Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ThinkPlease
On the other hand, if it is shot down, it is a vindication of the peer review process, something that Aruanan claimed was part of the corrupt scientific establishment just the other day.

Your characterization of what I said "just the other day" is an over-generalization. The funny thing about the reception of Kopeikin's interpretation of the results of his experiment is that it ignores previously published data* already subject to peer review on a very controversial subject that present quite a different outcome.

*T. Van Flandern and J.P. Vigier (2002), “Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions”, Found.Phys. 32, 1031-1068.

T. Van Flandern (1998) , “The speed of gravity – What the experiments say”, Phys.Lett.A ,/em>250, 1-11.
116 posted on 01/08/2003 12:29:34 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]


To: aruanan
Your characterization of what I said "just the other day" is an over-generalization. The funny thing about the reception of Kopeikin's interpretation of the results of his experiment is that it ignores previously published data* already subject to peer review on a very controversial subject that present quite a different outcome.

*T. Van Flandern and J.P. Vigier (2002), “Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions”, Found.Phys. 32, 1031-1068.

T. Van Flandern (1998) , “The speed of gravity – What the experiments say”, Phys.Lett.A ,/em>250, 1-11.

Here's what Chris Hillman has to say about this result (from here)

..."In a paper remarkable chiefly for the extraordinary number of obvious errors it contained (see above), Tom Van Flandern, (``The speed of gravity-- what the experiments say'' Phys.Lett.A 250 (1998) 1-11), stated: the Global Positioning System (GPS) showed the remarkable fact that all atomic clocks on board orbiting satellites moving at high speeds in different directions could be simultaneously and continuously synchronized with each other and with all ground clocks. No "relativity of simultaneity" corrections, as required by SR, were needed. This too seemed initially to falsify SR. But on further inspection, continually changing synchronization corrections for each clock exist such that the predictions of SR are fulfilled for any local co-moving frame. To avoid the embarrassment of that complexity, GPS analysis is now done exclusively in the Earth-centered inertial frame (the local gravity field). And the pre-launch adjustment of clock rates to compensate for relativistic effects then hides the fact that all orbiting satellite clocks would be seen to tick slower than ground clocks if not rate-compensated for their orbital motion, and that no reciprocity would exist when satellites view ground clocks.

At first glance, Van Flandern here appears to be claiming that the fact that the GPS continues to operate with great accuracy has in fact disproven the predictions of str concerning moving clocks (Van Flandern doesn't mention the gtr effects, but they are also significant). On careful reading, in this paper he actually appears to be saying in effect that anything that can be explained using str can be explained just as well using the Lorentz ether theory (let), a theory which he has never specified but which is usually taken to be mathematically equivalent to str, but with a different interpretation of Lorentz transformations, one which most physicists since Lorentz's day have found implausible. However, more recently, in postings to sci.physics.relativity, Van Flandern has clearly stated that he believes that changes in electrostatic and gravititostatic potentials are transmitted instantly (literally!), just as if electromagnetism and gravity were truly governed by the Poisson equation, a viewpoint which is mathematically utterly inconsistent with both str and gtr, contrary to his claims in an earlier (and also wildly erroneous) paper, ``Possible new properties of gravity'', Astrophysics and Space Science 244 (1996)...."

--

There are also several archive preprints covering his approach: here, and here.

--

Frankly, anyone who believes in an artificial face on Mars has issues.

155 posted on 01/09/2003 5:34:39 AM PST by ThinkPlease (Tag, you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson