Atheist Theory Debates

[linwood]

I have shown there is, never has been , and in all probability cannot be anything having the properties of the BB models singularity "IN THE REAL PHYSICAL WORLD".

This is as much proof against singularities as saying "Dinosarus do not live now so they never could have lived."

Not at all, there is observed physical evidence for dinosaurs.
There is no observed physical evidence for a singularity.
The two subjects are worlds apart.
Your repetition of this incomparable statement instead of actually confronting the evidence that I have offered is itself evidence of my claim of your dogmatic belief.

Please prove that what we see is actually how gravity affects photons and not how gravity affects space...

It has been phyisically evidenced that gravity has effect on the velocity of photons.
Here are photos of a quasar as seen through a gravitatioanl lense..
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap961215.html
Note the caption reads....
The gravitational effect of the galaxy on the distant QSO was similar to the lens effect of an empty wine glass on a distant street light - it created multiple images.
This would seem to support my assertion that the velocity of the photons(light) is affected by the gravity of the mass they are "bent" around.
This is not an example of the literal "bending" of space.
Space has no properties.
Do you disagree that the gravity of the galaxy is applying force to the light from the quasar above?
If you do please supply observed evidence of the alternate force that may be acting upon this light.
In a gravitational lens, the gravity from the massive object bends light like a lens. As a result, the path of the light from the source is curved, distorting its image, and the apparent location of the source may be different from its actual position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing
The second link above would also seem to support my assertion that gravity is bending the light .
If space can be bent or manipulated it must have some physical property that a force can act upon.
If we are to continue with this debate I`ll ask you to please define the physical properties of space.

I believe you are the one who has to prove that my data is wrong...

The data is not wrong.
It`s misrepresented to be something it is not.
I am responsible to "prove" (whatever that is) that you are misrepresenting the data as evidence of physical properteis of space.
I`ve done that.
Please rebut my evidence.

It would take me hours to find the exact experiments and the exact findings of the experiments that prove time dilation and the bending of space.

If you don`t have access to the USNO reports on clock drifts and differences after comparison then you don`t have access to the "experiment".
You have access to the published version of the experiment.
The raw data was never published but can be obtained through the USNO
I`ve submitted a report by Dr.Domina Spencer who was given the raw data from the H&K experiment by Keating himself.
She has stated and I quote....
"There is no indication of any significant difference in the behavior of the clocks when in motion."
[font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][size=-1] "The data published for the Hafele-Keating experiment could have only be fabricated to show favorable evidence". No one has questioned this any further since the momentum of the experiment has become more legend than fact.[/size][/font]
Considering Keating himself gave the raw data to Spencer I would expect to find some sort of rebuttal from either Keating or Hafele.
I can find no such rebuttal, if you know of one please point me to it.
I will inform you that she is not the only one making this argument.
Do you or do you not have a rebuttal to Spencers argument?
Please rebut the assertion that H&K published incorrect data to smooth their experiment with the predictions.

After I did that you would come up with some ignorant BS reason why they are wrong in 5 seconds and this would make me very angry.

This is unfounded ad hominum.
Many members of this forum can attest that I quickly and easily will concede any point once I am shown observable evidence to support the alternate view.

The problem is you are exceedingly short on supportive evidence and damn heavy on Appeals to Authority and Ad Hominum.

Its quite irrating that I am spending time looking up all of this stuff for you and you are disregarding it saying that the scientists who have studied this stuff for years are all wrong and that you are right but then you post no experiments or findings that back up your claim.

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/213.web.stuff/Jared%20Mixon/page1.htm
This is one link that is a summary about different experiments. They reference the 1975 experiment of Carol Allie of the University of Maryland involving two atomic clocks and this experiment has been repeated many times.
Or I can send you to this site...
http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm
Or this site...
http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit05_06/edit1-sep05.htm

The first link here is yet another abstract article quoting the use of atomic clocks in time dilation experiments.
It supplies no evidence but merely makes unsupported statements as if they were fact.
I`ve already rebuttted these with Spencers assessment of the H&K experiment and a statement by the man who invented the atomic clock.
It is now time for you to either rebut my rebuttal or concede.
Your second link is a misinterpretation of what gravitational lensing is.
I`ve supplied a link to NASA and the definition of Gravitational Lensing from WIKIPedia as evidence that your links seeks to misinform.

