August 20, 2004

• When they say craters, what they really mean is Atlantis / Alien base / Cthuhlu. Be afraid...
• the more you drive, the less intelligent you are.
• That's why I don't play golf, hyuk hyuk...
• Thanks Nostril, this is interesting especially that Antarctica link. Although, why did you use a site that piggybacks off of Wikipedia for the incompatibility link? Here's the original but it doesn't have ads. Those sites always bother me because they co-op the point of Wiki to make money off it without doing the work.
• The sensible, whole-wheat side of my brain says "very intersting" and looks forward to some mention in New Scientist. The frosted side says there should be an enforcement division for physics. "Sick the Relativity Cops on 'em!"
• /nods knowingly at dirtdirt. Sorry Cincinatus, I just picked that link out of google without much looking around. Apple-ologies to all. Shrimp. Plate. Plate of shrimp.
• The eclipse/pendulum effect has been adequately explained. "Here we show that an unusual phenomenon that occurs only during solar eclipses, rapid air mass movement for the bulk of the atmosphere above normal cloud levels, appears to be a sufficient explanation for both the magnitude and behavior of the anomaly"
• Duif dismisses that explanation. Sounds phony to me, too. Just another flavour of the air cooling idea. The instant nature of the anomaly does not seem to be adequately covered by this.
• It seems all Duif does in his paper is dismiss explanations, without providing any of his own. He does concede, however, that the likely cause of the anomaly is a combination of the conventional explanations and measurement error. I'm no physicist, but applying Occam's razor and my own bias with regard to peer-reviewed papers (Van Flandern/Yang) vs. non-reviewed (Duif), I'd say general relativity is safe for now.
• In general, I would avoid getting scientific news from an economics web site. Regarding the Allais effect: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast06aug99%5F1.htm and from: http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let23.html Once NASA's scientific eclipse paper is peer reviewed for publication, science@NASA will write a story discussing the experiment results. Says Dr. David Noever, the lead scientist for the Allais experiment, "We are really just scratching the surface at this point as to what future eclipses might bring to bear. It's worth noting that after 80 years of looking at the solar eclipses for general relativity deviations for gravitational bending of light, there is still a quite active ongoing debate about the magnitude of these effects. Our case is actually the inverse problem: how does an optical phenomenon bear on gravity issues? Our current thinking is that gravity may have less to do with the pendulum and gravimeter results than various reference frame issues associated with detection means for rotating systems. All this is still very speculative until all involved reach some conclusions on the quantitative bases and a single set of model equations to characterize them all." I do think it is interesting that a paper was promised by NASA, but apparently has not yet materialized over 5 years later.
• When trying to generate something this improbable, it's important to make sure your tea is very hot.
• Great links, by the way!
• "In general, I would avoid getting scientific news from an economics web site." Oh puh-lease. That is snobbery of the worst sort. Naturally the scientific establishment would be quick to support the holy cow of relativity, that's not surprising. In general, I would avoid using cliquey scientific snobbery to do so, however. I've no doubt that General Relativity is indeed 'straight-up' - but that is not to say that there aren't errors in it. Indeed, there have been many mainstream theorists who have pointed out anomalies in the (purely thought-experiment based) theory of general relativity, especially when trying to make it accord with the (absolutely real-world proven) functions of quantum mechanics. There are no ifs or buts, either General Relativity is flawed, or Quantum Mechanics is in error. Despite General Relativity's accordance with observed effects, Quantum Mechanics is by far more laboratory tested. One problem area is the local equivalency predicted by general relativity between gravity and acceleration, which exudes all sorts of interpretations. Asymmetry between velocity and gravitational created movement in observed experiments has been suggested to contradict the principle of equivalence. I shouldn't go any further, because I'm well aware of the common psychosis which seems to lead many outlandish thinkers to believe they've disproven relativity. I'm also aware that general relativity is said to meet predictions to an accuracy of one part in 1014. However, I predict that before this century is out, there will have to be amendments to general relativity. The discoveries in the field of quantum physics demand it. Pioneer 10 & 11's slowing by the same factor, in different directions outside our solar system, seem to indicate an unknown variable at work. We mustn't fall into the trap of scientific religiosity. This is the same thing Einstein faced when he shucked the golden calf of Newtonian physics a century ago. So why are the Pioneer probes slowing? Gas venting? By the same factor? Um.. no. There *are* understood deviations from the predictions of general relativity, particularly in regards to an hypothetical 'fifth force' bearing on very short range effects. To the horror of the almost religious oligarchy within physics, general relativity and quantum mechanics are quite incompatible; this is a huge problem when dealing with things like the time frame of the expansion just after the Big Bang, and in the nature of what goes on at the heart of a black hole. Even Hawking is still fumbling around with this, as recent news has made clear. This is gives rise to all sorts of concepts like string-theory and such amazing entities as tachyons, which are supposed to travel in time, serving as a mechanism for the absorbtion of energetic particles into the heart of the black hole. All of this gets very fucking confusing, but suffice it to say, not only is General Relativity not quite as solid as many lay-people believe, but the world of physics is replete with people arguing ad nauseam about how to interpret it. With that, I bid thee adieu.
• A review paper from arxiv.org. (pdf)
• Sorry, that should have been "the", since it's listed in the Economist article. Hey Nostril, seems like someone hit a nerve there, care to elaborate? There are legions of physicists who would love to provide a better theory of gravity - sacred cow that sucker aint. Look at how fast a cosmological constant got accepted once the data was in. It's an exciting, frustrating area, and yes, in general I would avoid getting scientific news from an economics journal. Not snobbery, certainly not of the worst sort, I think mecurious was observing that getting straight, undiluted material is hard enough from peer reviewed journals. I haven't been able to read the journal article yet, Acrobat Reader decided that it wants to be a resource hog and the computer ground to a halt. I'll try again later.
• "There are legions of physicists who would love to provide a better theory of gravity.." And in fact, there are a couple of such theories which fit observed phenomena quite as adequately. "..sacred cow that sucker aint." I disagree. Anyone who approaches GR critically tends to be marginalised at best, labelled a crank at worst. Science has always lent itself to classism and clique. Very few actually understand GR equations in any case. I don't pretend to, of course. /bows "..seems like someone hit a nerve there, care to elaborate?" Shut the fuck up, bitch!!! /storms off (just kidding) The line about 'dont get science news from a finance journal' or whatever it was rubs me up the wrong way a bit. I don't give a fuck what uniform the guy giving me the news of the battle is wearing, as long as his information on troop movement is accurate. Some of the greatest innovators in science (or any field for that matter) were outsiders, lambasted for not being part of the establishment. My hackles raise at even the slightest hint of this kind of attitude. Let the merits of a claim stand on veracity of the data, not on the means of communication.
• In hard science, peer review is essential. Any hack can post on arxiv.org.
• Actually, peer review is essential in soft science too, as well as in the social sciences and in the humantities. No academic discipline works without it. Though a physicist friend tells me that, nowadays, peer reviewed journals are the second step for most physics papers - first they publish unreviewed on the web. (there is a particular database they publish on) This is because physics moves so fast that by the time you published in a peer reviewed paper journal, your material would be old news. (Instead, important papers will be republished in the journals, for all physicists to read, as opposed to just those in your subspecialty.) For the record, I am not a scientist - just telling hearsay - though it was from a man in a pub, in which case it is must be highly accurate.
• jb - he was probably referring to arxiv.org. nostrildamus - you'll probably get a kick out of this paper (pdf).
• also interesting Omega_lambda, Omega_m ! We know you're in there. We've got you surrounded. Come out with your hands up.