|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 02/19/2003 : 06:38:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Infamous
Basically DI Her is completely normal except for the fact that it appears to violate relativity.
Your post directly contradicts the link above from what appears to be the Stanford University Physics Department, and you post no links or references...
See anything wrong with that?  |
 |
|
|
Infamous
Skeptic Friend
85 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2003 : 11:18:09 [Permalink]
|
I'm not contradicting it.
They state a possible star and orbit that would allow for the anomalous apsidal motion.
The third body that they predict would indeed correct the apsidal motion. But they didn't take into account that a third body, unless it was more massive than 0.5 Sol, would be ejected from the system.
A star of that size would have already been detected, and with relative ease at that.
Anyways, there's still the problem of AS Camelopardalis. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2003 : 12:06:30 [Permalink]
|
You didn't take the hint.
quote:
But they didn't take into account that a third body, unless it was more massive than 0.5 Sol, would be ejected from the system.
"They" being the physics department of Stanford University. Claiming that they didn't take something into account sounds like you're contradicting them to me.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but without references, why would anyone take your word over theirs?
References please? |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2003 : 05:34:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tokyodreamer
You didn't take the hint.
quote:
But they didn't take into account that a third body, unless it was more massive than 0.5 Sol, would be ejected from the system.
"They" being the physics department of Stanford University. Claiming that they didn't take something into account sounds like you're contradicting them to me.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but without references, why would anyone take your word over theirs?
References please?
How about this for a reference?
http://einstein.stanford.edu/tech_int/d_archive/sciabstract.pdf
quote:
M. P. Reisenberger, et al., “A Possible Rescue of General Relativity in Di Herculis,” Astronomical Journal 97,
pp. 216-221, 1989.
<snip>
...evidence in support of the hypothesis (advanced by Shakura) that the stars are rotating about axes highly inclined to the orbital axis. If the inclination of a component is > 54.7°, then its rotational distortion will slow the apsidal advance. From rather sparse data, we calculate dw/dt = 0.7° ± 2.0°/100 yr. Two measurements that could help settle the issue are proposed.
Oops. Didn't realize that Shakura's hypothesis exclude the need for a third stellar body. I'm sorry, Infamous... 
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/20/2003 05:40:32 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2003 : 08:15:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Infamous
Anyways, there's still the problem of AS Camelopardalis.
And your refernce is...?
Perhaps this link---> http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/cdsbib?1999IBVS.4690....1K
quote:
The third body in the eclipsing binary AS Camelopardalis.
KOZYREVA V.S., ZAKHAROV A.I., KHALIULLIN K.F.
Abstract (from CDS): The eclipsing variable AS Cam is a binary system with anomalously slow apsidal motion. We determined the times of minima from 1993 to 1996 and analyzed them to reveal a "light time" effect with an amplitude of 3 minutes and a period of 2.2 years thereby providing evidence for a third body in the system.
Who is putting all this nonsense into your mind?
Has it never occurred to you the need of being sceptic towards "preaching" people, like creationists and such people? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Infamous
Skeptic Friend
85 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2003 : 10:20:09 [Permalink]
|
Most of my information comes from:
Naeye, Robert. "Was Einstein Wrong? The Mystery of DI Herculis". Astronomy Nov. 1995: 54-59.
Regarding that link about the possiblity of inclined rotational axes...spectral analysis has shown the axes to be upright.
Well, I guess they figured out AS Cam while I wasn't looking... |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2003 : 02:07:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Infamous
Most of my information comes from:
Naeye, Robert. "Was Einstein Wrong? The Mystery of DI Herculis". Astronomy Nov. 1995: 54-59.
Regarding that link about the possiblity of inclined rotational axes...spectral analysis has shown the axes to be upright.
Well, I guess they figured out AS Cam while I wasn't looking...
I've discovered a problem when arguing with religious people: They are very prone to see stuff in black-and-white. As soon as they discover a theory to have a flaw, they immediatly assume that the whole theory is flawed/wrong, not understanding that all theories are continous works in progress.
