Is there some major confirmation bias regarding relativity theory?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Ultron, Oct 22, 2018.

  1. Ultron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    245
    It seems to me, that only research which is aiming to confim General relativity gets funding and when this research fails to confirm General relativity, it will be not published. Only research which manages to confirm it will get published. Research which would specifically aim to find shorcomings of GR will not be funded and will not be published.

    The latest case:
    https://gssc.esa.int/projectgreat/

    Galileo satellites with wrong orbit should have served as improved confirmation of general relativity but so far it seems that the results differ from predictions and therefore is the "model" refined, adjusted and readjusted and so on, until it finally will meet expected results.

    See preliminary results, especially the page 38:
    https://www.zarm.uni-bremen.de/fps2017/pdf/Vortraege/Herrmann_Galileo_FP_WS.pdf


    It was the same story with Gravity Probe B, it took them like 10 years tu fudge the data to finally agree with General relativity.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Research that could conclusively (and repeatably) disprove GR would not only be published, it would guarantee the author a Nobel prize. Researchers like those things.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ultron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    245
    Its not about disproval. Newton gravity theory was never "disproved". It was refined and improved into GR. So GR can and must be improved.

    And no, Vera Rubin did not got Nobel for "disproving" GR, it was named dark matter. And after more than 30 years and billions spent there is still not a single DIRECT proof of dark matter.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    When you hear hoofbeats, look for horses before zebras.

    The more likely reason that the rejected research is not getting published - is because it's flawed in some way.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    OK. Even someone who could "refine" GR (via repeatable experiments) would be pretty much guaranteed a Nobel prize. And a lot of people are trying.
    ?? I never claimed they did.
     
  9. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    You figured it out!
    The real goal of science is to prevent new discoveries.

    Brilliant, just brilliant.
     
  10. Ultron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    245
    Its called straw man what are you doing now. I was writing specifically about General relativity and I have linked specific example which obviously nobody cared to read.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    When a paper is rejected, do they give a reason?
     
  12. Ultron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    245
    Lets try it the other way. If you think Im wrong, give me an example where was a research aimed at finding flaws of General relativity funded by state research agency or by university. Or an example where a research originally aimed to confirm GR, but failed and was published showing the failure without extensively fudging the data like it was in case of Gravity probe B.
     
  13. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12917
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0573-2
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-32165-z
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-018-0156-2

    I could fill the page if you'd like with many more examples, but I assume you would dismiss those as I assume you will dismiss these.

    Is it your contention that there is some sort of conspiracy in the physics community to falsify results to prevent advancement in the area of gravity? If this data was fudged then the whole of the physics community must be in on it or they would have 'blown the whistle'. I mean the fudging must be obvious to any physicist if you can see it. Right?
     
  14. Ultron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    245
    First I would like to appreciate that you have spent some time on it and have posted specific links.
    I will check the links, but it will take same time.

    Regarding conspiracy in physics community it is not about falsifying the results to prevent advancement in area of gravity. It is rather about psychology. There were long and massive attacks on relativity in the past from leading physicists in 1920ties and over the time most of people attacking relativity now have low knowledge and any serious physicist today who would launch direct attack would be virtually lynched by "mainstream". Such attact would surely lead to professional suicide.

    So if you have some complex scenario like binary pulsars, you just have to fudge "model" to fit results and earn grants and respect. And the models are so complex, that nobody can really nail you. Sometimes the discrepances are so big, that the fudging takes a lot of time and reaches such scale that it is not accepted even by mainstream, but nobody will blame you publicly. This happened with Gravity probe B results.

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13938-gravity-probe-b-scores-f-in-nasa-review/
     
  15. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Bullshit. give some evidence to back it up.
    Bullshit. Give some evidence.
    Bullshit. The physicist don't understand their own models? Are you nutz????
    And... bullshit

    Basically this comes down to this. You think that General Relativity has some aspects that are in conflict with what you see in your everyday life and you don't understand general Relativity so it must be wrong.

    You don't understand exactly how a CPU can make your computer run either, are CPUs not real?

    This is boring - goodbye (actually I am running away because you speak the truth!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
     
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Let's don't.

    I posit the universe is the result of a cosmic Unicorn. Prove me wrong.
    And if you don't publish my paper I'll cry bias.

    That's hardly a workable model is it?

    It's safe to assume they question the quality of the submitted paper. I don't know why it was rejected. What reason do they give?
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Virtually every university with a decent physics department has research into possible flaws with general relativity. There are lots of proposed alternative theories and modifications, after all. It's not like general relativity is some sacred cow that must not be questioned.
     

Share This Page