I think that Time Magazine is a die hard Einstein's theories and figure promoter since 1945 (3 times Man of the Year covers, plus Man of the Century). It's not hard to trace Time Magazine roots with the Jew
community and with Princeton.
This article, from 1968, narrates very lightly the Shapiro's experiment,
and hail it as "almost a proof" of General Relativity. With articles
like this one, Shapiro was extraordinarily hyped and granted him a
global name and public funding for his next "experiments".
I want to remark that this was published 46 years ago, and FAIL TO
EXPLAIN that the prime subject of the experiment (gov. sponsored) was to measure the location of THE CENTER OF THE SUN, as it was vital for
newtonian celestial mechanics to be applied to interplanetary travels.
It was a secret experiment (1965), which competed with Russian efforts
in the same sense. Part of the HOAX was narrated in the book "The Farce
of Physics".
The exact orbits of planets (and distances to them) was known very
grossly, FAR BEYOND the error margins of the 1965 experiments.
Shapiro's
experiment WAS A BYPRODUCT of the main experiment. What was ALLEGEDLY MEASURED in 1965 was A DELAY OF 5 msec on a round trip of 23 minutes
between Mercury and Earth (both at opposite sides of the Sun). They considered an error of +/- 20%, being that the PRECISION was to be about 3.6E-06 (3.6 ppm), a value HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE for such epoch, being
that THE NOISE involved in the measurement of a powerful radar signal
(at the reception) WAS EQUAL OR HIGHER than the received signal itself.
I post the entire article, so you can have a laugh.
https://time.com/archive/6834981/physics-probing-einstein-with-radar/
Den 14.10.2024 02:43, skrev rhertz:
I think that Time Magazine is a die hard Einstein's theories and figure promoter since 1945 (3 times Man of the Year covers, plus Man of the Century). It's not hard to trace Time Magazine roots with the Jew
community and with Princeton.
This article, from 1968, narrates very lightly the Shapiro's experiment, and hail it as "almost a proof" of General Relativity. With articles
like this one, Shapiro was extraordinarily hyped and granted him a
global name and public funding for his next "experiments".
It's a popular article in TIMES magazine, not a scientific paper.
Why didn't you read Shapiro's paper?
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1968.pdf
I want to remark that this was published 46 years ago, and FAIL TO
EXPLAIN that the prime subject of the experiment (gov. sponsored) was to measure the location of THE CENTER OF THE SUN, as it was vital for newtonian celestial mechanics to be applied to interplanetary travels.
It was a secret experiment (1965), which competed with Russian efforts
in the same sense. Part of the HOAX was narrated in the book "The Farce
of Physics".
This is nonsense.
The Haystack radar was even modified to make Shapiro's
experiment possible.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1968.pdf
"Several years ago it became evident that a new
test of general relativity was technically feasible.
The proposed experiment was designed to verify
the prediction that the speed of propagation
of a light ray decreases as it passes through
a region of increasing gravitational potential.
. . .
An intensive program was therefore undertaken
early in 1965 to build a new transmitter and
receiver system to provide the Lincoln Laboratory
Haystack radar with the capability to measure
to within 10 ?sec the time delays of pulses traveling
between the earth and Mercury or Venus
when either planet was on the other side of the sun
from the earth — the superior conjunction alignment.
The improved radar was put into operation shortly
before the last such conjunction of Venus,
which occurred on 9 November 1966."
The exact orbits of planets (and distances to them) was known very
grossly, FAR BEYOND the error margins of the 1965 experiments.
This is wrong. Read Shapiro's paper!
Shapiro's
experiment WAS A BYPRODUCT of the main experiment. What was ALLEGEDLY MEASURED in 1965 was A DELAY OF 5 msec on a round trip of 23 minutes between Mercury and Earth (both at opposite sides of the Sun). They considered an error of +/- 20%, being that the PRECISION was to be about 3.6E-06 (3.6 ppm), a value HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE for such epoch, being
that THE NOISE involved in the measurement of a powerful radar signal
(at the reception) WAS EQUAL OR HIGHER than the received signal itself.
Of course the received signal was much smaller than the noise.
The transmitted power was 300 kW, and the received signal could be
as small as 1e-21 W.
Hint: Cross correlation.
I post the entire article, so you can have a laugh.
The idiot laughs at what he doesn't understand.
https://time.com/archive/6834981/physics-probing-einstein-with-radar/
When you are done laughing, you can read Shapiro's paper.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1968.pdf
But since you invariably fail to understand and always misinterpret
what you read, it probably is no point in trying to read it.
I FORGOT TO INCLUDE THE LINK:
Shapiro Time Delay Using Newtonian Gravitation
https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM
Here is a correct derivation of the Newtonian prediction: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.00229
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 9:28:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 17.10.2024 03:05, skrev rhertz:
I FORGOT TO INCLUDE THE LINK:
Shapiro Time Delay Using Newtonian Gravitation
https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SARCASM, OBVIOUSLY!
MY POST WITH THE ALTERNATE NEWTONIAN VERSION WAS TO PROVE THAT
RELATIVITY IS AN ABSOLUTE PILE OF CRAP!
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 20:45:23 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 17.10.2024 17:43, skrev rhertz:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 9:28:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 17.10.2024 03:05, skrev rhertz:
I FORGOT TO INCLUDE THE LINK:
Shapiro Time Delay Using Newtonian Gravitation
https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SARCASM, OBVIOUSLY!
Don't pretend this was a sarcasm.
MY POST WITH THE ALTERNATE NEWTONIAN VERSION WAS TO PROVE THAT
RELATIVITY IS AN ABSOLUTE PILE OF CRAP!
Quite.
You thought this was a Newtonian derivation of the prediction
for the Shapiro delay:
https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM
You wrote:
"No space curved is necessary. Newton cover all the basis and
RELATIVITY AND SPACETIME CURVATURES have no place here."
You believed that Newton could predict what you called
"1971 Shapiro's formula". See attachment.
You wrote:
"Observe the details of the measurements with Venus in 1970."
See fig.2 in the attachment.
You believed that the Newtonian prediction was an exact
fit to Shapiro's measurements. So GR is crap and isn't needed.
Which means that you now have accepted that Shapiro's
measurements of the delay were correct, and no HOAX.
What you were not aware of is that the equation in
the attachment is the GR prediction, and _not_ the Newtonian
prediction. So the figure in the attachment shows a perfect
fit between the GR prediction and Shapiro's measurements.
The point is that Stephan Gift's paper
https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM
is nonsense.
Gift has "stolen" the equation and figure from Pössel
and has done some mathemagic to make it seem that
the equation is the Newtonian prediction, which it is not.
This is the paper with the correct Newtonian prediction:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.00229
M Pössel: "The Shapiro time delay and the equivalence principle"
Note that the equation you call "1971 Shapiro's formula"
is equation (27) in this paper.
Quote:
"Formulas (17) and (19) for one-way travel, corrected by
the multiplication of the delay term with an overall factor
2 to go from the Newtonian to the general-relativistic result,
Δt = (2GM/c³)⋅ln((r_E+x_E)/(rₚ-xₚ)) (27).
So equation (27) is the GR prediction.
Your figure (2) is FIG.6 in this paper.
It is Pössel who has drawn this figure with the GR prediction
equation (27) and measurements from: Irwin I. Shapiro et al.,
"Fourth Test of General Relativity: New Radar Result,"
To go from the Newtonian prediction to the GR prediction
by multiplication by two is Pössel's idea:
Quote:
"Begin by presenting the simplified derivation developed in this
section. This will yield a result that has the correct functional
dependence on the geometry, but is off by an overall factor 2.
Give the students the additional information that a more thorough
derivation, which includes the curvature of space, will yield a
result that has an additional factor 2. After that statement, you
can use the corrected formula, with the extra factor of 2, to
consider applications such as the ones presented in section V,
where the Shapiro time delay formula is used to compare predictions
with data."
So sorry, Richard, you have yet again made a fool of yourself.
But at least you have finally accepted that Shapiro's
measurements of the delay were correct, and no HOAX.
😂
Attachment:
https://paulba.no/temp/1971_Shapiro_Newronian_formula.pdf
**************************************************************
PAUL, I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU, STUPID RELATIVIST VIKING!!
I ALREADY KNEW THAT THE PAPER WAS FAKE AS HELL. I DID SOME RESEARCH ON
IT AND THE WRITER.
PLUS, I REMARKED THAT THE GUY USED BLACK HOLE'S HYPOTHESIS, WHICH IS
DERIVED FROM MISINTERPRETATION OF SCHWARZSCHILD'S EQUATION IN GR.
AS SOON AS I READ THE PAPER, I NOTICED IT WAS ANOTHER PILE OF CRAP
WRITTEN BY AN UNKNOWN LOOKING FOR SOME FAME.
BUT YOU ARE TOO IDIOT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS A "CLICK BAIT". IF YOU HAD A LITTLE BIT OF MEMORY, YOU SHOULD HAVE REMEMBERED THAT I LIKE TROLLING.
BUT YOU ARE TOO MUCH AN IMBECILE AND TOO MUCH A SWEDISH TO HAVE ANY
SENSE OF HUMOR.
YOU FAIL TO RECOGNIZE THAT, AS THE LAST POST ON A THREAD CALLING CASSINI
A FRAUDSTER, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE LIKE ME TO POST SOMETHING VALIDATING HIM. AND THIS IS BECAUSE YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!
ONE MORE THING: WHAT MAKES ME LAUGH IS THAT, WHEN I POST SOMETHING WITH
MATH WITHIN IT, I KNOW THAT YOU'LL RESPOND WITH AN ELABORATED ANALYSIS.
SO, I PUT YOU TO WORK, WHILE I EXPECT YOUR RESPONSE SMILING. BECAUSE IN
THE SAME WAY THAT YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL RELATIVIST, YOU ALSO HAVE SOME
SORT OF O.C.D. THAT FORCES YOU TO RESPOND. YOU CAN'T RESIST IT, ASSHOLE.
GOOD NIGHT.
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 10:11:13 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 14.10.2024 02:43, skrev rhertz:[...]
I post the entire article, so you can have a laugh.
https://time.com/archive/6834981/physics-probing-einstein-with-radar/
When you are done laughing, you can read Shapiro's paper.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1968.pdf
But since you invariably fail to understand and always misinterpret
what you read, it probably is no point in trying to read it.
It's weird that those without any capacity for X insist on doing X
(X = physics in this case).
Nothing Richard writes has anything to do with physics. Instead, it
is some sort of elaborate fantasy a la Tolkien.
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 21:30:59 +0000, JanPB wrote:
It's weird that those without any capacity for X insist on doing X
(X = physics in this case).
Nothing Richard writes has anything to do with physics. Instead, it
is some sort of elaborate fantasy a la Tolkien.
What is sad is that Richard was, so far as I can tell, an extremely
competent electrical engineer.
Den 17.10.2024 23:29, skrev rhertz:..
BUT YOU ARE TOO MUCH AN IMBECILE AND TOO MUCH A SWEDISH TO HAVE ANY
SENSE OF HUMOR.
I am a Norwegian and have a morbid sense of humour.
I love to prove you wrong!
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 20:45:23 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 17.10.2024 17:43, skrev rhertz:
MY POST WITH THE ALTERNATE NEWTONIAN VERSION WAS TO PROVE THAT
RELATIVITY IS AN ABSOLUTE PILE OF CRAP!
Quite.
You thought this was a Newtonian derivation of the prediction
for the Shapiro delay:
https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM
You wrote:
"No space curved is necessary. Newton cover all the basis and
RELATIVITY AND SPACETIME CURVATURES have no place here."
You believed that Newton could predict what you called
"1971 Shapiro's formula". See attachment.
You wrote:
"Observe the details of the measurements with Venus in 1970."
See fig.2 in the attachment.
You believed that the Newtonian prediction was an exact
fit to Shapiro's measurements. So GR is crap and isn't needed.
Which means that you now have accepted that Shapiro's
measurements of the delay were correct, and no HOAX.
What you were not aware of is that the equation in
the attachment is the GR prediction, and _not_ the Newtonian
prediction. So the figure in the attachment shows a perfect
fit between the GR prediction and Shapiro's measurements.
The point is that Stephan Gift's paper
https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM
is nonsense.
Gift has "stolen" the equation and figure from Pössel
and has done some mathemagic to make it seem that
the equation is the Newtonian prediction, which it is not.
This is the paper with the correct Newtonian prediction:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.00229
M Pössel: "The Shapiro time delay and the equivalence principle"
Note that the equation you call "1971 Shapiro's formula"
is equation (27) in this paper.
Quote:
"Formulas (17) and (19) for one-way travel, corrected by
the multiplication of the delay term with an overall factor
2 to go from the Newtonian to the general-relativistic result,
Δt = (2GM/c³)⋅ln((r_E+x_E)/(rₚ-xₚ)) (27). >>
So equation (27) is the GR prediction.
Your figure (2) is FIG.6 in this paper.
It is Pössel who has drawn this figure with the GR prediction
equation (27) and measurements from: Irwin I. Shapiro et al.,
"Fourth Test of General Relativity: New Radar Result,"
To go from the Newtonian prediction to the GR prediction
by multiplication by two is Pössel's idea:
Quote:
"Begin by presenting the simplified derivation developed in this
section. This will yield a result that has the correct functional
dependence on the geometry, but is off by an overall factor 2.
Give the students the additional information that a more thorough
derivation, which includes the curvature of space, will yield a
result that has an additional factor 2. After that statement, you
can use the corrected formula, with the extra factor of 2, to
consider applications such as the ones presented in section V,
where the Shapiro time delay formula is used to compare predictions
with data."
So sorry, Richard, you have yet again made a fool of yourself.
But at least you have finally accepted that Shapiro's
measurements of the delay were correct, and no HOAX.
😂
Attachment:
https://paulba.no/temp/1971_Shapiro_Newronian_formula.pdf
**************************************************************
PAUL, I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU, STUPID RELATIVIST VIKING!!
SURPRISE!!
Remember 1801 von Soldner's formula, which gave half 1915 Einstein's formula?.
The missing considerations, ignored in von Soldner times, have been corrected using newtonian physics, and gives AN EXACT MATCH with the corrected 1971 formula that Cassini derives. By the way, the new
formula HAS CHANGED CONSIDERABLY since his 1968 crappy paper.
No space curved is necessary. Newton cover all the basis and
RELATIVITYAND SPACETIME CURVATURES have no place here.
Observe the details of the measurements with Venus in 1970.
General relativity IS A PILE OF CRAP.
I FORGOT TO INCLUDE THE LINK:
Shapiro Time Delay Using Newtonian Gravitation https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM
Attachment:
https://paulba.no/temp/1971_Shapiro_Newronian_formula.pdf
I ALREADY KNEW THAT THE PAPER WAS FAKE AS HELL. I DID SOME RESEARCH ON
IT AND THE WRITER.
PLUS, I REMARKED THAT THE GUY USED BLACK HOLE'S HYPOTHESIS, WHICH IS
DERIVED FROM MISINTERPRETATION OF SCHWARZSCHILD'S EQUATION IN GR.
AS SOON AS I READ THE PAPER, I NOTICED IT WAS ANOTHER PILE OF CRAP
WRITTEN BY AN UNKNOWN LOOKING FOR SOME FAME.
BUT YOU ARE TOO IDIOT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS A "CLICK BAIT". IF YOU HAD A LITTLE BIT OF MEMORY, YOU SHOULD HAVE REMEMBERED THAT I LIKE TROLLING.
BUT YOU ARE TOO MUCH AN IMBECILE AND TOO MUCH A SWEDISH TO HAVE ANY
SENSE OF HUMOR.
YOU FAIL TO RECOGNIZE THAT, AS THE LAST POST ON A THREAD CALLING CASSINI
A FRAUDSTER, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE LIKE ME TO POST SOMETHING VALIDATING HIM. AND THIS IS BECAUSE YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!
ONE MORE THING: WHAT MAKES ME LAUGH IS THAT, WHEN I POST SOMETHING WITH
MATH WITHIN IT, I KNOW THAT YOU'LL RESPOND WITH AN ELABORATED ANALYSIS.
SO, I PUT YOU TO WORK, WHILE I EXPECT YOUR RESPONSE SMILING. BECAUSE IN
THE SAME WAY THAT YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL RELATIVIST, YOU ALSO HAVE SOME
SORT OF O.C.D. THAT FORCES YOU TO RESPOND. YOU CAN'T RESIST IT, ASSHOLE.
This link illustrates a bit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
Δf/f = Δλ/λ = z = GM/c² (1/R - 1/r) = Φ(R)/c² - Φ(r)/c²
https://www.space.com/41290-biggest-star.html
G = 6.6743E−11 m^3 kg^−1 s^−2
M = 5E+09 x 1.989E+30 Kg = 9.945E+39 Kg
R = 1,700 x 634,000 Km = 1,077,800,000,000 m
Φ(R)/c² = 6,842,736.59
In comparison, Φ(RSun)/c² = 0.000002327
YOU CAN'T, UNDER ANY DECENT ASSUMPTION, DARE TO ESTIMATE WHAT WAS
THE ELAPSED TIME AT THE USNO CLOCKS IN WASHINGTON, IF YOU ARE
15,000 MILES FAR AWAY AND HAVE NOT ANY MEANS (NOT EVEN AS OF TODAY)
TO ESTIMATE THE TIME VALUE OF SUCH REFERENCE CLOCK.
Mudrak's 2017 formula for GNSS Galileo:
Δf/f₀ = -GMₑ/c² (1/r - 1/a) - 1/2c² [(vˢᵃᵗ)² - (aΩₑ)²]
If a (satellite height) is only "h" times higher than r
(i.e. 10 Km), then
Δf/f₀ = gh/c² - [(vˢᵃᵗ)²+ (rΩₑ)²]/2c² ----- Mudrak 2017
Δτ/τ₀ = gh/c² - (2RΩv + v²)/2c² ------------ Hafele 1971
Does it rings any bell on the void of your skull, or should
I explain?
Who made a fraudulent approximation in GR using Schwarzschild?
As if the above IS NOT ENOUGH, exhaustive experiments done by France
since 2017 SHOWS (with error <10E-15) that THE EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE
BREAKS AT QUANTUM LEVEL.
As they wrote here:
QUOTE:
«The satellite’s performance is far exceeding expectations. Data
from more than 1,900 additional orbits are already available and
more are to come, which should enable us to further improve the
mission’s performance and approach its target of acquiring
measurements with a precision of 10-15. This first result is going
to shake the world of physics and will certainly lead to a revision
of alternative theories to general relativity,» said the mission’s principal investigator Pierre Touboul.
Enjoy slowly, relativists. Please don't choke on your stupidity,
as you are allowed to fail for being just humans.
Paul Andersen posted, without a bit of shame, the following:
GR predicts that the gravitational deflection of em-radiation
by the Sun, observed from the Earth, is:
θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
Where:
AU= an astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
φ = angle Sun-Earth as observed from the Earth
c = speed of light in vacuum
G = Gravitational constant
M = solar mass
Your formula, that you wrote with sheer cockiness claiming that it's
what GR predicts (false), contain an incredible amount of nonsense.
Your pretentious formula couldn't be more wrong for the following:
1) You are dismissing completely the effect of swapping the Sun's
reference frame with that of the Earth.
2) You are dismissing completely the FACT that Earth is a sphere, and thatthe observation of an eclipse at any given location depend on the position of the observer (latitude, longitude). Also, you FORGOT that
the position of the Sun relative to Earth's coordinates DEPEND on the
time of the year, as well the exact hour of the phenomenon. Earth
rotates around the Sun, with reference to the ecliptic plane, with an
anual variation of ± 11.5 degrees!!!
3) Also, the position of the Sun with reference to the LOCAL
equatorial coordinate DEPENDS on the time of the day!! Because
the Earth rotates daily.
4) You FORGOT that the path of incoming light DEPENDS ON the
ELEVATION of the Sun over the horizon. This causes that the light
of the Sun (and stars behind it) SUFFER A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF PERTURBATIONS. One ofthe most important is the REFRACTION of the
light passing through atmosphere, being minimal at noon. Even so,
elevation angle at noon
CHANGES PERMANENTLY, while the Earth travels around the Sun. The
elevation is MINIMAL in winter and MAXIMAL in summer. Only in the
locations over the equatorial line, you can obtain 90 degrees of
elevation in summer time.
5) You dismiss completely the fact that the position of the Sun, in
the moment of any eclipse, is almost arbitrary, and very far from
being at90 degrees respect to the Sun.
ARE YOU CRAZY? I ASK THIS VERY SERIOUSLY.
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 10:11:13 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 14.10.2024 02:43, skrev rhertz:[...]
I post the entire article, so you can have a laugh.
https://time.com/archive/6834981/physics-probing-einstein-with-radar/
When you are done laughing, you can read Shapiro's paper.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1968.pdf
But since you invariably fail to understand and always misinterpret
what you read, it probably is no point in trying to read it.
It's weird that those without any capacity for X insist on doing X
(X = physics in this case).
Nothing Richard writes has anything to do with physics. Instead, it
is some sort of elaborate fantasy a la Tolkien.
--
Jan
PAUL, MAYBE YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN HOW YOUR BELOVED CRETIN CASSINI WENT
FROM THIS FORMULA:
1965 Shapiro formula for delay
Δt≈4GM/c³(ln [(xᵖ+√(xᵖ²+d²))/(-xₑ+√(xₑ²+d²)))]-1/2[xᵖ/√(xᵖ²+d²)+(2xₑ+xᵖ)/√(xₑ²+d²)])
d: Closest approach of wave to the center of the Sun.
xₑ: Distance from Earth to the closest approach to the Sun.
xᵖ: Distance from xₑ to the planet.
TO THIS ONE, SIX YEARS LATER (AND STILL COOKING AND FUDGING):
1971 Shapiro formula for delay
Δt ≈ 2GM/c³ (ln [(rₑ + xₑ )/(rᵖ - xᵖ)]
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 17:58:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
Moreover, Shapiro's paper is titled
FOURTH TEST OF GENERAL RELATIVITY: --PRELIMINARY RESULTS-- [Emph. JJL]
For Shipiro the results were at the edge of what was technically
possible to detect, -at the time-.
Nowadays taking Shapiro delay has to be incorporated
into space probe tracking and orbit determination.
Nutters worry about popular reports of the original experiment,
while the results themselves are standard everyday engineering.
Hint for RH:
All interplanetry spacecraft are equipped with transponders.
These devices respond to an incoming radio pulse by responding
with a reply pulse, with a known delay.
The replies are of course detected routinely,
and measured delays are used for orbit calculation and navigation.
THE ABOVE COMMENT SUITS BETTER COMING FROM A KNOW-IT-ALL CHARLATAN.
YOU ARE SO WRONG AND MISINFORMED THAT MAKES ME CRY.
[snip more ALL CAPS]Final hint: The Parker near solar probe for example
would be hopelessly lost if Shapiro delay on its signals
wouldn't be taken into account correctly.
While you whine about it the mission engineers who fly the thing
routinely take it into account without even giving it another thought,
Jan
THE USE OF TRANSPONDERS HAS BEEN OF COMMON USE IN SPACECRAFTS, ROCKETS,
DEEP SPACE SONDES, ETC., SINCE THE SPAGE AGE COMMENCED, AND IS UNRELATED
TO SHAPIRO'S DELAY. IT'S A MATTER OF COMMON SENSE IN RADIO ENGINEERING.
rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 17:58:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
Moreover, Shapiro's paper is titled
FOURTH TEST OF GENERAL RELATIVITY: --PRELIMINARY RESULTS-- [Emph. JJL]
For Shipiro the results were at the edge of what was technically
possible to detect, -at the time-.
Nowadays taking Shapiro delay has to be incorporated
into space probe tracking and orbit determination.
Nutters worry about popular reports of the original experiment,
while the results themselves are standard everyday engineering.
Hint for RH:
All interplanetry spacecraft are equipped with transponders.
These devices respond to an incoming radio pulse by responding
with a reply pulse, with a known delay.
The replies are of course detected routinely,
and measured delays are used for orbit calculation and navigation.
THE ABOVE COMMENT SUITS BETTER COMING FROM A KNOW-IT-ALL CHARLATAN.
YOU ARE SO WRONG AND MISINFORMED THAT MAKES ME CRY.
Please do, you will be in need of lots of crying.
[snip ALL CAPS]
[snip more ALL CAPS]Final hint: The Parker near solar probe for example
would be hopelessly lost if Shapiro delay on its signals
wouldn't be taken into account correctly.
While you whine about it the mission engineers who fly the thing
routinely take it into account without even giving it another thought,
Jan
THE USE OF TRANSPONDERS HAS BEEN OF COMMON USE IN SPACECRAFTS, ROCKETS,
DEEP SPACE SONDES, ETC., SINCE THE SPAGE AGE COMMENCED, AND IS UNRELATED
TO SHAPIRO'S DELAY. IT'S A MATTER OF COMMON SENSE IN RADIO ENGINEERING.
Not really, the first sats didn't have one.
The point is that having transponders in interplanetary probes
reduces the uncertainty in positions of all bodies
at least a thousandfold, to typically hundreds of meters.
So while you are still whining about what may have been wrong
with the original Shapiro experiment (nothing)
correctly taking gravitational delays into account
has long since been a routine engieering matter
in interplanetary navigation.
There just is no way to ignore it
and still arrive at correct orbit predictions,
Jan
On 2024-10-18 19:40:13 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 17:58:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
Moreover, Shapiro's paper is titled
FOURTH TEST OF GENERAL RELATIVITY: --PRELIMINARY RESULTS-- [Emph. JJL] >>>>
For Shipiro the results were at the edge of what was technically
possible to detect, -at the time-.
Nowadays taking Shapiro delay has to be incorporated
into space probe tracking and orbit determination.
Nutters worry about popular reports of the original experiment,
while the results themselves are standard everyday engineering.
Hint for RH:
All interplanetry spacecraft are equipped with transponders.
These devices respond to an incoming radio pulse by responding
with a reply pulse, with a known delay.
The replies are of course detected routinely,
and measured delays are used for orbit calculation and navigation.
THE ABOVE COMMENT SUITS BETTER COMING FROM A KNOW-IT-ALL CHARLATAN.
YOU ARE SO WRONG AND MISINFORMED THAT MAKES ME CRY.
Please do, you will be in need of lots of crying.
[snip ALL CAPS]
Yes. It seems that rhertz has learned from Donald J. Trump that putting
stuff in ALL CAPS will make readers take it more seriously.
I want to highlight some "relativistic assertions" about Shapiro's
delay, so the idiot relativists that support this crap may enter in
reason:
1. For Venus: over a distance of more than 260 million Km (Earth and
Venus on opposite side of the Sun), being that light takes about 867
seconds for a 1-Way trip, a Shapiro's delay of about 150 usec MAKES
SENSE for space navigation. This is a difference of about 4.3 ppm in the transit.
WHO CARES? WHAT IS A VALID SCIENTIFIC ASSERTION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF
THIS ALLEGED DELAY, WHEN SPACE NAVIGATION IS BASED ON MUCH MORE SERIOUS
AND REAL FORMULAE, ALGORITHMS AND REAL TIME ONBOARD TRAJECTORY
PROCESSING?
Only to show that GR is a real thing? IMBECILES.
2. If there is no alignment of planets in such a way that they are on a
line of sight VERY FAR FROM SUN'S SURFACE, the alleged delay fall 10
times, and the "error" is then about 0.43 ppm. DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW IMBECILES ARE IN BELIEVING THAT THIS IS IMPORTANT?
3. Making things worse, enter the French people, stealing data from
HIPPARCOS and claiming that they resolved the REAL POSITION of hundred
of stars with precision in the order of tens of micro-arcseconds.
WHO, IN ITS SANE STATE OF MIND, CAN AFFIRM THAT THIS HIPPARCOS HOAX HAS
THE LEAST PRACTICAL VALUE?
And all of the above, so relativists can claim that GR works?
INSANE PEOPLE, IDIOT PEOPLE, IGNORANT PEOPLE, USELESS PEOPLE, ETC.
And worse, these "scientists" make a good living standard BY STEALING
MONEY from Universities, government funds, etc.
They are PARASITES OF SCIENCE. They CONTRIBUTE IN NOTHING to the
advancement of REAL SCIENCE, which makes a path clear for new
technological solutions.
Remember: USELESS SCIENCE PARASITES THAT DON'T WORTH THE AIR THEY
BREATHE.
And that is the REAL HOAX about GR: LEACHES STEALING VALID RESOURCES TO PRODUCE NOTHING, PROTECTING BETWEEN THEMSELVES AGAINST OPPOSITION, AND DEFENDING THE CHICKEN THAT THEY STEAL FROM WHO REALLY NEED IT, DEVOURING
IT FOR FREE (SARCASM HERE).
THE HOAX IS TO CLAIM THAT WORKS IN THIS LINE OF DOING HAVE ANY MERIT.
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 19:40:13 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
THE USE OF TRANSPONDERS HAS BEEN OF COMMON USE IN SPACECRAFTS, ROCKETS,
DEEP SPACE SONDES, ETC., SINCE THE SPAGE AGE COMMENCED, AND IS UNRELATED >> TO SHAPIRO'S DELAY. IT'S A MATTER OF COMMON SENSE IN RADIO ENGINEERING.
Not really, the first sats didn't have one.
The point is that having transponders in interplanetary probes
reduces the uncertainty in positions of all bodies
at least a thousandfold, to typically hundreds of meters.
So while you are still whining about what may have been wrong
with the original Shapiro experiment (nothing)
correctly taking gravitational delays into account
has long since been a routine engieering matter
in interplanetary navigation.
There just is no way to ignore it
and still arrive at correct orbit predictions,
Jan
For Christ's Sake, Jan!. Stop posting things of which you don't know!
The use of transponders in satellites has been a dreamed solution for communications, since 1945 (at least), when Arthur C. Clark INVENTED the geostationary satellite communications!
He foresaw the use of 3 geosynchronous satellites, at about 36,000 Km,
to cover ALL the international communications. In 1963, Syncom was the world's first geostationary satellite.
rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 19:40:13 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
THE USE OF TRANSPONDERS HAS BEEN OF COMMON USE IN SPACECRAFTS, ROCKETS, >>>> DEEP SPACE SONDES, ETC., SINCE THE SPAGE AGE COMMENCED, AND IS UNRELATED >>>> TO SHAPIRO'S DELAY. IT'S A MATTER OF COMMON SENSE IN RADIO ENGINEERING.
Not really, the first sats didn't have one.
The point is that having transponders in interplanetary probes
reduces the uncertainty in positions of all bodies
at least a thousandfold, to typically hundreds of meters.
So while you are still whining about what may have been wrong
with the original Shapiro experiment (nothing)
correctly taking gravitational delays into account
has long since been a routine engieering matter
in interplanetary navigation.
There just is no way to ignore it
and still arrive at correct orbit predictions,
Jan
For Christ's Sake, Jan!. Stop posting things of which you don't know!
The use of transponders in satellites has been a dreamed solution for
communications, since 1945 (at least), when Arthur C. Clark INVENTED the
geostationary satellite communications!
He foresaw the use of 3 geosynchronous satellites, at about 36,000 Km,
to cover ALL the international communications. In 1963, Syncom was the
world's first geostationary satellite.
Yes, and FYA, Clarke foresaw -manned- space travel.
Those geo-stationary satellites would have to be manned,
because a maintenance crew would be needed
to plug in a spare when a radio tube burned out.
[snip irelevancies about history space travel, yes we all know]
And back to the point:
You whine about a popularised account of Shapiro's radar measurements
of planetary distances. (and relativistic delays that were a by-product)
All this from almost 60 years ago.
It has completely escaped your notice that in the meantime
measurements in the solar system have increased more than a thousandfold
in accuracy,
rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Shapiro delays are nowadays taken into account
as a routine correction that needs to be applied
to get interplanetary distances and hence navigation right.
On 10/19/24 2:42 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Shapiro delays are nowadays taken into account
as a routine correction that needs to be applied
to get interplanetary distances and hence navigation right.
Yes.
And also: the Shapiro delay must be taken into account for accurate measurements of most pulsars. Indeed it is measurable out to more than
90 degrees from the sun!
5. Shapiro's delay is IRRELEVANT in space travel. Completely useless.
Any space flight is computed IN REAL TIME with many sophisticated
optical and EM based techniques, like triangulations with WELL KNOWN
trajectories of selected celestial bodies (planets, moons, asteroids)
plus the traditional guidance by well known fixed stars.
Those 'sophisticated optical and EM based techniques'
do need relativistic corrections.
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 19:42:59 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
[snip irelevancies about history space travel, yes we all know]
And back to the point:
You whine about a popularised account of Shapiro's radar measurements
of planetary distances. (and relativistic delays that were a by-product) All this from almost 60 years ago.
It has completely escaped your notice that in the meantime
measurements in the solar system have increased more than a thousandfold
in accuracy,
(by using transponders in interplanetary probes instead of radar echos)
and that Shapiro delays are nowadays taken into account
as a routine correction that needs to be applied
to get interplanetary distances and hence navigation right.
In other words, it is no longer an issue of science,
it is routine engineering, (at places like JPL)
Jan
I insist that you are an ignorant idiot pretending to know something
about radio/laser communications.
You are the one who started this by asserting that passive reflections
of EM radiation decay with 1/r?, and not the usual 1/r?. This stupidity
alone is enough to disqualify you for any further discussion about EM propagation in outer space. Any RF/laser engineering expert would put
you on the "IGNORE LIST", just for being such a donkey.
I have to remark a couple of things:
1. If you are a woman, I apologize. I only call names to men. Even more,
I withdraw my comments about your stupidity and ignorance, and let
you to chose what you are. Of course that you're not a connoisseur on
these subjects.
2. You didn't let me know which are your academical degrees. Let me
know, as it would help a lot to understand some biases of your
thoughts.
3. You keep insisting with transponders and their importance, as if I
had written anything about them. On the contrary, I showed to you
that transponders are essential in space (and earthly) travels.
4. It makes me sad your ignorance about what is required for space
travel's guidance. It seems that you didn't read a single word of
what I wrote on this matter.
5. Shapiro's delay is IRRELEVANT in space travel. Completely useless.
Any space flight is computed IN REAL TIME with many sophisticated
optical and EM based techniques, like triangulations with WELL KNOWN
trajectories of selected celestial bodies (planets, moons, asteroids)
plus the traditional guidance by well known fixed stars.
There is no 3D celestial GPS to be used in space flights. A link
with Earth stations are UNIDIMENSIONAL in a 3D space.
Paul, you are much more stupid than I am (which I don't deny).
An actual fact is that I recognize being 45% stupid and 55% smart, but
you don't recognize that your stupidity reaches almost 100& since you converted to relativism, Mr. EE.
Look at your online history since you converted to the cult of
relativism about 20 years ago. It's a SHAME, but also profiles your personality quite well.
Coward enough to even think about alternate polemic points of view, you
opted to adhere to relativism guidelines, and followed it religiously, because you don't have the balls to write something original of your
own, and choose instead to compile lists of papers validating
relativity. And this M.O. of yours is pathetic, showing your complete
lack of originality.
Your online life became a very sad pattern: You are fishing online,
waiting for some post criticizing relativity and then, you resort to
your aged library just to post references validated only in your
community, where you feel safe and protected by mainstream relativism.
If such a case exist where you have doubts about your belief or
thoughts, you CAN'T show them in any post. Your position is to HIDE AND
WAIT for some conflicting post, and then use your lame database as the
only support for your critics. You are TERRIFIED to express any
deviation from the "book of relativism".
I, on the other extreme, AM LOOKING ALWAYS for the opportunity TO
CHALLENGE relativistic credence or established points of view, and try
to show the other side of relativism: a dark one, full of complicity,
data manipulation, worship to a figure hyped to extremes, trying to
prove that the entire PSEUDOSCIENCE OF RELATIVISM has ANY value in the scientific/technological world (which is absolutely true).
You should return (even when it's too late for you) to microprogramming
and working as a tutor for experiments with digital electronics, instead
of living A PARASITIC, WORTHLESS LIFE in a cloud of lies, deceptions and hidden agendas (about the value of relativism in the world).
When I wrote that I pity you, I meant it by heart.
Finally, try to write something of value about the importance of Shapiro
's work or HIPPARCOS in the real world, IF YOU CAN (using your own brain exclusively).
Bye, lame Norwegian.
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 17:36:33 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:pdf
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 22:05:22 +0000, rhertz wrote:
You are the one who started this by asserting that passive reflections
of EM radiation decay with 1/r^4, and not the usual 1/r?.
But it is a well-known fact that the received power of the reflected
radar signal from a point target goes as 1/r^4.
Look up the "radar equation" https://www.ll.mit.edu/sites/default/files/outreach/doc/2018-07/lecture%202.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/radar-equation
If the target cannot be modeled as a point, for instance if you are reflecting off of the ground, or if the target, say, is a corner
reflector, then the equation will obviously be different.
Clarification: I should have qualified "corner reflector" with
the word "giant", of course. A small corner reflector that does
not intercept the entire output beam would also exhibit 1/r^4
behavior.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 16:52:16 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Mr. Hertz: The eclipse experiment showed double Newtonian. The
Pound-Snider showed Newtonian. What does Shapiro show?
