Weird physics claims in solar system -- any truth?

[CaveDave]

There have been many strange physics claims made by "single topic", obsessive, fight-picking, drive-by posters in the time I have been observing here, and most seem to be quickly dispatched by the many knowledgeable members here.

Recently, there were two that I am not sure were directly addressed, probably because they were buried in responses to critiques of other gibberish and may have been overlooked.

One was a few months ago; (I can't recall the thread name or the poster's name, and I evidently can't make the forum's built-in search function work) it had to do with the angle of light from the sun versus the direction that the sun's gravity is pulling from having some tiny discrepancy, therefore proving that Einstein, the standard model, and all the physicists in in the world are not only wrong, but have conspired to keep the "truth" from being "revealed" outside their secret society. ISTR that s/he gave the name of some paper published that putatively proved by observational data that STR, GTR, QM, and everything else we think we know was a fabrication.

The other is current, in posts by MacM, in "McCoin last thread" post #103, wherin he states:

For anyone actually looking they would find this work has been viewed by many. One prediction I made was that there would be measured a 4.2E-9 pertabation in gravity during a lunar eclipse. Guess what a 4.28E-9 pertabation was measured by the Institute of Applied Geodesy, Frankfort West germany, Report #16.

Both of these seemed to me to be obscure researchers in esoteric fields with questionable results published in backwater journals glommed onto by hopeful romantics thinking they alone have discovered the "Hidden Truth" of the Cosmos and will RealSoonNow be recognized for their transcendent genius.

I have my doubts, but I am not a physicist who could interpret them, either.

Can anyone help me understand what these "reported observations" mean?

Cheers,

Dave

 

[Uncayimmy]

If you want to get a handle on MacM's stuff, you can use the WayBackMachine to find his old website about UniKEF Gravity.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060218131552/unikef-gravity.com/UniKV2/page1.htm

 

[Reality Check]

If you want to get a handle on MacM's stuff, you can use the WayBackMachine to find his old website about UniKEF Gravity.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060218131552/unikef-gravity.com/UniKV2/page1.htm

If you read this then you will see that MacM makes the same mistake that many science cranks make.

UniKEF is a laminar, omni directional flow of unbound energy from either all active bodies in the universe or every Planck length ordinate point of vacuum foam in the universe. The UniKEF energy flow was created at the time of the Big Bang or other origins and is currently continuing to expand time-space.

He thinks that energy is a thing in itself that can be unbound or bound. That is wrong. Energy is a property of a system, e.g. from Wikipedia:
Energy

In physics, energy (from the Greek ἐνέργεια - energeia, "activity, operation", from ἐνεργός - energos, "active, working"[1]) is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law. Eight different forms of energy exist to explain all known natural phenomena. These forms include (but are not limited to) kinetic, potential, thermal, gravitational, sound, light, elastic, and electromagnetic energy. The forms of energy are often named after a related force.
Any form of energy can be transformed into another form, but the total energy always remains the same. This principle, the conservation of energy, was first postulated in the early 19th century, and applies to any isolated system. According to Noether's theorem, the conservation of energy is a consequence of the fact that the laws of physics do not change over time.[2]
Although the total energy of a system does not change with time, its value may depend on the frame of reference. For example, a seated passenger in a moving airplane has zero kinetic energy relative to the airplane, but non-zero kinetic energy relative to the Earth.

MacM may as well have stated that

• "UniKEF is a laminar, omni directional flow of unbound entropy" or
• "UniKEF is a laminar, omni directional flow of unbound mass" or
• "UniKEF is a laminar, omni directional flow of unbound charge" or
• "UniKEF is a laminar, omni directional flow of unbound spin", etc.

 

[Reality Check]

Can anyone help me understand what these "reported observations" mean?

Cheers,

Dave

No one will be able to tell you what the "reported observations" are because no one knows what they were.
If the cranks you mention had any expertise they would give a citation to where the data that they quote was published. This is missing and so there is little chance that someone can tell you what what the reported observations were or explain them.

As for MacM's claim in this post:

Actually there are a number of reasons.

1 - I have in the past been party to (3) formal debates with a High Energy Physicist. He at least acknowledged that much of my views were actually viable although he personally prefered to stay with relativity due to it's simplicity. I seek out those that have some small amount of common sense and aren't full of themselves. Most here seem completely unwilling to even consider that relativity may be wrong or that the assumption of time-space is in error based on a complete misunderstanding of the basis for the measured invariance of light.

2 - I have many physicist friends that I converse with which are of simular mind as I with regard to the falicy of relativity as a physical concept.

3 - One somewhat famous physicist actually wrote Chapter (7) "Calculus" in my original Manuscript.

4 - For anyone actually looking they would find this work has been viewed by many. One prediction I made was that there would be measured a 4.2E-9 pertabation in gravity during a lunar eclipse. Guess what a 4.28E-9 pertabation was measured by the Institute of Applied Geodesy, Frankfort West germany, Report #16.

A copy of a letter granting me the right to publish my work citing their findings is in my historical documents. I've never published because I have continued to make changes over the years and the work is not ready for publication.

Hint. All this phooey about "Units", "Math", etc is just that I have done considerable math in the past and have made several predictions which over the decades have become accepted as fact.

So I really don't need pompus, enflated egos telling me what I don't know or understand. What they don't understand is that their purported higher education is nothing more than an indoctrination and they have become tape recorders repeating what they have been told to recite. They have not been thaught to think.

Frankly I prefer my own education to theirs for theirs leads to a paycheck but no real discoveries.

The only response to questions about access to the actual published paper has been:

The Institute detected the pertabation over 50 years ago. I sought their permission to show according to my view how that pertabation occured and referred to their work . I didn't have to have their permission but they gave it.

So far it looks like he does not even have a copy of their 50 year old paper.

This raises another common tactic of science cranks - quoting not only obscure but old papers. They forget that part of science is the continual inspection of data. If this "perturbation" was significant then there would certainly be more current results, especially from the "Institute of Applied Geodesy, Frankfort West germany" (actually Frankfurt) which seems to be still in existence as the Bundesamt für Kartographie und Geodäsie.

 

[Wolfman]

Another point in regard to MacM's comments: note that in his original post, he makes it sound as if he made a prediction, and an experiment was subsequently done that verified his prediction. Were that the case, his claim might have some merit.

However, he's engaged in obvious deception. The 'experiment' in question was done long before he made his prediction. So we really have three problems here:

1) That the experiment was done half a century ago, and we have no way of determining the methods used, or the accuracy of the measurements.

2) That the data is apparently entirely unavailable and impossible to confirm

3) That even if such an article exists, MacM could simply have sifted through mounds of experiments and reports until he found one that roughly supported his hypothesis; he then discarded all other experimental data that contradicted him, and made a 'prediction' that was subsequently 'verified' by this 50-year old study.

The simple fact that in the 50 years since this supposed experiment was done, nobody else has found similar results, would seem to put the lie to his claims. Barring significantly greater evidence than what MacM offers, I think we can put this one firmly in the crackpot pile.

 

[sol invictus]

One was a few months ago; (I can't recall the thread name or the poster's name, and I evidently can't make the forum's built-in search function work) it had to do with the angle of light from the sun versus the direction that the sun's gravity is pulling from having some tiny discrepancy, therefore proving that Einstein, the standard model, and all the physicists in in the world are not only wrong, but have conspired to keep the "truth" from being "revealed" outside their secret society. ISTR that s/he gave the name of some paper published that putatively proved by observational data that STR, GTR, QM, and everything else we think we know was a fabrication.

There are some incredibly sensitive tests of GR using orbital dynamics in the solar system - everything from lunar ranging with lasers to gravity probe B to the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. GR has passed all of them, and many alternative theories have bit the dust.

The other is current, in posts by MacM, in "McCoin last thread" post #103, wherin he states:

MacM doesn't understand the difference between speed and velocity (for the non-mathematically inclined, that's like claiming to be a biologist and not knowing the difference between a virus and a bacteria, or a doctor that can't tell a knee from an elbow. It's completely impossible that he made a successful prediction - he doesn't even understand what the quantities are that one might want to predict, let alone be able to actually do so.

 

[CaveDave]

Thank you all for your well reasoned replies.

I agree that these two examples represent crankish claims and, barring evidence in the form of paper citations and confirmation by other investigators, are most likely worth nothing.

I guess I failed to make my post express my true curiosity about the two claims. I intended my question to be more in the manner of: If we assume for the discussion that the claimed observations were valid and repeatable, what would they imply about reality and the current consensus of the laws of physics? They were both presented as though they supported some hypothesis (I recoil from calling them "theory") of the poster and directly contradicted some aspect of the current models.

It seems that the earlier one dealt with some angular discrepancy between the position of the sun and the orbit of the earth (maybe the vector of the sun's gravity?).

MacM's was also vague and not cited, but seemed to relate to "shadowing" of gravity by massive objects in some anomalous way (I think he used that term in another thread).

