1. Originally Posted by 514void
I can't copy paste from the pdf but they did state that they did some data processing involving putting the data for each gyro through a system:
the system involved putting the data through base functions where they kept putting in numbers until they matched the predictions.
Where are you seeing that ? All that is being done is calculating an average from the four ( identical ) gyros, nothing is being added here. The error margins in the final data are clearly stated in the paper. Within those error margins ( which are due to the fact that the effect that is being measured is extremely small ) the measurements are in good agreement with mathematical prediction. The frame dragging effect is clearly present, as predicted.

2. Originally Posted by 514void
I thought that it was rejected by mainstream science.
Huh? How do you get that conclusion from peer-reviewed results consistent with well-established theory?

3. The result for each gyroscope is the average of 10 drift rate estimates
based on 10 distinct parameter sets determined by the following uniform procedure.
The submodels for scale factor $C_g(t)$, misalignment torque coefficient $k(t)$, polhode phase $\phi_p(t)$, etc., are linear combinations of certain basis functions with coefficients to be estimated.
The number of terms in each submodel is increased from zero
until the change in the relativistic drift rate estimates becomes less than $0.5\,\sigma$.

4. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by 514void
I thought that it was rejected by mainstream science.
Huh? How do you get that conclusion from peer-reviewed results consistent with well-established theory?
where do i find the peer review bit?

5. Originally Posted by 514void
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by 514void
I thought that it was rejected by mainstream science.
Huh? How do you get that conclusion from peer-reviewed results consistent with well-established theory?
where do i find the peer review bit?
The fact that the paper was published in a journal that employs peer review tells you that it passed peer review. Got it now?

6. not really, who are the peers anyhow? someone different than the 15 independant reviewers that canned the whole thing?

7. Originally Posted by 514void
someone different than the 15 independant reviewers that canned the whole thing?
That was a NASA funding review looking at which projects should continue to be funded.

8. They warned that the required reduction in noise level (due to classical torques and breaks in data collection due to solar flares) "is so large that any effect ultimately detected by this experiment will have to overcome considerable (and in our opinion, well justified) skepticism in the scientific community".

I am quite skeptical myself.

I was wondering how they found the error that they could subtract from the data and what they did is to take 40 days or so of measurements of those errors.
It would seem to me that any frame dragging effect (or lack of) would show up in this error rectifier.
and so they would have to seperate any effect or non effect from this data the only way I can see that they could have done it is to calibrate the error data to the frame dragging prediction.

9. Originally Posted by 514void
They warned that the required reduction in noise level (due to classical torques and breaks in data collection due to solar flares) "is so large that any effect ultimately detected by this experiment will have to overcome considerable (and in our opinion, well justified) skepticism in the scientific community".

I am quite skeptical myself.

I was wondering how they found the error that they could subtract from the data and what they did is to take 40 days or so of measurements of those errors.
It would seem to me that any frame dragging effect (or lack of) would show up in this error rectifier.
and so they would have to seperate any effect or non effect from this data the only way I can see that they could have done it is to calibrate the error data to the frame dragging prediction.
And that's why the paper took some time to be written. That's what peer review is all about: Researchers make claims, peer critics try to find flaws, researchers respond to criticisms. Often, the response takes the forms of additional experiments or analysis. Doing a good job of assembling a proper response can take a lot of time. Given the complexity of GPB, I am not at all surprised at how long it took.

I am not at all impressed by the mere fact that you are skeptical -- the reviewers already took that stance. Unlike you, the reviewers examined the response to the initial skepticism. From the fact that the paper was published, we can infer that the authors answered the criticisms satisfactorily.

That's how science works.

10. is there a bit where we can read what the reviewers asked?

11. Originally Posted by 514void
is there a bit where we can read what the reviewers asked?
No. The reviewers -- and their reviews -- are anonymous for reasons that should be quite obvious. That allows the reviewers to be savagely honest without losing their drinking buddies. These reviews can be unbelievably harsh, by the way. I've both written and received such. When you're starting out in the field, the reviews can really raise your blood pressure. After a few of those, though, you start to develop enough slabs of scar tissue that you get bothered less and less.

