Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Glen Davidson – Candidate for Stupid Question of the Year

June 19, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over on Panda’s Thumb, frequent commenter Glen Davidson in a gratuitous Coulter bashing festival, asks

Where have the relativistic effects of gravity been shown in the lab?

Good lord, Glen. Relativistic effects of velocity and gravity have not only been demonstrated they are used in applied science. The Global Positioning System requires clocks so accurate and synchronized that differences in velocity and local gravity amongst orbital and ground based clocks must be compensated for in order to achieve desired accuracy. Doesn’t everyone know this? It’s really old news, Glen. Anyone claiming any broad based knowledge of science should not have asked the question you did. What’s your background again, Glen?

Comments
>> Randy, something in your email address seems to be causing your comments to land in the moderation queue. I haven’t figured out what it is yet. You’re not being moderated on purpose. -ds LOL. Maybe you have an automation filter that says: "If E-mail address has posted on PT, moderate until proven innocent" Randyrmagruder
June 20, 2006
June
06
Jun
20
20
2006
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
"At PT, Glen responded to this little exchange: “While I did put in a few digs at her, she was hardly my target, so mostly I had been responding to Randy’s YEC-inspired attacks on those of us who accept science.” What’s funny is that there was nothing in my posts that would say I was a YEC. In fact, I don’t consider myself one. I’ve allowed for the possibility of that, but generally I would be an OEC. And of course, to argue with anyone there means that we “don’t accept science”. *sigh*. " I'm waiting for any evidence that IDists/creationists do accept science across the board. I didn't write that you are YEC, I said that they were "YEC-inspired attacks." See, none of your argumnents are new, but rather they come from YEC sources orginally, whether you know it or not. Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykmGlen Davidson
June 20, 2006
June
06
Jun
20
20
2006
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT

Sorry about missing the link. Good, a lab experiment confirmed relativistic gravity effects. Note that I am careful with my writing and did not write anything like, "Where has a relativistic effect of gravity been shown in the lab?" I wrote,

“Where have the relativistic effects of gravity been shown in the lab. … So show us how the more difficult aspects of gravity have been studied in the lab.”

The second sentence was written to firm up the fact that I want the range of relativistic effects to be shown in the lab, and I mentioned the graviton because I want quantum gravity effects to be demonstrated in the lab. RMagruder was claiming that gravity can be readily calculated and shown in the lab, and my point was that much cannot be recreated in the lab. The point stands, no matter how much you try to act as if an experiment here or there backs up Randy's claims.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Gravitons aren't a relativistic effect of gravity. They are a hypothetical particle that carries the gravitational force. Quantum gravity is not a relativistic effect of gravity either. Evolution that exceeds the species barrier and especially evolution that exceeds the cell type, tissue type, organ, and body plan barriers are fundamental claims of NDE theory and none have ever been demonstrated either in a lab or outside a lab. Thanks for showing us all the 5 D's of Darwinism, by the way. Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge! You're not good at it but I'll give you an A for persistence and no matter how big an ass I make of you, you keep coming back for more. Have you ever seen The Black Knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"? That's you Glen, the Black Knight. It's only a flesh wound. Don't stop now. You can still try to bite my legs. :lol: -ds

Glen Davidson
June 20, 2006
June
06
Jun
20
20
2006
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT

"The first experiment in a laboratory confirming relativistic effects of gravity fields was in 1959. Here’s a clue from old Dave, Glen. When you find you’ve dug yourself into a hole the first thing you should do is stop digging. Of course if you took that bit of advice you’d have to turn in your Darwinian chance worshipping paraphernalia and face reality head on. I don’t suppose that’s likely is it? -ds"

I did not, of course, claim that no relativistic effects of gravity can be seen in the lab. In fact LIGO is designed to detect gravity waves, though no unambiguous results have been reported yet. While mere detection of gravity waves is not a huge use of relativistic gravity effects in the laboratory, at least it would be something.

I would suggest that you quit trying to bury someone else into the holes you dig.

I would like to see some evidence for LABORATORY confirmation of relativistic effects of gravity fields from 1959.

"By the way, gravity is the strongest force in nature. It overwhelms the electromagnetic force to form neutron stars. It overwhelms the weak nuclear force to form quark stars. And finally, when it overwhelms the strong nuclear force, a black hole is formed. Thanks for playing."

Of course this is one of the least informed comments that you have ever made. Even high school physics students often know better than that. Gravity IS cumulative, which is why relativistic effects of gravity appear around black holes and neutron stars, but it is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. These matters are explained further here:

http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/forces.htm

I mentioned finding the graviton in my post, because it is considered to be practically impossible to do.