What would be the implications if these were real, and would (capital 'p') Physics be wholly upended, just needing minor adjustment, or totally unaffected?

Sorry if my lack of full understanding makes me ask moronic questions.

Cheers,

Dave

 

[Reality Check]

If we assume that the two claims about gravity are true then of course GR is wrong. If GR is wrong then SR is probably wrong. If SR is wrong then relativistic QM (e.g. QED) is wrong.
Thus three of the most precisely experimentally confirmed theories that have ever existed will be wrong. The next task will be to find replacements for GR, SR and relativistic QM that match those experimental results and the new observations.
These theories will definitely not be the theories of MacM (or your other poster).

 

[sol invictus]

It seems that the earlier one dealt with some angular discrepancy between the position of the sun and the orbit of the earth (maybe the vector of the sun's gravity?).

MacM's was also vague and not cited, but seemed to relate to "shadowing" of gravity by massive objects in some anomalous way (I think he used that term in another thread).

What would be the implications if these were real, and would (capital 'p') Physics be wholly upended, just needing minor adjustment, or totally unaffected?

Sorry if my lack of full understanding makes me ask moronic questions.

Not a moronic question at all, but very difficult to answer without more detail. A discrepancy in orbits... if it was very small, it could be due to various prosaic effects. For example, the Pioneer anomaly is probably due to anisotropic radiation from the power source of the probe, or possibly to some poorly understood characteristic of the interstellar medium, rather than any modification of the fundamental laws of physics.

As for gravitational shadowing by the moon - something very vaguely like that actually does happen, in the sense that in general relativity gravity is non-linear. In other words you cannot just add the fields of two isolated objects to get the total field of the two when they are near each other. But that effect is very, very small for the sun and moon. So if some other kind of "shadowing" really happened and wasn't due to something like increased tidal forces messing up the measurement, or the effect of decreased temperature (due to the eclipse) on the detector, or something else like that, it would really be something new and very important.

You should bear in mind that these kind of anomalies are measured and reported every year. And in nearly all cases - probably 99.9%, without exaggeration - they turn out to have prosaic explanations (typically experimental error, or some known effect that wasn't taken into account properly). So physicists are very cautious. If they jumped on all such things they'd waste all their time and never get anything useful done. Instead, they must make a judgment - is the probability that some reported effect signals really new physics large enough to warrant spending time on it. That judgment naturally requires understanding the level of confidence one has in the existing theories (in other words if an existing theory is very strongly supported by data, a single anomalous experiment that goes against it is taken less seriously than it would be otherwise).

 

[CaveDave]

Not a moronic question at all, but very difficult to answer without more detail. A discrepancy in orbits... if it was very small, it could be due to various prosaic effects. For example, the Pioneer anomaly is probably due to anisotropic radiation from the power source of the probe, or possibly to some poorly understood characteristic of the interstellar medium, rather than any modification of the fundamental laws of physics.

Fascinating, especially the "Pioneer anomaly" reference. It seems there is still much discovery yet to be made in our local area that won't necessarily require revamping what we currently "know".

As for gravitational shadowing by the moon - something very vaguely like that actually does happen, in the sense that in general relativity gravity is non-linear. In other words you cannot just add the fields of two isolated objects to get the total field of the two when they are near each other. But that effect is very, very small for the sun and moon. So if some other kind of "shadowing" really happened and wasn't due to something like increased tidal forces messing up the measurement, or the effect of decreased temperature (due to the eclipse) on the detector, or something else like that, it would really be something new and very important.

You should bear in mind that these kind of anomalies are measured and reported every year. And in nearly all cases - probably 99.9%, without exaggeration - they turn out to have prosaic explanations (typically experimental error, or some known effect that wasn't taken into account properly). So physicists are very cautious. If they jumped on all such things they'd waste all their time and never get anything useful done. Instead, they must make a judgment - is the probability that some reported effect signals really new physics large enough to warrant spending time on it. That judgment naturally requires understanding the level of confidence one has in the existing theories (in other words if an existing theory is very strongly supported by data, a single anomalous experiment that goes against it is taken less seriously than it would be otherwise).

Much as I suspected, these and other gems of "devastating evidence" brought up by our assorted visitors, are frequently long known and previously dismissed (or at least back-burnered) effects and not even nearly as revolutionary as the challenger imagines.

ETA: In a couple of MacM's threads, there were discussions of the differences between point-source, smooth sphere, and cubes as regards the gravitational field produced by each. That was fascinating and totally new to me, and showed me one more of the many ways that a novice (or even professional) could misinterpret even "simple" gravitational theory and be led to totally mistaken conclusions.

