Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #391847 > unrolled thread

MIT Lunar reflector experiment

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-08 22:25 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-09 13:53 +0000
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-09-09 10:03 -0700
        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-09 10:31 -0700
          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-09-09 11:43 -0700
            Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 12:06 -0700
          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-10 11:46 +0200
            Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-10 06:53 -0700
              Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-11 09:03 +0200
                Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-11 05:57 -0700
                  Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-11 10:04 -0500
                    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-11 10:32 -0700
                      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-12 11:52 -0500
                        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-13 01:23 -0700
                          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 04:51 -0700
                            Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-13 10:39 -0700
                              Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 16:10 -0700
                                Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-14 06:05 -0700
                                  Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 06:22 -0700
                                    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-15 00:14 -0700
                                      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 02:52 -0700
                                        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-15 05:48 -0700
                                          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 06:29 -0700
                                            Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-15 13:42 -0700
                                              Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 14:57 -0700
                                                Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-16 10:34 -0700
                                                  Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 14:53 -0500
                                                    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-17 02:21 -0700
                                                      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-17 10:37 -0500
                                                        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 10:21 -0700
                                                        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-17 15:36 -0700
                                                          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:37 -0500
                                                          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-21 23:18 -0500
                                                            Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment dsr@mail.lns.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) - 2016-09-25 16:01 -0400
                                                        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-17 15:47 -0700
                                                What does "classical" mean? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-16 22:35 -0500
                                                  Re: What does "classical" mean? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-17 05:13 +0000
                                                    Re: What does "classical" mean? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-17 08:31 +0000
                                  Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 03:04 -0700
        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-10 02:33 +0000
        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-11 22:32 +1000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 16:36 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-09 20:20 -0500
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 16:37 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 16:40 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 16:43 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-10 02:38 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 19:46 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 03:41 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 19:52 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-10 14:48 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 14:35 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 20:48 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-12 11:55 -0500
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 14:38 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-10 16:43 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-11 00:05 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 17:41 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-10 19:08 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 20:56 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-11 04:35 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 17:58 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-11 13:24 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 13:54 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-11 15:21 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-11 15:21 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 11:35 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 16:56 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 14:38 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 15:18 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 16:34 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 17:50 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 11:51 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-18 02:50 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 16:22 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 21:22 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 12:26 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 12:40 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 00:53 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 12:41 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 01:02 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 19:33 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 14:21 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-19 15:18 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 02:53 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 09:15 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-20 12:24 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 13:08 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 21:36 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 14:17 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 15:22 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-21 14:57 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-21 11:35 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment akashaheights@gmail.com - 2016-09-22 12:27 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment akashaheights@gmail.com - 2016-09-22 12:33 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment akashaheights@gmail.com - 2016-09-22 12:34 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment akashaheights@gmail.com - 2016-09-22 12:36 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-23 14:18 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-24 15:24 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-23 14:22 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-24 12:06 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-25 01:19 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-26 11:13 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 19:04 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-26 15:48 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-27 10:07 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 12:15 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Jan2 - 2016-09-30 11:20 +0200
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-01 14:13 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-01 14:51 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-03 16:00 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 11:05 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-08 15:21 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-08 16:03 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-09 11:41 -0700

Page 1 of 6  [1] 2 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#391847 — MIT Lunar reflector experiment

The Apollo lander cannot be viewed using the Hubble telescope; consequently, a laser beam, that originates from the earth and reflected by the lunar reflector that has a surface area of approximately one square meter cannot form a measurable intensity viewed by the Hubble since using the Hubble space telescope would require a illuminated object, on the surface of the moon, that has a diameter of 200 meters! A 3mW laser forms a beam width of 3 mm that width increases to 4 mm after propagating a distance of 10 meters; consequently, a 30 W laser with a beam with of 4 mm, pointed at the new moon, would form a beam width of more than 50 km at the surface of the moon yet only a one square meter of intensity is reflected back, by the MIT lunar reflector, to the earth. The reflected intensity would not form a threshold intensity of a photomultiplier of the Hubble which proves the lunar reflector experiment is a scientific hoax but the MIT lunar laser ranging experiment is the closest physicists have come to measuring the velocity of light but the result is no different from Newton's lanterns. Also, the distance to the moon is determine by the angular velocity of the moon and the period; consequently, the distance to the moon was determine before the MIT lunar reflector experiment was initiated.

 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#391879

numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:

>The Apollo lander cannot be viewed using the Hubble telescope; consequently
>, a laser beam, that originates from the earth and reflected by the lunar
>reflector that has a surface area of approximately one square meter cannot
>form a measurable intensity viewed by the Hubble since using the Hubble
>space telescope would require a illuminated object, on the surface of the
>moon, that has a diameter of 200 meters!

Nope. The Hubble could not _image_ the reflector.  It will be seen as a
featureless point of light, just like the stars in the night sky, which
are dozens or hundreds of light years distant but have a diameter only
on the order of a million km.  Obviously, if photons are reflected from
the mirror and reach the Hubble, they will trigger the photosensors.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391893

Dear Michael Moroney:

On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 6:54:25 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
...
> Nope. The Hubble could not _image_ the reflector.  It
> will be seen as a featureless point of light, just
> like the stars in the night sky, which are dozens or
> hundreds of light years distant but have a diameter
> only on the order of a million km.  Obviously, if
> photons are reflected from the mirror and reach the
> Hubble, they will trigger the photosensors.

Those mirrors are very special.  They only reflect incident light back *exactly* along the line the light came in from.  So Hubble, since it has no "flash attachment" would see only the equipment package with incident solar radiation, nothing off the mirrors proper.

http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=77&cat=topten

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html
... NOT taken by Hubble ...

David A. Smith

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391894

Dlzc...
>> ... > Nope. The Hubble could not _image_ the reflector. It > will be seen as a featureless point of light, just > like the stars in the night sky, which are dozens or > hundreds of light years distant but have a diameter > only on the order of a million km. Obviously, if > photons are reflected from the mirror and reach >>he > Hubble, they will trigger the photosensors.

>those mirrors are very special. They only reflect incident light back *exactly* along the line the light came in from. So Hubble, since it has no "flash >attachment" would see only the equipment package with incident solar radiation, nothing off the mirrors proper.

Interesting thanks. Makes sense. Do you know how they time the light?  Is it a very 
short millisecond pulse? I cant see how a constant beam could be timed.
Its an interesting experiment as supposedly it contradicted predictions by SR.
SR predicted light would travel in the comoving frame. Equivelent to
the lab frame in Sagnac where the light source and detector  rotate.
These being duplicated by the source and reflector in the lunar ranging
experiment. But measurements showed that light in the lunar ranging 
experiment traveled at c in the source reflector frame. In sagnac this would
be the rotating source reflector frame. Which is impossible under SR.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391898

Dear jaymo...:

On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 10:31:48 AM UTC-7, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
...
> Interesting thanks. Makes sense. Do you know how
> they time the light?  Is it a very short millisecond
> pulse? I cant see how a constant beam could be timed.

It is a very short, intense pulse.  See this very good paper, hopefully detailed enough:
https://www.iers.org/SharedDocs/Publikationen/EN/IERS/Publications/tn/TechnNote34/tn34_097.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1

Please note that with each pulse, a fraction of a single photon is detected (several pulses are required to be sure they are getting the return pulse).

David A. Smith

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391899

On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 1:43:37 PM UTC-5, dlzc wrote:
> Dear jaymo...:
> 
> On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 10:31:48 AM UTC-7, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> ...
> > Interesting thanks. Makes sense. Do you know how
> > they time the light?  Is it a very short millisecond
> > pulse? I cant see how a constant beam could be timed.
> 
> It is a very short, intense pulse.  See this very good paper, hopefully detailed enough:
> https://www.iers.org/SharedDocs/Publikationen/EN/IERS/Publications/tn/TechnNote34/tn34_097.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1
> 
> Please note that with each pulse, a fraction of a single photon is detected (several pulses are required to be sure they are getting the return pulse).

For most of the LLR facilities, that would be the case. However, the Apache
Point observatory in New Mexico has exceptionally clear "seeing". That combined
with the large 3.5 meter mirror means that it can typically capture a return
photon or two with every pulse (depending on which retroreflector it aims at).
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/

Some interesting highlights are on this page
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/highlights.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391953

On 09.09.2016 19:31, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Interesting thanks. Makes sense. Do you know how they time the light?  Is it a very
> short millisecond pulse? I cant see how a constant beam could be timed.
> Its an interesting experiment as supposedly it contradicted predictions by SR.
> SR predicted light would travel in the comoving frame. Equivelent to
> the lab frame in Sagnac where the light source and detector  rotate.
> These being duplicated by the source and reflector in the lunar ranging
> experiment. But measurements showed that light in the lunar ranging
> experiment traveled at c in the source reflector frame. In sagnac this would
> be the rotating source reflector frame. Which is impossible under SR.
>

https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391965

Paul B Anderson...

>https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf

I couldnt open the pdf but looked at your webpages.

In sagnac the source rotates and lightspeed c is assumed
to be only in the lab frame in which the source rotates according
to SR. In the lunar ranging experiment the lab frame is equivelent
to the "co-moving" frame in which the earth bound source rotates
and moves relative to an external inertial frame. Defined presumably by
the galaxy or the solar system as a whole.
Yet when this logic is applied to the lunar ranging experiment, where
the source rotates and moves through the "co-moving" frame. It turns
out that contrary to predictions made by SR, light travels at c in the 
rotating source frame. Invariance doesnt apply.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392022

On 10.09.2016 15:53, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote:
> Paul B Anderson...

Paul B. Andersen

>> https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf
>
> I couldnt open the pdf but looked at your webpages.

Why not?
You can download pdf-readers, e.g. Adobe reader, for free.

> In sagnac the source rotates and lightspeed c is assumed
> to be only in the lab frame in which the source rotates according
> to SR. In the lunar ranging experiment the lab frame is equivelent
> to the "co-moving" frame in which the earth bound source rotates
> and moves relative to an external inertial frame. Defined presumably by
> the galaxy or the solar system as a whole.
> Yet when this logic is applied to the lunar ranging experiment, where
> the source rotates and moves through the "co-moving" frame. It turns
> out that contrary to predictions made by SR, light travels at c in the
> rotating source frame. Invariance doesnt apply.

Get a pdf reader and try again!

https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392040

Paul B. Andersen...

>> https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf > 
>> I couldnt open the pdf but looked at your webpages.

>Why not? You can download pdf-readers, e.g. Adobe reader, for free.

Not if your android browser and operating system are out of date. Something  I
discovered too late, unfortunately. 
But I am rectifying  the problem. Until then maybe rather than post links that 
dont have answers even theycould be opened you could answer the point with 
relevent quotes.
Your webpages certainly dont explain why SR incorrectly predicted the observations
made by the lunar ranging experiment.

>> In sagnac the source rotates and lightspeed c is assumed > to be only in the lab frame in which the source rotates according > to SR. In the lunar ranging experiment the lab frame is equivelent > to the "co-moving" frame in which the earth bound source rotates > and moves relative to an external inertial frame. Defined presumably by > the galaxy or the solar system as a whole. > Yet when this logic is applied to the lunar ranging experiment, where > the source rotates and moves through the "co-moving" frame. It turns > out that contrary to predictions made by SR, light travels at c in the > rotating source frame. >Invariance doesnt apply.

>Get a pdf reader and try again!

Get some facts and quote them on your posts for a change.
The lunar ranging experiment has light at c in a rotating frame.
Something that is not compatible with SR.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392045

On 9/11/16 9/11/16   7:57 AM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen...
>>> https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf >
> Your webpages certainly dont explain why SR incorrectly predicted the
> observations made by the lunar ranging experiment.

Of course not! Nobody would expect SR to model the orbit of the moon, because SR
does not include gravitation.

The lunar laser ranging experiments are ongoing. They compare their measurements
to a complicated and detailed model based on GR. They report no significant
deviation from the predictions of their model, with an accuracy of a few
centimeters (and improving).


> The lunar ranging experiment has light at c in a rotating frame.

Not true. You need to read their reports more carefully.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392054

Tom Roberts..
>> > Your webpages certainly dont explain why SR incorrectly predicted the > observations made by the lunar ranging experiment.

>Of course not! Nobody would expect SR to model the orbit of the moon, because SR does not include gravitation.

 Predictions were made assuming under SR that light would travel to the 
moon and back in an external frame where the earth and moon travelled 
through the local ISM at speed. In the same way that SR
assumes light travels in a similar external frame to the rotating source in
Sagnac. Called lab frame in sagnac and co moving in the lunar ranging
experiment. Unfortunately for SR, this prediction failed and it was
observed that light travelled at c in the rotating earth based source frame.
Relativists, like yourself,  desperate to cover up yet another   failure of relativity
changed their predictions and said that in fact SR did predict this and called
it the stationary frame. Nonetheless light  is observed to travel at c
in a rotating frame in the lunar ranging experiment and  so far neither
you nor Paul has been able to refute this with any quoted reference.

>The lunar laser ranging experiments are ongoing. They compare their measurements to a complicated and detailed model based on GR. They report no >significant deviation from the predictions of their model, with an accuracy of a few centimeters (and improving).

I notice you carefully avoid mentioning the failed prediction of
SR where light was to supposed to have travelled at c in a co
moving frame.

>> The lunar ranging experiment has light at c in a rotating frame.

>Not true. You need to read their reports more carefully.

So light does not travel between the source, the moon and back at 
c relative to the source? Not what Ive read.
Can you cite a reference and supply a quote.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392153

On 9/11/16 9/11/16 - 12:32 PM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote:
> Tom Roberts..
>>>> Your webpages certainly dont explain why SR incorrectly predicted the >
>>>> observations made by the lunar ranging experiment.
>> Of course not! Nobody would expect SR to model the orbit of the moon,
>> because SR does not include gravitation.
>
> Predictions were made assuming under SR [...]

No. Read what I wrote. They use GR, not SR.


> I notice you carefully avoid mentioning the failed prediction of SR where
> light was to supposed to have travelled at c in a co moving frame.

There is nothing to "mention" as there is no such "prediction". They used GR, 
not SR.


> So light does not travel between the source, the moon and back at c relative
> to the source?

The physical situation is MUCH more complicated than that. Light follows a null 
geodesic from source (on earth) to retro-reflector (on moon), and another null 
geodesic from retro-reflector (on moon) back to detector (on earth, co-located 
with the source). One MUST use GR for the analysis, not SR. Read their papers.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392209

>> So light does not travel between the source, the moon and back at c relative > to the source?

>The physical situation is MUCH more complicated than that. Light follows a null geodesic from source (on earth) to retro-reflector (on moon), and another null geodesic from retro-reflector (on moon) back to detector (on earth, co-located with the source). One MUST use GR for the analysis, not SR. Read their >paper
 
The point I make is not about GR, but of path length which, like in sagnac, is
of central importance for calculating time of travel in SR or a classical model.
I remember distinctly on the lunar ranging page in wiki it used to say that the initial
predictions for the time of flight/ distance travelled by light were that light would
travel from the source to the moon and back in a "co moving" frame. This was a frame,
like the lab frame in sagnac. Which the source moves through and path length
is calculated. As defined in SR. Because in SR in sagnac, the path length is longer
on one path. Which allows for SR to calculate different time lengths for both 
paths and thus explain offset of interference pattern.
The assumption was that because the earth moon system moved through this
frame, presumably heliocentric, the earth had moved a great distance relative to the
sun by the time the light had returned from the lunar reflection. So the path
calculation was not straight out and back on the same path but two sides of
a triangle. Making the predicted path length longer in this relativistic co moving
frame. But results contradicted this and according to the wikipage a few years
ago, predictions were changed and the path length was calculated in the sourceframe
instead. And renamed a stationary frame. Unfortunately I never copied
this page and now, no mention of an initial incorrect prediction for SR
is mentioned on wiki. 
Seperately, you ignore the fact that the source frame, in which the path
length is calculated,  is rotating. Yet according to SR, light does not
travel at c or isotropically in non inertial rotating frames.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392211

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 3:23:49 AM UTC-5, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> So light does not travel between the source, the moon and back at c relative > to the source?
> 
> >The physical situation is MUCH more complicated than that. Light follows a null geodesic from source (on earth) to retro-reflector (on moon), and another null geodesic from retro-reflector (on moon) back to detector (on earth, co-located with the source). One MUST use GR for the analysis, not SR. Read their >paper
>  
> The point I make is not about GR, but of path length which, like in sagnac, is
> of central importance for calculating time of travel in SR or a classical model.
> I remember distinctly on the lunar ranging page in wiki it used to say that the initial
> predictions for the time of flight/ distance travelled by light were that light would
> travel from the source to the moon and back in a "co moving" frame. This was a frame,
> like the lab frame in sagnac. Which the source moves through and path length
> is calculated. As defined in SR. Because in SR in sagnac, the path length is longer
> on one path. Which allows for SR to calculate different time lengths for both 
> paths and thus explain offset of interference pattern.
> The assumption was that because the earth moon system moved through this
> frame, presumably heliocentric, the earth had moved a great distance relative to the
> sun by the time the light had returned from the lunar reflection. So the path
> calculation was not straight out and back on the same path but two sides of
> a triangle. Making the predicted path length longer in this relativistic co moving
> frame. But results contradicted this and according to the wikipage a few years
> ago, predictions were changed and the path length was calculated in the sourceframe
> instead. And renamed a stationary frame. Unfortunately I never copied
> this page and now, no mention of an initial incorrect prediction for SR
> is mentioned on wiki. 
> Seperately, you ignore the fact that the source frame, in which the path
> length is calculated,  is rotating. Yet according to SR, light does not
> travel at c or isotropically in non inertial rotating frames.

