Chatroom
 

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > Space and Astronomy > Astronomy
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

   

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 17-May-2008, 08:49 PM
Nereid Nereid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 9,756
Default Eotvos bounds on couplings of ... fun paper!

For readers curious about constraining gravity ...

Eotvos bounds on couplings of fundamental parameters to gravity (preprint, actually):
Quote:
The possible dependence of fundamental couplings and mass ratios on the gravitational potential has been bounded by comparing atomic clock frequencies over Earth's elliptical orbit. Here we evaluate bounds on such dependence from Eötvös-type experiments that test the Weak Equivalence Principle, including previously neglected contributions from nuclear binding energy. We find that variations of fundamental parameters correlated with the gravitational potential are bounded at 10^-8--10^-9, an improvement of 2--3 orders of magnitude over atomic clock bounds.
Another blow to Jerry's fave gravity idea?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 18-May-2008, 05:40 AM
Celestial Mechanic's Avatar
Celestial Mechanic Celestial Mechanic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 4,125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
For readers curious about constraining gravity ... Eotvos bounds on couplings of fundamental parameters to gravity (preprint, actually): Another blow to Jerry's fave gravity idea?
Also to nutant_gene_71's. If there is any variability in G (which I still think is possible), it can only be on cosmological scales, not within the Solar System.
__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 18-May-2008, 05:56 AM
folkhemmet folkhemmet is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 286
Default

Nereid said: "Another blow to Jerry's fave gravity idea?"

There are important psychological reasons why this new study or ANY concievable study for that matter is unlikely to hurt Jerry's gravity idea. Belief fixation and dogmatism are incredibly strong forces in the human psyche. Time and again, it has been shown that no matter how much evidence one presents to someone who suffers from delusions of gradeur and persecution, their thought content and thought processes are unlikey to be moved to a significant degree, if at all. Built into the very structure of their worldview is the assumption that they could not possibly be mistaken (even though, of course, their opponents are nearly always gravely mistaken) and there is a massive conspiracy afoot to suppress alternatives to mainstream, esp their own because their own is the cream of the crop! For they can always construct an alternative theory or explanation that attacks a well-establish theory via a heavy dose of skepticism. The only problem with that is that if they are going to play "radical skeptic nevertheless theory-espouser" then they are stuck with the inconvenient little part about being constrained by their own skepticism. Additionally, looking for alternative explanations to phenomena is productive; however, one can also "what if" the Universe to death...which is, frustratingly, something almost no ever mentions/considers. Throwing a bunch of "what ifs" out there is not necessarily a sign of theoretical sophistication rather it may be more of a sign of an overly active imagination fueled by professional frustration.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Einstien's Relativity Error d 2022 Against the Mainstream 1003 02-May-2004 06:53 PM
Twin Paradox: Definitive Proof That It's SR? Eroica General Science 2085 30-January-2004 02:10 AM
Apollo Paper! Vermonter Space Exploration 6 12-August-2003 05:04 AM
Galactic Rotation and Dark Matter Thomas Against the Mainstream 114 17-May-2003 08:11 PM
A challenge to all : Read a Scientific Paper Hale_Bopp Astronomy 22 20-February-2002 04:14 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.0.0
©  2006 Bad Astronomy and Universe Today