Posted on 09/13/2006 10:57:52 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Cool beans. :-)
Will be an exciting day. :-)
In general, no. But humor doesn't come through very well sometimes. It's often hard to tell the difference between a joke and simple ignorance. So I assume people are being serious. Since you apparently weren't, I retract the statement.
It is close to 90 millionths of a second and the ratio of the observed and predicted values is 1.0001 +/- 0.0005 - a precision of 0.05%.
Did you mean the other 0.05%? The headline is misleading. Apparently the observed values were dispersed because of measurement of error. Some percentage (68%, 95%?) were in the range of between 0.9996 and 1.0006 of the theoretical value.
The situation is a little complicated, but for the sake of argument, say that Einstein perdicted 100 microseconds of Shapiro delay. The experiment is repeated once every 2.4 hours for three years. The average delay is 100.01, with values dispersed above and below. If the population is normally distributed with a standard deviation of 0.05 microseconds, we would say that ratio of measured to expected was 1.0001 +/- 0.0005. Not bad really. It doesn't mean that Einstein got .05% wrong, only that if he was wrong the experiment did not have enough sensitivity to detect the error.
The above was greatly simplified for the purposes of illustration, of course. In the first place, the delay can probably measured with enormous accuracy, much better than a nansecond. The uncertainty surely lies in the estimates of GR model parameters, that is in the application of the theory. The uncertainty isn't in the measured delay, but in figuring out what GR predicts.
If you're interested you can read Shapiro's own original treatment in Radar Astronomy, Evans and Hagfors (Editors), McGraw-Hill, 1968. Shapiro wrote chapter 3, see especially 3-2B, "Effects of General Relativity". A cracking good yarn!
I put a smile sign at the end of my comment so humorless people could tell I was kidding. I guess I will have to do something else in the future, maybe spell out in big words "i AM JOKING".
I believe it's in a very limited, if not banned area for any and all broadcasting. In other words, it's
a pretty quiet place in terms of man-made transmissions.
IIRC, it started out as an NSA site, and as technology advanced, the NSA no longer needed it, and it transitioned to radioastronomy along the way.
I think at one point, the land was supposed to be traded with somebody, and that's when Byrd seized the
opportunity to have yet another thing named after himself, using public funds.
ROTFL! Hey, he wants his name to live forever, doesn't he?
The first observational evidence for gravity waves.
This is an historic occasion!
I'll always remember where I was when I saw the first reports of evidence for gravity waves.
I still remember where I was when I heard that the Z particle had been discovered. I was sitting at home and had just opened a fresh bag of Doritos...
So, does this impact the hypothesis that there's an aspect of gravity that only shows up at very large distances, or is 2000 light-years still too close and/or 0.05% error bars too big to say?
I don't think that's part of this. But I'll let the smart guys give their more worthy opinions.
You mean they haven't? I couldn't tell when I was driving the Robert C. Byrd memorial highway (I-77) or stopping at the Robert C. Byrd memorial rest areas...
In all seriousness, a churchmate of mine in Michigan is a steelworker and worked on the construction of that telescope. Big honkin' sucker.
There are quite a few copies on the used market, many under $50.00.
See Bookfinder.com.
One is as low as $16.99.
*laugh* Yah. President Reagan once said that a tax is the nearest thing to immortality in the fed govt. I think that a deficit is really close though :)
I figure the Congress will get the deficit under control about the day after the universe ends.
Actually, my first thought was, "So there ARE gravity waves! If we can find em, we can control 'em!" As in anti-gravity :)
No theory in science (physics, chemistry, biology, or any other) is ever proven. All a scientist can do is collect experimental data. If the experimental data is close to what the theory predicts, you can say that the data supports the theory (or hypothesis). This is inductive reasoning, not a proof.
This is a point of confusion in most people who are not scientists. Unfortunately, scientists do not help to clarify how they work. I suppose they want people to think they are right, and that is supposed to end any arguments.
Some do take the trouble, usually after they have done their major work in their discipline. There are plenty of books available already that explain how it works and what the limitations are. Michael Polanyi was particularly good at this.
Yes, you are right. Some scientist do take the trouble to explain how science works. But how many write for the general public rather than for their fellow specialists? I would say not a lot.
A large part of the problem is also journalists who don't take the time to explain things adequately in a news story. There is some experiment and the headline becomes: "Scientists Prove XYZ Theory."
Yes, you are right. Some scientist do take the trouble to explain how science works. But how many write for the general public rather than for their fellow specialists? I would say not a lot.
A large part of the problem is also journalists who don't take the time to explain things adequately in a news story. There is some experiment and the headline becomes: "Scientists Prove XYZ Theory."
And then there the science-deniers who will not believe anything that goes against their preconceived ideas, no matter how well documented. We see a lot of this lately from some creationists, although there still a few geocentrists and flat-earthers still around.
Speaking of which, has anyone started a suicide watch for a certain Freeper who shall remain nameless?
Or removed any rope-like material from the belfry?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.