Author Topic: Does light generate a gravitational field?The discoveries of Rancourt and Neuman  (Read 5036 times)

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3213
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1661
  • Likes Given: 1973
Peer review is not some magic perfect process, and nonsense sometimes gets through. In fact, there has been research on the peer review process, and a disturbing number of publications were willing to publish auto-generated gibberish. Clearly this was not actually reviewed carefully, since the paper in the first link is so blatantly unprofessional. (They end a paragraph with "Wow...")

'underwent rigorous peer review' sounds a lot better than 'our editor, who diddn't understand the paper, sent it to a couple of guys who agreed to look at it for free, and they found nothing majorly wrong in the bits they read and understood. The first four guys we sent it to said they couldn't be bothered'.

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Liked: 1791
  • Likes Given: 418
With " stronger dependecies " I mean a force that goes as r-4 or e-r. In those cases the effect could easily go unnoticed.
You can keep making up an endless amount of assumptions. Out of the infinite number of made up statements that could be made, there is no reason to test these ones. All you are succeeding at here is proving my previous point that there is no solid hypothesis to test here, making it impossible to ever run a test that would disprove it.

Anyway, your specific claim here is that the power level of light does not decrease proportional to 1/r^2 from its source. This is something that has been tested by countless experiments. (There are actually cases where power level can decrease slower than 1/r^2 over a limited range, such as the power through an aperture at varying distances from a large, diffuse surface, but that doesn't help your case.)

Offline Giovanni

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Italy
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
your specific claim here is that the power level of light does not decrease proportional to 1/r^2
No, I was referring to the gravitational filed generated by the light source.
My statement can be expanded this way:
" If r is the module of the distance between the light source (that we assume point-like) and the test mass (that we assume point-like) the force that acts on the test mass depends on r-4 or e-r "
Since the experimental evidence seems to contradict General Relativity we need a new theory but to create a new theory we need experimental data: so the law must be experimentally determined.
It's a matter of simply collect the data and found the function that produce the best fit.
« Last Edit: 08/24/2018 02:39 pm by Giovanni »

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Liked: 1791
  • Likes Given: 418
Quote
your specific claim here is that the power level of light does not decrease proportional to 1/r^2
No, I was referring to the gravitational filed generated by the light source.
The experiments are claiming that it is the light that is causing the force, not the light source. If the light source is moving between the setups in their experiments, then the experiments are basically just invalid.

Since the experimental evidence seems to contradict General Relativity we need a new theory but to create a new theory we need experimental data: so the law must be experimentally determined.
No on multiple counts.

-The experimental data does not contradict general relativity, again the experimenters have demonstrated incompetence.
-To run a proper experiment, you need a rigorous, falsifiable hypothesis. It can have constants that need to be determined by experiment, but the falsifiable constraint puts limits on that.

It's a matter of simply collect the data and found the function that produce the best fit.
No, blindly fitting data is not how you do science.
« Last Edit: 08/24/2018 03:00 pm by meberbs »

Offline Giovanni

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Italy
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
If the light source is moving between the setups in their experiments, then the experiments are basically just invalid.
False. I reformulate:
" If r is the module of the distance between the center of the photon gas and the test mass (that we assume point-like) the force that acts on the test mass depends on r-4 or e-r "
It's trivial to show that, in the case of a light source that emit light with spherical symmetry, this statement is equivalent to the previous one.

Quote
The experimental data does not contradict general relativity, again the experimenters have demonstrated incompetence.
Again you cannot say. The only way to prove them wrong is to re-do the experiment and find a result different from the result found by them.
« Last Edit: 08/24/2018 03:35 pm by Giovanni »

Offline Giovanni

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Italy
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
This forum frankly freaked me out.

The statement "This hypothesis is false so it is useless to test it experimentally" is absolutely idiotic and anti-scientific. If you and your friends, with whom you cheerfully exchange 'likes' as a 15-year-old, represent the average american scientist, the chances that Eagleworks will discover something interesting for space exploration are zero.

I'll tell you more. It's obvious to anyone who is not an idiot that you are not really convinced that the article is false. You pretend to be. You are partisan and I do not talk to biased people.

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Liked: 1791
  • Likes Given: 418
Quote
If the light source is moving between the setups in their experiments, then the experiments are basically just invalid.
False. I reformulate:
" If r is the module of the distance between the center of the photon gas and the test mass (that we assume point-like) the force that acts on the test mass depends on r-4 or e-r "
It's trivial to show that, in the case of a light source that emit light with spherical symmetry, this statement is equivalent to the previous one.
Again, their experiments refer to the light beam, not the source. There is not a "photon gas" in this situation, making more things up does not help your position. If they actually were moving the light source around it should be obvious that the physical mass of the light source would mess with any experiment that is trying to measure gravitational force.

Quote
The experimental data does not contradict general relativity, again the experimenters have demonstrated incompetence.
Again you cannot say. The only way to prove them wrong is to re-do the experiment and find a result different from the result found by them.
No I clearly can say that they have demonstrated incompetence when they fail to even describe how a torsional pendulum works, and then they move on to a worse measurement setup for further research. You have burden of proof backwards, it is on the one making the claim, which is them and you for the claim of "their device works."

I just provided clear evidence for my claim of "they are incompetent."
« Last Edit: 08/24/2018 05:44 pm by Chris Bergin »

Tags: