Peer Review and You

[FearlessLeader2]

Materiel between {}is by FearlessLeader2

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife
On page five{of The Age-Old Arguement} you posted (17/05/01) a pointer to file discussing an experiment with light.{Experiment } I have now read that also. It starts with a description of a particular (no pun intended) experiment by the experimenter, laying out his method, results and conclusion. There then follows a dialogue with another person who wishes to verify the validity of the results. The discussion focuses mainly on the method of using the equipment and although there are occasional queries, one from the other, as to their mutual level of understanding of the overall subject, they both appear to know quite a lot about the physics of light.

Now, I have never heard of either of these people. I know nothing of their ability and experience to conduct and interpret such experiments. I don't know whether they are basically competent or not. I do not know any of the background as to the intricate details of light physics as presently understood, nor of other experimental work that may be relevant. There is no indication of peer group review of this work. In short I do not know how to evaluate it.
Can you help me with how you were able to come to the conclusion that the experiment was entirely valid and conclusive such that it has changed our understanding of the physics of light so radically?

Well, without actually quoting the source materiel, the second guy questions only the conclusions drawn by the first, and does indicate that the experimental data is accurately portrayed. As I do have a basic understanding of a great many branches of science(it really helps reading everything that isn't nailed down, Omni does a great job of explaining things in layman's terms, and from there one can Web-research any topic, not to mention the fact that I scored straight 'A's in Science and Math in school), I was able to follow the researcher's examination of the data.

I even drew some pictures to help myself better understand it, and read up on the topic. I'm not about to say that I am a qualified laser technician, or a qualified voice in the field, but I do understand the terms used, and I do understand the principles involved in the researcher's conclusions. He makes a very good case for his PoV, and the repercussions of his work are frankly staggering in their reach. If one loves to lay about onesself with William of Ockham's shaving instrument, then one cannot dismiss this research.

If this research data is accurate(and he did test his equipment before and after the experiment), then the conclusions he draws could very well be accurate too. It certainly appears, given his data, as if the speed of light is infinity, and that the apparent speed of light is actually a function of having to wait for the accumulated effect of light energy to build up to a level where the sensors can register its presence.

The implications of this research could well turn many branches of science on their ears. Several long-held, and never understood, concepts could be brushed aside, and newer, simpler concepts erected in their place. If light and gravity do possess the same velocity, then the relationship between the two no longer needs several chalkboards to be explored. If they possess the same velocity, then the relationship between magnetic attraction and repulsion and gravity is simplified as well. Thus far, it has been the experience of scientists everywhere that the simplest logical answer is usually correct. Why then, do ES scientists refuse to review his work, or duplicate his experiments?

The fact that no-one in Establishment Science has chosen to attempt to duplicate his experiment (to establish whether or not it can be duplicated--one of the first rules of research is that if it cannot be duplicated, it is probably invalid), indicates to me a perverse unwillingness to open their minds to new data. They are simply vetoing his research by ignoring it in favor of their own.

Edit to add link to data

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

There isn't really anything to debate here (unless you want to share your reasoning about Occam's razor in this particular case). I know what the implications of the results are. In layman's terms I understand what is going on. It is a very interesting and potentially ground-breaking idea.

I was just puzzled as to how you could make the leap from that to implied certainty in front of an audience, many of whom have less experience and understanding of science than you and I. I am well aware that so-called fringe scientists have much to contribute (but that does not automatically give their work validity) and that scientific communities, like all other human communities, can be over-resistant to knew ideas (but that is what provides a degree of stability to things, and the opposite characteristic would be much more damaging)

What are you using for verification that the experiments were validly controlled?

Can you point me to a site from which I can explore this a little further?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

You know that I can't for the reasons I just went through. No one else is touching this research with a ten-meter cattle prod. The implications to their grant proposals are frightening at best.

I have to ask...what branch of science, excuse me Science, do you work in?

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

I don't. I work in local Government. I read a lot and think nearly as much and talk to people when I get the chance. I studied history originally. I suppose I'm just interested in things.

Can you then point me to a reliable site that treats generally on the physics of light? My reading was a long time ago and I don't have much in the way of reference material anymore. I'm normally okay at retaining an overall impression of a topic, but I have a hopeless memory for detail. Sometimes all I can remember about something is that I understood it at the time

 

[Juize]

There is a place where you can handle this without spamming---
It's called Private Messaging.

 

[mrog]

If the following is correct:

"It certainly appears, given his data, as if the speed of light is infinity, and that the apparent speed of light is actually a function of having to wait for the accumulated effect of light energy to build up to a level where the sensors can register its presence."

Why do we not observe a reduction in temporal resolution as the apparent time delay increases?

 

[Dogberry_Old]

It was always always my impression that the speed of light was limited ( 186,000 mps )...but, that at least according to Einstein, the tug/repulsion of gravity was instantaneous.

Dog

 

[PinkyGen]

I have no idea the actual science about this, but I leave with this.

"Extradorinary claims require extradorinary proof."

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by mrog
If the following is correct:

"It certainly appears, given his data, as if the speed of light is infinity, and that the apparent speed of light is actually a function of having to wait for the accumulated effect of light energy to build up to a level where the sensors can register its presence."

Why do we not observe a reduction in temporal resolution as the apparent time delay increases?

I'm afraid you'll have to dumb that down a notch, I'm a little rusty on my quantum mechanics.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Dogberry
It was always always my impression that the speed of light was limited ( 186,000 mps )...but, that at least according to Einstein, the tug/repulsion of gravity was instantaneous.