Your third link is also nothing more than an abstract article with no supporting evidnece.
It does however mention the Muon experiments on time dilation.

I`ll offer rebutal for it shortly or concede the possibility of physical time dilation.

I have posted numerous points of evidence and you have posted unending abstracts that make no statement about evidence of the points we are debating.
At times you`ve posted the same identical evidence I`ve alread rebutted from adifferent source.
What you have posted does nothing more than consider the points forgone conclusions when I`m showing they are not.

I`ll simplify..

• Please supply evidence of physical properties of space.
• Please supply evidence that gravity has no effect on the velocity of photons.

• Please supply a rebuttal to documented articles disparaging the H&K time dilation experiment.

Just confront these 3 requests and we can actually get beyond "He said/She said."

 

[Ryan2065]

Again, you misrepresent my words I can only conclude you are doing this purposely because you do it in every reply you make.
I did not confine my standard of evidence to a "current" singularity.
In fact I SPECIFICALLY asked ....
Please provide evidence that a singularity as defined by the popular BB model exists did exist or could exist.
Are you comparing a dinosaur to a singularity?
There is no comparison.
There is no observed evidence of a physical singularity ever existing.
There is a plethora of evidence of dinosaurs existing.
You have agreed their is no observed physical evidence of a singularity yet you still argue the point.
I have agreed a singularity exists quite easily within mathematical equations.
Math and reality are not the same.
I cannot hold a belief in something based upon revealed faith.

Yes, but you are asking for observed evidence of a singularity in the physical reality.. You realize you are asking for evidence of a singularity existing within the past 400 years of human existance (and I am being generious giving you 400 years) when the universe has been in existance for billions of years. When the universe gets smaller and smaller, the forces act differently than they do today. So in todays physical existance a singuarlity cannot happen. In the physical existance a few billion years ago? yes... It could have existed.

I`ve told you my background and yet you do not confront the evidence I`ve listed you simply resort to ad hominum and appeals to authority.
Please confront the evidence.

Your evidence so far shows an ignorant view of science. This is exactly like in the 1930's when popular opinion was that we could never travel in space because the space ships needed something to push off of (they believed airplans worked because they had air to push off of.) That was popular public opinion. The scientists could not argue with it because, they said their equations predicted a space ship would work, but they had never done it before, so the public said it would not happen until they saw it.

More appeals to authority.
Do you have a rebuttal to the critiques of H&K`s experiments I`ve posted or do you really find an appeal to faith to be a winning debate tactic?
Confront the evidence.
If you are saying H&K didn`t publish false data then support your asssertion.
I`ve supported my assertion that they did supply false data.

As i stated later on I NEVER actually posted anything about the H&K experiments. Just because H&K did the experiments wrong does not mean the many other people who did the same experiments did them wrong.

No because you still do not "get it" I don`t care about the math the math is dogma at this point.
I care about the real physical universe and observed phenomenon.
I`ve positted that gravitational lensing is not the bending of space but the effects of gravity upon the velocity of photons.
This should be relatively easy to rebut if I`m incorrect.
Why don`t you do so?
The best way to provide evidence for the manipulation of space would be to define the physical properties of space that a force could act upon.
Can you do this?

Alright, in physics, the rule is... Mass determines how space bends. Einstein came out one day with his theory of relativy... A proof of his theory was this. The sun is so massive that it actually bends space around it. We can see this in the oribt of mercury. For years and years we could not figure out the orbit of mercury. It did not seem to follow the laws of newton. Einstein came out with his theory of relativy... and bam, mercurys orbit can be predicted. Also, another thing they did was they waited for a lunar eclipse. Then they had already picked a star that should be directly beind the sun. Einstein gave the skeptics the coordinates the star would appear (because light follows the bends in space) and wow, there was the star. When I told my roomie that you apparently did not believe this he said "Wow, tell that boy to pick up an entry level physics book, any of them will do... its right there."

It has been phyisically evidenced that gravity has effect on the velocity of photons.
Here are photos of a quasar as seen through a gravitatioanl lense..
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap961215.html
Note the caption reads....
The gravitational effect of the galaxy on the distant QSO was similar to the lens effect of an empty wine glass on a distant street light - it created multiple images.
This would seem to support my assertion that the velocity of the photons(light) is affected by the gravity of the mass they are "bent" around.
This is not an example of the literal "bending" of space.
Space has no properties.
Do you disagree that the gravity of the galaxy is applying force to the light from the quasar above?
If you do please supply observed evidence of the alternate force that may be acting upon this light.
In a gravitational lens, the gravity from the massive object bends light like a lens. As a result, the path of the light from the source is curved, distorting its image, and the apparent location of the source may be different from its actual position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing
The second link above would also seem to support my assertion that gravity is bending the light .
If space can be bent or manipulated it must have some physical property that a force can act upon.
If we are to continue with this debate I`ll ask you to please define the physical properties of space.

That is nice... I asked you to PROVE that the picture i submitted as my evidence was gravatitional lensing and NOT the bending of space.
The laymans version? Mass dictates the bending of space. This has been proven... I really am dumbfounded at how you can be debating this... Its been proven over and over and over and over again since einstein came up with it.

The data is not wrong.
It`s misrepresented to be something it is not.
I am responsible to "prove" (whatever that is) that you are misrepresenting the data as evidence of physical properteis of space.
I`ve done that.
Please rebut my evidence.

You are saying that because gravatitional lesing occurs, that it occurs on EVERYTHING that ALL CURRENT PHYSICISTS agree is the bending of space. Seeing as pretty much every physicst agrees that space bends and it has been proven many many times, I believe the burden is on you to prove that the picture i submitted is in fact gravatitional lensing and NOT the bending of space. Or find some physicist who agrees with you that the bending of space has never been proven... Come on, find one physicst with a phd who agrees with you... Just one =P

If you don`t have access to the USNO reports on clock drifts and differences after comparison then you don`t have access to the "experiment".
You have access to the published version of the experiment.

Atomic clocks tell time by measuring the decay of an atom... Ill make it easy on you... Tell me how gravity speeds up or slows down the decay of an atom.

Continued on next post....

 

[Ryan2065]

The raw data was never published but can be obtained through the USNO
I`ve submitted a report by Dr.Domina Spencer who was given the raw data from the H&K experiment by Keating himself.
She has stated and I quote....
"There is no indication of any significant difference in the behavior of the clocks when in motion."
[font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][size=-1] "The data published for the Hafele-Keating experiment could have only be fabricated to show favorable evidence". No one has questioned this any further since the momentum of the experiment has become more legend than fact.[/size][/font]
Considering Keating himself gave the raw data to Spencer I would expect to find some sort of rebuttal from either Keating or Hafele.
I can find no such rebuttal, if you know of one please point me to it.
I will inform you that she is not the only one making this argument.
Do you or do you not have a rebuttal to Spencers argument?
Please rebut the assertion that H&K published incorrect data to smooth their experiment with the predictions.

Thats nice, I never posted the evidence from the H&K experiment but apparently because H&K did their experiment wrong ALL experiments done after them that are done in the same way are done wrong... Please provide proof how the hundredes of experiments done after H&K are wrong.

This is unfounded ad hominum.
Many members of this forum can attest that I quickly and easily will concede any point once I am shown observable evidence to support the alternate view.

The problem is you are exceedingly short on supportive evidence and damn heavy on Appeals to Authority and Ad Hominum.

You say that I am low on evidence because I am supplying evdience from experiments done by others. If I had the million dollar telescopes to show you how space bends I would give you those... If I had a jet and an atomic clock I would show you time dilation...