Just because we have found an event that seemingly contradict our theory, it is not certain that this event is what it seems to be. AS Cam is a good example.
I did a search for the spectral analysis on DI Herculi on Google, but didn't find anything. But since you read it, would you consider showing us (preferably) a link?
I haven't read anything by Robert Naeye so I withhold judgement on him.
I Sweden, where I live, we have a word that translates into "perishables", as in "perishable grocery" or "fresh commodities" that means that it has some kind of expiring date. But the word is also applicable to knowledge, referring to knowledge that grows old and is superseded. (Stock prices on Wall Street is an extreeme example, 'safe' encryption algorithms, and the current number of known extra solar planets.) Is there such a word in english?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Infamous
Skeptic Friend
85 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2003 : 19:28:05 [Permalink]
|
I got the information about the spectral analysis in the article I named above...unfortunately, it's not on the internet, so I can't provide a link. You might be able to find it at a library.
Robert Naeye was a writer for Astronomy.
I'm starting to think that this proposed third object may be in some kind of special orbit that Mr. Guinan (the person who discovered the problem with DI Her) neglected to consider. |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 18:05:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by carlzim
Hi, I understand that Nikola Tesla disagreed with Einstein's relativity theories. What was the disagreement? What is the latest thinking on this? Do various Physicists favor relativistic Physics, others favor non-relativistic Physics and some favor a combination of both? What are some practical applications of these concepts?
Please e-mail your replies to me at czfz@earthlink.net. Thank you. Carl Zimmerman, USA
Was Einstein Wrong?
There is a fascinating article on this subject in the April issue of Discover, titled Was Einstein Wrong?, about the possibility that the speed of light has not always had the value that it now has. It's about a physicist named Joao Magueijo. Here is a site for further information. |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 19:14:47 [Permalink]
|
Just finished that article this morning, Walt. Like most Discover articles, it was a little light on substance (haha - geddit?). My first thought was whether or not the YECs had grabbed the theory up as more "evidence" that the universe is young. Of course, Magueijo's theory only has the speed of light being other than it is now for a very small fraction of a second, around the time the universe was about the size of a grapefruit.
And, as is par for the course with Discover, the article has a provocative title, which doesn't do much for the credibility of the editors. If Magueijo's theory is correct, then Einstein was about as "wrong" as Newton was. And Newton's stuff is still being taught in physics classrooms today. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Phantom
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 19:23:51 [Permalink]
|
www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns23811
I watched a documentary on this a few years ago. Sorry, I have no link, the following I have stored on my computer.
The idea that the speed of light is always constant, on which Einstein's Theory of Relativity depends, is the foundation stone of modern cosmology. Yet there were problems with the Theory of Relativity that perplexed Einstein himself. Now a group of scientists is finding solutions to those problems by proposing the heretical idea that the speed of light has changed since the Universe was created. In doing so, they are creating a new revolution in scientific thought.
Space and time are relative - they stretch and contract depending on the motion of the observer - but the speed of light is a constant. It always has been the same and always will be the same. This is the basis of the theory Einstein brilliantly expounded in 1905, and it became a basic precept of 20th-century physics.
But in 1996, two young scientists, Andy Albrecht and Joao Magueijo, put forward the heretical idea that the speed of light can change. If this were the case, it would explain some of the problems that cosmologists have grappled with from Einstein to the present day. Even more significantly, it would imply that the laws of nature have changed over the 15-billion-year history of the Universe.
Einstein described gravity as bending space and time, causing them to curve. According to this idea, for example, the gravitational force of the sun makes space-time curve, and the Earth's movement follows that curve just as a tram follows a tramline. All the many forms of energy act on the gravitational field but light travels at the same speed, and you can neither add to it nor subtract from it, whatever the motion of the observer. Einstein derived the equation G=8* T to express the relationship between mass-energy and space-time.
However, Einstein's theory of relativity ran into trouble when he applied it to the Universe as a whole; because his equation predicted that all the matter and energy in the Universe would fold space-time back on itself and the galaxies would all collapse into a huge fireball. To solve this problem he added a constant that would give space-time a tendency to expand. The tendency to collapse was, said Einstein, exactly balanced by this tendency to expand, and that kept an inherently unstable Universe in equilibrium
In the 1920s, though, using the new large telescopes, Dr Edwin Hubble's observations showed that the Universe is indeed expanding. This convinced Einstein that if we looked back in time, the Universe would have been so small and so dense that it would have had an identifiable beginning - a cosmic explosion called the Big Bang. The constant expansion would counterbalance gravitational forces, keeping the Universe stable and doing away with the need for lambda, the cosmological constant. Einstein now called this his 'biggest blunder'.
However there were still a number of aspects of the Universe that were observed that could not be explained by Einstein's theory. Andy Albrecht and Joao Magueijo's hypothesis that the speed of light has changed over the 15-billion-year evolution of the Universe could explain its stability over that long period. It also suggests, though, that the Big Bang could happen again - indeed that the birth of our Universe was just one Big Bang in an endless, eternal cycle.
Here is the transcript of the documentary:
Dr Joao Magueijo: We did something which most people consider to be a bit of a heresy. We decided that the speed of light could change in space and time, and if that is true then our perceptions of physics will change dramatically.
Narrator: At the dawn of a new century, a new theory is being born. It threatens to demolish the foundations of 20th century physics. Its authors are two of the world's leading cosmologists. If they're right, Einstein was wrong. It all began when Andy Albrecht and Joao Magueijo met at a conference in America in 1996.
Prof Andy Albrecht: This was pretty, exciting. Most of the key people were there and there were lots of debates about the contemporary issues in cosmology. Joao came up to me late one evening and had a very interesting idea.
Dr Joao Magueijo: This is total bullshit! It wasn't like that at all.
Interviewer: Joao how do you remember it?
Dr Joao Magueijo: I remember there was this conversation between the three of us, and then each one of us suggested something. I remember I suggested the varying speed of light and there was embarrassed silence. I think you two thought I was taking the piss at this point.
Prof Andy Albrecht: Maybe, possibly but¡K
Dr Joao Magueijo: But then, oh he's actually serious, he's not laughing; then we started taking it more seriously.
Narrator: For most scientists the idea that the speed of light can change is outrageous; it flatly contradicts Einstein's theories of space and time. But recently astronomers have begun to realise that the Universe doesn't always behave as his theories would lead you to expect.
Prof Andrew Lange: We're making measurements which indicate that the Universe is filled with some kind of energy density and we don't understand this energy at all. It's unlike anything else in physical theory.
Prof Richard Ellis: And the surprise is that instead of the Universe slowing down, in fact it's speeding up.
Prof John Webb: It's certainly a very profound result for physics because it will be the first ever indication that the laws of nature were not always the same as they are today.
Prof Richard Ellis: Who knows what's in store? I think in some way it's a very exciting time: it's very similar to the revolution that was seen in physics at the turn of the last century. So here we are about to enter the new millennium with a whole lot of uncertainties in store.
Narrator: To understand what's at stake, we need to go back to that scientific revolution. It began here in Bern Switzerland in 1905. As the new 20th century dawned, the intricate mechanism of 19th century physics was beginning to show signs of strain. It was finally demolished, not by an established scientist, but by a patent clerk.
Prof Dave Wark: When Einstein started his career, we still lived in a Newtonian clockwork Universe. Space and time were simply a reference system. The metre was a metre anywhere you went,and time clicked at a constant rate throughout the whole Universe. It was unaffected by where you were, whether you were moving or not.
Dr Ruth Durrer: Time was considered as an absolute concept ¡X the time would be everywhere the same, independent of the state of motion of somebody. That there would exist an absolute time which could be measured with a clock. This was the concept which Einstein smashed with his new thought.
Narrator: The tool that Einstein used to shatter the clockwork Universe was the speed of light. He knew that for 20 years scientists had been puzzled by an experiment which suggested there was something decidedly odd about the speed of light. In the 1880s two American scientists, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley set out to measure how the speed of light was affected by the Earth's motion through space. They set up an experiment with beams of light.
Prof John Baldwin: In this experiment there's a light source which is the laser, and one's splitting the laser beam into two, sending them in two directions at right angles, and measuring in a sense the relative speed of light along those two beams and recombining them. The pattern that you see is the interference between two beams and it's measuring the relative speed of light within those two beams.
Narrator: If the apparatus were static there'd be no reason to exp |
"You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same." |
|
|
|
mingofmongo
New Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2003 : 02:13:11 [Permalink]
|
What kind of brain dysfunction does a person need to run around saying "Einstein was wrong!"??? When I see this kind of thing, I just want to give up the fight, and let the brain-dead inherit the Earth.
It makes me think of the terribly inane conversations that start out with, "Who is the greatest guitarist in the world?" Why do people say these stupid things.
How is Einstein wrong? His theory predicts the motion of objects to a ridiculously high degree of accuracy. That makes him right. If someone else comes along with a better theory, that predicts things to an even more ridiculous degree of accuacy, it won't mean that Einstein was wrong, any more than Newton was wrong. It will just mean that the new guy is even more right.
Just about everyone in the civilized world knows this, or at least knows something about the process, having been taught some science in school. For the love of Jebus, please try to remember.
This is the kind of thing that defines us as humans. Rhinos have a big horn, elephants have tusks and a trunk, tigers have big teeth and claws, and humans have science and comunication.
Try to be a human.
Sorry for the rant, but this just kills me. Sometimes I want to renounce my humanity and be a chimp. Chimps don't misunderstand the scientific process. Maybe ignorance IS bliss - but the ignorance must be total to work out truely blissful. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2003 : 13:11:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by mingofmongo
"Who is the greatest guitarist in the world?"
That's a no-brainer. Eddie van Halen! Everyone who's heard "Eruption" can testify to that.
quote:
Maybe ignorance IS bliss - but the ignorance must be total to work out truely blissful.
I agree. People walking around saying Richie Sambora is the greatest guitarist don't know what they are talking about. It's just like all those guys walking around thinking Peter Chris is the greatest drummer, when everybody with the tiniest bit of insight knows that Neil Peart of Rush is the best. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2003 : 16:09:46 [Permalink]
|
Hi mingofmongo! Welcome aboard!
First of all, I just want to say: Never give up the fight! What else do we have? What else makes life exciting?
Having said that, I also want to say that 'wrong', in refering to relativity, is definitely not the right word. I would say that relativity is perhaps 'incomplete', but not 'wrong'. Given the fundamental incompatibility of relativity and quantum mechanics (which has also been verified to a rediculous degree), one or the other, or perhaps both, must be incomplete.
"What is it about quantum mechanics that is incompatible with relativity?"
"As I understand the basic problem, 'Classical' general relativity, which is the theory developed by Einstein in 1915, is a theory where gravitational fields are continuous entities in nature. They also represent the properties of 4-dimensional spacetime. In quantum mechanics, fields are discontinuous and are defined by 'quanta'. So, there is no analog in conventional quantum mechanics for the gravitational field, even though the other three fundamental forces have now been described as 'quantum fields' after considerable work in the 1960-1980s. Quantum mechanics is incompatible with general relativity because in quantum field theory, forces act locally through the exchange of well-defined quanta."
Archives of NASA IMAGE Space Science Questions and Answers
In light of this mutual incompatibility, one or the other, or both, must be modified to some extent. Physicists are (and have been) attempting to do just that in their search for a 'Theory Of Everything'. I expect they will eventually succeed; but who can, at this stage in the search, guess which modification will prove to be the most fruitful?
And besides, I think everything should be questioned (except the statement 'everything should be questioned'!), even (especially?) the things we are the most certain of.
|
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
| Edited by - walt fristoe on 03/17/2003 18:49:33 |
|
|
|
Orpheus
Skeptic Friend
92 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2003 : 04:06:07 [Permalink]
|
Thanx for the excellent post Phantom!! I've not read anything more stimulating in quite some time. More links to this topic??
To Dr Mabuse: What about Joe Satriani? He's the guy who practically invented modern rock guitar!! |
Find your own damned answers! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