12. Fair enough, but it does seem to take any authority away from it.
Do the reviewers have any restrictions posed on their questioning? Only the secret society knows.
Are the reviewers paid by any companies involved in the research? Probably, but there is no way to find out.
Do the reviewers have to align to a certain way of thinking? Probably, it seems like anyone disagreeing with mainstream theory is not regarded very highly.

13. Originally Posted by 514void
Fair enough, but it does seem to take any authority away from it.
Do the reviewers have any restrictions posed on their questioning? Only the secret society knows.
Are the reviewers paid by any companies involved in the research? Probably, but there is no way to find out.
Do the reviewers have to align to a certain way of thinking? Probably, it seems like anyone disagreeing with mainstream theory is not regarded very highly.
The reviewers all belong to the Illuminati. They are only allowed to ask questions about the height and weight of the researchers. Questions that might challenge the supremacy of the mainstream are strictly forbidden.

Don't be an idiot.

14. Originally Posted by 514void

I was wondering how they found the error that they could subtract from the data and what they did is to take 40 days or so of measurements of those errors.
That is the reason why they used four gyroscopes instead of just one, and ran them all for an extended period of time. Averaging out those measurements will naturally maximize the resolution in all data channels, and it will also tell us if one of the gyroscopes does not function properly. Redundancy is the trick here

15. Originally Posted by 514void
Are the reviewers paid by any companies involved in the research? Probably, but there is no way to find out.
They are paid (if they are paid, often they aren't) by the journal.

Probably, it seems like anyone disagreeing with mainstream theory is not regarded very highly.
Quite. That is why no physicist has ever won a Nobel Prize.

And, of course, no journal wants to publish an article that will make them stand out from the crowd and sell more copies. And no rebellious young students and researchers want to become famous by making the next paradigm-shifting breakthrough (and their professors don't want to be associated with any such heretics).

16. Originally Posted by Strange
They are paid (if they are paid, often they aren't) by the journal.

I reviewed three papers last month, on average each one took a whole working day to read, check references, look up supporting information and write the review. Didn't get a penny for it, I'm quite happy to donate my time to quality control in science.

17. how did you get to be a reviewer?

18. Originally Posted by tk421
The reviewers all belong to the Illuminati. They are only allowed to ask questions about the height and weight of the researchers. Questions that might challenge the supremacy of the mainstream are strictly forbidden.

Don't be an idiot.
I mean that there is secrecy involved.
I don't have access to any of the peer-reviewed bit, but I get told that it must be right because it passed some unknowable (to me) test.

20. Originally Posted by 514void

21. Originally Posted by 514void
Originally Posted by tk421
The reviewers all belong to the Illuminati. They are only allowed to ask questions about the height and weight of the researchers. Questions that might challenge the supremacy of the mainstream are strictly forbidden.

Don't be an idiot.
I mean that there is secrecy involved.
I don't have access to any of the peer-reviewed bit, but I get told that it must be right because it passed some unknowable (to me) test.
I didn't jump to any conclusions, I was led to them. Here's the data I used:

1) You display a level of knowledge that is roughly average for a random person from the internet. That is to say, you are not a subject-matter expert.
2) You are ignorant of the peer-review process.
3) Despite (or because of) 2), you've decided that there's something fishy about peer-review.
4) You think that a democratic review process would be better.

So, by your logic, we should have everyone privy to all peer review processes and works-in-progress. When Wiles was working out his proof of Fermat's conjecture, you personally should have been allowed to participate. When transplant surgeons are working out protocols for administering immunosuppressive agents, your oversight and input should be permitted. When Beckham devises new strategies for football with his mates, you should be privy to those conversations and opine on the deliberations. That at least sounds stupid to me.

That's why I said what I said.

You are far from an expert in GR, so why should professional scientists be interested in what you have to say on the subject? Sorry, but science -- like any field requiring deep skills and knowledge -- is far from a democracy -- not all opinions are of equal merit. Those coming from specialists who have devoted long years of study to the field are the ones who are most likely to offer something of benefit, not random people off the street. Working scientists don't have time to waste having the same conversations and useless debates with ignorant non-specialists who haven't even an undergraduate's understanding of the field.

Do you get it now?

And just to continue educating you on peer review, not only are the reviewers anonymous, they are not paid for their efforts (at least, no respectable journal that I'm aware of pays its reviewers). The only time I've ever been compensated for reviews was for book proposals, not a journal article. And the reward? A free book from the publisher. Wow -- that's incentive to twist my review, eh?

22. Originally Posted by tk421
1) You display a level of knowledge that is roughly average for a random person from the internet. That is to say, you are not a subject-matter expert.
2) You are ignorant of the peer-review process.
3) Despite (or because of) 2), you've decided that there's something fishy about peer-review.
4) You think that a democratic review process would be better.
1) Only black hole experts are allowed to peer-review black hole subjects?
2) I am ignorant of it. I am not allowed to know it.
3) What is wrong with me thinking there is something wrong here?
4) Nahh, just would like to see the results.

23. Originally Posted by 514void
1) Only black hole experts are allowed to peer-review black hole subjects?
Pretty much. If you're not an expert in the field, then you are not qualified to provide a review. Why would you solicit the input of a car mechanic on a medical matter?

Again, don't be stupid.

2) I am ignorant of it. I am not allowed to know it.
Straw man. I've already provided the logic. Ignoring it just confirms the suspicion that you are a crank and/or a troll. Is that your purpose? If so, you're doing a bang-up job.

3) What is wrong with me thinking there is something wrong here?
In the absence of knowledge, you choose to impute nefarious motives.

4) Nahh, just would like to see the results.
The results are in the peer-reviewed paper. So your wish is fulfilled.

24. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by 514void
I am not aware of any evidence that contradicts Lorentz ether theory.
The evidence that supports relativity theory also supports Lorentz ether theory.
Evidence that supports Lorentz ether theory and doesn't support relativity: Newtons bucket, sagnac effect, Higgs field (not proven).
LET and SR are experimentally indistinguishable ( even though you appear to think otherwise ); the reason why SR has become mainstream whereas LET has not is twofold :

1. LET axiomatically assumes the existence of an ( undetectable ) ether without being able to provide any method to test for its existence
2. SR - unlike LET - can be generalised to GR, which is itself well supported and tested

Choosing SR over LET is thus a straightforward application of Occam's razor - the ether in LET is undetectable and plays no role whatsoever in any physical law, so it is quite simply not needed to explain available empirical data. It is for that very reason also not falsifiable, which is a problem so far as the scientific method is concerned.

I suppose I need convincing
If a beam of light is turned on and off repeatedly each second as it is projected into space will the space between the bursts of light remain the same as it continues on into space as the universe expands?

25. Originally Posted by YangYin
If a beam of light is turned on and off repeatedly each second as it is projected into space will the space between the bursts of light remain the same as it continues on into space as the universe expands?
Effectively yes, because metric expansion becomes relevant only over very large distances; it is not a local phenomenon.

26. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by YangYin
If a beam of light is turned on and off repeatedly each second as it is projected into space will the space between the bursts of light remain the same as it continues on into space as the universe expands?
Effectively yes, because metric expansion becomes relevant only over very large distances; it is not a local phenomenon.
Ok, over a large distance does it remain the same?

27. Originally Posted by YangYin
Ok, over a large distance does it remain the same?
Yes it will, since the lighpulses are close together.

28. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by YangYin
Ok, over a large distance does it remain the same?
Yes it will, since the lighpulses are close together.
How far apart do the light pulses have to be and at what distance does the pulses have to travel for the matric expansion to take effect?

29. Originally Posted by YangYin
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by YangYin
Ok, over a large distance does it remain the same?
Yes it will, since the lighpulses are close together.
How far apart do the light pulses have to be and at what distance does the pulses have to travel for the matric expansion to take effect?

30. If I understand the question properly, then I should point out that...

If we could see light pulses that were originally emitted 1 second apart, coming from the era when the CMB was emitted, for instance, then today they would be 1089 seconds apart, due to the cosmological time-dilation caused by the expansion of the universe.

Why would the expansion of the universe not affect the gaps between pulses of light?

31. Maybe this is not quite fitting to the thread. But I was mind-boggled by The Hubble Space telescope observing what is deemed as Dark Energy.

If the acceleration continues indefinitely, the ultimate result will be that galaxies outside the local supercluster will have a line-of-sight velocity that continually increases with time, eventually far exceeding the speed of light

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_en...f_the_universe

:EDIT: to many links an I forgot url on the wiki article.

32. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by 514void
1) Only black hole experts are allowed to peer-review black hole subjects?
Pretty much. If you're not an expert in the field, then you are not qualified to provide a review. Why would you solicit the input of a car mechanic on a medical matter?
Again, don't be stupid.
Why indeed, but wouldn't it be a conflict of interest for people to disprove the theory that they make their living off?
They aren't stupid.

Originally Posted by tk421
2) I am ignorant of it. I am not allowed to know it.
Straw man. I've already provided the logic. Ignoring it just confirms the suspicion that you are a crank and/or a troll. Is that your purpose? If so, you're doing a bang-up job.
you seem to jump to conclusions alot, and they always seem to be wrong, I hope you don't have any sort of authority anywhere.

Originally Posted by tk421
3) What is wrong with me thinking there is something wrong here?
In the absence of knowledge, you choose to impute nefarious motives.
I choose criticism over blind faith

Originally Posted by tk421
4) Nahh, just would like to see the results.
The results are in the peer-reviewed paper. So your wish is fulfilled.
[/QUOTE]
Don't be an idiot, you know that I meant the arguments of the review process after a decision was made.

33. A research scientist basically makes a living by publishing papers. A paper that just retests the same things in the same way isn't publishable (newness is something journals look for). A paper that shows an error in a previous paper is publishable, and is often a fairly easy paper to write compared to coming up with something completely new (even if it's not as prestigious).

34. Originally Posted by 514void
Why indeed, but wouldn't it be a conflict of interest for people to disprove the theory that they make their living off?
Of course. Because they wouldn't want to join the ranks of those who have been officially black-listed for attempting to overthrow established physics and who are now never mentioned in polite society.

You know, people like Rontgen, Lorentz, Zeeman, Becqurel, Maria & Peter Curie, Rayleigh, Lenard, Thomson, Michelson, Lippmann, Marconi, Braun, van der Waals, Wien, Dalen, Kamerlingh-Onnes, von Laue, the Braggs, Barkla, Planck, Stark, Guillaume, Einstein, Bohr, Millikan Siegbahn, Franck, Hertz, Perrin, Compton, Wilson, Richardson, de Broglie, Raman, Heisneberg, Schrodinger, Dirac, Chadwick, Hess, Anderson, Davisson, Thomson, Fermi, Lawrence, Stern, Rabi, Pauli, Bridgman, Applteon, Blackett, Yukawa, Powell, Cockcroft, Walton, Bloch, Purcell, Zernicke, Born, Bothe, Lamb, Kusch, Bardeen, Brattain, Shockley, Lee, Yang, Cherenkov, Frank, Tamm, Chamberlain, Segre, Glaser, Hofstadter, Mossbauer, Landau, Wigner, Goeppert-Mayer, Jensen, Prokhorov, Townes, Feynman, Schwinger, Tomonaga, Kastler, Bethe, Alvarez, Gell-Man, Alfven, Neel, Gabor, Cooper, Schrieffer, Esaki, Giaever, Josephson, Ryle, Hewish, Bohr, Mottelson, Rainwater, Richter, Ting, Anderson, Mott, Vleck, Kapitsa, Penzias, Wilson, Glashow, Salam, Weinberg, Cronin, Fitch, Bloembergen, Schawlow, Siegbahn, Wilson, Chandrasekhar, Fowler, Rubbia, van de Meer, von Klitzing, Ruska, Binning, Rohrer, Bednorz, Muller, Lederman, Schwartz, Steinberger, Ramsey, Dehmelt, Paul, Friedman, Kendall, Yaylor, de Gennes, Charpak, Hulse, Taylor, Brockhouse, Shull, Perl, Reines, Lee, Osheroff, Richardson, Chu, Tannoudji, Phillips, Laughlin, Stormer, Tsui't Hooft, Vetlmann, Alferov, Kroemer, Kilby, Cornell, Wieman, Ketterle, Davis, Koshiba, Giacconi, Abrikosov, Ginzburg, Legget, Gross, Politzer, Wilczek, Glauber, Hall, Hansch, Mather, Smoot, Fert, Grunberg, Kobayashi, Maskawa, Nambu, Kao, Boyle, Smith, Geim, Novoselov, Perlmutter, Schmidt, Riess, Haroche, Wineland, Englert, Higss, and others.

35. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
If I understand the question properly, then I should point out that...

If we could see light pulses that were originally emitted 1 second apart, coming from the era when the CMB was emitted, for instance, then today they would be 1089 seconds apart, due to the cosmological time-dilation caused by the expansion of the universe.

Why would the expansion of the universe not affect the gaps between pulses of light?
If the metric expansion of the universe can alter the arrival time of light it seems it should produce larger intervals between pulses of light. If this is true wouldn’t this mean the dynamics that move galaxies apart is the same dynamics that moves light and the difference between the two is mass?

36. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
A research scientist basically makes a living by publishing papers. A paper that just retests the same things in the same way isn't publishable (newness is something journals look for). A paper that shows an error in a previous paper is publishable, and is often a fairly easy paper to write compared to coming up with something completely new (even if it's not as prestigious).
Ok, I am getting a better understanding now.

37. Originally Posted by Strange
Of course. Because they wouldn't want to join the ranks of those who have been officially black-listed for attempting to overthrow established physics and who are now never mentioned in polite society.
I didn't realise you knew the names of people who did the peer-review. where did you get the list?

38. Originally Posted by 514void
I didn't realise you knew the names of people who did the peer-review. where did you get the list?
That was a list of people who received Nobel Prizes in physics, mainly for making advances that overturned existing theories. It was supposed to make the point that the suggestion that it would be "a conflict of interest for people to disprove the theory that they make their living off" was silly.

39. nice one.

40. Dragging effects of spinning or orbiting spatial bodies would not appear as blips but rather be summated in an apogee effect, as with Mercury and, I submit hypothetically, for any "precessing" body. Could the unexpected effects on GPB be related to such an effect? (However, the concept of unknown forces in space that could summate in this way would require a different model of space than GR.)

41. Originally Posted by 514void
Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by 514void
1) Only black hole experts are allowed to peer-review black hole subjects?
Pretty much. If you're not an expert in the field, then you are not qualified to provide a review. Why would you solicit the input of a car mechanic on a medical matter?
Again, don't be stupid.
Why indeed, but wouldn't it be a conflict of interest for people to disprove the theory that they make their living off?
They aren't stupid.
Again, you are making assertions because of your ignorance. Scientists are actually richly rewarded for coming up with contrary evidence-based theories. There's not much glory in showing once again, e.g., that cannon balls fall down. You do seem to have a conspiratorial bent, and that leads you to make up nonsense, rather than searching for evidence to test your hypothesis. I recommend, again, not jumping to conclusions.

Originally Posted by 514void
Originally Posted by tk421
2) I am ignorant of it. I am not allowed to know it.
Straw man. I've already provided the logic. Ignoring it just confirms the suspicion that you are a crank and/or a troll. Is that your purpose? If so, you're doing a bang-up job.
you seem to jump to conclusions alot, and they always seem to be wrong, I hope you don't have any sort of authority anywhere.
I provide backup for my statements, so anyone reading my arguments can see that no jumping is occurring.

Originally Posted by 514void
Originally Posted by tk421
3) What is wrong with me thinking there is something wrong here?
In the absence of knowledge, you choose to impute nefarious motives.
I choose criticism over blind faith
Those are not mutually exclusive qualities! You blindly choose to believe faithfully in your own conspiratorial fantasies. As you have presented no evidence whatsoever of the existence of these conspiracies, my assertion stands: In the absence of knowledge, you choose to impute nefarious motives.

Originally Posted by 514void
Originally Posted by tk421
4) Nahh, just would like to see the results.
The results are in the peer-reviewed paper. So your wish is fulfilled.
Don't be an idiot, you know that I meant the arguments of the review process after a decision was made.
I can't read your mind. I can only read what you write. I have responded logically to what you have written.

If you believe that the review process is corrupt, please provide evidence to support that charge.

And if you additionally believe that opening up the review process to people like you would fix the problem (without creating worse ones), present arguments for why your proposal would work.

Page 2 of 2 First 12
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement