A couple of pertinent quotes

There’s a couple of quotes from Ernest Rutherford that I’ve kept in my head. Today seems like a good day to take them out of my head and put them to the WUWT readership. I’ll refer back to these at some point in the future I’m sure.

An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid.  - As quoted in Einstein: The Man and His Achievement (1973) by G. J. Whitrow, p. 42

“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” – As quoted in many Internet sources.

With thanks to Evan.

Dr. Kevin Trenberth is also a New Zealander, but there’s light years separating him and Rutherford when it comes to how they view science and statistics. One was a model scientist, and the other is a scientist who models.

UPDATE: here is another -

“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.” – Samuel Clemens


About these ads

102 thoughts on “A couple of pertinent quotes

  1. Richard Feinstein was also a great scientist, but he probably could explain Physics to pole dancers.

  2. Rutherford is one of the greats, but I agree with Dr Bob and Bernie-

    Feynman is my role model. During the Shuttle Challenger investigation-

    “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”

    It is so pertinent and utterly descriptive of what is wrong with the “science” of CAGW…it meandered onto the bottom of my emails while I spent time on the Shuttle Program for the last several years up until its completion. A great man, a great scientist and he has a lot of great quotes.

  3. I’ll give it a go,

    `In climate science, introductions, briefings and executive summaries must be summarily ignored in favor of the underlying text they almost invariably distort.”

    A very good example is the Nature editorial, “Bolstering the link,” which introduces Shakun as helping Al Gore. The editorialist sounds like a child saying “nyah, nyah,” or someone worried his government or NSF grants to spread “climate education” are threatened. Or is he a Brit scared the whole Brit financed system tethered on carbon derivatives and “green” scams could fail???

    I believe the editorial is a “must read” for humor purposes, and also as an example of how publishers or commentators see what they want to see.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/484005a.html

  4. Dr. Bob says:
    April 8, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    “Richard Feinstein…”

    +++++++++++++
    “Feynman” maybe…?

  5. Feinstein was probably a great physicist but I’ll bet Richard Feynman was even better and he did hang out at a topless joint.

  6. Richard Feinstein was a physicist? Who knew? There was quite a famous physicist named Richard Feynman who was apparently very good at teaching as well. Maybe all “Richards” are good teachers.

  7. Dr. Bob said @ April 8, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    Richard Feinstein was also a great scientist, but he probably could explain Physics to pole dancers.

    Dunno about Mr Feinstein, but Richard Feynman spent considerable amounts of time with pole dancers IIRC :-)

  8. Pole dancers and bongos sound more like Dr Feynman, but I am not familiar with Dr Feinstein.

  9. Dr. Bob says:
    April 8, 2012 at 6:10 pm
    Richard Feinstein was also a great scientist, but he probably could explain Physics to pole dancers.

    I looked up Richard Feinstein. He’s the guy in charge of anti-trust cases at the Federal Trade Commission. As a Democrat appointee, the pole dancer thing makes sense to me. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/04/14/meet-richard-feinstein-the-new-antitrust-head-at-the-ftc/.

    Perhaps the guy you were thinking of was Richard Feynman, However, I would imagine his mind would tend toward charged particles dancing around magnetic poles, or perhaps magnetic monopoles. And he probably could have explained those ideas to barmaids.

  10. “They can do this because the same gift is at work here in both having that idea and explaining it. They have a facility to pick out a pattern, natural law or idea from what most of us would see as the jumbled confusion of reality. Being able to express those observations clearly is just the corollary of that big talent. They can make out that big idea because they think clearly and expressing themselves clearly follows just as naturally.”

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/words-ideas-primary-sources-history-and-a-bit-thrown-in-about-writers/

    Pointman

  11. I hope this is not casting aspersions on the art and skill of pole dancing. I have great respect and ahem admiration for such skill.

  12. Richard Feinstein was also a great scientist, but he probably could explain Physics to pole dancers.

    Surely you’re joking.

  13. I would apologise for Trenberth, had I any standing to do so. No apologies for Rutherford who is on our $100 bill.

  14. “if you can’t laugh at yourself then you will be the only one not laughing”

    Luke K 2004

  15. I feel it is my duty to solicit grants in order that I may personally, and at great peril, visit said bars and pole dancing establishments in order that I may seek out barmaids and pole dancers who may, in fact, have met Dr.’s Feinstein or Feynman and establish whether or not any such explanations were attempted and if they were understood.

    Please send money to PO Box 33……

  16. Rutherford was not just the greatest physicist the bottom end of the planet has produced, he was the greatest physicist of his age. He studied the fundamental nature of matter, in you face physics; the Nobel Panel therefore gave him the prize for Chemistry
    He hated chemistry.

  17. Richard Feinstein, Richard Feynman, etc. The big problem with AGW is too few Richards, too many dicks.

  18. Thanks for correcting my mistake. Spent too much time on computers today reloading after a virus attack. SMART HDD is nasty.
    Bob

  19. Allencic says:
    April 8, 2012 at 6:28 pm
    Feinstein was probably a great physicist but I’ll bet Richard Feynman was even better and he did hang out at a topless joint.
    ——————————————————–
    I can’t imagine wanting to see Richard Feynman topless.

  20. “Climate science” is a non-empirical discipline akin to botany– a classificatory, fact-gathering enterprise immune to falsification via conjecture-hypothesis-theoretical validation. So “models” incorporating Big Government lampreys’ circular presuppositions loom very large… as Piers Corbyn says, academics’ vaunted super-computers enable only more and faster errors, discredited by trivial resort to a hand-calculator.

    Don’t mess with Prospero: When peculating public-sector grants run dry, CAGW advocates and all their works will “vanish into air, into thin air,” while Sol’s Grand Minimum runs its 70-year course preparatory to an overdue resurgence of Pleistocene Ice Time. Then “all that … (Warmists may) inherit shall dissolve / “And like … (their) insubstantial pageant faded, / “Leave nor a wrack behind.”

    Can’t happen soon enough.

  21. My favourite Rutherford quote is from a sign in his lab that read

    “We haven’t got the money so we’re going to have to think.”

    Very pertinent to us here in Kiwiland, a long way away from the big science budgets and multi-million dollar government grants. In fact we have to export our most infamous scientists to find them; I’m thinking of Kevin Trenberth. The better ones we like to keep, like Chris de Frietas. :-)

  22. Richard Feynman could NOT explain magnets to . . . any normal human.
    Look and listen:

  23. DocMartyn – indeed Rutherford said somehting like, “physics is the only science…the rest is all just stamp collecting”. So they gave him a Nobel Prize for Chemistry. That’ll show him!

  24. “Scientists have odious manners, except when you prop up their theory; then you can borrow money from them.” – Mark Twain

  25. @RobertL As a keen stamp collector, I dream of finding grandpas’ collections from the 1930s in a shoebox in the attic of homes somewhere in the world. So, all you avid readers, plrease contact me if you do have an old collection in the attic, especially of quality (mint) Australian stamps. sherro1 at optusnet dot com dot au
    p.s. I’m a Chemist, did not quite get a Nobel prize because I spent too much time with Physicists, many of whom were marginally sane.

  26. For science qotes, “Eleven plus Two” is an anagram for “Twelve plus One”. That’s a nice one for a narrow sector of interests.

  27. “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”.

    I think Feynman said that and it sure makes sense.

  28. So does no one browse through the comments to avoid making the same correction over, and over, and over again?

    Bit of schadenfreude going on here, or what?

  29. Nothing to see here…move along:

    In the realm of science it happens every hour that someone stands immediately before the solution of a problem convinced that all his efforts have been in vain like one untying a bow who, at just the moment before it is about to come apart, hesitates: for it is precisely then that it looks most like a knot. Frederich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human 1878)

    Whoever is not temperate with regard to the delights of the world should shun the studies of any art or science whatsoever, seeing that such pleasures and study can never agree well together. Giorgio Vasari (Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects 1568)

    Conscience is the inner voice that warns us that someone might be looking. H. L. Mencken

    It has been a bitter mortification for me to digest the conclusion that the race is for the strong’ and that I shall probably do little more but be content to admire the strides others made in science. Charles Darwin

    Thou goest beyond them: but the higher thou dost mount, the smaller thou seemest to the eye of envy. But he that hath wings is most hated. Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathrusta 1891)

    Man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Ayn Rand (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal 1946)

    They will say you are on the wrong road, if it is your own. Antonio Porchia

    We always have the dolts and appearances against us. Frederich Nietsche (Beyond Good and Evil. 1886)

    Wilt thou be solitary, my brother? Wilt thou seek the way alone? Tarry yet a while and hearken unto thee. He that seeketh may go astray. All solitude is sin,’ saith the herd. And long wast thou thyself of the herd. The voice of the herd yet lingereth within thee. And when thou woudst say, I have no longer a common conscience with you’, it shall be grief and pain unto you. Lo, this pain was itself born of that common conscience. And the last flicker of that conscience shineth in thine affliction. But wilt thou tread the way of thine affliction, which is the way unto thyself? Show me, then, thy right and thy power so to do! Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathrusta 1891)

    All the sick and sickly instinctively strive after a herd organization as a means of shaking off their dull displeasure and feeling of weakness…. The strong are as naturally inclined to separate as the weak are to congregate; if the former unite together, it is only with the aim of an aggressive collective action and collective satisfaction of their will to power, and with much resistance from the individual conscience; the latter, on the contrary, enjoy precisely this coming together their instinct is just as much satisfied by this as the instinct of the born masters (that is, the solitary, beast-of-pray species of man) is fundamentally irritated and disquieted by organization. Frederich Nietzsche (On the Geneology of Morals 1887)

    The way in which we are educated nowadays means that we acquire a second nature: and we have it when the world calls us mature, of age, employable. A few of us are sufficiently snakes one day to throw off this skin, and to do so when beneath its covering their first nature has grown mature. With most of us, its germ has dried up. Frederich Nietzsche (Daybreak 1881)

    When I was a child, my little friends would often say, When I grow up, I’m going to be…, I never said that. I couldn’t picture myself in the future. I wasn’t concerned. I really couldn’t imagine myself as one of those big people around who were grown up. Federico Fellini (I, Fellini)

    During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen and commenced as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent of all acts of stupidity. Frederich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human 1878)

    When a poet is not in love with reality his muse will consequently not be reality, and she will then bear him hollow-eyed and fragile-limbed children. Frederich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human 1878)

    We are none of us that which we appear to be in accordance with the states for which alone we have consciousness and words…. Frederich Nietzsche (Daybreak 1881)

    Both love and fortune befriend the bold. Ovid

    Who loves not women, wine, and song
    Remains a fool his whole life long. Martin Luther

    He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. St. John (The Bible)

    A great gulf separates the knowledge of the obvious from the actual living of it. Aldous Huxley (Point Counter Point 1928)

    Remember that you are the #1 expert in your business. Nobody has the feel for it that you do. And you must never let a hired gun talk you into doing something that feels totally wrong to you. Trust your instincts. Dan S. Kennedy (The Ultimate Marketing Plan 1991)

    In this world there is always danger for those who are afraid of it. George Bernard Shaw

    Next to the crime of oppressing the people, the worst crime is to accept oppression. Napoleon Bonaparte

    We should strive to have a heart that can see things as they truly are. Even a simple problem can become complicated if we let our personal desires influence it…. But seeing the truth is not enough. To uphold the truth, we must have enough courage to jump into a fire. If we see things as they are and are willing to sacrifice ourselves, there is no real problem we cannot eventually overcome. Kazuo Inamori (A Passion for Success 1995)

    Show me a hero and I will write you a tragedy. F. Scott Fitzgerald

    Fearful as reality is, it is less fearful than evasions of reality…. Look steadfastly into the slit, pin-pointed malignant eyes of reality as an old hand trainer dominates his wild beasts. Caitlin Thomas

    You cannot get ahead based on how thing should work; you have to get ahead based on how thing actually work. Dan S. Kennedy (No Rules 1998)

    By a deeper apprehension, and not primarily by a pinful acquisition of many manual skills, the artist attains the power of awakening other souls to a given activity. Emerson (History essay)

    Would you learn to draw? Learn first to think and feel intensely. Vernon Blake (The Art and Craft of Drawing 1927)

    -=NYC=- 2012

  30. Geoff Sherrington says: April 8, 2012 at 9:11 pm

    So don’t contact you if Grandma’s stamp collection is in the attic?

  31. @ RobertL
    I believe the Rutherford stamp related quote is

    “That which is not measurable is not science. That which is not physics is stamp collecting.”

  32. Well Anthony, it just so happens that I photographed a number of famous statements by famous New Zealanders, three weeks ago, on an office building wall in Downtown Auckland.

    Another Rutherford quote. “We don’t have money, so we have to think. “

  33. Having worked in a pub for many years, I can honestly say that many barmaids are as bright a bunch of people you could wish to meet. On the other hand, there are many who couldn’t find their arse with both hands, (so I had to do it for them).

  34. One of my favourite quotes is from Niels Bohr.

    When a student of his saw a horseshoe nailed above his door.

    He said, “You don’t believe in that nonsense, do you?”

    To which Niels responded, “They tell me it works, whether you believe in it or not.”

  35. Antony said: One was a model scientist, and the other is a scientist who models.One was a model scientist, and the other is a scientist who models.

    Depends on how you define a scientist. If that is somebody in search for the physical truth and how nature works, using the scientific method, you may find that one of them is not a scientist, regardless of PhD’s Ms, BsC etc etc

  36. I have painted a picture of a clock. Do you know it is actually tells the right time twice a day!

  37. “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”
    Nikola Tesla

  38. Crikey Anthony you really did take the cork out of the bottle! Anyway here’s another to ponder, one I like from Thomas Huxley:

    The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.

  39. “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.” — Mark Twain

    (Whereas, science is proving what you know ain’t so.)

  40. Living near Bangkok I am very in touch with pole dancers and bongos. Physicists I am not.

  41. “No theory is carved in stone. Science is merciless when it comes to testing all theories over and over, at any time, in any place. Unlike religion or politics, science is ultimately decided by experiments, done repeatedly in every form. There are no sacred cows. In science, 100 authorities count for nothing. Experiment counts for everything.” – Michio Kaku, a professor of theoretical physics at City College of New York

  42. John F. Hultquist says:
    April 8, 2012 at 8:56 pm

    Richard Feynman could NOT explain magnets to . . . any normal human.
    Look and listen:===========
    ta for the clip.
    and sorry but he could IF? the person asking had even the most basic science education..
    which that reporter to his shame..obviously had NOT!

  43. An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid. – As quoted in Einstein: The Man and His Achievement (1973) by G. J. Whitrow, p. 42

    Don’t recall it as this, but as ‘if you can’t explain it to the cleaner you don’t understand it.’

    So…, http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fjwkh/why_exactly_can_nothing_go_faster_than_the_speed/c1gh4x7?utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=10%20Things%20In%20Tech%20You%20Need%20To%20Know&utm_campaign=10ThingsTech_NL_022211

    What looks like it’s going to be a brilliantly simple explanation, however, I don’t understand it, I’ve got stuck here:

    “… That’s how it is to move through our universe. You’ve got a steering wheel, but no throttle. When you sit there at apparent rest, you’re really careening toward the future at top speed. But when you get up to put the kettle on, you change your direction of motion through spacetime, but not your speed of motion through spacetime. So as you move through space a bit more quickly, you find yourself moving through time a bit more slowly.”

    No you don’t, says I, you’re still moving through time just as quickly – because everything is moving at that speed. Turning around to face the back of the train isn’t changing the speed you’re travelling on the train. This arrows and axis explanation, as follows from that excerpt, makes the jump to ‘therefore you slow down time by change of direction’ without any logical, to me, joining of parts. The arrow is still travelling at the same speed, it’s an illusion created by transferring it to two dimensions. Isn’t it?

    “You can visualize this by imagining a pair of axes drawn on a sheet of paper. The axis that runs up and down is the time axis, and the upward direction points toward the future. The horizontal axis represents space. We’re only considering one dimension of space, because a piece of paper only has two dimensions total and we’re all out, but just bear in mind that the basic idea applies to all three dimensions of space.”

    Which way you’re facing or moving about doesn’t change the speed of going into the future, any more than sitting still on a train in the station, because everything is still moving at that speed.

    I’ve just cleaned your table and poured you a drink. Go for it.

    “There is no doubt that creativity is the most important human resource of all. Without creativity, there would be no progress, and we would be forever repeating the same patterns.”

    — Edward de Bono

  44. Roger Bacon got there earlier. Around 800 years earlier. He fought the Scholastic thinkers of the 11th Century, insisting that it wasn’t enough to have a good argument – they must also show their findings were true by reference to actual data and experiment. This was in direct contradiction to the view of the academics of the day, who believed that knowledge proceeded from revelation out of sacred scriptures, and so he was locked up in the March of Ancona for 13 years. Forgotten now, he proposed and predated our technological world by some 500 years…

    “The strongest arguments prove nothing so long as the conclusions are not verified by experience. Experimental science is the queen of sciences and the goal of all speculation.”
    “Reasoning draws a conclusion, but does not make the conclusion certain, unless the mind discovers it by the path of experience.”
    “Argument is conclusive, but it does not remove doubt, so that the mind may rest in the sure knowledge of the truth, unless it finds it by the method of experiment.”

  45. Yup. All the “science”-based problems afflicting the world today rely on statistics to do their evil work.

    Not just the Carbon Cult, but quantum “physics”, economics, education, “diversity” powered by sociology, and political campaigns. All are based on transparent nonsense; all would immediately collapse if required to use plain facts; all use stats to confuse the masses, enrich the rich, and empower the powerful.

  46. In 1995 the National Academy of Sciences and others produced an essay entitled ON BEING A SCIENTIST RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT IN RESEARCH, in which they wrote:

    “… picking out reliable data from a mass of confusing and sometimes contradictory observations can be extremely difficult….If someone is not forthcoming about the procedures used to derive a new result, the validation of that result by others will be hampered.”

    James Maxwell Clerk described barmaids as laymen:

    “Mathematicians may flatter themselves that they possess new ideas which mere human language is as yet unable to express. Let them make the effort to express these ideas in appropriate words without the aid of symbols, and if they succeed they will not only lay us laymen under a lasting obligation, but, we venture to say, they will find themselves very much enlightened during the process, and will even be doubtful whether the ideas as expressed in symbols had ever quite found their way out of the equations into their minds. ”

    WUWT is exceptional at explaining complex issues of climate and weather with us ‘barmaids’ :o}

  47. Matt in Houston says:

    April 8, 2012 at 6:21 pm

    Feynman, my idol. Such a brilliant lecturer and scientist. A lot of what he had to say about NASA got lost by the media. Quite what he would say today about NASA heaven only knows.

    The sad thing is that there is not one single scientist of his ilk left on the planet.

  48. pwl says:

    April 9, 2012 at 3:36 am
    “No theory is carved in stone. Science is merciless when it comes to testing all theories over and over, at any time, in any place. Unlike religion or politics, science is ultimately decided by experiments, done repeatedly in every form. There are no sacred cows. In science, 100 authorities count for nothing. Experiment counts for everything.” – Michio Kaku, a professor of theoretical physics at City College of New York

    This is the guy that works for the BBC frequently. He is a supporter of AGW even though he repeatedly says the phrase above. Hypocrite ? Forgetful? Misunderstood ? I don’t know but maybe the money is useful.

  49. “John F. Hultquist says:April 8, 2012 at 8:56 pm”

    Watching that video, I started to wonder – is Bill in Kill Bill based on Feynman?

  50. I like most of Heinlein’s quotes, but here’s a gem:

    I never learned from a man who agreed with me.
    Robert A. Heinlein

  51. One more Feynman quote: “The scientist does not try to avoid showing the theory is wrong; there is excitement and progress in the exact opposite. The scientist tries to prove himself wrong as quickly as possible.”

    Did anyone else notice that Hanson made his first statement before Congress in June of 1988, just four months AFTER Feynman’s death? We really needed Feynman to live another decade…sigh.

  52. Myrrh,
    You are correct:
    ‘If you can’t explain your research to the cleaning lady, it’s not worth doing.’

    It’s one of my favourite quotations – as both a New Zealander by birth and a practising social science scientist who thinks Andrewski was onto something with his Social Science as Sorcery. I also liked his paper where he showed that Nbam was inversely related to K (where Nbam was the need to bamboozle and K was knowledge).

  53. Nature certainly hypes up this paper by Shakum et al in its news with a promo headed “How Carbon Dioxide Melted the world”

    http://www.nature.com/news/how-carbon-dioxide-melted-the-world-1.10393

    I used to read Nature back when i was in education and I can’t remember such Red Top approach to science. I probably have my copies from the 1970s somewhere but I am afraid the comparison between then and now will leave my crying in my beer.
    I wonder how much longer a journal like this can sruvive on its past reputation when it is being so greatly damaged by its present failure to peer review effectively and by its adoption of emotive Red Top tactics.

  54. Actually, come to think of it Richard Feynman did hang out at a lot of bars. Just to have models to draw you know. Quite the good artist too… I am an avid reader of his book “Feynman on Physiques”.

  55. Myrrh says:
    April 9, 2012 at 3:50 am

    So…, http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fjwkh/why_exactly_can_nothing_go_faster_than_the_speed/c1gh4x7?utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=10%20Things%20In%20Tech%20You%20Need%20To%20Know&utm_campaign=10ThingsTech_NL_022211

    What looks like it’s going to be a brilliantly simple explanation, however, I don’t understand it, I’ve got stuck here:

    “… That’s how it is to move through our universe. You’ve got a steering wheel, but no throttle. When you sit there at apparent rest, you’re really careening toward the future at top speed. But when you get up to put the kettle on, you change your direction of motion through spacetime, but not your speed of motion through spacetime. So as you move through space a bit more quickly, you find yourself moving through time a bit more slowly.”

    No you don’t, says I, you’re still moving through time just as quickly – because everything is moving at that speed. Turning around to face the back of the train isn’t changing the speed you’re travelling on the train. This arrows and axis explanation, as follows from that excerpt, makes the jump to ‘therefore you slow down time by change of direction’ without any logical, to me, joining of parts. The arrow is still travelling at the same speed, it’s an illusion created by transferring it to two dimensions. Isn’t it?

    The two comments immediately following it are useful:

    great explanation. though, as you pointed out, it kind of evades the question: the question becomes why four-velocity is constant in magnitude.

    well that’s ultimately Einstein’s postulate. But he first came to the conclusion from playing with Electromagnetism. See you can use Maxwell’s Equations to construct wave solutions. These waves have a velocity, but nowhere in the equations are the velocity of the observer relative to the wave. Einstein pondered and pondered and then concluded that that velocity must be the same in absolutely every inertial frame. Then you do a few tricks with some mirrors in a moving object and you reconstruct length contraction and time dilation out of the fact that c must be constant in all frames. And with length contraction and time dilation, we get Lorentz Boosts and Lorentz Boosts set up the 4-vector structure.

    I can’t answer why c is constant (in a vacuum).

    As for the time dilation stuff, the best analogy I’ve seen is to preten you’re in a spaceship with a clock that keeps a photon bouncing between two mirrors, oriented so the photon is perpendicular to the direction the spaceship is moving. Inside the spaceship, you “see” the photon moving at speed c and it always takes the same amount of time for each bounce.

    Someone traveling outside the spaceship with the same velocity would see the same timing, but if the velocity were different, he’d see (or compute) that the photon is moving in a ziz-zag fashion and hence traveling further each bounce, therefore he’d observe the clock is running slower.

  56. The Southern Hemisphere temperatures lead the CO2 numbers by 1,400 years in this paper.

    The lag versus lead issue was always based on Antarctic ice core temperatures leading the Antarctic ice core CO2 numbers by 800 to 2,000 years in almost all cases going back through the entire 800,000 year Antarctic record.

    In this case, the same Antarctic ice core temperatures and what Shakun 2012 describes as the Southern Hemisphere stack (average) is still leading the CO2 rise out of the last ice age by 1,400 years.

  57. “If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.”

    So much for quantum mechanics!

    “As quoted in many Internet sources.”

    I guess quantum mechanics is safe after all. That was close though.

  58. @ Follow the Money

    Thanks for linking this. Your take on it is spot on: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/484005a.html

    The Nature editorial is embarrassing. This is supposed to be a respected journal, and yet they have no idea how science works. Very few studies that are published are irrefutable, and even fewer are so compelling that they are worthy of immediately being accepted as definitive works. Shakur’s recent paper was certainly not in that category. Even if it bears up under scrutiny, and it seems doubtful that it will, it should at least be confirmed by others independently before it’s given any weight at all. This is especially true because it cannot be verified experimentally, and no matter which side of the AGW argument a scientist finds plausible, it should be obvious that proxies are not always interpreted correctly.

    Nature apparently understands none of that. In speaking of Shakur’s conclusions they state ” So let there be no confusion now…”. Think about the hubris of the author of that sentence. Not only does he/she believe that there is a clear, unambiguous truth that has been revealed, but they further ascribe any doubt to the reader’s “confusion”. Nature may believe that I am befuddled, and perhaps I am, but I still know that science is a process by which ideas are presented and, over time, they may be confirmed, refined or rejected. Anything less than that isn’t science, it’s sales.

  59. @polistra says:April 9, 2012 at 3:56 am : Durn, you and the Geezer take all the fun out of it./sarc. I’m out to measure a couple of pole dancers.

  60. My favorite Feynman story is his ability to open what were presumably secure safes. He would figger out the combinations by a combination of observation and deduction. He was so good that he was summoned to open a recalcitrant safe when a locksmith was not readily available.

    And while a Feynman diagram may not mean much to a barmaid, it is a simple illustration that is understandable to anyone with a passing interest in particle physics.

    BTW, I think it is “James Clerk Maxwell”. And why they pronounce it “Clark” is beyond me.

  61. Many more barmaids now have a college degree than in Einstein’s time. Unfortunately, they have less of an education than a high school graduate in Einstein’s time.

  62. There is a difference between explained to and understood by…
    After all, I can explain fog to my four year as either a lazy cloud or atmospheric conditions.
    Any guess as to which she understands?

  63. English mathematician and philosopher A.N. Whitehead said something very appropriate to the climate models;

    “There is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain.”

  64. “In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”

    That actually reminds me of the Ronald Reagan administration. When Reagan was running in 1976 and failed to get the Republican nomination, the “conservatives” around me were saying they didn’t need some Hollywood movie star from California who ran the commie actors, union to be our President (these were people on the East coast). Even during the second run in 1980, many “conservatives” were very skeptical of Reagan and were quick to cast derision on “Reaganomics”.

    In 1980 people weren’t so much voting FOR Reagan as they were voting AGAINST Carter. To give an example for people who may not remember or may not have been born yet. George W. Bush’s average approval rating during his first term was 62.2% while Ronald Reagan’s was only 50.3%. George H.W. Bush had better approval ratings in his only term than Reagan did in his first term. Regan’s highest approval rating of his first term never reached that of Jimmy Carter’s highest approval rating. Reagan’s lowest approval rating was in January of 1983, after a year in office, at only 35%.

    It never ceases to amaze me how people who absolutely hated Reagan when he was President now wrap themselves in his mantle and claim to have supported him all along when those of us who were politically aware at the time remember well that this was not the case. Well into his second term, “Conservatives” had nothing good to say about his economic policies and about his willingness to find compromises with Tip O’Neil in Congress. Carter’s approval rating was nearly 60% as late as February 1980.

    Yes, it is very easy to be a Reagan supporter NOW. It wasn’t so easy then. During his second term, everyone jumped on the bandwagon as the economy turned around and people started going back to work. Reagan’s college major was economics in which he held a bachelors degree. I believe we have a very similar situation today in that we have a candidate running that a lot of people don’t like for a lot of reasons but has the ability to turn things around. He would get very low approval ratings until he actually turns things around and people jump on board saying they “knew it all along”. He’s certainly the brightest candidate we may have ever seen run for the job and might be the best President since Coolidge, in my opinion.

    Listening to the “patriots” *after* the fact is best done with some grains of salt handy.

  65. And people were quick to jump off the Reagan bandwagon when the Iran-Contra affair broke. He went from nearly 70% approval rating in mid-1986 to about 45% approval in early 1997. Don’t pay much attention to after-the-fact supporters.

  66. ozspeaksup says:
    April 9, 2012 at 3:42 am (Edit)
    John F. Hultquist says:
    April 8, 2012 at 8:56 pm

    Richard Feynman could NOT explain magnets to . . . any normal human.
    Look and listen:===========
    ta for the clip.
    and sorry but he could IF? the person asking had even the most basic science education..
    which that reporter to his shame..obviously had NOT!

    —————————————————————————–

    Well Feynman told the interviewer he was ignorant in such a way as the interviewer gained unexpected knowledge.

    Forever my hero.

  67. Ric Werme says:
    April 9, 2012 at 6:07 am
    As for the time dilation stuff, the best analogy I’ve seen is to preten you’re in a spaceship with a clock that keeps a photon bouncing between two mirrors, oriented so the photon is perpendicular to the direction the spaceship is moving. Inside the spaceship, you “see” the photon moving at speed c and it always takes the same amount of time for each bounce.

    Someone traveling outside the spaceship with the same velocity would see the same timing, but if the velocity were different, he’d see (or compute) that the photon is moving in a ziz-zag fashion and hence traveling further each bounce, therefore he’d observe the clock is running slower.

    But, and thanks for engaging with this, that’s the problem I have – I don’t see any joined up logic to show that movement along the x axis is pulling down the time on the y axis, and then all that comes after that, the explanations of what it means, don’t make sense either.

    For example, sticking with the train. The train standing at the station and not moving is going to get to tomorrow at exactly the same time as the train that is speeding from one end of the country to the other, the flow of time is a ‘constant’ – standstill or movement anywhere along the x axis is not altering that, any more than, say, someone on a speeding train rushing down the corridor is going to get to the destination any faster than someone sitting quite still. All the movement along the x axis is happening up the y axis, whatever one is doing, however fast or slow one is doing it, is all travelling into the future at the same rate.

    Which is what I mean, there’s no joined up logic to make travel along the x axis alter the speed of travel along the y.

    I think he begins describing this hypothesis really well, so it is easy to follow the steps, but he comes to that point of logic jump without connection and just carries on as if it is logical, but it isn’t.

    I think it isn’t difficult to understand because it is so ‘off the wall’ and one has to be ‘really bright’ to understand it, I say it’s difficult to understand because it is a failure of logic. If one could run down the corridor of a fast moving train at its speed, one simply travels at that speed, it doesn’t slow or speed up the journey, if one goes faster one shoots out the front of the driver’s cabin..

    If time is a constant speed, then it doesn’t matter what direction one is going or at what speed one is going in this direction, one is still travelling in the direction time is going.

    I think RobotRollCall has described this so well, the best description I’ve come across, that it is actually possible to see this ‘jump without joined up logic’, without confusion, if you stop where I did you see there’s no joined up logic, it’s a jump which doesn’t make sense because it’s not what happens..

    http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fjwkh/why_exactly_can_nothing_go_faster_than_the_speed/c1gh4x7?utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=10%20Things%20In%20Tech%20You%20Need%20To%20Know&utm_campaign=10ThingsTech_NL_022211

    “So far, I think this has all been pretty easy to visualize. A little challenging maybe; it might not be intuitive to think of time as a direction and yourself as moving through it. But I don’t think any of this has been too difficult so far.

    Well, that’s about to change. Because I’m going to have to ask you to exercise your imagination a bit from this point on.

    Imagine you’re driving in your car when something terrible happens: the brakes fail. By a bizarre coincidence, at the exact same moment your throttle and gearshift lever both get stuck. You can neither speed up nor slow down. The only thing that works is the steering wheel. You can turn, changing your direction, but you can’t change your speed at all.

    Of course, the first thing you do is turn toward the softest thing you can see in an effort to stop the car. But let’s ignore that right now. Let’s just focus on the peculiar characteristics of your malfunctioning car. You can change your direction, but you cannot change your speed.

    That’s how it is to move through our universe. You’ve got a steering wheel, but no throttle. When you sit there at apparent rest, you’re really careening toward the future at top speed. But when you get up to put the kettle on, you change your direction of motion through spacetime, but not your speed of motion through spacetime. So as you move through space a bit more quickly, you find yourself moving through time a bit more slowly.”

    No you don’t! It doesn’t matter how fast you get up to put on the kettle, you’re not having any effect on how quickly you’re getting to tomorrow. You can be rushing around like mad, tomorrow will still come ’24 hours later’, because everything is travelling at that speed, whatever your individual speed within that. You’re not altering the speed of the train getting to the next station by being more energetic and moving about than someone sitting reading a book.

    I can’t see any ‘logic fail’ in my take on this – can you?

  68. “If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.”

    That’s foolish. You use the data, and statistical analysis, from the last experiment to design the next experiment.

  69. Okay, enough of the “barmaid” talk. Female bartenders are called bartenders as tender has nothing to do with gender.

  70. Hey, what’s with the jibe about statistics? If one subset of science practitioners has come out relatively well from the climate alarm fiasco, it is the statisticians. It is their business to design better and better experiments, so I’d be inclined to say that “if your experiment was not designed using competent statistical guidance, then you’ve probably wasted resources”

    And just to undermine Rutherford’s quote-based authority a little bit, how about

    “Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of the atom is talking moonshine”

  71. Hey, what with the jibe about statistics? Of all science practitioners in and around the climate alarm debacle, I think the statisticians have come out relatively well. It is their business to design better and better experiments, so that I’m inclined to say ‘if you didn’t use statistical guidance in designing your experiment, you’ve probably wasted resources’ as a counter-riposte!

    And while we’re chucking ripostes about, here’s another one from Rutherford:

    “Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of the atom is talking moonshine”

    Fallibility, eh?

  72. Let me give another Einstein quote in support of my own discipline:
    ‘Politics is more difficult than physics.’
    Actually, having studied both, I think he’s wrong – but there are plenty of ‘concerned scientists’ who provide supporting evidence (though that’s largely confirmation bias at work).

  73. Dr. Bob says:
    April 8, 2012 at 7:53 pm
    Thanks for correcting my mistake. Spent too much time on computers today reloading after a virus attack. SMART HDD is nasty.
    ———————————————————————————————————————
    SMART HDD is pure evil. If you haven’t gotten rid of it yet try:

    http://support.kaspersky.com/faq/?qid=208283363

    Be sure to enter address by hand, SMART HDD can redirect links to trojans.

  74. “The train standing at the station and not moving is going to get to tomorrow at exactly the same time as the train that is speeding from one end of the country to the other,”
    I’m a thicko when it comes to relativity theory but wasn’t one of the main tenets that if one object is travelling in space close to the speed of light time does change relative to a ‘stationary’ object? In other words the two trains will not get to ‘tomorrow’ at exactly the same time.

  75. Why are you people so hung up about Polish dancers? Nubian dancers are bloody marvelous too.

    I call racism!

  76. Ric? I’m right, aren’t I?

    “If facts conflict with a theory, either the theory must be changed or the facts.” Spinoza

    I’ve been thinking about this, and I think it possible that everyone simply got caught up in the ‘idea’ of it which presented such an interesting take on the universe and didn’t go back to the explanation to see there was no joined up logic – it reminded me of something else I came across recently, the Planck and Ultraviolet Catastrophe. I was reading about it’s history and was struck by the statement that this was a problem because ‘the well known physics of the day said it would happen’, but it didn’t.. Then Planck came up with quanta and it seemed to solve the problem, but, I couldn’t find what that ‘well known physics of the day’ was – surely if the Ultraviolet Catastrophe doesn’t happen though predicted by this ‘well known physics’, then that physics was wrong. If you, or anyone reading this, know what that was I’d be very grateful for the information, it’s really bugging me..

    Anyway, I’ve been looking for what else I can find, not got very far, these are the first two I’ve found both of which I think interesting reads:

    http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml

    http://www.new-science-theory.com/albert-einstein.php

    I’ve just found this article: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/relativity-and-the-cosmos.html

    And it has the usual take that Einstein’s spacetimegravity was proved by that event of light being bent by it, which when I first read of it struck me as not proving any such thing, all it showed was that light is affected by the gravity of a planet it passes, why shouldn’t it be? It doesn’t need any space/time warping explanation. Since reading up on light [from the arguments I have about it on this board], I’ve learned that light is slowed down by passing through a medium, it slows down through our atmosphere and even more through the ocean (not a great memory, I think it was 14 times more in the ocean than in the atmosphere). I’m going to have to re-read that second link I posted because there a quite a bit new to me.., but, from my own take on the description of motion affecting time, I have to agree with this in it in principle:

    “Classical experimental physics theory certainly had holes so that Einstein could push his fictional-experiment ‘relativity’ physics theory. And some now think that real physics started with Einstein, though there is a maybe stronger argument that Einstein ended real physics theory and started a science-fiction physics theory based on his ‘thought-experiment’ or ‘fictional-experiment’ method.”

    Because the thought experiment doesn’t make any sense, contradicted by what is actually happening.

  77. Knutsfordian says:
    April 9, 2012 at 3:53 pm
    “The train standing at the station and not moving is going to get to tomorrow at exactly the same time as the train that is speeding from one end of the country to the other,”
    I’m a thicko when it comes to relativity theory but wasn’t one of the main tenets that if one object is travelling in space close to the speed of light time does change relative to a ‘stationary’ object? In other words the two trains will not get to ‘tomorrow’ at exactly the same time.

    Which was my other point – that it’s not because the majority are to thick to understand it, esoteric as its been presented, but that the logic isn’t there to support it. We find it difficult to grasp because it’s nonsense, not because it’s too clever for us.

    Here’s the extract from the original piece [the time axis, up and down, is the y axis and the horizontal, space, is the x axis]:

    “You can visualize this by imagining a pair of axes drawn on a sheet of paper. The axis that runs up and down is the time axis, and the upward direction points toward the future. The horizontal axis represents space. We’re only considering one dimension of space, because a piece of paper only has two dimensions total and we’re all out, but just bear in mind that the basic idea applies to all three dimensions of space.

    Draw an arrow starting at the origin, where the axes cross, pointing upward along the vertical axis. It doesn’t matter how long the arrow is; just know that it can be only one length. This arrow, which right now points toward the future, represents a quantity physicists call four-velocity. It’s your velocity through spacetime. Right now, it shows you not moving in space at all, so it’s pointing straight in the futureward direction.

    If you want to move through space — say, to the right along the horizontal axis — you need to change your four-velocity to include some horizontal component. That is, you need to rotate the arrow. But as you do, notice that the arrow now points less in the futureward direction — upward along the vertical axis — than it did before. You’re now moving through space, as evidenced by the fact that your four-velocity now has a space component, but you have to give up some of your motion toward the future, since the four-velocity arrow can only rotate and never stretch or shrink.

    This is the origin of the famous “time dilation” effect everybody talks about when they discuss special relativity. If you’re moving through space, then you’re not moving through time as fast as you would be if you were sitting still. Your clock will tick slower than the clock of a person who isn’t moving.”

    The “four velocity” doesn’t need to be changed. Why should it? Everything happening on the x axis regardless of speed is all travelling up the y axis – there’s no joined up logic to say the arrow of time on the y axis has to change by someone moving along the x axis.

    So it doesn’t matter how fast you go, you’re not pulling the arrow down to you relative to your speed, you’re not slowing time, you’re still going to get to tomorrow at the same time as someone who hasn’t been moving.