I am asserting that no one in the physics communtiy says that time dilation and the bending of space have been proven hundreds of times. I ask you to find something that PROVES they do not occur. Do not find an experiment that failed and say "ha they did the experiment wrong so time dilation does not occur." Find me an experiment that some scientist did anytime that proves time dilation does not occur. If you believe that it does not occur please give me the experiments YOU yourself have done to prove this. You supply NO evidence for me to counter when you say "Time dilation does not occur. Some random physics equation disagrees with it."
The fact of the matter is no physics equations disagree with time dilation and it has been proven to happen.

The first link here is yet another abstract article quoting the use of atomic clocks in time dilation experiments.
It supplies no evidence but merely makes unsupported statements as if they were fact.
I`ve already rebuttted these with Spencers assessment of the H&K experiment and a statement by the man who invented the atomic clock.

The link I quoted talks about the 1975 experiment of Dr. Carol Allie, NOT of the H&K experiments. The person who made the atomic clock only said that the atomic clocks were used the wrong way in the first experiment, he NEVER said that they could not be used the right way in other experiments. Please tell me how Dr. Carol Allie did her experiment wrong or concede that time dilation has been proven to be in fact true. And I will give you a hint, you cannot say that because H&K did their experiment wrong, Dr. Carol Allie did her experiment wrong. I have never stated that H&K did their experiment right. It was done wrong, then later it was done right by others and proved time dilation. Either do this or prove to me that other forces affect the decay of atoms (like velocity and gravity.) Do this and you just disproved carbon dating! You will win a nobel prize!! Go for it!

It is now time for you to either rebut my rebuttal or concede.
Your second link is a misinterpretation of what gravitational lensing is.
I`ve supplied a link to NASA and the definition of Gravitational Lensing from WIKIPedia as evidence that your links seeks to misinform.

No, that second link is an attempt to prove that all parts of einsteins theory have been proven. Gravatitional lesning is predicted by his equation... therefore they had a little thing on it. Here is the part about space bending...

Prediction: objects with mass should create ripples in the surrounding spacetime as they move, called gravitational waves. These waves do not travel through spacetime, but are the oscillations of spacetime itself! The spacetime ripples move at the speed of light. However, the waves are very small and extremely hard to detect. Observation: even the most sensitive detectors have not yet directly detected the tiny stretching-shrinking of spacetime caused by a massive object moving. However, the decaying orbits of a binary pulsar system discovered in 1974 by Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor can only be explained by gravity waves carrying away energy from the pulsars as they orbit each other. This observation provides a very strong gravity field test of General Relativity.


The two pulsars in the binary system called PSR1913+16 orbit each other very rapidly with a period of only 7.75 hours in very eccentric and small elliptical orbits that bring them as close as 766,000 kilometers and then move them rapidly to over 3.3 million kilometers apart. Because of their large masses (each greater than the Sun's mass) and rapidly changing small distances, the gravity ripples should be noticeable. Hulse and Taylor discovered that the orbit speed and separation of PSR1913+16 changes exactly in the way predicted by General Relativity. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for this discovery.

Please offer proof that Hulse and Taylor were wrong for what they found and what they were later awarded the nobel prize for. They are the ones who proved that space bends.

Your third link is also nothing more than an abstract article with no supporting evidnece.
It does however mention the Muon experiments on time dilation.

So apparently you want the actual data from the experiment to go over yourself? Something that takes phsyics professors years to go over you are going to go over in a night and "proof read" it? How about this. I state that time dilation has been proven by the jet plane and atomic clock experiments. Post evidence that this is not the case. (I dont really care about the H&K experiments... Please prove that time dilation cannot be proven this way.)


Alright, now to talk about your three points that we are apparently debating.

Please supply evidence of physical properties of space.

Time dilation (proven, you have yet to provide the evidence that it was not proven) and the bending of space (also proven, you have yet to provide the evidence that it was not proven) are both evidence of the physical properties of space.

Please supply evidence that gravity has no effect on the velocity of photons.

Gravity does effect the velocity of protons. This is called gravatitional lensing. This is NOT the bending of space. As I have stated many many times, the bending of space is something completely different. I am presenting pictures that experts say is the bending of space, not gravatitional lensing... Please provide proof that the pictures I have submitted, and that the two nobel prize winners who proved gravatitional lensing are wrong.

Please supply a rebuttal to documented articles disparaging the H&K time dilation experiment.