Thanks to all for helping to fill in some of the gaps in my understanding.

Cheers,

Dave

 

[Cuddles]

In a couple of MacM's threads, there were discussions of the differences between point-source, smooth sphere, and cubes as regards the gravitational field produced by each. That was fascinating and totally new to me, and showed me one more of the many ways that a novice (or even professional) could misinterpret even "simple" gravitational theory and be led to totally mistaken conclusions.

Yeah, that's the sort of thing that doesn't get mentioned much outside of physics classes because it tends to get ridiculously complicated. Spheres are easy because they can mostly be treated like a point. Some other shapes, such as infinite planes and infinite cylinders are relatively simple to deal with. Once you start playing around with finite shapes and breaking symmetry, it all starts getting a bit silly.

I suppose it's an easy mistake to make if you've never been formally educated in that sort of thing, because it's not necessarily obvious just to think about. Although it does seem rather sad that someone who apparently has enough skill and knowledge to actually measure the differences knows so little about the theory behind it, and refuses to acknowledge it when it is explained.

 

[Beerina]

therefore proving that Einstein, the standard model, and all the physicists in in the world are not only wrong, but have conspired to keep the "truth" from being "revealed" outside their secret society. ISTR that s/he gave the name of some paper published that putatively proved by observational data that STR, GTR, QM, and everything else we think we know was a fabrication.

Lol, because no scientist in their right mind would want all the fame that goes with overthrowing relativity.

 

[CaveDave]

Yeah, that's the sort of thing that doesn't get mentioned much outside of physics classes because it tends to get ridiculously complicated. Spheres are easy because they can mostly be treated like a point. Some other shapes, such as infinite planes and infinite cylinders are relatively simple to deal with. Once you start playing around with finite shapes and breaking symmetry, it all starts getting a bit silly.

I noticed that when several (knowledgeable) posters were attempting to divine the general equations for a cube. Scary complex, to me!

I suppose it's an easy mistake to make if you've never been formally educated in that sort of thing, because it's not necessarily obvious just to think about. Although it does seem rather sad that someone who apparently has enough skill and knowledge to actually measure the differences knows so little about the theory behind it, and refuses to acknowledge it when it is explained.

I only know enough to know that stuff is stratospherically above my pay grade.

My understanding of calculus is mostly graphical, and trivial things like successive differentiation of "position" will yield "speed", "acceleration", and "jerk". (Is there anything that comes after that?) I can recognize an electronic integrator or differentiator when I see one (at least in op-amps), and I know that a Rogowski coil output needs to be integrated if you want to read current, and why the old-style Analog Computers used only integrators (in a loop to differentiate) because differentiators amplify noise too well. (Anyone not familiar with these amazing old machines should check out this PDF.) Beyond that, I have to take the word of people I trust DO know their stuff.

Cheers,

Dave

 

[CaveDave]

Lol, because no scientist in their right mind would want all the fame that goes with overthrowing relativity.

That made me laugh along with you, good take.

Dave

 

[BenBurch]

Tiny disagreements with expected results are very, very, very often the result of tiny systematic errors in the means of mensuration.

 

[Damien Evans]

There are some incredibly sensitive tests of GR using orbital dynamics in the solar system - everything from lunar ranging with lasers to gravity probe B to the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. GR has passed all of them, and many alternative theories have bit the dust.

Also, there is soon to be published a study confirming the frame dragging effect.

Einstein was right again.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2594259.htm

ETA: Oops, I see you did mention Gravity probe B. Oh well, it's still an interesting documentary.

 

[hokie]

An instance of GR being wrong was based on an unpublished manuscript written by someone in Canada. The paper was claimed as being published, but that turned out to be false. The paper basically claimed that the measurements of star positions taken during an eclipse in 1919 did not confirm relativity because the issue was actually that the sun's corona refracted the light.

 

[Dancing David]

Welcome Hokie, sounds like a Mozina Moment.

 

[CaveDave]

Tiny disagreements with expected results are very, very, very often the result of tiny systematic errors in the means of mensuration.

I'll bet that applies to MacM's experiment (from another thread) with the force balance where one mass had a hole through it. (Or maybe it was the gravity integrating problem mentioned above -- or both!)

Cheers,

Dave

 

[Tubbythin]

My understanding of calculus is mostly graphical, and trivial things like successive differentiation of "position" will yield "speed", "acceleration", and "jerk". (Is there anything that comes after that?)

"Jounce"