (adding 1 U to the time of travel),
> a photon would take (3 U) longer than in flat spacetime.  However,
> experiments time after time only show the photon delay of (2 U) which
> is incorrectly interpreted as twice the Newtonian deflection.  Only
> the combination of the Newtonian deflection (1 U) and time dilation (1
> U) would explain the observed delay of (2 U).  So, Shipiro's results
> if properly interpreted would conclude a Newtonian deflected amount (1
> U) plus gravitational time dilation (1 U) that is not what is offered
> by the Schwarzschild metric.  <shrug>

Too buried in the theory. Look, it's simple. One theory says that the
measured position of a distant source will be displaced by an amount x
when its line of sight is in proximity to a large gravitational
source, compared to its position when not in proximity. The other
theory says that the measured position will be displaced by an amount
2x. In both cases, x is calculable based on the size of the
gravitational source and the proximity to line of sight, and is common
to both theories. Then one measures the position of the distant source
and checks whether its *measured* displacement is consistent with the
value x or with the value 2x. The result is completely unambiguous and
selects one theory preferentially over the other.

>
> > > This is not true.  Most of the time, you need to go back to examine
> > > your experimental setups.  Just ask Professor Roberts or any
> > > engineers.  Well, there are very few exceptions.  The null results of
> > > the MMX are certainly puzzling, but if analyzed correctly, it should
> > > rule out any relative simultaneity.
>
> > Perhaps, but the model that removes this also has to be consistent
> > with the scores of OTHER experiments as well. This is trickier.
>
> Non comprendez.  <shrug>
>
> > > They should easily rule out the
> > > validity of the principle of relativity.  <shrug>
>
> > Same goes here.
>
> You mean same of your bullshit goes in here.  I see the IC I see.
> <shrug>
>
> > But even more interestingly is the supposition you are making that the
> > principle of relativity is wrong.
>
> I have explained there is a difference between Larmor's presentation
> of the Lorentz transform and Poincare's.  Larmor's Lorentz transform
> must always reference back to the stationary background of the Aether
> while Poincare's Lorentz transform only is valid in a special case.
> See my post below.  <shrug>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c540aaf2341...
>
> > That is, there must be a frame in
> > which the laws of physics take a different form.
>
> This is not true once again.  Even with the principle of relativity
> invalidated, all frames can still obey the same set of laws of
> physics.

This is a remarkable statement. What do you think the principle of
relativity says, exactly?

>  This is what I call the principle of Consistency where the
> principle of relativity is merely a special case.  <shrug>
>
> > In which frame do you
> > think this occurs, and what are the different laws of physics in that
> > frame?
>
> Your lack of understanding makes you asks this stupid question.
> <shrug>