    The “you must give up some of your motion towards the future” is a fiction. So the ‘the faster we go the more time slows for us’ is a fiction, and all speculation about what happens if we’re travelling as fast as it takes to reach tomorrow and what someone who isn’t moving is observing, is just more nonsense. Einstein’s thought experiment really is nonsense, that’s why we can’t understand all that’s being said about it, why the explanations don’t make sense. Calling it “four vector” and the rest just re-inforces in us the idea that we’re thickos for not understanding it, but really, the majority of us don’t understand it because it is illogical, it goes against observation and rational thinking about our observation.

    We observe that no matter how fast or slow we’re moving in the world, we all reach tomorrow together. Simple as that.

  78. “If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.”

    Rutherford was a brilliant man, but this is a moronic thing for him to say. All measurements are imperfect. All measurements must be repeated and repeatable. They will never be identical due to their imperfection. Hence statistics.

  79. I thought of this one myself and am ever so proud of it.
    How do you change the mind of a person for whom the answer to the following question is a firm yes and how will that way of thinking effect their life?

    If I am right and you are wrong does that make you a bad person?

    I think this explains a lot. Especially if what they believe makes them a hero or gives them their sense of value as a person or defines their place and value in life.

  80. Myrrh, the arrow isn’t the basis for the time-dilation, it is just a real cool way of expressing it… I’ve never heard that explanation for time dilation before. The origin is the whole “Light travels at the same speed no matter how fast you are ‘moving'”.

    If I am sitting in my late-model Toyota Star-Cruiser, and shine a laser straight up at a mirror in the ceiling of my cabin, it goes to the mirror and down to the floor. I see it move at a speed c. You go cruising by in your Nissan Galaxy Blazer at 0.5c, you will see that laser move to the ceiling and down to the floor. You will also see the beam travel at speed c. But the relative distance you see it travel is greater.

    So, for me to see the beam travel up 4 feet and down 8 feet in time x, and you to see it move up 6 feet and down 12 feet in the same time x, and it moving at the same speed, your clock needs to be moving slower…

    You won’t see this in any measurable amount if you just get up off the divan and go to the kitchen to throw on the kettle for a cuppa, but it is there.

    It’s been measured with atomic clocks flying around the world, and my/your GPS wouldn’t be worth its weight in drachmas without it.

    Having said that, it IS just a theory :)

  81. sanders400 says:
    April 9, 2012 at 8:36 pm
    Myrrh, the arrow isn’t the basis for the time-dilation, it is just a real cool way of expressing it… I’ve never heard that explanation for time dilation before. The origin is the whole “Light travels at the same speed no matter how fast you are ‘moving’”.

    Yes, but that’s why it’s such a good explanation. It gives a perfectly rational way of imagining it because the speed of time into the future is taken as the constant.

    If I am sitting in my late-model Toyota Star-Cruiser, and shine a laser straight up at a mirror in the ceiling of my cabin, it goes to the mirror and down to the floor. I see it move at a speed c. You go cruising by in your Nissan Galaxy Blazer at 0.5c, you will see that laser move to the ceiling and down to the floor. You will also see the beam travel at speed c. But the relative distance you see it travel is greater.

    You’re just extrapolating, or rather, just creating another scenario from the initial illogical jump, there’s no logic to support that my speed is physically altering the objects in space.

    So, for me to see the beam travel up 4 feet and down 8 feet in time x, and you to see it move up 6 feet and down 12 feet in the same time x, and it moving at the same speed, your clock needs to be moving slower…

    They say a bat hears everything slowed down, it isn’t altering space or time, it’s filtering it through its own perception to hear it as this.

    You won’t see this in any measurable amount if you just get up off the divan and go to the kitchen to throw on the kettle for a cuppa, but it is there.

    No it isn’t, not until you can show how my movement physically alters the objects in space and time around me – there’s no logical connection between my speeding up and time physically slowing down for me. I don’t get to tomorrow any slower than you just because I’m moving and you’re sitting watching. And why do I always have to get up to make the tea?

    It’s been measured with atomic clocks flying around the world, and my/your GPS wouldn’t be worth its weight in drachmas without it.

    I remembered after posting that there was an example claimed as proof, we had a discussion about it earlier here which is where I first began thinking about this, I’d forgotten about it.. Nope, can’t recall my ‘buts’ in that discussion, but there is nothing to prove that clocks are being physically slowed down by a physical altering of ‘space/time’. It’s like the supposed proof that space/time/gravity will alter the beam of light going past a planet, of course it does, stands to reason as light is a physical thing and gravity will have some effect on it, but, to say that this is proof of ‘space/time’ physically being altered is an illogical jump. All Einstein did was say that such a thing would happen and that it would be proof of his hypothesis – how? The joined up logic is missing. Simple gravity explains it. Simple gravity could just as easily explain a physical slowing down of clocks orbiting a planet, and that would alter according to the gravity exerted by the planet. There’s no connection between speed and and physically altering time, any further than the faster you go the quicker you get somewhere.

    That’s why the example of the train is so brilliant, it becomes obvious if the time taken for the train to reach the first station is seen as the constant, of ‘movement into the future’ – travelling faster on the train by running down the corridor isn’t going to get you to the next station slower than someone sitting still reading for the journey…

    Having said that, it IS just a theory :)

    Hypothesis, or perhaps as Smokey points out with regard to AGW claims, a conjecture.

    Re the bat example and the difference between perception and actual physical alteration of ‘space/time’ – I was once in a situation where an oncoming car was coming straight for me when I was in the overtaking lane going up on a long steepish incline stretch of road where traffic coming down had only one lane, someone had decided to overtake going down and misjudged it. When I saw the whites of his eyes, literally, I saw by his total frozen panic he had no way out, nor it seemed had I when I glanced around at my options as I was overtaking a line of cars going at a speed not much below mine and the line of cars he was overtaking was just as solid. That’s when I started thinking, and time slowed right down. I calculated that if I could drop my speed by five miles an hour, I was doing seventy, I could get down to the speed of traffic on my left and with some deft manoeuvring could slip into the stream. I did it, and time went back to normal as I glanced in the mirror to check there was no great pile up behind me and then gripped the wheel and concentrated really hard on the car in front to try and maintain my speed at his. It took around half a mile of this before I could begin to relax concentration and return to normal from the shock. Nothing changed in the space or time around me, only my perception of it. My speed of thinking had apparently slowed down time, but only for me, time and space around me hadn’t changed.

  82. Myrrh says:
    April 9, 2012 at 4:53 pm

    http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml

    ;——————————————-

    Regarding the above URL, the authors are using a background metric, i.e., they created a flat metric (with off diagonal perturbations) so they could couple to electromagnetism.

    They did not generate the metric using general relativity.

    Hence, they’re merely testing their ansatz – they are not testing general relativity.

    Since this is off topic, see any book on general relativity.

    “Subtle is the Lord. Malicious, He is not.”

    A. Einstein

  83. Agile Aspect says:
    April 10, 2012 at 3:32 pm
    Myrrh says:
    April 9, 2012 at 4:53 pm

    http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml

    ;——————————————-

    Regarding the above URL, the authors are using a background metric, i.e., they created a flat metric (with off diagonal perturbations) so they could couple to electromagnetism.

    They did not generate the metric using general relativity.

    Hence, they’re merely testing their ansatz – they are not testing general relativity.

    OK, I can’t actually understand what you mean here, but thanks for the input. How would you test for it?

    Since this is off topic, see any book on general relativity.

    [I've now brought in some quotes ..] I think you’ve missed my point here, there’s a leap to general relativity which has no joined up logic – this can be seen in deconstructing the time dilation paradigm. There is no ‘space/time’ continuum in which speed alters time – reading books on relativity which begin with the premise that this is reality are the problem, not the solution, they sound clever but they’re based on a fiction.

    I can only suggest you read through the description RobotRollCAll I posted here: http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fjwkh/why_exactly_can_nothing_go_faster_than_the_speed/c1gh4x7?utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=10%20Things%20In%20Tech%20You%20Need%20To%20Know&utm_campaign=10ThingsTech_NL_022211

    If you follow this brilliant explanation of it, hopefully, you’ll see he has to make the same jump to relativity without any joined up logic, there is nothing connecting movement in space to changing time.

    What should be asked for is proof of the claim, because no such proof has ever been given, it’s actually not for us to construct an experiment to prove it wrong, but for you to construct an experiment to prove it right. Until then it is only a conjecture. You, generic, have to yank it up to a hypothesis.

    However, I’ve shown that it’s ludicrous, taking it up to the ‘speed of light’ claiming it is then that the effect shows, as in spaceman returning and not aging relative to twin he left behind, doesn’t have to be made, it doesn’t make sense from the get go.

    Unless you can show that I physically change the form of matter around me when I get up to make a cup of tea by slowing down time, because this is what the claim is, that all bodily processes are somehow ‘slowed down’ without altering the physical coherence of my body, that my blood will still circulate efficiently, for example, though I have slowed down time.. See the problem? It’s a nonsense claim that motion slows down time. There is no joined up logic to bringing down the line of time on the y axis as one travels faster on the x. There is no physical reality in someone running down the corrider of a train getting to the next station slower than someone sitting in a carriage reading a book.

    I have also given an explanation of what I think has been the cause of this mistake by Einstein, that he has taken a process of the mind viewing the world, (as in bats hearing everything slowed down and my close call on the road, it wasn’t a good day to die, where time stood still while I worked out how to get out of what would have been a multiple car pile up, fear is a great motivator), and claimed erroneously that it’s actually physical reality that changes, that actual physical processes are slowed down.

    I’ve just had a look for any quotes by him on relativity, and there’s this:

    “Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT’S relativity.” http://thinkexist.com/quotes/with/keyword/relativity/

    You see? He has mistaken viewing the world of space and time through a medium which can change the perception of it, the mind, with it being actual changes to physical matter.

    Here’s another good quote on it from the same page: “Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.”

    What they the mathematicians have done, and so all the tons of books pontificating on this as if his ‘theory’ is right, is to begin from the original logic disjunct, beginning with the premise that movement on the x axis has to bring the constant length of time on the y down to meet it, that the faster one goes the slower that makes time. It’s an illusion.

    I think it’s just one of those cases where the illusion is so much fun ‘for science minds’, that having been ‘given permission’ to extrapolate from it by Einstein’s claim that it was reality the whole thing just snowballed, grew like topsy, and the majority never bothing to go back and look at how he came to it. Go through RobotRollCall’s telling of it, the mistaken leap to ‘physically changed relativity’ becomes more obvious. Think about it.

    Relativity
    “Relativity teaches us the connection between the different descriptions of one and the same reality”.
    “I sometimes ask myself how it came about that I was the one to develop the theory of relativity. The reason, I think, is that a normal adult never stops to think about problems of space and time. These are things which he has thought about as a child. But my intellectual development was retarded,as a result of which I began to wonder about space and time only when I had already grown up.”

    “Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT’S relativity.”

    “When a blind beetle crawls over the surface of the globe, he doesn’t realize that the track he has covered is curved. I was lucky enough to have spotted it.”
    “I have no particular talent. I am merely inquisitive.”

    “It’s not that I’m so smart , it’s just that I stay with problems longer .”
    From:

    http://www.some-guy.com/quotes/einstein.html

    He didn’t stay with the problem long enough..

    “Science is the century-old endeavour to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thorough-going an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at a posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualisation. Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgements of all kinds remain necessary.”

    He’s confused physical perception of the world where physical processes in the body change it for the perceiver, with this changing the actual physical world. His theory of relativity is falsified.

  84. Sorry mods, I’ve missed a closed italics after “Since this is off topic, see any book on general relativity.”

  85. Oh, right, it worked because it was going going round the earth at close to the speed of light and so it slowed down time for itself..

    Yeah right, someone running down the corridor of the train is going to get to the next station slower than someone sitting still in a carriage reading a book… How can we have had a hundred years of this being taught? And his relativity gravity as depicted by the sheet of rubber marked out in grids.. Only works in one direction. Which is where I came in – http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/

    There’s no gravity on the other sides of the Earth because the weight of the Earth can only distort space in one direction, :) This is just so silly it’s extraordinary that it has been taught at all. Suspend a ball of suitable weight in a bath of water, where’s the distortion of Einstein’s gravity? [And it doesn’t matter to what ‘fine’ a level you take this, as with the argument that it’s only at great speeds that the time dilation is noticed, if a body is distorting space on one side then its opposite side will not be distorted in this ‘gravity well’ – there can be no gravity there. If you can imagine that your speed alters time you can imagine anything.

    Anyway, I’ve shown how he made his basic error, mistaking perception of the physical world around us by thinking it was physically changing the physical world around us. The bat doesn’t physically change the world around us, or actually for itself, it filters hearing sounds in it to better catch its dinner in the night which is still flying at the speed it does as is the bat flying at its speed. You’re not going to get to the next station slower by running down the corridor of the train than someone sitting still reading a book is going to get there faster..

  86. No, silly, my GPS is sitting here happily with me, using satellites that are travelling at high speeds to stay in geosync orbit. Their time is dilated, and the precision needed uses that dilation to accurately place me in the universe.

    As far as the sheet of rubber, you actually have to read the text, not just look at the pretty pictures…

  87. sanders400 says:
    April 14, 2012 at 8:23 am
    No, silly, my GPS is sitting here happily with me, using satellites that are travelling at high speeds to stay in geosync orbit. Their time is dilated, and the precision needed uses that dilation to accurately place me in the universe.

    As I said, simple gravity can account for any such changes. That Einstein used simple Newtonian gravity to claim this proved his ramblings and was believed, and scientists still doing just that to tell you your GPS is adjusted for accuracy for this imaginary ‘time dilation’, and you believe them, says, to me, that you’re not looking at this objectively.

    As far as the sheet of rubber, you actually have to read the text, not just look at the pretty pictures…

    I suggest you don’t read the text at all, but give the pretty pictures a long hard look..

    It doesn’t work in 3D.

    Einstein’s silly idea creates a vortex in one direction only since it is based on the mass of planet distorting space around it. There is no orbiting around a planet – just orbiting in the EinsteinVortex taking you relentlessly down to crash into the planet, but, only if your approach hits the EinsteinVortex direction – he can’t account for what happens outside of that, on something passing on the other side of the planet, where there is not his ‘vortex gravity’, but a lump in space created by his ‘mass distorting space’ which creates a vortex gravity on the opposite side.

    It doesn’t exist in our physical 3d world, because it is just too silly, as well as being clearly falsified by the Moon orbiting the Earth, and falsified by every satellite orbiting ..

    Einstein was very clever at ‘predicting’ using Newtonian physics.. :) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1314656/Scientists-prove-time-really-does-pass-quicker-higher-altitude.html

    As before, no joined up logic. Someone running down the corridor of the train will not be travelling slower than someone sitting still doing nothing, the one sitting still doing nothing will not reach the next station quicker than someone running down the corridor. That is Einstein’s claim, deconstructed. Do you really think that’s an accurate description of our physical world? There is no, no, physical connection between time and speed of motion in which the faster one goes the slower goes time. Show it.

    As I showed, he was mistaking mental perception for actual physical changes in the world.

    The bat isn’t changing the speed of the sound made by the Moth in the physical world, only in its own perception of the sound, slowing it down gives it apparently more time to track it. Just as I apparently had more time to think about the situation I was in when time slowed down to ‘practically’ a stop. I wasn’t changing the actual speeds I or anyone was travelling, the distances to speed didn’t change – that’s how I could calculate it, because I was still calculating real world speeds and distances – and the actual time taken didn’t become slower. The moth isn’t travelling in slow motion as the bat hears it…

    Anyway, look at the pictures, what exactly is it telling you in 3D? Imagine as described the original exercise I posted where the future direction is the constant speed, does it really make any sense at all when correlating tomorrow to a train travelling to the next station?

    Shrug, ask someone who works with GPS how exactly ‘time dilation’ of Einstein’s relativity has anything to do with it, and what in it can’t be explained with bog standard physics..

