Re: Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?

akalaniz_at_hotmail.com
Date: 03/08/05 

Date: 8 Mar 2005 11:28:22 -0800

What motivates you to try to do--but miserably fail--damage to physics
and physicists? General relativity (GR)--or any other theory--has, or
ever will be, taken as an item of faith. Theory has been, and
continues to be tested, for nearly one-hundred years. In orbit today
is Gravity B probe testing the prediction of frame dragging.
Physicists are keenly aware of error bars. They look very carefully
at the sources of error in a given experiment and produce a result
qualified by error estimates. This was, if you look at the literature,
the case for the atomic clock flown aboard a jet. The peer-reviewed
results would not have published without such a mandatory error
analysis. Within the error bars of tests of Special Relativity (SR)
and GR lays room for alternative theories and/or
corrections/extensions, as in the sense that Einstein's theory of
gravity is a correction/extension to Newtonian gravity. The same goes
for string theories, GUTs, and all other theories. They must pass
rigourous tests and be consistent with data, be it from particle
accelerators or radio astronomy. I'm sure you know that, but are
somehow hoping to catch the naive junior high school kids out there who
don't know better with your pseudo disspassionate aires of scholarly
bunk. The next time you question a theory, do so with a proper
investigation of the experiments supporting the theory, including their
error analysis, wherein lays the room for new physics. An excellent
example of such error analysis is the Anderson et. al. paper on the
anomolous acceleration of the Pioneer 10 probes. "Study of the
anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11", Physical Review D
(Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology) Phys. Rev. D 65,
082004 (2002) (50 pages)

By the way, the webpages you so often post, "The Einstein Hoax (1997)",
etc., contains manifold, demonstrably wrong physics. In particular is
the case of the modified Maxwell demon. your device which "violates"
the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you state, "the trapdoor and the
membrane would be heated and the molecule which passed though it would
be cooled. The process would generate a local temperature difference
which would quickly be equalized by any reasonable level of heat
transfer."

Assuming the trapdoor is able to rapidly transfer the energy it
absorbed to the rest of the membrane, wouldn't then the heated membrane
transfer the heat back to the gas molecules? The membrane, made of
vibrating molecules, would, via thermal ibrations, and some radiation,
transfer their heat back to the cooled gas to maintain thermal
equilibrium.

If the trapdoor couldn't dump its excess energy (the energy absorbed
from a fast molecule), it, thanks to its molecular vibrations, would
start to bounce open and close to rid itself of its excess energy. By
so doing, it would on occasion allow molecules to flow both ways, and
on occasion, it would swat cold (slow) molecules and heat them back up
(speed them up).

I think Dr. Feynman and the 2nd law of thermodynamics stand firm. You,
on the other hand, need to fess up to your error and quit the neo-Nazi
and KKK clubs.

AA another dumb PhD

Relevant Pages