Glen D
http:tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Keep digging that hole deeper, dummy. Pound-Rebka is no secret. It confirmed with 10% accuracy the relativistic prediction of time dilation in gravity fields in 1959. Pound-Snider in 1964 confirmed it to 1% accuracy. Links to the original articles which appeared in Physical Review can be found at the first link I left for you. I can spoonfeed this stuff to you if you'd stop making faces and spitting it out. Gravity is only weak in low mass regimes. In high mass regimes it overwhelms the other forces and becomes the strongest. What part of it overwhelming the electromagnetic force in neutron stars and the strong nuclear force in black holes didn't you understand, Glen? -ds Glen Davidson
June 20, 2006
June
06
Jun
20
20
2006
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT

Dave,

First of all, excellent work in hounding out Glen Davidson. I'm glad somebody is doing it.

Secondly, just a quick correction, as I have some knowledge in this field: Gravity is by far the weakest of the four fundamental forces. Electromagnetic repulsion is approximately 10 to the power of 42 (that's a million billion billion billion billion)times more powerful than gravity. If your right bicep represented the strength of gravitational force, then your left bicep would have to extend beyond the edge of the known universe to represent the strength of electromagnetic force. The only reason electromagnetic force does not completely overwhelm gravity in the world around us is that most things are composed of an equal amount of positive and negative electric charges whose forces cancel eachother out.

This fact accounts for the difficulty in experimentally confirming the existence of the graviton--the agent particle of gravity. Searching for the smallest bundle of the feeblest force is quite a challenge.

Carry on!

So you're saying that in a neutron star the electromagnetic force is stronger than gravity and electrons and protons still repulse each other with enough force to remain separate? You're wrong if you do. The problem here is one of comparing apples to oranges. Gravity is additive and when enough particles are involved the additive property overwhelms the other three forces. Ultimately the universe is governed by gravity. It is the strongest of all the forces in the big picture. -ds Kibitz
June 20, 2006
June
06
Jun
20
20
2006
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
RE: #11 "Where bacteria and viruses rapidly mutate for a recognized and ordered purpose, higher level organisms, such as fish or quadrapeds resist mutation." Clarify for me, if you will. I question the whole idea of rapid bacteria mutation. I thought bacteria changes are not so much due to mutations as they are to gene transfer (plasmids). That is certainly not macro-evolution or even micro-evolution. The genetic information pre-exists and just gets moved around. Certainly, mutations occur once in a while but that is not the primary means by which bacteria adapt.garyj
June 20, 2006
June
06
Jun
20
20
2006
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT

I believe in post #4 that Mr. Glen Davidson stated that "gravity is the strongest force in nature. It overwhelms the electromagnetic force to form neutron stars." This seems wrong to me. Just take for example to objects of the same mass. One is made of plastic, the other a magnet. Place them next to a metal object, what happens, the force of gravity is almost nothing, but he magnetic force is powerful. I was taught that the force of gravity was something like 1 biliion times less strong thatn elctro magentism. Perhaps we need some clarity on the subject.

It was me (DaveScot aka -ds) who said gravity was the strongest force in nature. If there is enough mass in a small enough space gravity overwhelms all the other forces of nature. You aren't calling for comparing objects of equal mass. You are calling for comparing objects of low mass. Gravity is additive and works over large distances. Given enough mass in a small enough space it overwhelms all the other forces of nature. It's really a matter of regimes. I was just correcting Glen when he called gravity a weak force. In high mass regimes gravity is the strongest of all the forces. In low mass regimes it is the weakest. One can't really can't call gravity weak or strong without qualification. -ds hooligans
June 20, 2006
June
06
Jun
20
20
2006
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT

Well, that's just it, isn't it? Are we more stupid than nature? Because the idea that everything came about the purely naturalistic forces means that smart scientists should be perfectly able to do everything that nature did, because THEY (unlike nature) are intelligent. They can do in a lab in moments what might take huge amounts of time in nature. And yet they are still unable to create entirely new species...(of course here they will change the definition of 'new species' to mean a slight variation and thus claim they have proven their point).