  88. Myrrh says: April 11, 2012 at 11:23 am

    I’ve falsified the theory of relativity and not even a ‘well done, Myrrh’.

    Well. Done: Myrrh.

  89. Waking up this morning and recalling a thought I had about this yesterday re that light slows down through different mediums, it’s slowed down by our atmosphere and slows down even more in the ocean, that is, different pressures affect it, I’ve decided to check to find out exactly what is being adjusted in GPS. It’s not Einstein’s ‘time dilation’, it’s adjustment for a physical phenomenon that there’s a difference in travelling from east to west from travelling west to east. Nothing to do with Einstein’s speed slowing down time. [My bold in the following extracts]

    The GPS and the Constant Velocity of Light
    Paul Marmet

    “One must conclude that there exists no space-time distortion of any kind. It is no longer necessary to fascinate people with the magic of relativity. Unless we accept the absurd solution that the distance between N.Y. to S.F. is smaller than the distance between S.F. and N.Y., we have to accept that in a moving frame, the velocity of light is different in each direction. As mentioned above, this difference is even programmed in the GPS computer in order to get the correct Global Positioning. This proves that the experimental velocity of light with respect to a moving observer is c±v.”

    http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/illusion/index.html

    This begins on:

    http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/paradox1.html

    “In the second part of the experiment, we send a beam of light around the Earth equator. We can anticipate that at each microsecond, the beam of light passes each line drawn on the ground, because they have been spaced by one microsecond-light (by definition). When we send the beam eastward, light goes across 133425 lines, and therefore take 133425 microseconds to go around the world, passing each line every microsecond. Also, when we send the beam westward, the beam of light also passes one line every micro-second, so that light takes 133425 to complete the trip around the world. Of course, the experiment is well done and light is traveling inside a vacuum pipe in which air has been completely pumped out.
    However, following the Sagnac effect published in 1914 it has been shown experimentally that light takes a longer time to go around the world Eastward than Westward. The Sagnac effect is well known. It has been added in the Global Positioning System (GPS) to determine time and coordinates on Earth. The Sagnac effect is also used in optical gyroscopes. It is very well extablished.
    How can the experiment above with light moving across each of the 133425 lines every microsecond be compatible with the observed Sagnac effect? How can the time taken, to go around the world be longer when going Eastward then Westward, since there are the same number of lines (133425)? Light takes exactly one microsecond to go between lines (by definition).
    The answer to this problem will be given (and explained) here as soon as I have time to write it down, probably during the first part of 2000. Make a bookmark if you want to remember the Web address.
    Explanation now published at “The GPS and the Constant Velocity of Light” [first link here]
    Of course, it is not a real paradox. It is physical reality. The answer is logical and uses conventional logic (I mean without the magic space-time distortion). ”

    There you have it, nothing to do with Einstein’s relativity, which as I’ve shown came out of his mistaking perception through a medium, the mind, and thinking these changed objective reality..

    And, my other point, that it’s not because Einstein’s relativity is oh so esoteric that it’s difficult to understand, but that it’s difficult to understand because it creates nonsensical ilogical scenarios claiming these are science facts: running down the corridor of the train will not slow down time for you while the person sitting still in the carriage goes faster and will reach the next station before you, nor is the actual distance from NY to SF longer in one direction than the other!

    More here, from: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/invalidation.html

    “Question – (2-B)
    Can you give an example of an experiment giving results which are contrary to Einstein’s predictions?
    A. – Yes. One of the most simple and remarkable experiment showing that Nature is not compatible with Einstein’s hypothesis is the one described by Sagnac in 1914. (Ref. Sagnac M. G., J. de Phys., 1914, 4, 177-195).
    ———————–
    Question – (2-C)
    Can you give a simple description of the Sagnac’s Experiment?
    A. – Yes. Here is a simple description.
    Let us assume that you have a source of light (a laser) at a certain location on Earth (e.g. your home). You project that beam of light directly toward a satellite in orbit around the Earth on which there is a reflecting mirror. After that first reflection, light reaches other mirrors in space so that it can finally complete a full turn around the Earth and reach again the same spot on Earth where light has been emitted.
    Using that apparatus, you can measure the time it takes for light to make a complete turn around the Earth when light moves from West to East. Now, if you repeat the same experiment, with the same mirrors, (or even do it simultaneously), using light moving from East to West, you find that the time taken by light to move from East to West is shorter than the time taken for light to complete the revolution in the opposite direction. That difference of time is observed with the same apparatus, making simultaneous measurements, at the same location. One can show that this difference is due to the Classical Newtonian motion of Earth rotation. That difference of time for light taken between each direction depends directly on the velocity of the Earth moving around itself.
    Einstein’s Theory claims that there is no possible way to detect the ABSOLUTE velocity of the Earth. The very use of the expression RELATIVITY comes from Einstein’s hypothesis that parameters, like VELOCITY, are relative so that any absolute motion (like absolute velocity) is meaningless. However, we see above, that the velocity of Earth is responsible for the change of time light takes to go around the Earth. From a fixed location on Earth, we can detect the Earth’s motion. Therefore, contrary to Einstein principle of relativity, the velocity of light is not relative to the observer. One must conclude that the Sagnac effect contradicts Einstein’s hypothesis of General Relativity.
    Let us note that in practice, the Sagnac effect is observed quite easily. In order to observe that effect, you do not have to make a full circle around the Earth. If you make light rotate around a diameter of only one meter and many rotations, (in either directions) you will observe the same effect. The slight change of time interval to travel in either directions can be detected using interference patterns between the beams moving simultaneously in opposite directions. This method is very sensitive to detect a very small rate of rotation. Such an observation is very important in ships (or spaceships) and in airplanes. It is a kind of optical gyroscope (laser gyroscope) manufactured commercially in large number. This optical gyroscope detects the absolute velocity of the rotating Earth from any location on Earth, even if Einstein’s theory claims that light travels with respect to the observer.
    There is also a Straight-Line-Component Sagnac effect. (see Einstein’s Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics, chapter 9). This will not be developed here. The Sagnac effect has been discussed in many papers. Recently, A. Kelly (The Sagnac Effect and GPS Synchronization of Clock-Stations) presented a paper at the meeting of “Galileo Back in Italy”, Bologna May 1999. Ref. A. G. Kelly, HDS Energy Limited Celbridge, Co, Kildare, Ireland. The Sagnac effect on the GPS Clock synchronization is extremely important.
    One can conclude that you can possess now your own instrument that measures the ABSOLUTE velocity of rotation of the Earth, which is in striking contradiction with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, while most of the scientists still refuse to accept that this can actually work. This is the most striking proof that Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity is wrong.”

    And more on GPS as Marmet deconstructs a paper by Ronald R. Hatch http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/relativity_gps_10.html

    This is funny, doesn’t it remind you of the ‘gosh, we weren’t expecting to find this’ which crop up again and again in climate scientists making real measurements?

    “R. Hatch expresses his surprise to discover that there is an increase of clock rate when the satellite is at apogee, while there is no change of clock rate when the other clock experiment moves from the pole to a larger Earth radius at the equator. Consequently, he claims that this requires a “new underlying relativistic phenomenon”. Using Newton’s laws, we show here that this is a natural phenomenon.” Paul Marmet (1932-2005)

    This site a very good find, for any still interested in how the world actually works.., the index page here: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/index.html

    Enjoy!

  90. E.M.Smith says:
    April 15, 2012 at 1:02 am
    Myrrh says: April 11, 2012 at 11:23 am

    I’ve falsified the theory of relativity and not even a ‘well done, Myrrh’.

    Well. Done: Myrrh.

    Thank you!

    I’ve just posted extracts from a site I’ve found which show that GPS is adjusted for natural phenomenon and this falsifies Einstein’s relativity – yet GPS is being touted as proving it…

    I was on quite a speedy high for several hours after I’d worked it out from RobotRollCall’s brilliant description, time slowed down perceptibly… :)

    I think I may have come up with a unique explanation of how Einstein got confused, but maybe someone got there first by not thinking about it at all…

Comments are closed.