YOU are the one who brought up the H&K experiments. I NEVER brought them up. I do, however, bring up the many other experiments that involve a plane and an atomic clock that prove time dilation. Again, provide proof that an atomic clock (a clock that works by the decay of an atom) or provide proof that the general experiment with a plane is fundamentally wrong and I will concede... Currently your position seems to be "Because H&K did their experiment wrong, no experiment can be done on time dilation using an atomic clock and a plane." This is very ignorant of how atomic clocks work and very ignorant of how experiments work. Please provide proof that these experiments do not work or concede that time dilation has been proven.


Wow, you have alot of work ahead of you... Prove that two principles of physics that have been proven countless times are wrong...

 

[Ryan2065]

You stated, linwood, that you want me to talk about the evidence that you supplied for your position... I will do this here. Evidence is defined here as either studies others have done (they would have to be linked) or studies you yourself have done. You have not talked about any studies you have done, so all of your evidence should be linked to people who have done the work to prove your statements.

Post 1: You make many conclusions, post no evidence.

Post 2: You again say many things, but post no evidence for your own conclusions. Then you also ask me to provide evidence.

Post 3: You again talk about many things... Offer no evidence for your side.

Post 4: Is not in response to something I said.

Post 5: Not in response to something I said.

Post 6: Again you give no supporting evidence for your side. Just many more statements.

Post 7: You finally use sources... You quote on how bad the H&K experiments were and that they proved nothing... But the post before your post included this...

They reference the 1975 experiment of Carol Allie of the University of Maryland involving two atomic clocks and this experiment has been repeated many times.

Here you can see that I am talking about the Carol Allie experiment, NOT the H&K experiment... So even though your evidence is nice... If you cannot tie it in to the Carol Allie experiment, it really is quite useless... Did you do that? Hrm... lets see... nope!

Post 8 is a continuation of Post 7: Again, you supply no more evidence for your side.

Post 9: You say you will look at the evidence i supplied next.

Post 10: Again, you make many statements, but you do not supply any evidence to back up your statement.

Post 11: Here you state that the bending of space is in fact gravitational lensing... Well you state that all the times that someone has seen a bend in space, it is actually gravitational lensing. You then go on to give the definition of gravitational lensing... This "evidence" is not evidence at all. I never said that gravitational lensing did not occur, just that the bending of space was not gravitational lensing, and that the photos I submitted were in fact space being bent, not gravitational lensing.

So no real evidence is yet given on your side (i never stated that gravitational lensing did not occur and I never said anything about the h&k experiments) Oh, and in post 11 you reference the H&K data experiments again...

There we go... I've looked at all of your evidence. You submited evidence that the H&K experiments did not work... This I agreed with. The thing is, I never said anything about the H&K experiments. Unless you can offer evidence that using an atomic clock and a jet will not give you good data to prove time dilation, your evidence is not useful and not necessary at all. Then the other evidence you offered was that gravitational lensing occurs. Seeing as I never said that it did not occur I would have to say thats just some more useless information (well relavent to this debate.) You apparently are trying to make the jump that gravitational lensing is what happens in all pictures we take that scientists say is actually the bending of space.... Yet you have offered no evidence for such a strong statement (Granted you have not made the statement... Just insinuated it.)

As you should be able to plainly see.... The experiments have been run, and both time dilation and the bending of space have been proven.

I have offered a ton of evidence for my side, and you have offered no relevent evidence for your side. Every time I reference an expert you shoot down the expert with very ignorant views on the matter at hand. I request that every time I offer a source as evidence, you counter with ever a reference to a source (like saying that you remember some sort of experiment so I can look it up and counter) or you give the source and talk about it disproving my source. You have proven time and time again you are very ignorant in the workings of both advanced physics and advanced math and have proven that you yourself are not a relevent source when it comes to physics.

I myself know that I am not the best physics student, so I offer evidence with my responses... I only ask that you do the same.

 

[Scott1]

Wow... linwood, ryan... thank you.... this is so much cheaper than taking a class at my local college.:clap

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Wow... linwood, ryan... thank you.... this is so much cheaper than taking a class at my local college.:clap

Completely agree with you!

 

[linwood]

Ryan,
Could you please re-post the graphic evidence you refer to in this quote?

I am presenting pictures that experts say is the bending of space, not gravatitional lensing... Please provide proof that the pictures I have submitted, and that the two nobel prize winners who proved gravatitional lensing are wrong.

I`ve been back three pages in this thread and cannot find any picture in any of your links other than this...

Black Hole

This is just an artists rendering of a theoretical black hole.

I have a reply working to your last couple of posts but I can`t confront this graphical evidence you ask of me because I can`t find it.

Thanks

 

[Mr Spinkles]

... This is not an example of the literal "bending" of space.
Space has no properties. ...

Sorry linwood, but you're simply wrong. I had a hard time believing it at first myself, but then I read my textbooks, I read about the experiments, and I saw the mathematical formulas derived for myself. If you accept Einstein's postulates that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames and that light travels at the same speed in all reference frames (the latter is well-evidenced by experiment), it's just math from there on out. You can't get around it. And observation supports it.

I could show you how to derive the formula for length contraction, if you want. And there is literally tons of evidence which demands the existence of length contraction.

Take muons, for example. They form in our upper atmosphere. If you don't take the distortion of space due to relativistic effects into account, (e.g. if you simply use the distance you measure between the muons and the ground and the velocity of the muons towards the ground to calculate the time it takes the muons to reach the ground) you would expect that the muons decay too fast for any of them to be detected by the time they reach Earth's surface. But that's not what happens. We do detect muons, and in certain amounts. These exact amounts are what are predicted by calculations which take relativistic effects (namely the contraction of space in the reference frame of the muons) into account.

If we are to continue with this debate I`ll ask you to please define the physical properties of space.

Space is defined by measuring rods which are at rest in the reference frame of the observer. It can be shown mathematically that if we assume the speed of light is constant and the laws of physics are true in all reference frames, then the dimensions of space determined measured in one reference frame are literally different from the dimensions of space measured in another reference frame moving relative to the first reference frame. In other words, an observer in reference frame A would say "Hey, observer B's measuring rods are too short!" while observer B would say "No, observer A's measuring rods are too long!" You cannot physically determine whose spatial measurements are "correct", only that they are correct in that particular reference frame. (There are some things that are the same in all reference frames, however, like something called the "spacetime interval" which is a function of distance and time bewteen two events. The spacetime interval of any two events is the same regardless of which reference frame measures it.)

It's called length contraction. The formula for length contraction for motion along the x-axis is

L = (1/y)Lp

where L is the distance as measured in a reference frame moving relative to the length being measured, Lp is the distance as measured in a reference frame at rest relative to the length being measured, and y is the Greek letter gamma which depends on the relative velocity of the reference frames.

As for gravitational lensing.....gravitational lensing is due to how massive objects distort the space around them.

It has been phyisically evidenced that gravity has effect on the velocity of photons.

Gravitational lensing is the result of the distortion of space around massive objects--it was predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity and has been confirmed many times.

The gravitational effect of the galaxy on the distant QSO was similar to the lens effect of an empty wine glass on a distant street light - it created multiple images.
This would seem to support my assertion that the velocity of the photons(light) is affected by the gravity of the mass they are "bent" around.
This is not an example of the literal "bending" of space.

Actually linwood, this is a good example of how massive objects distort space. Think of the empty wine glass analogy: why are multiple images of the distant street light created? It is because the medium through which the light is traveling (glass) is curved. With gravitational lensing, the medium through which the light is traveling is space. No one predicted gravitational lensing would occur before Einstein showed how mass distorts space, and no one could explain "the discrepancy between the classically measured and computed values of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit, about 43 arc seconds/century" (Modern Phyics, Tipler and Llewellyn). Only by taking into account the tiny effects of general relativity could this be explained. Gravitational lensing was also predicted and verified by Einstein's general relativity: namely that mass distorts space. If mass didn't distort space, light would simply follow a straight path and no lensing or other effects would occur. But light follows a curved path around massive objects because space is curved around massive objects. Arthur Eddington confirmed this prediction by measuring the deflection of starlight during a total solar eclipse.

Please supply evidence of physical properties of space.

Muons decay at a known rate, and they appear in our upper atmosphere in known quantities. If we measure the distance between the upper atmosphere and the Earth's surface in our reference frame, and then calculate (based on how fast the muons decay and how fast they are traveling--which is near the speed of light) how many muons we should see at the surface, we find we really shouldn't see any muons at the surface. But we do see muons at the surface--lots of them, in fact. The number of muons we see is exactly what is predicted by length contraction: in other words, in the muons' reference frame, the distance between the upper atmosphere and Earth's surface is much smaller than what we measure. Thus the muons literally travel a different distance in their reference frame than we see them travel in our reference frame. As it happens, if we take this length contraction into account, we predict precisely how many muons are observed. The flaw in our original reasoning was that we assumed that spatial distances are the same for the muons as they are for us: it turns out that this assumption is wrong. From the muons perspective, distances between things in the direction of motion are much smaller than what we measure. These contracted distances are no less physically valid than the ones we measure. Our measurements are not the "correct" ones--it would not be physically meaningful to speak of "correct" distances or lengths--they are only correct in our reference frame. In other words, the distance measured between the SAME OBJECTS in two different reference frames is different. The inevitable conclusion (whether we like it or not) is that space is literally different in different reference frames.

Please supply evidence that gravity has no effect on the velocity of photons.

The fact that gravity has an (indirect) effect on the velocity of photons is validation of Einstien's theory that mass distorts space.

Please supply a rebuttal to documented articles disparaging the H&K time dilation experiment.

C.O. Alley performed an experiment in 1975 which confirmed predictions of both general and special relativity. Atomic clocks were moved relative to each other via Navy submarine patrol aircraft and later compared with an identical group of clocks on the ground. Using the speeds in the experiment, relativity predicts that the clocks that were in the planes would be 5.7 x 10^-9 seconds behind those that remained on the ground. The experiment found that the clocks that were in the air were 5.6 x 10^-9 seconds behind, which agrees with the relativity prediction to within 2%. Time dilation is real, it's been observed.

Oh I also forgot to mention that you have to take time dilation into account with muon decay as well....so muon decay is an example of both space contraction and time dilation.

I could literally go on and on and on....but I have homework to do and I promised you that I would read that neo-conservative report you posted.

 

[Ryan2065]

I`ve been back three pages in this thread and cannot find any picture in any of your links other than this...

Ahh, I was referencing the videos but now see that there is no link to them.. such a shame...

I'll submit a few pictures for you to look at.

http://whyfiles.org/052einstein/frame_drag4.html
This one is very small, shows a neutron star, and is said to show the bending of space.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/pdf/warp.pdf
On page two this shows a very nice diagram of something you yourself can observe during a.. krap, im at a loss for words... when the moon goes in front of the sun at night time (only happens every few years.) But anyways... this shows the earliest test for showing space-time being warped.

Also when surfing I found this cool lecture...
http://www.hawking.org.uk/pdf/time.pdf
Just interesting stuff... gives the best laymans terms of most of Einsteins predictions... Also goes over the singularity idea and shows how it goes with the physical laws we have (IE that it does not break them)

I see where we are getting confused here. Gravity can do two things... 1. Bend light. 2. bend space. Seeing as both of these things seemingly have the same result, some people call them both gravitational lensing (not many, but some.... the same thing happens with some theories in math, makes it very confusing.)

Here is something from your own source (something you submitted as evidence for gravitational lensing)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing

According to general relativity, gravitational fields "warp" space-time and therefore bend light as a result. This theory was confirmed in 1919 during a solar eclipse, when Arthur Eddington observed the light from stars passing close to the sun was slightly bent, so that stars appeared slightly out of position.

Then also the people at berkeley seem to call the bending of space gravitational lensing.
http://astron.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html

In general relativity, the presence of matter (energy density) can curve spacetime, and the path of a light ray will be deflected as a result. This process is called gravitational lensing and in many cases can be described in analogy to the deflection of light by (e.g. glass) lenses in optics. Many useful results for cosmology have come out of using this property of matter and light.

Both actually occur. =)

So how about this.... instead of proving that a random picture i give of the galaxy (because of course that is all it would appear to be as you see from the picture above that I submitted) is actually gravitational lensing (as you define it) and not the bending of space... prove that the scientists in the 1919 experiment were wrong.

Here is some basic data on what they did...
http://www.bibalex.org/Einstein2005/About_Eclipse.htm
It does not give all the data though... Please let me know what constants you require and what other data you require and I will try my best to find it for you! Good luck proving Einstein wrong and winning that nobel prize!

 

[linwood]

It's called length contraction. The formula for length contraction for motion along the x-axis is

Dear lord Spinks!
I have to debate time dilation, space curvature ,and now you want to toss in length contraction?
Can ya give a guy a break?
Lets just say I prefer to remain in my objective frame of reference and leave it at that can we?


I`ll give you a reply after I finish Ryans.

Thanks,

 

[Ryan2065]

Hey member.php?u=55Mr Spinkles, something that has confused me throughout this debate. Many places refer to gravitational lensing as the literal bending of light. Which makes one think that gravity is actually acting on the photons of light, not the bending of space. Then other places call gravitational lensing the bending of space. Is it both or just one of them? Wikepedia seemed to mention them both separately so I took it to mean they are just two different things... Then the resources I posted mentioned that they are the same thing... So that part confused me a little. =)

Otherwise great post!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

According to general relativity, gravitational fields "warp" space-time and therefore bend light as a result. This theory was confirmed in 1919 during a solar eclipse, when Arthur Eddington observed the light from stars passing close to the sun was slightly bent, so that stars appeared slightly out of position.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing

It all comes from the fact that light travels at the same speed in all reference frames, linwood. To the thrower, a baseball that is thrown moves pretty fast. But to a person in a car going at 60mph, that baseball is not going very fast (it may even appear not to be moving at all, or it may appear to be moving in the opposite direction from the car). Thus the velocity of everything is relative--the velocity of everything, that is, except light. No matter how fast you go, light is ALWAYS traveling at 3 x 10^8 m/s in your reference frame. And it travels the same speed in everyone else's reference frame, too. This is a well-evidenced fact. And it is very strange. Thus, it should not be too surprising that this strange phenomenon can lead to even stranger phenomena.

 

[linwood]

I'll submit a few pictures for you to look at.

Thanks Ryan.

I`m heading to the library with the kids so I`ll check them out tonight and add any response to my reply to post tomorrow.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Ryan-- I'll explain by analogy. It was once thought that an electric charge exerts a force on other electric charges. In a manner of speaking, this is true. However, it was later found that the agent of this interaction was the electric field: an electric charge sets up an electric field around it, and it is this field that exerts a force on other charges. This field is not simply a mathematical construct: it is physically real and is absolutely necessary to understand electromagnetism. No one knew about self-sustaining electromagnetic waves (light) before the physical existence of electromagnetic fields was accepted, and it is impossible to explain the existence of electromagnetic waves without accepting electromagnetic fields which can be distorted.

The electromagnetic field is analogous to the curvature of space with gravatational lensing. No one knew that light could be bent around massive objects in space before it was demonstrated that space could be distorted, and it is impossible to explain gravitational lensing without accepting that space is curved around massive objects. Before the tiny effects of general relativity were known, it was assumed that space is the same near a massive object as it is far from a massive object. As it turns out, this assumption is wrong. Space is curved around massive objects, and thus light--which follows a straight path in its reference frame--follows the curvature of space. That is how this prediction was made, gravitational lensing confirmed it, and gravitational lensing cannot be understood without accepting that space is not some magical, universal, and unchanging constant--not at all, it changes depending on how you observe it.

 

[Valjean]

You could either say a photon's path is deflected by the gravity of an object or that it's actually following a straight line through the gravity well created by the mass in spacetime. Mathematically both views are equivalent.
From a relativistic perspective, which is the only way to explain this phenomenon, concepts like "straight" become very murky.