The Shapiro's experiment HOAX. A 1968 TIME article.

[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".

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/


*************************************************************
Physics: Probing Einstein with Radar
TIME March 8, 1968

In the 53 years since Albert Einstein published his general theory of
relativity, it has withstood determined attacks and ingenious
experiments by other scientists anxious to test its validity. Although
no experimental results have contradicted the theory, they have not been
precise enough to rule out opposing theories that differ in small but
significant details. Now a new technique has been used to check out
Einstein: interplanetary radar. Preliminary radar tests also have failed
to find a flaw in general relativity, a scientist from Massachusetts
Institute of Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory announced last week, and
radar soon should provide results accurate enough to help confirm the
theory—or to seriously undermine it.

Last year, during two intervals when Mercury and Earth were on opposite
sides of the sun, a team led by Physicist Irwin Shapiro bounced
high-frequency signals from M.I.T.’s exceptionally precise Haystack
radar antenna off the planet Mercury. On their way to and from Mercury,
the signals, which travel at the speed of light, had to pass close to
the sun. During these passages, according to the Einstein equations,
solar gravity should have actually slowed them down, lengthening their
23-minute round-trip time to Mercury by one five-thousandth of a second.

Detecting so minute a change was no easy task. Using data gathered by
the Haystack antenna and by other observatories, the researchers plotted
both Earth’s and Mercury’s orbits to a degree of accuracy never before
obtained; it was essential to know Mercury’s exact distance at the time
of the test to calculate the difference in round-trip time caused by
solar gravity.

Eight Gigahertz. The M.I.T. team also had to design a new radar
transmitter that would operate at eight gigahertz (pronounced with hard
gs), which is 8 billion cycles per second. Radar beams of lower
frequency would be significantly slowed down by electrons in the solar
corona, making it difficult to separate out the delay actually caused by
the sun’s gravity. Corrections for Mercury’s surface irregularity had to
be calculated; round-trip time to a Mercurial valley would be longer
than to a mountaintop. It was also essential for the researchers to
screen out any extraneous radio noise that might interfere with the
attenuated, incredibly weak return signals, which, Shapiro says, had
“less than a thousandth of the power that is expended by a housefly
walking up a wall at a speed of one millimeter a century.”

Painstaking preparations paid off. As Mercury began to move behind the
sun, M.I.T. computers detected increasing delays in the return of radar
signals slowed by the sun’s gravitational field. Plotted against the
theoretical delays predicted by the Einstein equations, the actual delay
time formed a remarkably similar curve, increasing to approximately one
five-thousandth of a second just before Mercury passed behind the sun.

Test results, which Shapiro regards as only preliminary, could be
inaccurate by as much as 20%, and still leave some room for doubt about
relativity. But refinements in the radar technique could soon reduce the
uncertainty to less than 1%, he says, and further confirm or definitely
overthrow Einstein’s general relativity.

*****************************************************************

Maybe I'll post more crap about this Shapiro character and experiments.

[Bertietaylor]

Why bother about distant Mercury. Explain whether or not the temperature
below you feet at the centre of the Earth is very hot or very cold.

Arindam's physics says it will be very cold. For the magnetic field of
the Earth is a fact. That constant currents create a magnetic field is a
fact. That extremely cold conditions create Superconducting is a fact.
That piezoelectric effect create current is a fact.

With all those facts we have to conclude that the temperatures in the
cores of heavenly bodies are very low.

Now what effect will this approach have upon the hot fusion theories?
Out they must go.

Woof-woof

Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdoggies)

[rhertz]

CORRECTION FROM PREVIOUS POST: The difference that allegedly was
measured was 1/5 msec or 200 microseconds. So, the alleged accuracy was
1.45E-07 or 0.145 ppm (in 1964!, with ad-hoc real time computers built
in that epoch.






*******************************************************************

The Haystack radar antenna is a 120 ft diameter Cassegrain system
designed and built in the 1960s.

QUOTE:

1965- Irwin Shapiro proposed a “fourth”
test of general relativity—
measuring the general-relativity
prediction of “time dilation”
or “excess delay” up to ~200
microseconds for radio waves
that travel very near the Sun.
He suggested that radar
measurements of a planet near
superior conjunction should
double the one-way value; this
value would be compared to the
total round-trip time of up to
~1500 seconds. The first results
from a radar-echo excess-delay
experiment were obtained in 1967
using Mercury as a target


https://archive.ll.mit.edu/publications/HaystackCommemorativeBk.pdf

In the 60s it operated at 8 Ghz, with a power of about 200,000 Watts.

In a round trip of about 2 x 200 million Km, the FSPL (Free Space Path
Loss) is

FSPL(dB) = 20 log d + 20 log f - 147.55

d: distance in meters
f: frequency in Hertz


FSPL(dB) = 20 log 4E+11 + 20 log 8E+09 - 147.55

FSPL(dB) = 220 log 4 + 180 log 8 - 147.55 = 147.45

60dB have to be added due to the passive reflection in Mercury.


Received power (dBW): -207.45 + + 5.3 = -202.15 dBW

Antenna gain (at reception) = 61 dB
Beamwidth = 0.07 degrees

Received power (W): 10E-07 Watts = 100 nanowatts

Noise at reception (W, estimated) = ? nanowatts (depends on many
factors), like bandwidth, technologies, cosmic sources, etc.





https://repository.aip.org/islandora/object/nbla:307780

[rhertz]

SECOND CORRECTION:

I forgot to include the losses due to the beam dispersion after
traveling 200 million Km and bouncing off a poorly small reflective
surface of Mercury, being also that the measurements were taken when
Mercury's line of sight from Earth HAS TO BE the one with Mercury's
reflections of the beam are grazing the Sun's surface.

With luck, 0.1% or less of the power is reflected on such a remote
target, which makes the received power being well below 100 picowatts,
being the received pulses deformed due to Mercury's surface
irregularities.

Also, many propagation degradations and Sun in-band interferences made
VERY DIFFICULT the construction of a MATCHED FILTER at reception, which
is a KEY ELEMENT in radar ranging.

So, there is a wide range of degradation factors in such experiment made
the measurements to be highly doubtful, far beyond the alleged 20%
error.

This highly celebrated HOAX is much more fake than the Pound or Hafele
experiments.

In the years to come, Cassini would improve his HOAX through the use of
information recollected from multiple observatories around the world.

IN ALL CASES, there IS NOT A DETERMINISTIC RESULT. Statistical
processing and filtering was used as the MAIN MATHEMATICAL TOOL. And
it's widely known that STATISTICS are very easy to manipulate, in order
to provide the desired results.

[rhertz]

NEW CORRECTION:

The received power is well under 100 picowatts, due to the fact that
less than 0.1% of the power reaches Mercury and bounce back.


Add to this degradation of the pulses while grazing Sun's surface, noise
from the Sun's atmosphere, irregularities on Mercury's surface and the
difficulties in making a MATCHED FILTER at the receiver, which is
essential in radar operations.


Plus, all the results were derived from statistical algorithms, which
makes the results much more doubtful than the admitted +/- 20% error.

[rhertz]

Excerpts from Wallace's book "The farce of physics" (1994).

--------------------------------------------------------
In the talk, Shapiro presented the illusion that the radar data was
consistent with Einstein's general relativity theory. The talk was
essentially the same as the paper titled "Radar Observations of
the Planets" which he had published in the prestigious journal
Scientific American. [59]
In my debate with Shapiro, in the comment session that followed his
talk, he admitted that all his calculations were based on a constant
speed of light c (the wave in ether model), and he had not tested c+v
(the particle model). He did this, in spite of the fact, that the major
problem in modern physics, is the wave-particle paradox.