Randy, something in your email address seems to be causing your comments to land in the moderation queue. I haven't figured out what it is yet. You're not being moderated on purpose. -ds

Update: I found it. Your email address WAS on the list. I could've sworn I searched for it and came up empty a day or two ago. Sorry about that. Your comments should appear immediately now. -ds rmagruder
June 20, 2006
June
06
Jun
20
20
2006
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
Just checking in to see if there are valid answers. I realize Coulter is a satirist, but the questions Glen clarified in this post of his response are good questions regarding macro-evolution and the resistance to mutations in higher level organisms. After much reading on both sides of this debate, there seems to be confusion or force fitting one theory for all purposes. Where bacteria and viruses rapidly mutate for a recognized and ordered purpose, higher level organisms, such as fish or quadrapeds resist mutation. What is typically seen in the fossil record is extinction. And the entire molecular process is geared to prevent mutations in higher levels. Or, as in the case of sickle-cell it allows for survival within a boundary. There should be identifiable Hard Genetic Boundary lines in the genome which mutation types or quantity of mutations(loads in specific areas) cannot pass without contributing to extinction. Bacteria and viruses serve a purpose to feed, destroy and multiply rapidly for good purposes in many instances. To extrapolate however observations from one organism to another however I think assigns to much emphasis across large boundaries of diversity. The more I learn, the more it appears there are hard boundaries, not soft gradual steps and Punctuated EQ is not a viable alternative either it appears. Well.... I'll check in later, but curious to see if there are any real answers. If a scientist can grow a human bladder in 40 days that is transferrable and functioning in its original human donor, we should be at the breaking point of producing new insects by RM&NS. I still suspect it will be by design first.Michaels7
June 20, 2006
June
06
Jun
20
20
2006
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
One of the empirical experiments that I remember from 80's was the one with two cesium atomic clocks. NASA precisely adjusted two of those atomic clocks. They put one of the clocks in a flying lab while other clock was fixed at NASA center. They observed that the atmoic clock orbiting the earth in an airplane was working slower than the one fixed on the ground. This experiment verified the Einstien's predictions for speed/time relativity. And for the gravity the realtime clock is GPS satellites is a well known source that empirically demonstrates relativity: http://www.physicscentral.com/writers/writers-00-2.html Also, the orbiting clocks are 20,000 km above the Earth, and experience gravity that is four times weaker than that on the ground. Einstein's general relativity theory says that gravity curves space and time, resulting in a tendency for the orbiting clocks to tick slightly faster, by about 45 microseconds per day . The net result is that time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a clock on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day. Practical application of the theory: But at 38 microseconds per day, the relativistic offset in the rates of the satellite clocks is so large that, if left uncompensated, it would cause navigational errors that accumulate faster than 10 km per day! GPS accounts for relativity by electronically adjusting the rates of the satellite clocks, and by building mathematical corrections into the computer chips which solve for the user's location. Without the proper application of relativity, GPS would fail in its navigational functions within about 2 minutes. Farshad
June 20, 2006
June
06
Jun
20
20
2006
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
Oh yeah. They will most certainly produce one through random mutation. Because that happens all the time, Right? Just like their precious phylogenic tree. When dogs have kittens, right?Doug
June 19, 2006
June
06
Jun
19
19
2006
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT
Glenn, I'm curious to see a real answer. The point of the question was two-fold and I think its fairly well thought out. 1) produce it in a lab 2) why do insects or higher level organisms fight against mutation? You stated... "The question I asked was in response to this question, which I included in my post: “Where, precisely, has macro-evolution been done in a lab (in the sense that nature didn’t ‘fight back’ when you were done meddling and revert to the original species.” Then followed my question: “Where have the relativistic effects of gravity been shown in the lab. … So show us how the more difficult aspects of gravity have been studied in the lab.” You said you did this to "counter the old canard about the lab...". In truth, all your doing is avoiding the difficult question others have not answered after 150 years. Lets remain focused on the issues and problems with macro-evolution. Its a valid question. If scientist today with 1000's of years of cumulative lab experience amongst them, in nature and genetics cannot randomly mutate a new insect with novel features and have it naturally selected for survival in the lab and then have it survive in nature, then its a valid question. Pointing fingers elsewhere is not an adequate response. The experiments done in on insects, fruit flies, etc., were not successful. If RM/NS were true for McEvo, you could reproduce it. You could morph flies all day long with new features that would survive. Secondly, the overlooked question of why higher level organisms such as insects, fish, etc., in fact fight against mutations. This leads to more questoins which I've yet to see answered by the RM/NS answer. The regulatory process limits mutations. Why is there error correction, editing and splicing? Why are there dual pathways as backup systems? These are valid questions. I've got the feeling scientist will design a new insect before evolutionist ever randomly mutate one. I'm very curious to know Glen if you think one day scientist will Randomly Mutate a new insect, or design one.Michaels7
June 19, 2006
June
06
Jun
19
19
2006
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
At PT, Glen responded to this little exchange: "While I did put in a few digs at her, she was hardly my target, so mostly I had been responding to Randy’s YEC-inspired attacks on those of us who accept science." What's funny is that there was nothing in my posts that would say I was a YEC. In fact, I don't consider myself one. I've allowed for the possibility of that, but generally I would be an OEC. And of course, to argue with anyone there means that we "don't accept science". *sigh*.rmagruder
June 19, 2006
June
06
Jun
19
19
2006
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
Thanks, ds. I certainly didn't FEEL valiant. I originally hopped into the thread after seeing everyone trash Ann's book with just a simple question - had they READ it. The responses varied from "don't need to read it, it's just recycled stuff that's all been refuted a long time ago" to implications that anyone who would read or agree with anything Ann has to say is an unintelligent scientifically illiterate moron. I believe Ann was accurate when she pointed out that the only thing they have to offer is contempt. Certainly there was a lot of that being flung (and I admit I responded in kind). Ironically, though, the thread, abusive as it sometimes was, stimulated in me the desire to do some more reading and study and actually I ended up discovering a lot of new things I otherwise would not have (including this site).rmagruder
June 19, 2006
June
06
Jun
19
19
2006
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT

Gravity Probe B is an excellent space experiment testing for relativistic gravitational effects:

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Stop digging, Glen. -ds Glen Davidson
June 19, 2006
June
06
Jun
19
19
2006
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT

Special relativity is a commonplace in particle acceleration experiments. The relativistic effects of gravity are rarely if ever unambiguously distinguished in the lab. Even 'G' was not known to a very high precision until a few years ago.

Gravity is a weak force, which is why most of the observations must occur outside of the laboratory. Neutron stars, massive galaxies, and galaxy clusters are the objects through which many of the relativistic effects of gravity may be observed. Such masses do not fit conveniently into the laboratory.

By analogy, large-scale evolutionary changes do not readily appear in the laboratory, while the predicted effects of those changes are observed in labs, through fossils and genomes. What is more, plenty remains unknown about gravity, especially where quantum and relativistic effects appear.

The first experiment in a laboratory confirming relativistic effects of gravity fields was in 1959. Here's a clue from old Dave, Glen. When you find you've dug yourself into a hole the first thing you should do is stop digging. Of course if you took that bit of advice you'd have to turn in your Darwinian chance worshipping paraphernalia and face reality head on. I don't suppose that's likely is it? -ds

By the way, gravity is the strongest force in nature. It overwhelms the electromagnetic force to form neutron stars. It overwhelms the weak nuclear force to form quark stars. And finally, when it overwhelms the strong nuclear force, a black hole is formed. Thanks for playing. Glen Davidson
June 19, 2006
June
06
Jun
19
19
2006
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
Glen, You might want to do a little reading about particle acceleration techniques with special focus on particle physics. A rather mundane, simplistic start can be found at http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html under the section entitled "Time Dilation for Particles". I think you'll find, as DS has indicated, that relativistic effects have been validated by laboratory experiments. In addition, they must be accounted for by researchers who take great pleasure in observing the results of sub atomic particles coliding with one another after one of them has been accelerated to within measurable proximity of C (the speed of light) where relativistic effects are quite enjoyable (to a fundamental particle, anyway). Cheers...dougmoran
June 19, 2006
June
06
Jun
19
19
2006
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT

I was the target of much of the abuse in this thread. Sorry I missed that comment he made about relativism in gravity or I would have responded. I guess that's what happens when you have any # of people piling on so fast you can't keep track of what they are all saying. (They eventually moved my comments to antievolution.org to try to get a good fight going there, but I really can't let myself get sucked into the morass of circular arguments right now).

For your valiant efforts to pound sense into the senseless I took you off the moderation list right away. Welcome to Uncommon Descent. :-) -ds rmagruder
June 19, 2006
June
06
Jun
19
19
2006
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT

Why yes, it is old news:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/nobel_laureate.html#comment-80198

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/nobel_laureate.html#comment-80214

I have mentioned observed relativistic effects on PT.

The question I asked was in response to this question, which I included in my post:

"Where, precisely, has macro-evolution been done in a lab (in the sense that nature didn't 'fight back' when you were done meddling and revert to the original species."

Then followed my question:

"Where have the relativistic effects of gravity been shown in the lab. ... So show us how the more difficult aspects of gravity have been studied in the lab."

I am more than a little aware of the observations supporting relativity, but I was countering the old canard that if "macro-evolution" is science it must be shown 'in the lab.'

I finally had to register for this forum, simply because of the twisting of a reasonable question into one that DaveScot wants to portray as stupid.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

It was not a reasonable question. Relativisitic effects of gravity have been demonstrated in a lab and decades ago moved into the arena of practical application. If you already knew this then your question was dishonest instead of grossly uninformed. Take your pick. -ds Glen Davidson
June 19, 2006
June
06
Jun
19
19
2006
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply