Radioactive Decay not a constant ?

[Aero]

I can't help but wonder if Special Relativity might not be the culprit in the fly-by anomaly but I don't understand the details of the signal turn-around at the space vehicle well enough to have an idea of how SR might impose itself on the signal. Here's what I do know from my days at GPS. (see ICD-GPS-200).
Special relativity effects cause the space vehicle clock to advance or retard by an amount given by delta t = - 2 * r dot v / c^2. That is, time, aboard the space vehicle will develop an offset that equals twice the negative dot product of the range and velocity vector divided by the square of the speed of light. I believe it is a direct result of the changing intensity of the gravitational field in the space vehicle environment.

You will note that even though the c is very large, r dot v is not so small either, especially asymptotically.

And there is also the simple fact that it is not the speed of light in free space, but rather, the speed of light along the signal path that must be used. Light is retarded while within the atmosphere.

hee hee - did you all realize that we see by retarded light? Maybe it causes the fly-by anomaly, too.

[gblaze42]

How would gravity ever be a compression wave? I've never heard of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._T._Whittaker

"In the theory of partial differential equations, Whittaker developed a general solution of the Laplace equation in three dimensions and the solution of the wave equation. He developed the electrical potential field as a bi-directional flow of energy (sometimes referred to as alternating currents). Whittaker's pair of papers in 1903 and 1904 indicated that any potential can be analysed by a Fourier-like series of waves, such as a planet's gravitational field point-charge. The superpositions of inward and outward wave pairs produce the "static" fields (or scalar potential). These were harmonically-related. By this conception, the structure of electric potential is created from two opposite, though balanced, parts. Whittaker suggested that gravity possessed a wavelike "undulatory" character."

'"undulatory" character', it doesn't as we now know.

[gblaze42]

I can't help but wonder if Special Relativity might not be the culprit in the fly-by anomaly but I don't understand the details of the signal turn-around at the space vehicle well enough to have an idea of how SR might impose itself on the signal. Here's what I do know from my days at GPS. (see ICD-GPS-200).
Special relativity effects cause the space vehicle clock to advance or retard by an amount given by delta t = - 2 * r dot v / c^2. That is, time, aboard the space vehicle will develop an offset that equals twice the negative dot product of the range and velocity vector divided by the square of the speed of light. I believe it is a direct result of the changing intensity of the gravitational field in the space vehicle environment.

You will note that even though the c is very large, r dot v is not so small either, especially asymptotically.

And there is also the simple fact that it is not the speed of light in free space, but rather, the speed of light along the signal path that must be used. Light is retarded while within the atmosphere.

Nice work! Although I'm not sure about the gravitational field part, I would think that this would be very small. Although, just thinking, if the spacecraft's mentioned were to encounter the earth as the earth rotation was towards it, possibly, just possibly, that frame dragging would be involved causing a slight blueshift . The earth would should be more effective in affecting the gravitational field.

hee hee - did you all realize that we see by retarded light? Maybe it causes the fly-by anomaly, too.

Yes and through in that their is a millisecond or two of time to process information from the eye, what everyone is seeing is the near past.

[KitemanSA]

How would gravity ever be a compression wave? I've never heard of this.

One hypothesis I have read about (no, I don't have a link to it) is that the same fluctuations that allow Hawking to declare that small black holes evaporate emit gravitons from everywhere throughout the universe. Similar to neutrinos, mass is pratcially transparent to these gravitons so they impact a particle only a minicule percentage of the time. When they impact, they impart a bit of momentum, the same as a photon or any other impact. They PUSH the items they impact. But the impact also prevents the graviton from continuing on to impact something else. The impacted particle shadows the other side. The more particles, i.e., mass, (the earth for instance) the more shadowing, so the push on something else (you for instance) is unbalanced in the direction of the earth.

So you see, Earth doesn't suck, the Universe blows!

[icarus]

gblaze:

'"undulatory" character', it doesn't as we now know.

This statement is incorrect.

Scientifically speaking, you can only say that it has not yet been measured, not that it definitively "doesn't".

I was merely replying to your statement of being ignorant about compression wave theories of gravity. Such theories are out there if one chooses to entertain them. The Universe decides which theories work best, at present GR seems to tell a good story about gravitational phenomena. The Pioneer anomaly seems to have slipped through the GR cracks though.

[gblaze42]

gblaze:

'"undulatory" character', it doesn't as we now know.

This statement is incorrect.

Scientifically speaking, you can only say that it has not yet been measured, not that it definitively "doesn't".

Please read what I wrote, "it doesn't as we now know", as we now know is the qualifier, our understanding of the universe does change as more information is found.

The Universe decides which theories work best, at present GR seems to tell a good story about gravitational phenomena

Anthropomorphizing? The universe does not "decide" anything, it is what it is.

Human's are the only one's, so far as we know, who theorize anything. We, in our limited abilities, can only scratch the surface of the universe around us and through those scratchings try to determine what we are dealing with.

GR is not a "story" it tends to be mostly right, and like everything there are exceptions for it as well.

[StevePoling]

I was annoyed by the notion of Nature deciding which theories are right, b/c it doesn't work that way. Nature presents phenomena to the observer. The observer is wise to record it accurately and then describe that phenomena in an organized fashion. When descriptions are organized well enough to use mathematical formulae, we call them theories.

It may be that there is some metaphysical logos establishing some structure or natural law to which matter and energy conform. (Indeed as a Baptist I can quote scripture on the subject.) But the best science presumes the least and works from phenomena to description.

[gblaze42]

I was annoyed by the notion of Nature deciding which theories are right, b/c it doesn't work that way. Nature presents phenomena to the observer. The observer is wise to record it accurately and then describe that phenomena in an organized fashion. When descriptions are organized well enough to use mathematical formulae, we call them theories.

It may be that there is some metaphysical logos establishing some structure or natural law to which matter and energy conform. (Indeed as a Baptist I can quote scripture on the subject.) But the best science presumes the least and works from phenomena to description.

I like to put it this way,

Science is man's limited understanding of the universe that God created.

[rcain]

I like to put it this way,

Science is man's limited understanding of the universe that God created.

but that is a circular argument, since Man created 'god'. 'In the beginning was the word...' qed.

[rcain]

I was annoyed by the notion of Nature deciding which theories are right, b/c it doesn't work that way.

i put to you the phenomena vs concepts of quantum entanglement and superposition. also Baysian probability.

more common-sensically, language and the 'sense' frame place ultimate constraints on knowledge. in addition, we are more likely to find something that we are looking for, including explanations.

spooky.

[Mike Holmes]

God neccessitates circular arguments. That's what faith is. You have to believe without proof. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist. It just means that we can't prove it. It also means that, largely, god is not susceptible to disproof, either.

Thomas Aquinas was a smart guy, but the sum total of his work amounts to one amazingly large circular argument. A very intreresting circular argument, however...

Yes, religion is not science. Science tells us what the world is like through careful observation. Religion tells us why it is the way it is.

Mike

[gblaze42]

I like to put it this way,

Science is man's limited understanding of the universe that God created.

but that is a circular argument, since Man created 'god'. 'In the beginning was the word...' qed.

I don't think so...but I'm not here to argue if God exists. Not sure what you mean by "In the beginning was the word" word by the definition they, Jewish Hebrews of the time, gave it was to mean God.

[gblaze42]

Yes, religion is not science. Science tells us what the world is like through careful observation. Religion tells us why it is the way it is.

My point exactly.

God necessitates circular arguments. That's what faith is. You have to believe without proof. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist. It just means that we can't prove it. It also means that, largely, god is not susceptible to disproof, either.

I don't agree, faith is something everyone uses on a daily bases. In fact science is riddled with faith, specially with people who deem themselves scientifically literate without being a scientist. How often do you see people who take at face value what scientific studies have been released. Who actually goes through and tries to test to conform or deny a study? not many.

This question will clarify what I mean, have you actually seen an electron or atom? most people have not, they rely on a certain elite class of rabbi (teachers, or as we know them, scientists) to tell us what is going on and we believe them because they appear to know what they are talking about. In most cases people have seen a picture or representation of an atom in a book, and people believe in the book.

Sounds a bit familiar actually.

[Betruger]

No.. It doesn't take faith to recognize that science is rationaly airtight, as an empirical protocol. The only faith in science is solipsism. Making the rational "best guess" that it is in fact electrons that channel the information in one's computer as he types away, rather than fairies, isn't a matter of faith. Science doesn't pretend to be 100% sure either. It's all a matter of the best rational guess possible. Practical results guide those guess closer to the intended target, not blind faith.

[TallDave]

I think gblaze is right to the extent a lot of scientific claims are treated as gospel truth because they come from scientists rather than on their empirical merits.

Global warming is a good example of this. There's very little empirical basis for some of the claims being made, but a lot of people seem to evaluate those claims as 'Well, they're made by scientists, so they must be scientific, therefore they must be true."

Tell me gravity causes object to fall at 10 m/s/s and I can verify it empirically, myself. That's real science. (Obviously some things require sophisticated measurement devices, but the principle is the same: we can all measure the same effect.) So when you give me a projection based on the assertion that things fall at 10 m/s/s, I can say this is a very scientific projection and very likely to be accurate. When you throw a bunch of variables into a computer based on historical data and a lot of assumptions and very simplified treatments of very complex phenomena, and on that basis tell me we're all doomed because of rising CO2 levels, no one can say whether the conclusions are accurate as we don't have a spare Earth and 100 years to test them with. But many people are treating those conclusions as though they're as ironclad as the 10 m/s/s we can all measure.