That is, in some experiments light seems to behave like a wave, and in
other experiments it seems to behave as a particle. He admitted the fact
that the published radar analysis showed very large impossible
variations in the calculated value of the astronomical unit (the mean
distance between the earth and the sun), that were far larger than their
maximum estimate of all possible errors.

The graphed calculated values of the astronomical unit contained a daily
component that was proportional to the relative velocity due to the
Earth's rotation, a 30-day component, related to the Earth-Moon
rotation, and a component related to the relative solar orbital
velocities of the Earth and Venus.
.......................

[61] The radar observations were estimated to be capable of measuring
the distance to Venus with an accuracy of within 1.5 kilometers, the
only important variable being the relative velocity of light in space.
The Earth's rotation could cause a maximum difference in calculated
distance between the two theories of 260 kilometers when two radar
stations, one on either side of the Earth, observe Venus at the same
time when the planet is at its closest point to the Earth.

This difference would increase as the distance between the Earth and
Venus increased. An analysis of the data based on the incorrect theory
would show the center of Venus to be at different distances from the
center of the Earth at the same time. The analysis of the data published
by Shapiro's research group also presents evidence against the c theory
from observations made at the same time from different points on the
Earth. The Lincoln Laboratory made a complete c analysis of all the
radar data up to 1966. The Einstein general relativity time delay
goodness-of-fit for the US Massachusetts radar station was 1.57, the
value for the Puerto Rico station was .97, the value for the USSR
Crimean station was 7.10.

Although not apparent from inspection of Fig. 4, the residuals of the
U.S.S.R. time delay are systematically negative relative to the Arecibo
and Lincoln Laboratory residuals during the time period (June 1964) when
all three groups were observing Venus. This incompatibility cannot be
removed by assuming simply that different units of time were used by the
different observatories.


If the theory is wrong, the values of the parameters will be selected
from the data in a manner that tends to cover up the inadequacies of the
theory (for example, if least mean-square fitting is employed).
-----------------------------------------------------------------



MATHEMAGICS WAS USED ALONG WITH CHERRY-PICKED DATA IN SHAPIRO'S HOAX.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by 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

Post by rhertz
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 μsec 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."

Post by rhertz
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!

Post by rhertz
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.

Post by rhertz
I post the entire article, so you can have a laugh.

The idiot laughs at what he doesn't understand.

Post by rhertz
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.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by 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

Post by rhertz
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."

Post by rhertz
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!

Post by rhertz
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.

Post by rhertz
I post the entire article, so you can have a laugh.

The idiot laughs at what he doesn't understand.

Post by rhertz
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.

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.

More hint for RH: radar echos diminish with r^-4,
and are soon lost in the noise.
Transponder reception and response goes with r^-2,
and still works reliably for spacecraft beyond PLuto,
like the Voyagers. All you need is a big radio dish.

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

[rhertz]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 17:58:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

<snip>

Post by J. J. Lodder
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.
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.

SHAPIRO'S GOAL WAS QUITE SIMPLE: TO REPLACE TESTS WITH ECLIPSES AND
VISIBLE LIGHT TELESCOPES WITH MICROWAVES AND RADIO-TELESCOPES, IN ORDER
TO PROVE THE DEFLECTION OF 1.75 ARCSECONDS FOR LIGHT GRAZING THE SUN'S
SURFACE!!

INSTEAD OF TRYING TO MEASURE THE DEFLECTION IN SUCH CASES, HE MODIFIED
THE GOAL BY MEASURING THE DELAY (200 uSec) OF LIGHT (MW) WHEN TRAVELING
THE ADDITIONAL 60 KM (PERCEIVED FROM EARTH DUE TO THE "GRAVITY BEND".

IN HIS OWN WORDS:

Because, according to the general theory, the speed of a light wave
depends on the strength of the gravitational potential along its path,
these time delays should thereby be increased by almost 2×10−4 sec when
the radar pulses pass near the sun. Such a change, equivalent to 60 km
in distance, could now be measured over the required path length to
within about 5 to 10% with presently obtainable equipment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delay


BUT SUCH CALCULATION WAS PRONE TO ERRORS AND MANIPULATION OF THE
ORIGINAL 1915 FORMULA ΔΦ = 4GM/c². THE VALUE OF 1.75" DECREASES WITH


ΔΦ x RSun/R OR ΔΦ x 634,000Km/R

AND IS APPLICABLE ONLY ON THE VICINITY OF THE SUN, NOT ANYWHERE. AT A
DISTANCE OF 6.34 MILLION Km, ΔΦ REDUCES TO 0.175", AND GET WORSE AS R
INCREASES.

SOME OF MANY FATAL ERRORS IN SHAPIRO'S BASIC HYPOTHESIS ARE:

1. ORIGINAL FORMULA WAS INVENTED FOR LIGHT COMING FROM INFINITY.
2. HE STRAIGHTENED THE CURVATURE OF SPACETIME, IN ORDER TO MAKE VERY
GROSS TRIGONOMETRIC CALCULATIONS TO GET THE EXTRA 60 KM (SEE THE FORMULA
IN THE WIKIPEDIA LINK).
3. HE AVERAGED PRELIMINARY RESULTS BY MIXING DATA FROM MERCURY AND
VENUS.
4. HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE RECEIVED SIGNAL WAS -180 dBm, including
antenna gain. This represents a received signal of 0.22 nanoVolts rms,
which was COMPLETELY SUBMERGED IN NOISE, DOPPLER EFFECTS, INTERFERENCES
ATMOSPHERIC DEGRADATIONS, ETC.
WITH THE COOKED DATA FROM THOUSAND OF MEASUREMENTS, HE RUSHED TO WRITE
THE FIRST PAPER, WARNING THAT SEVERAL MONTHS OF COMPUTER FILTERING (MANY
STATISTICAL FUDGES POSSIBLE) WERE GOING TO BE NEEDED FOR A MORE DETAILED
REPORT.
5. HE FAILED TO REPORT THAT MOST OF THE SIGNAL FROM EARTH WAS LOST AT
THE SUN'S SURFACE, BEFORE EVEN REACHING THE TARGET PLANET.
6. HE FAILED TO REPORT WHICH WAS THE EFFECTIVE AREA OF THE REFLECTOR
(TARGET PLANET) EXISTED, AND WHICH WAS THE POWER DENSITY REACHING THE
TARGET. THIS ALONE INTRODUCES A LOT MORE LOSSES THAN TRAVELING ON VACUUM
FOR HUNDRED OF MILLION OF KM.
6. EVEN WHEN HE DISCLOSED THAT PULSES BEING SPACED 60 uSec WERE
CONTINUOUSLY TRANSMITTED FOR MORE THAN 22 MINUTES (MERCURY), AND THEN
SWITCHED TRANSMISSION TO RECEPTION, IN ORDER TO CAPTURE THE INBOUND
REFLECTION, HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ROUND TRIP DISTANCE WAS NOT KNOWN
WITH THE REQUIRED PRECISION (ERRORS OF HUNDRED OF KM). DUE TO THIS, HE
COULDN'T AFFIRM THAT THE INITIAL RECEIVED SIGNAL CONTAINED THE EVENT OF
MW GRAZING THE SUN'S SURFACE.
7. EVEN WHEN HE ADMITTED MANY GROSS APPROXIMATIONS IN THE WIKI FORMULA,
HE DISMISSED SEVERAL EFFECTS LIKE REFRACTIONS OF MW IN SUN'S ATMOSPHERE.
THIS, ALONG WITH MANY OTHER SUSPICIOUS STATEMENTS IN THE 1968 PAPER,
DISMISS MANY EFFECTS LIKE MW REGENERATION WHEN REACHING THE SUN.
8. THE BINARY ENCODING OF SIGNAL'S PHASE, WHICH ALLOW PROCESSING OF
RECEIVED SIGNAL OVER NOISE BY USING CORRELATION, IS NOT ENOUGH TO DETECT
THE ARRIVAL OF A HIGHLY DEFORMED AND CORRUPTED ECHO.
THEN, THE USE OF THOUSAND OF MEASUREMENTS ALONG MONTHS PLUS COMPUTER
PROCESSING AND FILTERING, PREVENTED HIM TO PRESENT CLEAN DATA, WARNING
THAT MONTHS OF POST-PROCESSING WERE AHEAD OF HIS PRELIMINARY REPORT.

ALL OF THE ABOVE, AND MUCH MORE, SMELL LIKE A ROTTEN FISH.

STATISTICAL MANIPULATION (FUDGING, COOKING) OF DATA HAS BEEN, SINCE THE
DIGITAL COMPUTER AGE, THE PREFERRED TOOL TO OBTAIN WHAT IS SEEK. BUT,
INCLUDING IN THIS CASE, HE COVERED HIS ASS BY TELLING THAT THE AD-HOC
COMPUTER BUILT TO TRACK AND STORE RECEIVED PULSES HAD AN IMPORTANT
FAILURE OF DESIGN.

Post by J. J. Lodder
More hint for RH: radar echos diminish with r^-4,
and are soon lost in the noise.
Transponder reception and response goes with r^-2,
and still works reliably for spacecraft beyond PLuto,
like the Voyagers. All you need is a big radio dish.

YOU SHOULDN'T WRITE AFFIRMATIONS ON SUBJECTS THAT ARE COMPLETELY ALIEN
TO YOU. THIS REFERS TO YOUR COMMENT ABOUT POWER DECAYING WITH r^-4, ONCE
THE RADAR BEAM HIT THE TARGET AND BOUNCES BACK. IT STILL DECAYS WITH
r^-2. ANY RADIO ENGINEER WOULD TELL YOU TO STFU.

Post by J. J. Lodder
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

I'M FINISHING THIS POST BECAUSE I'M FEELING SICK WITH ALL THE STUPIDITY
THAT SUPPORT RELATIVITY.

ONE FINAL WORD OF WARNING, JAN: DON'T WRITE ABOUT SOMETHING YOU DON'T
KNOW SHIT.

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]

I FORGOT TO INCLUDE THE LINK:

Shapiro Time Delay Using Newtonian Gravitation

https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz
Shapiro Time Delay Using Newtonian Gravitation

So now your point is that Shapiro's measurements
were correct, but Newton predicts the same as GR? :-D

It is never too late to change your mind when
you have realised that Shapiro delay isn't a HOAX.

Post by rhertz
https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM

A very interesting paper due to fig 2.

In 1971 Shapiro made new measurements with
the Arecibo telescope.

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.26.1132
"Fourth Test of General Relativity: New Radar Result"
Quote:
" Abstract
New radar observations yield a more stringent test of the predicted
relativistic increase in echo times of radio signals sent from Earth
and reflected from Mercury and Venus. These "extra" delays may be
characterized by a parameter 𝜆 which is unity according to general
relativity and 0.93 according to recent predictions based on a scalar-
tensor theory of gravitation. We find that 𝜆=1.02. The formal standard
error is 0.02, but because of the possible presence of systematic
errors we consider 0.05 to be a more reliable estimate of the
uncertainty in the result."

Look at fig. 2.
It shows the measurements with Haystack in 1965 and
with Arecibo in 1971 (1970?).
Shapiro's prediction for the Shapiro delay is now
confirmed to within 5%.

Thanks for the reference, Richard!

--------------------

But does Newton predict the same delay as GR for the Shapiro delay?

See equation (2) : mₚ = Eₚ/c²

This is the reference given for this equation:
R. Skinner, Relativity for Scientists and Engineers,
Dover, New York, 1982.

Say no more! :-D

Here is a correct derivation of the Newtonian prediction:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.00229

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.00229

No, here is not. Newtonian physics was saying
nothing about ligh being affected by gravity
and you're a piece of lying shit, what was,
of course, well known before.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Wozniak: Actually, Newton did mention it in his Optics, and it logically
follows from his idea that light is a particle.

[rhertz]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
Shapiro Time Delay Using Newtonian Gravitation

So now your point is that Shapiro's measurements
were correct, but Newton predicts the same as GR? :-D
It is never too late to change your mind when
you have realised that Shapiro delay isn't a HOAX.

Post by rhertz
https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM

A very interesting paper due to fig 2.
In 1971 Shapiro made new measurements with
the Arecibo telescope.
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.26.1132
"Fourth Test of General Relativity: New Radar Result"
" Abstract
New radar observations yield a more stringent test of the predicted
relativistic increase in echo times of radio signals sent from Earth
and reflected from Mercury and Venus. These "extra" delays may be
characterized by a parameter 𝜆 which is unity according to general
relativity and 0.93 according to recent predictions based on a scalar-
tensor theory of gravitation. We find that 𝜆=1.02. The formal standard
error is 0.02, but because of the possible presence of systematic
errors we consider 0.05 to be a more reliable estimate of the
uncertainty in the result."
Look at fig. 2.
It shows the measurements with Haystack in 1965 and
with Arecibo in 1971 (1970?).
Shapiro's prediction for the Shapiro delay is now
confirmed to within 5%.
Thanks for the reference, Richard!
--------------------
But does Newton predict the same delay as GR for the Shapiro delay?
See equation (2) : mₚ = Eₚ/c²
R. Skinner, Relativity for Scientists and Engineers,
Dover, New York, 1982.
Say no more! :-D
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.00229

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SARCASM, OBVIOUSLY!


MY POST WITH THE ALTERNATE NEWTONIAN VERSION WAS TO PROVE THAT
RELATIVITY IS AN ABSOLUTE PILE OF CRAP!

THE KINK CONTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THE DERIVATION OF "A CASSINI'S DELAY
FORMULA CLONE", BUT IT'S BASED ON BLACK HOLES AND PHOTONS, AND IS A
SAMPLE ABOUT THAT ANY IMBECILE WITH SOME MATH SKILLS CAN DERIVE THE SAME
RESULTS AS PURE BREED GR RELATIVISTS.

THE DISMISSAL OF THE IMPACT OF OPTICAL PHENOMENA LIKE REFRACTION IS
NOTABLE. PLUS, ANY OF THESE FORMULAE CONTAIN FOUR ASTRONOMICAL DISTANCES
TO VENUS OR MERCURY, DATA THAT (STILL TODAY) CONTAIN IMPORTANT
UNCERTAINTIES, BEYOND ERROR BARS.

ADD TO THE ABOVE THAT c IS FIXED BY INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS, DUE TO
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LABS WORLDWIDE MOUNTING UP TO +/- 200 KM/SEC,
AND YOU HAVE AN INTERESTING CONTEXT OPEN TO FRAUD, FUDGING AND COOKING
DATA. NOT TO MENTION THE HUGE AMOUNT OF PERTURBATIONS, NOISE AND PULSE
DISTORTIONS THAT REQUIRE COLLECTING DATA BY THE THOUSAND AND
POST-PROCESSING IT WITH DUBIOUS ALGORITHMS.

GO BACK TO YOUR GARDENING HOBBY. IT SUITS BETTER FOR YOUR MELTED BRAIN.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz

Post by rhertz
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.

Post by 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

[rhertz]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz

Post by rhertz
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.

Post by 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
https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM
"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.
"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.
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.
"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
"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.
😂
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.

[Python]

Post by rhertz

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz

Post by rhertz
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.

Post by 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
https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM
"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.
"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.
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.
"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
"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.
😂
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.

call 911

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by 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
https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM
"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.
"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.
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.
  "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
"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.
😂
https://paulba.no/temp/1971_Shapiro_Newronian_formula.pdf

**************************************************************
PAUL, I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU, STUPID RELATIVIST VIKING!!

This is your post I responded to:

| Richard Hertz wrote:
|> 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

Post by rhertz
I ALREADY KNEW THAT THE PAPER WAS FAKE AS HELL. I DID SOME RESEARCH ON
IT AND THE WRITER.

You were proud because you believed that Newton could predict
the Shapiro delay and gives AN EXACT MATCH with the formula
derived by Stephan Gift.
So General relativity IS A PILE OF CRAP, Newton rules.

Post by rhertz
PLUS, I REMARKED THAT THE GUY USED BLACK HOLE'S HYPOTHESIS, WHICH IS
DERIVED FROM MISINTERPRETATION OF SCHWARZSCHILD'S EQUATION IN GR.

Your post is quoted above. No mention of black holes.

Post by rhertz
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.

I am a Norwegian and have a morbid sense of humour.
I love to prove you wrong!

Post by rhertz
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!!

Cassini?
The article where you found the formula and the figure 2
was written by Stephan Gift.

Post by rhertz
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.

Which always prove your math wrong.
You are not laughing, you are furious.
I am the one laughing at your ability to misinterpret a text.
It is hilarious.

Post by rhertz
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.

Quite.
I can't resist proving you wrong, which I have done over and over.
Just see how many threads are terminated by my posts because
you have realised that I am right and can't answer.

----------

A couple of examples of your hilarious misinterpretations and
failure to understand what you read:


| Den 28.09.2024 04:34, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> 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
|>

Your blunder is the idiotic idea that if the volume
of a star is 5 billion solar volumes, then the mass
of the star must be 5 billion solar masses.
The reference says the mass is 30 solar masses.

|Den 27.09.2024 22:13, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> 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.
|>

Your blunder is not realising that the USNO clock is showing UTC,
and just about all clocks are synchronous with UTC (+ a known offset)
I can with my wristwatch estimate what the USNO clock is now within
a second. (UTC clocks are synchronous in the ECI-frame)

| Den 27.09.2024 00:27, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> 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?
|>

Your blunder is believing that Mudrak 2017 equation
and Hafele 1971 equation are different.

They are equal which is easy to show, which I did.

| Den 15.09.2024 03:26, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> 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:
|>
|>
https://www.oca.eu/en/news-lagrange/1363-first-results-from-microscope-satellite-confirm-albert-einstein-s-theory-of-relativity-with-unprecedented-precision
|>
|> 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.
|>

This is so hilarious that I am still laughing. :-D
Your blunder is so obvious that I won't explain it.

| Den 10.09.2024 03:19, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> 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.
|>

Your blunder is not realising that my formula, which I "wrote with
sheer cockiness" is the 'normal' equation used by astronomers,
and not my invention.
You didn't know that the equation for the total deflection,
and the equation for the deflection observed from the Earth
are different.
And all your points 1) to 5) have obviously nothing to do
in the equation θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
Some of them can affect the _measurements_ of φ

But claiming that the equation θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
is wrong because I am "dismissing completely the FACT that Earth
is a sphere" is beyond hilarious! :-D

-------------

Did you smile when you wrote the above, and I took the bite, Richard?

[Python]

..

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by 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!

After Norway banned "Monty Python’s Life of Brian" for blasphemy, it was
marketed
in Sweden as “so funny it was banned in Norway.” (1980)

Pun intended :-)

[Paul B. Andersen]

PAUL, MAYBE YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN HOW YOUR BELOVED CRETIN CASSINI WENT

Why do you call the spacecraft Cassini "MY BELOVED CRETIN CASSINI"?

And how can a spacecraft "go from one formula to another formula"?

Could it be that you are a bit confused? :-D

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.
1971 Shapiro formula for delay
Δt ≈ 2GM/c³ (ln [(rₑ + xₑ )/(rᵖ - xᵖ)]

Why do you find it strange that
4GM/c³(ln[(xᵖ+√(xᵖ²+d²))/(-xₑ+√(xₑ²+d²)))]-1/2[xᵖ/√(xᵖ²+d²)+(2xₑ+xᵖ)/√(xₑ²+d²)])
≈ 2GM/c³ (ln [(rₑ + xₑ )/(rᵖ - xᵖ)])

It's an approximation.

If you compare fig.3 in
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1968.pdf
to fig.6 in
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.00229
you will see that the functions are quite similar.

The numeric difference is because the former is for Mercury
while the latter is for Venus.

[Paul B. Andersen]

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.

There was no formula in the 1968 paper.
They were in the 1964 paper.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1964.pdf

They are not very different from Pössel's GR prediction.

No space curved is necessary. Newton cover all the basis and RELATIVITY
AND SPACETIME CURVATURES have no place here.

Quite.
It is simpler to calculate the Shapiro delay predicted by Newton,
and then multiply it by 2 to get the GR prediction.

This is what is done here:
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,
= equation (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."

Observe the details of the measurements with Venus in 1970.

Indeed.
The measurements are spot on the GR prediction.

General relativity IS A PILE OF CRAP.

I understand that you have taken the "1971 Shapiro's formula"
and your fig.2 from:

https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM/pdf
Stephan Gift: "Shapiro Time Delay Using Newtonian Gravitation"

Gift has copied the formula and the figure from Pössel.

But is "derivation" to make Newton include the factor 2
is nonsense. Pössel is right.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by rhertz
<snip>

Post by J. J. Lodder
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.
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]

Post by rhertz

Post by J. J. Lodder
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

[snip more ALL CAPS]

Post by rhertz
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

[rhertz]

<snip>

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
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.

https://secure.boeingimages.com/archive/Syncom--the-First-Geosynchronous-Communications-Satellite-2JRSXLJ2M8G5.html


Telstar 1. It launched on July 10, 1962. The mission was a cooperative
effort between AT&T and the space agency to demonstrate, “the
feasibility of transmitting information via satellite.”



In 1962, NASA launched the first interplanetary probe:

https://science.nasa.gov/mission/mariner-2/

Telstar 1. It launched on July 10, 1962. The mission was a cooperative
effort between AT&T and the space agency to demonstrate, “the
feasibility of transmitting information via satellite.”


Since 1957 Sputnik, the space race began frenetically between US and
USSR. In only 5 years, US gained enough know-how in order to start
commercial satellite communications, which was A COMMON PLACE by 1969.

As I wrote before, the USE OF TRANSPONDERS has been present since THE
SPACE AGE BEGAN!.

Read the content in this link. You HAVE TO or STFU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_satellite


What are your degrees? I really wonder. Can you tell?

And finally, the interplanetary navigation DEPENDS ON OTHER THINGS than
stupid transponders. Besides on-board computing of navigation data, the
MOST USED "GALACTIC GPS" HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE OPTICAL GUIDANCE BY "FIXED"
DISTANT STARS. plus newtonian celestial mechanics AND MANY OTHER
algorithms (like to use data from Earth-deep spacecraft links).


Do you think that THE FAKE DATA from HIPPARCOS is used, to correct a few
Km? The flight path is CONSTANTLY computed, and corrected, by using
many mechanisms. In the end, NEWTONIAN CELESTIAL MECHANICS IS KING!



READ THIS AND LEARN!
BTW, USSR WAS ALWAYS AHEAD OF US IN SPACE COMMUNICATIONS AND IN THE USE
OF INTERPLANETARY PROBES.

IN OCTOBER 1959, THE USSR SATELLITE TOOK THE FIRST PICTURE OF THE OCCULT
SIDE OF THE MOON. IT WAS THE LUNA 3, AND USED (AS IT SHOULD BE)
TRANSPONDERS!

LEARN MORE HERE:

https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/space-race-timeline

Space race timeline

2 August 1955: The USSR responds to the US announcement that they intend
to launch the first artificial satellite into space with a satellite of
their own.

4 October 1957: The USSR successfully launches Sputnik 1, the first
Earth-orbiting satellite in history.

3 November 1957: The USSR successfully launches Sputnik 2, carrying a
dog named Laika into space. They become the first nation to successfully
send a living organism into orbit.

31 January 1958: The US enter the space race by launching Explorer 1,
the first US satellite to reach orbit. It carried experimental equipment
that led to the discovery of the Van Allen radiation belt.

1 October 1958: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
is created in the US, replacing the National Advisory Committee on
Aeronautics (NACA).

18 December 1958: The US launch SCORE, the world's first communications
satellite. It captured world attention by broadcasting a pre-recorded
Christmas message from US President Dwight D. Eisenhower, becoming the
first broadcast of a human voice from space.

2 January 1959: The USSR launches Luna 1, known as the first "cosmic
rocket" as it accidentally escaped the orbit of the Moon due to the
object having too much speed. Luna 1 becomes the first human-made object
to leave the orbit of the Earth and orbit the sun instead.

2 August 1959: The US launches Explorer 6, the world's first weather
satellite and obtains the first pictures of Earth from space.

12 September 1959: The USSR launches Luna 2 and accomplishes its mission
of creating the first spacecraft to reach the surface of the Moon.

4 October 1959: The USSR launches Luna 3 and succeeds in their mission
of sending an object into orbit around the Moon and photographing the
far side of the Moon.

19 August 1960: Aboard the Soviet Union's Sputnik 5, the first animals
(two dogs, Belka and Strelka) and a range of plants are returned alive
from space.

31 January 1961: Ham, a US chimpanzee, becomes the first hominid (or
great ape) in space and the first to successfully survive the landing.

12 April 1961: The Soviet Union achieve a clear triumph in the space
race. Aboard the Vostok 1, Yuri Gagarin makes a single orbit around the
Earth and becomes the first man to reach space. He remained in space for
one hour and forty-eight minutes before landing in Saratov Oblast, west
Russia.

5 May 1961: The US achieve the first pilot-controlled journey and first
American in space with Alan Shepard aboard the Mercury-Redstone 3 (or
Freedom 7) spacecraft. On this flight, Shepard did not orbit Earth. He
flew 116 miles high. The flight lasted about 15 minutes.

16 June 1963: Valentina Tereshkova becomes the first civilian and first
woman in space. She spends almost three days in space, orbiting the
Earth 48 times aboard her spacecraft, Vostok 6.

18 March 1965: Alexei Leonov leaves his spacecraft, the Voskhod 2, in a
specialized spacesuit and conducts a twelve-minute spacewalk, the first
of its kind.

[rhertz]

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.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz
I want to highlight some "relativistic assertions" about Shapiro's
delay, so the idiot relativists that support this crap may enter in
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.

Beautiful, Richard!

Nobody can demonstrate the stupidity of Richard Hertz better than you!

[rhertz]

On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 10:05:48 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

<snip>

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Beautiful, Richard!
Nobody can demonstrate the stupidity of Richard Hertz better than you!

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.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz
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.

Converted?
I was 14 years when I read my first popular book on relativity.
SR and GR have always been part of classical physics in my world.

Post by rhertz
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).

Quite.
And now we can see how much your originality and your thoughts with
your own brain have brought to physics. Right?

Post by rhertz
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).

Thanks for your very wise words, Richard.

I will indeed keep living A PARASITIC, WORTHLESS LIFE in a cloud
of lies, deceptions and hidden agendas (about the value of relativism
in the world).

:-D

Post by rhertz
When I wrote that I pity you, I meant it by heart.

Of course you did.
You are a very nice person, and will obviously pity the idiots
who doesn't realise that all physicist born after 1900 are members
of a MAFFIA, and profit from it, and their experimental results
are COOKED with the help of statistical manipulations, fraud,
cooking and peer complicity.

Post by rhertz
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).

I can't, like you, invent how HIPPARCOS works, using my own brain
exclusively.

Here is how HIPPARCOS doesn't work invented by _your_ own brain exclusively:
" 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?"

But you are right, of course.

As you can see here:
https://sci.esa.int/web/hipparcos/-/47357-fact-sheet

It is obvious that ESA invested €600,000,000 in a HOAX with
the sole purpose of making the stupid relativist believe that GR works.

The HIPPARCOS catalogue with 118218 stars charted with unprecedented
accuracy, is clearly a fraud, which the idiot astronomers have bought.
There is no way HIPPARCOS could measure the positions and distances with
the precision given in that catalogue.

Don't you agree, Richard?

Post by rhertz
Bye, lame Norwegian.

Are you going somewhere?

I will stay here and will keep proving you wrong again and again.
And again.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by rhertz
<snip>

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
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,
(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

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
<snip>

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
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]
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,

And in the meantime in the real world -
forbidden by your insane church "improper"
clocks keep measuring improper t'=t in
improper seconds.

[rhertz]

On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 19:42:59 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

<snip>

Post by J. J. Lodder
[snip irelevancies about history space travel, yes we all know]
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/r⁴, and not the usual 1/r². 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.
Please, can let this ENTER INTO YOUR THICK SKULL?


Some links, so you have fun (I doubt it):


Shapiro time delay is caused by refraction. Gravitational time dilation
does not exist.​

https://forums.space.com/threads/shapiro-time-delay-is-caused-by-refraction-gravitational-time-dilation-does-not-exist.66470/


Shortcomings of Shapiro delay-based tests of the
equivalence principle on cosmological scales

https://hal.science/hal-02283593/document


SOLAR-SYSTEM DYNAMICS AND TESTS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY WITH
PLANETARY LASER RANGING

https://ilrs.cddis.eosdis.nasa.gov/lw14/docs/papers/sci7b_jcm.pdf


Planetary Fact Sheets

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.html


NASA Horizons Web Application

https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons/app.html#/


AND THIS LINK IS A GIFT. AMAZING SITE:

https://theskylive.com/planetarium?obj=moon#ra|3.8906247073185565|dec|33.538244917897146|fov|71

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by rhertz
<snip>

Post by J. J. Lodder
[snip irelevancies about history space travel, yes we all know]
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 should have expressed myself more carefully there.
Meant was of course an extra factor 4 for twice the distance.

Post by rhertz
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.

My my, a Frenchie pretending to be a gentleman.

Post by rhertz
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.

Three doctorates and two Nobel prizes, just like you.

Post by rhertz
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.

You were obviousy ignorant of the importance of them
in the context of precise space navigation.

Post by rhertz
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.

I did, it is nonsense.

Post by rhertz
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.
(at the present level of accuracy)

Post by rhertz
There is no 3D celestial GPS to be used in space flights. A link
with Earth stations are UNIDIMENSIONAL in a 3D space.

It is necessary to do a complete integration
involving the whole solar system to know where everything is.
(to a hundred meters or so, limited mainly by asteroid noise)
This is of course an expert job. (for JPL for example)
It requires a lot of computational power.

The accuracy has increased to the point where it becomes necessary
to give the AU a defined value, because the motions of the Earth are to
erratic to serve as a base for it.

Back to the point: Once you arrive at accuracies measured in nanoseconds
the Shapiro delay becomes a correction to be applied routinely,

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
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.

A lie, aexpected from a relativistic idiot.
Those sophisticated techniques do need
corrections banned by your idiot guru, your
idiotic wannabe standards and the whole of
your idiotic church.

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by rhertz
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/r².

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.pdf
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.

[rhertz]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by rhertz
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/r².

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.pdf
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.

This is correct. I was wrong, and sincerely apologize to Jan.

The wide of the outgoing main lobe of the Cassegrain antenna increases
with the distance such that, at interplanetary distances, causes that
the beam area is almost flat. However, the reflection is not isotropic,
even when it doesn't count in the reception of the reflection, which is
proportional to the 1/R^4.

This document is a little more elaborated. But I remark that the "real"
radar equation is much more sophisticated than what was shown.

https://www.ll.mit.edu/sites/default/files/outreach/doc/2018-07/lecture%206.pdf

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by rhertz
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.

pdf

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
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.

Typical example: the corner reflectors on the moon.
With a one meter telescope for beam formation,
and the most powerful pulsed lasers that it will support
you get about one photon back for each pulse.
To get an observable signal overaging over pulses is needed.

This is possible because you already know how far away the Moon is,
to a few nanoseconds,

Jan

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by rhertz
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.

pdf

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
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.

Typical example: the corner reflectors on the moon.
With a one meter telescope for beam formation,
and the most powerful pulsed lasers that it will support
you get about one photon back for each pulse.
To get an observable signal overaging over pulses is needed.
This is possible because you already know how far away the Moon is,
to a few nanoseconds,
Jan

Don't forget "telegrapher's equation", a usual important
fact in transmission that's not Maxwellian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delay

If it's attributed to time dilation, it could
be instead: space contraction, which is simply
enough length contraction and time dilation together.

"The doubling of the Shapiro factor
can be explained by the fact
that there is not only the gravitational time dilation,
but also the radial stretching of space, both of which
contribute equally in general relativity
for the time delay as they also do for the deflection of light. "


Yeah that sounds like space contraction then though
there's also involve the doubling/halving measure
and doubling/halving space, as if the quasi-invariant
measure theory.


Definitely it points at space contraction, though.
The space contraction is also associated with
the concepts of space "warp" and "folding".
Of course there's no such thing as a closed time-like curve.

[Tom Roberts]

Post by J. J. Lodder
[...]
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!

Tom Roberts

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by J. J. Lodder
[...]
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!

And in the meantime in the real world -
forbidden by your insane church "improper"
clocks keep measuring improper t'=t in
improper seconds.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
<snip>

Post by J. J. Lodder
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.
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. It has the
opposite effect on me: I just skip over sections in ALL CAPS without
reading them.

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz

Post by J. J. Lodder
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

[snip more ALL CAPS]

Post by rhertz
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

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
<snip>

Post by J. J. Lodder
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.
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.

Or maybe it was from poor relativistic idiot
Tom Roberts.

[JanPB]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by rhertz
I post the entire article, so you can have a laugh.

[...]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by rhertz
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

[rhertz]

Post by JanPB

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by rhertz
I post the entire article, so you can have a laugh.

[...]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by rhertz
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

JanPB, so long I insulted you last time.

Let me update it:

Mathematician, keep playing with your fucking tensors while pretending
that you are remaking the fraudulent equations of your beloved crook.

You are a mental and physical midget, a shame for Poland in many senses.

Ask Wozniak in case of any doubt. He has a highly distinguished opinion
of you and your intellect, slug.

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by JanPB
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.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by JanPB
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.

What a surprise; engineers should be first to
obey The Holy Order of Knights of Physics,
no matter how idiotic their commands are.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by JanPB

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by rhertz
I post the entire article, so you can have a laugh.

[...]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by rhertz
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 the other hand, most of what your physics writes has
nothing to do with the reality. Instead, it is some
sort of elaborate gedanken fantasy a la Tolkien.

[The Starmaker]

Post by JanPB

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by rhertz
I post the entire article, so you can have a laugh.

[...]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by rhertz
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

I'm sure you agree Jan, that a woman should not play the piano unless
she
is wearing a very very short skirt and her boobs are banging out.

Piano is a man's game. A man's hobby.

Women should only be allowed to play a bass fiddle to hide behind.

Certaintly not a trumpet...

Women should not be allowed to play ANY musical instrument.

Or sing.

Women in a rock band???

Barbabra Strisand is a cunt. Everybody knows that.

Kate Perry...too fat.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mr. Hertz: The eclipse experiment showed double Newtonian. The
Pound-Snider showed Newtonian. What does Shapiro show?

[rhertz]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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).

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mr. Hertz: Considering that it is deflection instead of redshift, it
would have to be twice Newtonian. It is no more likely that light is
affected twice as much as everything else than that gravity does not
affect it at all. If there is a delay, perhaps the solar wind affects
it, as Edward Dowdye thought.

[rhertz]

New calculations (average) about the average received signal in the
Shapiro experiment, by using his preliminary presentation in 1968.

Some data collected from his first paper:

https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1968.pdf

QUOTE:
**************************************************************
The remainder of this Letter is devoted to a more detailed discussion of
the data analysis and the novel experimental techniques required by the
echo signal being sometimes as small as 10^-21 W, i.e., about 10^27
times weaker than the transmitted signal power of 300 kW.
......
How is the template determined? Since the planetary radius p is about a
factor of 10^8 larger than the wavelength L of the radar signal, we can
consider the planet to be composed of a great number of independent
elements, each large compared with L and small compared with p.
*************************************************************

Radar equation for ranging:


Pᵣ = Pᵗ G² σ λ²/[(4π)³ R⁴]


Pᵣ = 10E-21 W

Pᵗ = 300,000 W

λ = 0.0375 mt

G = 67 dBi = 1.15E+06 (34 mt Cassegrain antenna at 8 Ghz)

R (Earth - Mercury) = 2E+11 m

σ (Mercury's cross-section at 8 Ghz - Shapiro calculations).

INCOGNITO: σ used in calculations (avg.)

σ = Pᵣ [(4π)³ R⁴]/(Pᵗ G² λ²) = 7.6E+12 m²



SIGNAL TO NOISE AT RECEIVER:


S/N = Pᵣ/(k Ts BW L)

k: Boltzmann constant = 1.380649E-23 J/K

Ts: System temperature = 150 "K

BW: Bandwidth = 20,000 Hz

L: Losses in receiving system = 20 dB = 100

N: Noise at receiver input = 4.141947E-15 W


S/N = 2.438467E-07 = -66 dB


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?

IT SURE WAS A JOKE ON YOU ALL.

EVEN IN 2024, THE DECODING OF A HIGHLY CODIFIED SIGNAL (CDMA/SPREAD
SPECTRUM) WITH S/N = -40 dB is extraordinary, but 60 years ago (and with
a 32 bits pseudo-random BPSK signal) his team could use signals with an
SNR 100 times lower?

But they fixed everything with 1 year of post-processing on an IBM 360
(first generation, 80 bits words). Yes, they could add decimals like
crazy with 80 bits words, BUT.....COOKING WAS AT ITS PEAK.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by rhertz

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.

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)

Post by rhertz
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).

Those tens of minutes can be measured to nanosecond accuracy these days.
(by using transponders rather than radar echos)
Precise orbit determinations depends on it.
You are showing off your complete ignorance, once again,

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by J. J. Lodder
You misunderstood that too.
Half the effect is gravitational time dilation.

There is no such thing outside your delusional
gedankenwelt. Anyone can check GPS, time
(as defined by your idiot guru himself) is
galilean with the precision of an acceptable
error.

[rhertz]

<snip>

Post by J. J. Lodder

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.

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)

<snip>

Post by J. J. Lodder

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).

<snip>

Post by J. J. Lodder

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).

Those tens of minutes can be measured to nanosecond accuracy these days.
(by using transponders rather than radar echos)
Precise orbit determinations depends on it.
You are showing off your complete ignorance, once again,
Jan

Talking about nanoseconds in the delay of light traveling hundred of
million of Km (even hours) is an example of your stupidity and
fanaticism. Even more when you affirm that such delay is RELEVANT in
guidance of spacecrafts moving between planets.

Worse yet, is to affirm (based on the PPN shit of 1+Y) that the Gamma
factor is related to relativistic delay instead of angular deflection by
heavy celestial bodies like the Sun.

I want you to observe this photo, taken by Cassini from Saturn, showing
Earth, at a distance of about 1,500 million Km. Data from Cassini spent
4,900 seconds (1.37 hours) to reach Earth. Double that for a 2-way
communication between Cassini and Earth stations, for command and
control.

FEEL VERY, VERY STUPID, IGNORANT RELATIVIST. YOU AND YOUR NANOSECONDS.


https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/cassini-earth-saturn-day-earth-smiled/

[rhertz]

NANOSECONDS, RIDICULE JAN?

It's calculated that the travel from Earth to Jupiter last 546 days, or

47,174,400,000,000,000 nanoseconds. You affirm that Shapiro's alleged
delay HAS ANY IMPACT ON THIS? 546 fucking days, traveling more than



https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Spacecraft-trajectory-from-Earth-to-Jupiter_fig3_358286386

Acknowledgments
The research described in this paper was carried out at the University
of Alabama in Huntsville under a contract with NASA. This work was
supported by NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate through the
Space Nuclear Propulsion project.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juno_(spacecraft)


Juno completed a five-year cruise to Jupiter, arriving on July 5,
2016.[7] The spacecraft traveled a total distance of roughly 2.8×10^9 km
(19 AU; 1.7×10^9 mi) to reach Jupiter.

The voyage to Jupiter took five years, and included two orbital
maneuvers in August and September 2012 and a flyby of the Earth on
October 9, 2013.[30][31] When it reached the Jovian system, Juno had
traveled approximately 19 astronomical units (2.8 billion kilometres).

Jupiter's gravity accelerated the approaching spacecraft to around
210,000 km/h (130,000 mph).[38] On July 5, 2016, between 03:18 and 03:53
UTC Earth-received time, an insertion burn lasting 2,102 seconds
decelerated Juno by 542 m/s (1,780 ft/s)[39] and changed its trajectory
from a hyperbolic flyby to an elliptical, polar orbit with a period of
about 53.5 days.[40] The spacecraft successfully entered Jovian orbit on
July 5, 2016, at 03:53 UTC.[3]


On July 2016, the distance from Earth to Jupiter was 652.97 million Km.

1-way communications had a delay of 36 minutes and 16.567 seconds.

JAN: DO YOU STILL INSIST IN THE RELEVANCE OF SHAPIRO HERE?

DON'T BE SO STUBBORN AND READ THE WIKI LINK.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

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.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Does Gravity Deflect Light Newtonian or Twice Newtonian?

Gravitation deflects light as predicted by GR.

This is so thoroughly experimentally confirmed that
there is no question about it.

Experiments:
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1968.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/GravDeflection.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf

A simulation of deflection of light by the Sun:
https://paulba.no/Deflection.html

https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf

It's no point in speculating about this.
It's settled!

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Paul:

You begged the question because GR predicts doubling while Pound-Snider
found Newtonian, so which does GR predict?

I do not buy the alleged experimental confirmation any more than
epicycles proved a geocentric universe and for the reasons I just gave,
none of which are answered by your experiments.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Paul: You did not grasp that my argument showed relativity fails to
predict a doubling of the Newtonian deflection of light. Therefore, no
experiment showing a doubling can demonstrate that the reason for the
prediction was correct. As I pointed out, relativity gives no reason.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Paul: Relativity does not make any prediction about the deflection
because it gives no reason for the amount.

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

...Einstein's General Relativity claims to account for Newtonian
gravity by the curvature of space.

Wrong. A standard demonstration in GR textbooks is to show that in the
slow-motion weak field limit, the spatial components of the equation
of geodesic drop out. In other words, in the "Newtonian limit",
gravitation is completely accounted for by the *curvature of time*.

At high speeds and/or in strong fields, the spatial components of
the equation (i.e. curvature of space) become significant, accounting
for the doubling of the gravitational deflection of light over the
Newtonian calculation.

Currently I working through D'Inverno and Vickers for the second
time, so I am certainly no expert on this. But you can find a
derivation in section 10.6, "The Newtonian Correspondence".

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Prok: Thank you for the textbook explanation. It's hard to know where to
start, considering that relativity is full of fallacies. Time is an
abstraction, so for it to curve involves the reification fallacy, which
is nonsense. Time does not curve. Space is an abstraction, so curved
space also consists of the reification fallacy, making it nonsense. It
is pathetic that university's (prestige mills) teach what is prestigious
when it is nonsense.

Granted that relativity explains Newtonian gravity by curved time and
adds to that relativity gravity caused by curved space. Unfortunately,
neither alleged cause explains anything because they are illogical
nonsense.

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Prok: Thank you for the textbook explanation. It's hard to know where to
start, considering that relativity is full of fallacies. Time is an
abstraction, so for it to curve involves the reification fallacy, which
is nonsense. Time does not curve. Space is an abstraction, so curved
space also consists of the reification fallacy, making it nonsense. It
is pathetic that university's (prestige mills) teach what is prestigious
when it is nonsense.
Granted that relativity explains Newtonian gravity by curved time and
adds to that relativity gravity caused by curved space. Unfortunately,
neither alleged cause explains anything because they are illogical
nonsense.

It is evident that you do not know enough about the subject to give
any sort of valid critique. There are indeed issues with general
relativity, and I, having studied the subject as an autodidact for
several years, consider myself *barely* capable of explaining the
nature of these issues.

You, however, have repeatedly proven yourself in no position to
contribute any useful ideas to the debate.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Prok: The fact that you have resorted to ad hominem shows you cannot
answer my criticisms. You also prove you are inept at logic, as
Einstein, relativists, and relativity pseudoscience are as well. The
fact is that elementary logical analysis is sufficient to completely
refute relativity.

[rhertz]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Prok: The fact that you have resorted to ad hominem shows you cannot
answer my criticisms. You also prove you are inept at logic, as
Einstein, relativists, and relativity pseudoscience are as well. The
fact is that elementary logical analysis is sufficient to completely
refute relativity.

Just use my arguments over the Mercury's HOAX, in the thread:


* Weakness in the results of the three tests of GR shown in rhe lasr
century,.

https://news.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=137994&group=sci.physics.relativity#137994


JUST BY USING THE MERCURY AFFAIR IS ENOUGH TO INVALIDATE GR.


Remember: Einstein used Newtonian INFINITE SPEED OF GRAVITY to justify
the missing 43", value which is FALSE, ARBITRARY AND OVER-SIMPLIFICATED.

The resulting difference could be as well: 1", 15", 331" or any other
CALCULATED VALUE, in contrast with observational astronomy data
collected by Le Verrier (merely 3 or 4 valid measurements from the 1600s
and 1700s).

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

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.

[rhertz]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.

NO. You didn't understand me.

Regarding Newton's law of universal gravitation, you have to take ONLY
that such equations are based on INFINITE SPEED OF GRAVITY.

The theory of Gauss, based on gravitational torus, is POST-NEWTON and
also ANTI-NEWTONIAN! Gauss was the one who first introduced the concept
of GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS, 110 years before Einstein. A predecessor of
Gauss was Laplace, who imagined gravity as a fluid, but the INSPIRATION
for Einstein-Grossman to write Entwurf I and II came from Poisson and
his equations for gravity. Actually, the Entwurf I paper OPENS WiTH
Poisson equation. This one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson%27s_equation#Newtonian_gravity

I have utter respect for the figure of Gauss and other figure of classic
physics (Laplace, Gauss, Euler, Poisson, etc.), but they CHALLENGED
Newton's theory of gravitation 120 years after the publication of
Principia (questioning actions at a distance). In a way, Gauss and
Poisson were closer to Faraday, Maxwell and Einstein by being pioneers
in the introduction of gravitational fields and density of spatial
matter.

Here is some data about Gauss and his law of gravity:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_gravity


Don't be misguided by my comments from above.

What is wrong with GR and Mercury is that Einstein's developments were
based ON A DIFFERENCE of the Newtonian influence over Mercury's
perihelion, which (Gauss - Le Verrier - Newcomb) had a missing value of
43"/century over 575"/cy provided by observational astronomy.

The FALSE theory of Einstein about Mercury is equivalent to this stupid
FALSE equatiom:

Large number of chickens (estimated) + some chicken's eggs to be hatched
NOT EQUAL (≠) Total number of chickens

532"/cy (badly calculated) + 43"/cy ( calculated) ≠ 575"/cy (MEASURED).


Do you understand THE ERRORS embedded in such idiotic equation?

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mr. Hertz: But Gauss did not use the speed c for gravity, did he?

[rhertz]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mr. Hertz: But Gauss did not use the speed c for gravity, did he?

Gauss, Poisson, Laplace, Lagrange, von Soldner, Le Verrier and so many
others didn't focused on the speed of gravity (c or infinite). They
accepted Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation but skipped the concept
of forces, with the associated instantaneous action at a distance. Such
concept, present in Newton's original work published on Principia, was
accepted by many and questioned by many others as well.

Classic physics genius, decades after Newton, started to think about
fields of gravity, which permeated 3D space. With this concept, gravity
was always present everywhere, but following Newton's Principia.

New mathematics were needed to replace the effects of Newtonian forces.

The ideas of Gauss law of gravitation followed and respected Newton, but
started to introduce geometrical concepts quite revolutionary, like 3D
gravitational torus, in a way that challenged Euclidean geometry by
introducing new mathematical tools.

Have in mind that Riemann was a DISCIPLE of Gauss, who encouraged him to
explore N-dimensional space in terms of analytic differential geometry.
Years after Riemann's premature death, his work was finally published.
The challenge to develop new mathematical tools was picked up by several
MATHEMATICIANS in the next 45 years, bringing people like Beltrami
(1835–1900), Ricci (1853–1925), Christoffel (1829–1900), Klein
(1849–1925), Bianchi (1856–1928), Levi-Civita (1873–1941) to develop
TENSORS as tools to describe N-Dimensional spaces.

Levi-Civita was able to provide a geometric interpretation of curvature
effects in GROSSMAN (not Einstein) theory by the use of parallel
displacement of vectors (the famous connectors in tensor theory).

NOTICE HOW THE CONCEPT OF GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS SLOWLY MIGRATED TO
GEOMETRICAL INTERPRETATION OF N-DIMENSIONAL GEOMETRY IN THE PERIOD
POST-RIEMANN.

The passage of 4-D spaces to 4-D spacetime came by the hand of Grossman,
but it's not Riemannian geometry, which only dealt with SPACE. The
replacement of the 4th. dimension by time in Levi-Civita final work was
made by Marcel Grossman in 1913.

As this work introduced time as a fourth dimension, with the limit of c
speed, such body of work IS CALLED PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY, and does
not make ANY PHYSICAL SENSE, EVEN TODAY.

That's how relativists RUINED a pure geometrical theory, born with
Riemann, deforming it into something that is A MATHEMATICAL DISGRACE.

Riemann, if he could have come back to life, would die again a thousand
times due to the heretic deformation of his pure N-Dimensional geometry.

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.

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by rhertz
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. Based on his doctoral thesis,
this 1982 book provides a thorough analysis of the many proposals
that had been set forth to explain Mercury's anomalous precession.

There are two very serious issues with Gerber's prediction.
1) It did not take into account the variation of mass with velocity.
At around the turn of the century, there were several competing
theories seeking to explain this EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED phenomenon
first noted by Thomson in 1893 and carefully characterized in
subsequent experiments by Kaufmann, by Bucherer, Hubka, Neumann,
Guye etc. https://tinyurl.com/4munb3ua
The variation of mass with velocity adds an additional 7" advance
in the perihelion of Mercury, so that Gerber's theory would predict
an incorrect overall anomalous advance of 49".
2) Gerber's gravitation theory provides an incorrect prediction for
the gravitational deflection of light by the Sun, 3/2 the value
given by general relativity. Now, in the years subsequent to the
Eddington expedition, various other eclipse measurements gave
rather widely variant results, some of which would have favored
Gerber. However, present-day measurements using methods of far
greater precision have consistently validated the GR prediction.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by rhertz
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.

Of course, all the calculations are made assuming
Euclidean space (instead insane Shit of your idiot
guru).

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.

Your ignorance of astronomy is showing again.
The anomalous precession of Mercury's orbit (to a few '' of arc)
was generally known decades before Einstein cracked the puzzle.

Hence all kinds of attempts to explain it,
like extra planet(s), solar oblateness,
or even a Newtonian exponent of 2.00000000000001
None of these 'solutions' was satisfactory.

In the later 19th century 'everyone' knew
that there was a real problem there,

Jan

[Bertietaylor]

Just explain why the cores of the Earth, Sun and other large masses with
a magnetic field should NOT be extremely cold, enough to sustain
permanent superconducting currents to create the said magnetic fields.

Woof-woof

Bertietaylor

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Paul: Your ignorance is showing because they have been shown to be
satisfactory. Where has the barycenter been taken into account? As Mr.
Hertz has pointed out, just the margin of error in using the Gauss
method readily accounts for it, making GR unnecessary. Besides, GR
relies on pretending we can treat gravity as electromagnetism when the
unified field theory has failed, invalidating that approach.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Prok: "Telling you the truth about your ignorance is not ad hominem."
You might think of reading a basic book on informal logic because that
was ad hominem. Relativity is illogical nonsense.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Prok: Saying "you are bad and your criticisms are bad" does not address
the criticisms.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Prok: Saying "you are bad and your criticisms are bad" does not address
the criticisms.

"Don't criticise what you can't understand." (Bob Dylan)
And FYI: The times have changed long ago,

Jan