Comments on: The Pendulum of Truth

By: Thomas Goodey

Thomas Goodey — Sun, 25 Sep 2016 23:09:35 +0000

Yes, but it was a long time ago. This is 2016, and we should be considering how we can do similar experiments better during the 2017 eclipse.

By: Thomas Goodey

Thomas Goodey — Sun, 25 Sep 2016 23:08:26 +0000

You misunderstand my comment. Yes of course, as an explanation of gravity, GR has been well tested and has passed the tests. My point is that the foundations of GR have not been further clarified – for example, we must accept that local mass/energy entails change of the local spacetime geometry, and no model is proposed for that. In fact, there is no settled opinion as to whether “gravity has gravity”. Moreover GR cannot be other than an approximate theory, because it assumes continuity of matter.

I absolutely agree that the claimed Allais effect is currently upon shaky ground, because physics, or at least fundamental physics, is supposed to be a unity, and therefore if something doesn’t fit in with other things that thing is necessarily very suspect. However, observations cannot always be simply dismissed in a cavalier fashion. Of course it depends upon the strength and consistency and repeatability of the observations. I think we are on the same page; the difference is only one of emphasis.

By: Brian Koberlein

Brian Koberlein — Thu, 22 Sep 2016 20:15:55 +0000

No, GR is the testable model for spacetime curvature. GR proposes it as an explanation for gravity, but you don’t “just have to accept it.” GR has been rigorously tested, and it keeps passing the tests, so we have evidence to support it. The point about the Alais effect having no proposed explanation is that science depends upon a confluence of evidence. Different experiments and observations should come together. If something has no clear explanation, then the results need to be extraordinarily clear, because it’s validity will require a re-examination of a range of theories. If the result isn’t clear, the most likely explanation is that it was an experimental issue.

The effect hasn’t been confirmed. Having a mix of positive and negative effects makes the effect inconclusive, thus not confirmed.

By: Thomas Goodey

Thomas Goodey — Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:35:08 +0000

That web page is utter rot, not worth discussing.

By: Thomas Goodey

Thomas Goodey — Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:33:26 +0000

Old paradigms always fight against all new discoveries, but this is entirely proper, and does not usually amount to a conspiracy. That’s how science is supposed to work, up to a point. Sometimes the old paradigms take it too far. Remember what Max Planck said: “Science advances one funeral at a time”.

The fact that “there is no paradigm or testable model proposed to explain the effect” is not decisive (although it would be nice to have one). For example, there is no testable model proposed as to why a mass causes the geometry of spacetime to be changed in the vicinity of the mass. It’s just something you have to accept as being a foundation of GR.

It is not true that, in the last twenty years for example, “stringent observations fail to confirm the effect at all”. There have been both positive and negative claims.

By: David N

David N — Tue, 01 Mar 2016 20:22:30 +0000

If the 1999 results were negative or inconclusive, shouldn’t they have been published anyway? Especially after NASA made such a big deal in advance about the experiment? There IS something odd about that. How often does a government agency sponsor a major study and then not publish any results and say nothing about it henceforth?

By: Jacob

Jacob — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 02:29:31 +0000

This guy seems to think it matters: http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/
Off course he forgets the actual purpose of aether experiments, the tropic of cancer does get hit by a southern path etc…

By: Brian Koberlein

Brian Koberlein — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 15:16:20 +0000

Not that odd. Most of the 1999 effort was haphazard, and peer review is pretty stringent. Since 1999 there have been other experiments published, and they don’t support the claims of new physics. Allais’ experiments were critiqued by “authorities” and there has been criticism of his method. Claiming that old paradigms are fighting this new discovery is completely unfounded. There is no paradigm or testable model proposed to explain the effect, and stringent observations fail to confirm the effect at all. So it’s mildly interesting, but not amazing nor enigmatic.

By: Gor Don

Gor Don — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 09:45:30 +0000

Its odd though that the 1999 results are not on the net… well I cant find them anyway (?). While there are several other eclipses tested before and after 1999 that have nice graphs which clearly show the results.

I only heard of this amazing, enigmatic effect 3 days ago but looking at various sites, Allais’ experiments were carefully checked by authorities and were of execellent standard and that no explanation has been found. It seems all positive results are criticized for methodology. The only “explanations” due to error I can find sound more like hearsay and have no actual instances or details. Changes in temperature pressure and humidity… cannot account for it. Also, while the 1991 Finland was negative, it was a similar set-up to one done at Harvard in 1970 which was positive.

I get the impression it is not a yes/no question but likely one of more than one factor affecting the result so that it could, for example, cancel out the effect. As you know, all new paradigms begin as fringe ideas and old paradigms will fight maintain the appearance of relevance despite being obsolete.

By: Brian Koberlein

Brian Koberlein — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:32:53 +0000

The 1999 eclipse led to more of the same. Negative results in agreement with standard physics, a couple of positive results that were then criticized for their methodology. There are claims among some conspiracy types that after the 1999 NASA “shut down” work on the Allais effect, but there’s no real credibility to this story. Mainly I wanted to focus on an interesting aspect of inconclusive data rather than start fueling fringe debates.

By: Gor Don

Gor Don — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:03:41 +0000

What is this? Why did you not mention the major NASA-fronted study of a 1999 eclipse which used many different types of devices and pendulums in many locations across the eclipse path…. ? Where are the results and data from this major study? They are not anywhere. There is plenty of before-the-test info and then a mention of “we are just going to double-check stuff before releasing the results” and then…. nothing. There is something very unusual or unsurprising about this if you will google it.

By: Rossen Kolarov

Rossen Kolarov — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:05:21 +0000

Brian, I don’t believe in so-called Allais effect. If such effect exists this means that at the moment of solar eclipse the attraction between Sun an Earth changes. But this must changes the Earth’s orbit. The duration of the year must changes, too. If it is real then astronomers will see these changes. But they have never seen such anomalies. I am sorry for the clumsy English. It isn’t my native language. Best wishes.