Posted on 02/20/2014 3:47:32 PM PST by Kevmo
http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml
According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a moving mass should create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its static gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first time and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts.
According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a moving mass should create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its static gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first time and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts.
This gravitomagnetic field is similar to the magnetic field produced by a moving electric charge (hence the name "gravitomagnetic" analogous to "electromagnetic"). For example, the electric charges moving in a coil produce a magnetic field - such a coil behaves like a magnet. Similarly, the gravitomagnetic field can be produced to be a mass moving in a circle. What the electric charge is for electromagnetism, mass is for gravitation theory (the general theory of relativity).
A spinning top weights more than the same top standing still. However, according to Einstein's theory, the difference is negligible. It should be so small that we shouldn't even be capable of measuring it. But now scientists from the European Space Agancy, Martin Tajmar, Clovis de Matos and their colleagues, have actually measured it. At first they couldn't believe the result.
"We ran more than 250 experiments, improved the facility over 3 years and discussed the validity of the results for 8 months before making this announcement. Now we are confident about the measurement," says Tajmar. They hope other physicists will now conduct their own versions of the experiment so they could be absolutely certain that they have really measured the gravitomagnetic field and not something else. This may be the first empiric clue for how to merge together quantum mechanics and general theory of relativity in a single unified theory.
"If confirmed, this would be a major breakthrough," says Tajmar, "it opens up a new means of investigating general relativity and its consequences in the quantum world."
The experiment involved a ring of superconducting material rotating up to 6 500 times a minute. According to quantum theory, spinning superconductors should produce a weak magnetic field. The problem was that Tajmar and de Matos experiments with spinning superconductors didn't seem to fit the theory - although in all other aspects the quantum theory gives incredibly accurate predictions. Tajmar and de Matos then had the idea that maybe the quantum theory wasn't wrong after all but that there was some additional effect overlapping over their experiments, some effect they neglected.
What could this other effect be? They thought maybe it's the gravitomagnetic field - the fact that the spinning top exerts a higher gravitational force. So, they placed around the spinning superconductor a series of very sensible acceleration sensors for measuring whether this effect really existed. They obtained more than they bargained for!
Although the acceleration produced by the spinning superconductor was 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, it is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts. Thus, the spinning top generated a much more powerful gravitomagnetic field than expected.
Now, it remains the need for a proper theory. Scientists can also now check whether candidate theories, such as the string theory, can describe this experiment correctly. Moreover, this experiment shows that gravitational waves should be much more easily to detect than previously thought.
Human science can only deal in provisional findings. Surprise, surprise![/sarcasm]
That is the way I understand C, as well. C was postulated to be a limiting property of electromagnetic radiation, etc, -- not of space-time and the universe in their entirety.
I am more pedestrian in my understanding.
Since it is Space*Time that is expanding faster than light, by which we measure time, basically we have “Space travelling faster than light” and “Time travelling faster than Light”. That 2nd component I find difficult — it is analogous to saying “Time travelling faster than Time”. So I narrow it down to “matter (space) travelling faster than time i.e. the speed of light.
To put it in the 2nd frame, it would be as if Matter were greater than Matter. Space*Time is greater than SPace. Space*time is greater than Time. Space*Time is~ Matter*Time is greater than Matter*SpeedOfLight — drop out time from the equation and you have Space is~ Matter is greater than Matter.
So it’s easier to truncate it to Matter travelling faster than the speed of light. That way I don’t have to deal with Time travelling faster than Time.
The experimenters claimed they measured an effect of 10-8 G, which was 1020 X larger than what they expected to measure. That means their accelerometers were expected to be capable of measuring an acceleration of 10-28 G.
~~~~~~~~~
It would seem that the way to get "surprisingly larger than expected" results is ...to start with absurdly small expectations!
