Compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotrophy
in [Relativity]
|
From: Surfer on 10 Apr 2008 14:03 On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:05:47 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >It seems strange to me that he totally neglects to mention the 'gravity >boost' and 'slingshot effect', assuming that the inbound speed should equal >the outbound speed. > No he hasn't neglected them. The boost/slingshot effect comes about because the space craft falls towards Earth, and then falls backout so that it keeps its relative velocity to Earth the same on the way in as out, but since Earth is moving, Earth's speed around the sun gets added to the spacecraft's speed. The first paragraph of his Introduction says something similar: "Planetary probe spacecraft (SC) have their speeds increased, in the heliocentric frame of reference, by a close flyby of the earth, and other planets. However in the earth frame of reference there should be no change in the asymptotic speeds after an earth flyby, assuming the validity of Newtonian gravity, at least in these circumstances." >He also neglects to mention the fact that the energy transfer from planet >to flyby craft is effected by the direction of rotation of the planet. > >http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/gravity_assist.html >http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Gravitational-slingshot > >It seems strange for someone "expert in the field" to neglect such factors. > All the known factors have already been investigated by others so there is no need for him to look into them. The reason the anomaly exists is because there is a very small effect that cannot yet be explained by any known factor. There is quite a good article about it here. http://www.planetary.org/news/2008/0228_Researchers_Investigate_New_Cosmic.html
From: Edward Green on 10 Apr 2008 17:16 On Apr 8, 1:57 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > The following paper presents a set of figures (Table 1) that are > compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotropy. > > The observed (O) values are from [1] > The predicted (P) values are calculated assuming the speed of light is > truely constant only with respect to a dynamical 3-space. OK. What is a dynamical 3-space?
From: Dono on 10 Apr 2008 21:25 On Apr 8, 7:13 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 06:39:28 -0700 (PDT), Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > > > >So, have a quick look at paragraph 2 in Cahill new "discovery". > >It is the Ives-Stilwell experiment explained via ballistic theory. Old > >hat. Bad hat. > >We already know the correct explanation of the experiment. It is > >called special relativity. > > I don't see what past failures to detect light speed anisotopy have to > do with this new evidence. > ....but the whole paper revolves around eq(7) which is Cahill's bad explanation for the Doppler effect.Actually , it is downright riddled with elementary mistakes. Reg Cahill, your hero, is not comptent to write the correct Doppler equations, a freshman task. I will not correct the errors because I like you and him to continue to make spectacles of yourselves.
From: Surfer on 11 Apr 2008 02:12 On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:16:55 -0700 (PDT), Edward Green <spamspamspam3(a)netzero.com> wrote: >On Apr 8, 1:57�am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: >> The following paper presents a set of figures (Table 1) that are >> compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotropy. >> >> The observed (O) values are from [1] >> The predicted (P) values are calculated assuming the speed of light is >> truely constant only with respect to a dynamical 3-space. > >OK. > >What is a dynamical 3-space? Its the idea that 3 dimensional space is a physical medium that contains dynamic processes. There is a description here. Dynamical 3-Space: A Review http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4146
From: Surfer on 11 Apr 2008 14:59
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:42:55 -0700 (PDT), Dono <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >His "equation 7" is nothing but ballistic theory as applied to the >Ives-Stilwell experiment... > There is a significant difference. The Ives-Stilwell experiment attempted to measure the doppler shift of photons emitted from fast moving hydrogen atoms. However, the hydrogen atoms would experience time dilation which would affect the frequency of the emitted photons. Now if the speed of light varies with direction, then time dilation will also vary with direction, and if these effects cancel the variable speed of light would be completely hidden. In contrast, when radar doppler shift is used to measure the speed of space craft, the radar signal is simply reflected from the spacecraft, so is immune to spacecraft time dilation effects. That difference could explain why anisotropy in the speed of light is so clearly observed in the spacecraft case. |