🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <85357@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Aug5.125949.6070@nuscc.nus.sg>, scip1061@nuscc (Marc Paul Jozef) writes:
>>I would say that these questions deserve firm answers from relativity.
>>On this net, I see people reacting to the most insane criticism on
>>relativity. Surely there must be somebody who wants to consider serious
>>criticism? (or at least condemn it as nonsense -with reasons).
>
>How do you criticize an experiment without the details of what they may
>have done wrong?  There's also been a massive silence regarding the
>Japanese inverted gyroscope experiment--published in PRL even!--for
>exactly the same reason.  I'm reminded of Feynman's story about not
>responding to a skilled experimentalist coming up with something that
>contradicted a Feynman calculation: his attitude was the experimentalist
>would figure out what he did wrong with his equipment much much faster
>than Feynman could, and he was right.

     Hate to spoil the point, because it is a valid one, but I believe that
     there was a fairly definitive response to the inverted gyroscope 
     experiment by Faller \etal PRL, 64:825 (1990) as well as Quinn
     and Picard, Nature 344:732 (1990) and Nitschke and Wilmarth, PRL,
     264:2115 (1990).  The response was uniformly null results.

                                    dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926