Shapiro called his experiment the 4th. test of general relativity.
I assume that the former three were:
1. TEORETICAL: 1915 Einstein's paper on Mercury perihelion advance.
2. EXPERIMENTAL: 1919 Eddington's experiment of starlight deflection by
Sun's gravity.
3. EXPERIMENTAL: 1961 Pound-Rebka experiment using a 22 meters
trajectory of gamma rays generated by a radioactive Fe57 sample, SOME
without recoil in the atoms that generated them.
Shapiro's experiment was based on N�2, but transforming deflection angle
into a linearized light trajectory in a curved spacetime. He calculated
that light had to travel an extra amount of 68 Km when an MW beam was reflected by Mercury, on the opposite side of the Sun.
A powerful, narrow wide radar beam at 8Ghz was used to capture echos from Mercury, more than 200 million Km far away. It was also used with Venus.
One of the problems in this conception is that GR doesn't contemplate
ANY relationship between curved spacetime and linear euclidean 3D space,
so the equations that Shapiro developed are QUESTIONABLE.
He replaced angular displacements by delays in the travel of light
through the allegedly curved spacetime.
You have to add more suspicious issues, like the extraction of the very
weak echo from a received signal highly contaminated with noise and
several degradations and perturbations (from the Sun and Earth itself).
The results were re-published after heavy computer-based post-processing
of received data, about one year after the 1971 paper.
Now, relativism has spread the myth that Shapiro's delay is essential
for interplanetary travel, as it's present at any distance from the Sun, INFECTING space&time perception for anything even at 90" from the axis
center Sun-Center Earth (as computed from Earth).
I call Shapiro's delay (some microseconds) IRRELEVANT for space travels, given the delay of light in the zone of tens of minutes for any deep
space probe. But relativists here are in negation state of mind (and
reason).
You misunderstood that too.
Half the effect is gravitational time dilation.
Does Gravity Deflect Light Newtonian or Twice Newtonian?
In his Optics, Newton thought light would be affected by gravity the
same way other particles would because he thought light was a particle.
Henry Cavendish calculated the deflection from the Sun to be 0.875 arcseconds, following Newton's assumption.
In 1911, Einstein arrived at the figure of 0.83 arcseconds. He later
decided it would be twice that, explaining that it would be Newtonian
plus the curvature of space.
There are two reasons, each alone sufficient to establish that this is
false. Einstein's General Relativity claims to account for Newtonian
gravity by the curvature of space. Then, saying curvature doubles the deflection is redundant. Second, the concept of curved space is
logically fallacious. Because space is an abstraction, curving it would involve the reification fallacy. In any case, the claim of an exact
doubling is obviously absurdly unlikely. More than that, the doubling
claimed by relativity is without derivation in math or physics. No math
or reasoning leads to it, but only a "2" is inserted in the equation.
More than that, Galileo and Eotvos had established before Einstein that gravity affects everything equally. Aristotle had taught that heavier
objects fall faster, and European scientists remained under his
influence until Galileo's experiments rolled spherical balls of
different weights down inclines. Eotvos' meticulous laboratory
experiments showed that all elements, such as iron, lead, gold, and
silver, are affected the same by gravity, unlike magnetism. Therefore,
if light is affected by gravity, it should be affected the same as
everything else.
If deflected a different amount as it evidently was in the eclipse experiment, this could be either some other effect or an extraordinary exception to the rule. It would not be extraordinary if light were
deflected by refraction, as this is a well-known property of light. Therefore, it is much more likely to be refraction.
As Carl Sagan pointed out, extraordinary claims require extraordinary
proof. Relativity claims this remarkable proof in the Shapiro time delay experiments involving the reflection of radio waves off of Mercury and
Venus. As this discussion has shown, the radio wave experiments were not sufficiently accurate.
Considering that the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment showed a Newtonian gravitational redshift, was this time delay Newtonian or twice
Newtonian? Twice Newtonian must be refraction.
The experiment wasn't accurate enough to provide extraordinary proof. As Richard Hertz says, "So, faintest signal is about 5,000,000 times BELOW
NOISE AND YET IS RECOVERED AND POST-PROCESSED? IN 1968, WHEN DIGITAL
ENCODING WAS IN ITS INFANCE?"
Lodder said: "You misunderstood that too.
Half the effect is gravitational time dilation.
For convenience in comparing with experiment
the total effect -is represented- as an effective extra path length.
(or time delay)." This is redundant because the total remains the same
no matter how you subdivide it (deflection + redshift= 1). There is only
one gravitational effect from the Sun on anything passing by.
Prok: Saying "you are bad and your criticisms are bad" does not address
the criticisms.
On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 4:19:14 +0000, rhertz wrote:
If you analyze the timeline between 1800 and 1913, you could appreciate
the passage of gravity with infinite speed to gravity limited to c
speed. And, in this case, the absolute pioneer was Gerber (1898) with
his paper explaining Mercury's perihelion advance if gravity moves at c
speed.
Mercury's Perihelion From Le Verrier To Einstein, by N. T. Roseveare,
is available from the Internet Archive.
Mr. Hertz: Yes, the 43" is within the margin of error for Newtonian
methods. All that is necessary is refining those as Smulsky does.
There's the oblateness, the Sun's axial spin, and the barycenter orbit
to account for that, so it should suffice easily.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 475 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 45:29:15 |
| Calls: | 9,492 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,621 |
| Messages: | 6,123,131 |
| Posted today: | 1 |