Dog

The point of this thread is that there is a guy out in the real world, a physicist no less, who may have proved that the phenomenon known as the 'speed of light' is actually a delay between the time that light strikes an object, and it builds up sufficient energy to be detected by equipment. If he is correct(and his experimental data is impressive), he may well turn physics on its ear.

Well, actually the point of this thread is that he is not being allowed to turn physics on its ear, because none of the other scientists will listen to him. He is challenging some of their most closely-held beliefs, and they are refusing to perform peer review on his work.

It is my contention that peer review, a process ostensibly set up so that scientists could 'police' themselves, is nothing more than a means to assure that no one upsets the apple cart, and takes grant money away from the Establishment Scientists. The fact that they have chosen to bury this work lends weight to my accusation.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by PinkyGen
I have no idea the actual science about this, but I leave with this.

"Extradorinary claims require extradorinary proof."

Why? Why should any one claim be held to a higher requirement of proof than ony other?

And the point is, this guy has proof. He just can't get anyone to perform seperate trials, because none of the other physicists want to lose their grants.

 

[PinkyGen]

Because extradornary things require more proof than what was expected in order to make sure there is no mistake.

BTW, I'm all for this guy having more tests. I just don't think the old theory is dead yet.

 

[joespaniel]

Reading this thread is mysterious and almost eerie. Sounds like some plot to take over by the illuminati.

 

[mrog]

My point about temporal resolution is simply as follows: As a light (or other EMR) source moves away from us the longer the delay before we detect it. Consider Apollo astronauts going to the moon. When in low earth orbit they were able to have real time conversations with mission control. The delays (whatever their cause) were too short to be noticable. As their craft moved further away, however, the delay grew longer. By the time they were orbiting the moon the delay was (from memory) over a second- lets say 1 second.

Conventional physics would argue that this delay reflects the travel time of the signal from tansmitter to receiver. This alternative theory (if I understand it correctly) suggests the delay occurs at the reciever and reflects the time taken for the signal to build to a detectable strength.

But if that 1 second delay was due to signal build up, then the shortest event we would be able to resolve would be 1 second. If a signal was transmitted for less than one second we would not detect it. Communications to and from the moon involved far finer temporal resolutions than 1 second. So I'm wondering how this theory would account for that.

 

[mrog]

As for your comments about vested interests in science- I agree to some extent. There is a tension between the weight of existing findings and new, seemingly, contrary findings. And yes scientists are humans with all the strengths and foibles that implies. There are those who refuse to see evidence that contradicts their own ideas.

I 'm an optimist- I think that eventually the weight of evidence will tell.

One thing that would count against this fellow and his theory is that it is not a new idea.

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

I don't know if you foreign chaps and chapesses get a chance to see BBC Horizon programs, but this week's was relevant on two counts; being about the struggle for new information to find its place in the overall body of knowledge and also being esentially linked to the issue of light and distant objects. Here is a link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/index.shtml

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by joespaniel
Reading this thread is mysterious and almost eerie. Sounds like some plot to take over by the illuminati.

What if they already have? But do go ahead and scoff. It's a free Internet.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by mrog
My point about temporal resolution is simply as follows: As a light (or other EMR) source moves away from us the longer the delay before we detect it. Consider Apollo astronauts going to the moon. When in low earth orbit they were able to have real time conversations with mission control. The delays (whatever their cause) were too short to be noticable. As their craft moved further away, however, the delay grew longer. By the time they were orbiting the moon the delay was (from memory) over a second- lets say 1 second.

Conventional physics would argue that this delay reflects the travel time of the signal from tansmitter to receiver. This alternative theory (if I understand it correctly) suggests the delay occurs at the reciever and reflects the time taken for the signal to build to a detectable strength.

But if that 1 second delay was due to signal build up, then the shortest event we would be able to resolve would be 1 second. If a signal was transmitted for less than one second we would not detect it. Communications to and from the moon involved far finer temporal resolutions than 1 second. So I'm wondering how this theory would account for that.

Seems I'm gonna hafta invest in gravy ladles...another competent argument.

You make some excellent points, but I'm not sure that 'temporal resolution' as you describe it is a legitimate phenomenon. The signal 'build-up' merely has to account for attenuation of the signal, IE the signal hits the reciever instantly, and for the duration of the signal, resonates in it long enough to register, and then fades over its duration as the original portion bleeds away as heat, replenished at the detection threshold by the still incoming signal, and then fades after the signal ends.

Just because there is a one second delay from reception to detection threshold, that does not imply that the signal would be lost without being noticed. It just means that the reciever takes the same amount of time to recognize any attenuated signal from that distance.

It seems likely that distances measured using starlight bent around the edges of stars from further stars, and parralax measurements, could be greatly in error. The universe could be a great deal smaller or larger than it seems to be.

 

[mrog]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
.... The signal 'build-up' merely has to account for attenuation of the signal, IE the signal hits the reciever instantly, and for the duration of the signal, resonates in it long enough to register, and then fades over its duration as the original portion bleeds away as heat, replenished at the detection threshold by the still incoming signal, and then fades after the signal ends.

Just because there is a one second delay from reception to detection threshold, that does not imply that the signal would be lost without being noticed. It just means that the reciever takes the same amount of time to recognize any attenuated signal from that distance.

If the delay were due to attenuation of the signal then the relationship between distance and time delay would follow an inverse square law. That is, a doubling of distance would give a four-fold increase in delay. If the delay were due to travel time then the delay would double as distance doubles. The latter is observed.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Dang fine point. I guess attenuation is not the limiting factor then, but there has to be some explanation for the data this guy recieved in his test.