~~~~~~~~~
The ONLY ONE who should be ashamed and who is putting superior airs and spreading insults on this thread appears to be you. . . and there is no need to use ad hominem attack and insults to make your repeated points. "Lesser forms of human beings" and "pal" will not get you far with me or any others if you want to get attention for your points. I have an IQ of over 150 and can read quite well, so quit repeating your same tired arguments. We already know what they are. I also tutored in mathematic, physics, and biology in college many years ago, so don't try to school me.Try addressing the points we make substantially, not just repeating the fact that the evidence in hand exists. . . not one of us has disputed that or the dates of those creatures. That makes them red herrings to the point at issue. Our evidence does as well. . . and is based in solid fact.
First of all, as pointed out on this thread numerous times we have fossils of four-legged land-critters which grew over your magical 20,000 lb. limit not only from the age of Dinosaurs (65+ mya) but also the Oligocene (circa 25 mya) and even the current Holocene (10,000 bp).
As to there being large animal in the fossil record? We very obviously know. Repetition does not improve your argument. . . Nor have you shown us any counter evidence to show anything disproving the cube/square law, the limits on the chemical engine that powers animal muscles. Instead you keep pointing out examples of NON-modern animals that are now extinct for unknown reasons as examples that exceed the theoretical one G maximum.
Bigger beasts require bigger bones -- there's no magic to it, no fantasy "weight limit" and no change in gravity required, just bigger bones & muscles.
You just continue to fail to grasp the cube-square law. . . Notice it is a "law."
The Cube-Square Law states the volume (and mass of a solid object) of a structure increases with the cube of its linear dimensions whereas its surface area increases with the square of its linear dimension. Not only is the Square Cube Law helpful with movie monsters, it's helpful with mathematical proportions, engineering, biomechanics, astronomy and other science categories filled with math.
It applies to any object that increases in size. As an animal doubles in size, BroJoeK, the area of its skin covered increases by the square as does the cross section of the area of muscle, the mass of bone and muscle increases by the CUBE. . . and the bones have to grow far larger than just double to support that mass. Very rapidly as that mass increases, the bones and muscles to move them must a priori become so large! that no muscles can move them. . . and the sheer amount of energy required plus blood flow with oxygen cannot be delivered. The total weight of the animal is actually somewhat less than the theoretical cube because the empty species inside—that weigh essentially nothing—such as lungs, empty bladders, intestines, nasal cavities, cysts, etc., also increase in size by the cube, but the principle is the same.
Second, all the calculations I've seen here are based on the weight lifting capacity of two-legged human beings, not four-legged slow-moving herbivorous beasts.
So, if you compare bone sizes of today's humans & elephants with those ancient beasts, you instantly see that they are scaled up to allow for their heavier weights. Bigger beasts require bigger bones -- there's no magic to it, no fantasy "weight limit" and no change in gravity required, just bigger bones & muscles.
Do you really think that two-legged human muscle four-legged human muscle are somehow qualitatively different? Bullpucky! If anything, millennia of evolution may have improved human joints but a trained human athlete practiced at lifting is better adapted and skilled at lifting his own and a dead weight than any wild animal, especially an athlete that has perhaps toned the muscles to the peak of its efficiency. We know where it stops working. We can also artificially stimulate muscle tissue electrically beyond what a willing human subject can make it to do and actually measure the physical force or work it can produce per square centimeter. This turns out to be close to the same regardless of species. There is only so much contraction the chemical reaction and strength of the fibers can produce over so much time. Those are the sticky things we call FACTS!
Third, real scientists (not phony-baloney nonsense peddlers) have actually studied this question, doing computer models based on sizes & weights estimated, and found them to work just fine, even up to 100 tons.
And, the problem over 100 tons is not bones or muscles, but rather joint strength, a matter about which the fossil record necessarily says very little.
No, they have not. Show me how a 65 foot neck made of bone, sinew and muscle weighing 50,000 pounds or so can be supported cantilevered at one G much less lifted and maneuvered quickly through a wide range of motion. Now demonstrate moving large amounts of low-grade carbohydrate vegetable matter down a 70 foot esophagus in sufficient quantities to supply. 100-200 ton body on a daily basis while moving that body around to forage FOR that large amount of vegetable matter. Frankly, it really has not been considered in depth. It's been assumed as possible. . . Because we have the prima facie evidence of the existence of the fossils.
BroJoeK, research and the math has been done on this but if YOU want to look the other way and sweep this under the rug, fine. It is cutting edge questions such as this where REAL science is made. Not where YOU ARE, assuming that it's all been discovered. In light of these emerging data and problems with the issues of muscle energy, Paleontologists are trying to lighten their estimates of the weights of these animals. . . but no matter how hard they try, they cannot lighten them enough. There is no such thing as "settled science" but they don't want to rewrite the text books. . . and have to rethink the steady state cosmology this would require.
Think about it Sir_Ed, the same chemical engine powers that ant's muscles as powers ours, albeit a lot smaller. However, the energy per square centimeter or millimeter is the same, but it is applied to a gnat's whisker instead of to a lot more mass.
I know of no accelerometer of any form, with a 1020 or greater dynamic measurement range.
***Thank you for verifying my claim.
Hence, I expect that the measurement was of some other [spurious] variable (probably electrical signal in nature) — rather than acceleration due to a gravity-like field.
***That means you’re looking for a propogation of errors. Perhaps one that starts out at 3 Orders Of Magnitude (OOMs), then propogates upwards 17 times, or maybe several parallel 3 OOM errors that propogate upwards only a few times. Again, that would make these experimentalists EXTREMELY stupid, right? Because they did the experiment 250 times.
The experimenters claimed they measured an effect of 10-8 G, which was 1020 X larger than what they expected to measure. That means their accelerometers were expected to be capable of measuring an acceleration of 10-28 G.
***Nope. Wrong. BZZZZZZZZT. If they KNEW they couldn’t measure an acceleration of 10^-28 G, but decided to look at this experiment ANYWAYS, and found MEASURABLE RESULTS at the level they COULD measure, then that DOES NOT mean “ their accelerometers were expected to be capable of measuring an acceleration of 10-28 G.” Basically, what you just posted was an invalid fallacy known as the argument from silence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It would seem that the way to get Post-Grad-Level scientists to stop posting freshman level fallacies is to.... give up that expectation!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Third, real scientists (not phony-baloney nonsense peddlers)
***I see this argument over and over again. It’s baloney.
If someone has a PhD in a field, they should be proud of it and post out in the open rather than anonymously. The reason they don’t is because they know they might be proven wrong, and their livelihood is placed in jeopardy.
That is the whole reason why Fellowships were established. So scientists could pursue whatever they wanted without being hounded out of their profession. But that has simply not been the case with several fields such as LENR. Science is in complete disarray because scientists cannot be trusted.
If they KNEW they couldn’t measure an acceleration of 10^-28 G, but decided to look at this experiment ANYWAYS, and found MEASURABLE RESULTS at the level they COULD measure, then that DOES NOT mean “ their accelerometers were expected to be capable of measuring an acceleration of 10-28 G.”
***Here’s an analogy to work with, although I do not expect anyone claiming to be a scientist on this thread to actually address the analogy as it stands. Typically, they ignore the analogy, try to introduce their own, or so mangle it as to be unrecognizable in its original form. We shall see.
We see a swarm of mosquitoes near an elephant. For some reason, randomly every few seconds, a mosquito goes straight for the elephant and bounces off his side. Someone notices this behavior and points a microphone at the elephant’s side to record whatever they can record. Surprisingly, they can hear the mosquitoes bounce off the elephant at 100 yards. Someone goes out a mile and points the recorder at the elephant, aligns and proves that the bounce noise is coherent with their signal and records it. Then they go out to 2 miles. They KNOW that all the ambient noise around them should obscure the mosquito-vs-elephant clash, but they correlate it. 250 times. From 2 MILES. It’s an astonishing experiment.
The standard scientific response so far seems to be: It’s obviously wrong. It’s due to measurement error. It can’t be, so it isn’t. But the scientific response is NOT: I can prove how they made the error; I can prove it’s bogus because of such&such effect; I can prove it’s bogus because I watched a particular episode of Big Bang Theory and recorded someone turning on the garbage disposal each time a mosquito hit the elephant.
All of those things impose size limits and not just for dinosaurs. The size limit for pretty nearly every sort of thing was substantially greater in the recent past. Ten thousand years ago (by stand reckoning of time) there was a 2500 lb bear in California, a 1500 lb lion, a 700 lb beaver in Minnesota...
But the worst problem involved the necks of the diplodocids (the sauropods which held their necks outwards). For something like a seismosaur, you could easily be looking at a neck which was 50+ ft. long and weighed 50,000 lbs. If the center of gravity of that neck was even 15' from the shoulders, you'c be talking about 750,000 foot pounds of torque, and trying to hold that with muscle tissue...
That's basically crazy. To my knowledge, there is no screw or bolt on anything in the world which requires more than a few thousand foot pounds of torque. The only thing in the world which would correspond to half a million foot pounds of torque or anything like that would be the combined max torque of all of the engines of the Yamato or the Musashi or some such.
"The "bumblebees can't fly" canard has been debunked for years. No aeronautic engineer EVER claimed that. It's an old wives tail. So don't pull that chestnut out of your hat.
They had to drop the neck to parallel to the ground, again because of the issues brought up by the people YOU ARE DENIGRATING, trying any way possible to limit the damage and find answers, after years of saying the long necked dinosaurs first developed the long neck to (1) keep their heads above water as they lived in water to support their weight; then, (2) developed the long neck as an adaptation to be able to forage for leaves from tall trees, lifting their heads up into the upper branches to better compete against the grazing dinosaurs, and now, (3) being denied the ability to lift their heads because of the gravity/BP issues, the long neck/tails are weapons for territory mating battles as well as swinging back and forth in a scythe like grazing pattern, ignoring the coniferous forest environment these animals seemed to inhabit that would block such swings.
Ok, let's grant you the latest theory, ignoring the fact that the bone structure of the necks appear to be designed to both lift and swing, and keep the neck parallel to the ground. I told you I've studied this. Pump the blood down the legs and back to the heart. You said 24 feet high? Right? Heart would be center of the chest cavity. . . For just front legs it's about 18 feet to toes, 36 feet round trip, if it were that simple, then it's 20 feet to pelvis and then 18 to back feet and 96 feet round trip to and back. It just isn't the neck. The heart muscles generates heat. Moving generates heat. Fill capillaries in hundreds of square feet of skin to dissipate that heat. That's one hell of a lot of pumping at some humongous pressure. All against one G. The oxygen levels, if they are legitimate and not an artifact of chemical action, cannot account for increases in the efficiency of the chemical engine. It's not possible. If it were, oxygen doping of athletes would work wonders. It doesn't.
You really haven't a clue on the issues.
You really don't know what you're talking about, spouting the company line.
They also tell us that bumblebees can’t fly.
This proves nothing about those critters, only that some aeronautical engineers are freeekin’ idiots.
***Actually, the fact that you introduce this “bumblebees can’t fly” nonsense tells us more about you than anything else. That Urban Legend was debunked long ago when the ASSUMPTION of flat wings was quickly proven wrong. Anyone looking at bumblebee wings under a microscope can see how wrong it is. I wrote a paper about it in college. Thanks for bringing up the memories.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions
The flight mechanism and aerodynamics of the bumblebee (as well as other insects) are actually quite well understood, in spite of the urban legend that calculations show that they should not be able to fly. In the 1930s, the French entomologist Antoine Magnan, using flawed techniques, indeed postulated that bumblebees theoretically should not be able to fly in his book Le Vol des Insectes (The Flight of Insects).[153] Magnan later realized his error and retracted the suggestion. However, the hypothesis became generalized to the false notion that “scientists think that bumblebees should not be able to fly”.
More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumblebee#Misconceptions
According to 20th century folklore, the laws of aerodynamics prove that the bumblebee should be incapable of flight, as it does not have the capacity (in terms of wing size or beats per second) to achieve flight with the degree of wing loading necessary. .... John McMasters... has found was a reference in the 1934 book Le vol des insectes by French entomologist Antoine Magnan (1881–1938); they had applied the equations of air resistance to insects and found that their flight was impossible, but that “One shouldn’t be surprised that the results of the calculations don’t square with reality”.[46]
The following passage appears in the introduction to Le Vol des Insectes:
....
First prompted by what is done in aviation, I applied the laws of air resistance to insects, and I arrived, with Mr. Sainte-Laguë, at this conclusion that their flight is impossible.
....
The calculations that purported to show that bumblebees cannot fly are based upon a simplified linear treatment of oscillating aerofoils. The method assumes small amplitude oscillations without flow separation. This ignores the effect of dynamic stall (an airflow separation inducing a large vortex above the wing) which briefly produces several times the lift of the aerofoil in regular flight. More sophisticated aerodynamic analysis shows that the bumblebee can fly because its wings encounter dynamic stall in every oscillation cycle.[49]
Additionally, John Maynard Smith, a noted biologist with a strong background in aeronautics, has pointed out that bumblebees would not be expected to sustain flight, as they would need to generate too much power given their tiny wing area. However, in aerodynamics experiments with other insects he found that viscosity at the scale of small insects meant that even their small wings can move a very large volume of air relative to the size, and this reduces the power required to sustain flight by an order of magnitude.[50]
Another description of a bee’s wing function is that the wings work similarly to helicopter blades, “reverse-pitch semirotary helicopter blades”.
Bees beat their wings approximately 200 times a second. Their thorax muscles do not expand and contract on each nerve firing but rather vibrate like a plucked rubber band. This is efficient, since it lets the system consisting of muscle and wing operate at its resonant frequency, leading to low energy consumption. Further, it is necessary, since nerves cannot fire 200 times per second. These types of muscles are called asynchronous muscles[51] and are often found in insect wings.
Real scientists, not crackpots, really demolishing your anti-scientific piffle.
The square/cube law, like the Young Earther's typical, thoroughly hilarious, misapplication of the Second Law of Thermodyanmics, does not "prove" anything.
Yes, I know... I was trying to get our friend to get to square one (pun) before going on. I believe I mentioned the moment arm on the neck which is what I was alluding to. I once calculated the forces on a dinosaurs neck for one of our other skeptics on another thread and you're absolutely correct. The materials of the neck made of bone (Hydroxyl apatite) and tendons simply could not do it. Bone has a tensile strength of about 52MPa (megaPascals) or about 7500 Pound per Square Inch. . . It wouldn't be too many cantilevered feet out before the leverage weight of a 50,000 pound neck on a single cervical vertebra would be greater than the bone structure could support at one G, to say nothing of the soft tissue between the vertebrae or the tendons and muscles to move the neck. Try holding your arm out with a five pound weight and see how long you can hold out.
When a bird's wing increases in size, the muscles and bones required to support it and particularly to FLAP the wings, have to be commensurately stronger, hence thicker and longer, changing the form factor of the bird. I.e. A deeper chest and wishbone. The cube-law. . . Greater weight means more wing to support that muscles, then more muscle. . . Means more wing. . . More muscle. . . And on and on until the wing cannot lift the bird. . . Diminishing returns unless there is a more efficient muscle. There isn't.
To compare them to condors would be like comparing flying squirrels to bats or 747s to spaceships. That was my only point.
Indeed. Thank you for sharing your understanding, dear brother in Christ!
Matter would have been contained at space/time coordinates within the continuum so that when the continuum expanded faster than the speed of light in the very early universe, the matter contained therein would be carried along the coordinates.
Cross disciplinary investigation can result in such upsets to a lot of Safe little Applecarts. Note that it was an entomologist who claimed that "bumblebees can't fly," not aeronautic engineers. It is exactly what is going on here. Bio-engineers are telling Paleontologists that they have a severe problem with their theories of how dinosaurs could have existed and it has some severe implications for a lot of other sciences including archaeology, nuclear physics, plasma physics, mythology, cosmology, astronomy, and even the life cycle of stars! The evidence for its truth is mounting daily. The logic that flows is amazing. . . and extremely disruptive. It involves scientists from all those disciplines including Nobel laureates.
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.