You can (almost) always go back in Wikipedia to locate a previous version of a
page. I see no version to support your statements. Are you sure about where you
read this about "an initial incorrect prediction for SR"?

2015-12-14 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment&oldid=695212605
2014-12-31 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment&oldid=640391011
2013-12-08 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment&oldid=584775721
2012-12-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment&oldid=529662409
2011-11-04 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment&oldid=459033602
2010-12-05 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment&oldid=400615259
prior to 2010, the article is hardly more than a stub

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392234

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog...

>You can (almost) always go back in Wikipedia to locate a previous version of a page. I see no version to support your statements. Are you sure about where you read this about "an initial incorrect prediction for SR"?

Its true its not there  as of 2010. In fact 2010 seems pretty close to now. But Ive been 
referencing this page since longer than that. Going back to early wiki days. So thats
2005 maybe?. I definitely remember a clear reference to initial predictions
being in the co moving frame. And unfortunately this claim like soviet history, gets
rewritten by relativists. Take for instance sagnac pages. Going back ten years or
so I remember early pages saying sagnac is not explainable under any classical
model. And a dodgy illustration was used to show how light at c+- v gave no path 
difference under classical. I argued many times here against that interpretation
and uploaded simulations for viewing here on sci.physics. Now you go to
the wiki page and the incorrect interpretation is gone, and the page says...
that it IS consistent with pre relativistic classical models!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392254

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 12:39:18 PM UTC-5, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog...
> 
> >You can (almost) always go back in Wikipedia to locate a previous version of a page. I see no version to support your statements. Are you sure about where you read this about "an initial incorrect prediction for SR"?
> 
> Its true its not there  as of 2010. In fact 2010 seems pretty close to now. But Ive been 
> referencing this page since longer than that. Going back to early wiki days. So thats
> 2005 maybe?. I definitely remember a clear reference to initial predictions
> being in the co moving frame. And unfortunately this claim like soviet history, gets
> rewritten by relativists. Take for instance sagnac pages. Going back ten years or
> so I remember early pages saying sagnac is not explainable under any classical
> model. And a dodgy illustration was used to show how light at c+- v gave no path 
> difference under classical. I argued many times here against that interpretation
> and uploaded simulations for viewing here on sci.physics. Now you go to
> the wiki page and the incorrect interpretation is gone, and the page says...
> that it IS consistent with pre relativistic classical models!!!

(sigh)
I was *HOPING* that, having shown you that it was possible to go back in time,
that you would do so *YOURSELF*.

Since you are an Android user, go to the "Desktop" view. "View History" is a
tab near the top. Going back to the very beginnings of the LLR article, I find
no such assertions about the initial results of LLR measurements being against
theoretical expectation.

Likewise, spot-checking the article on "Sagnac effect" all the way back to the
original contribution by User:Cleonis, I see no claim that Sagnac is consistent
with c ± v, nor that it is inconsistent with classical physics. If there had
ever been such a claim, it would have been a temporary aberration by a crackpot
contributor that would have been reverted within hours.
18 December 2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sagnac_effect&oldid=403078254
22 March 2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sagnac_effect&oldid=11433982

Wikipedia has many deficiencies as a resource, but your claims are, so far as I 
can see, unjustified.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392318

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog

>(sigh) 

Ohh! Cheer up!

>I was *HOPING* that, having shown you that it was possible to go back in time, that you would do so *YOURSELF*.


What? Rewrite wiki history?. Im afraid I wouldnt be allowed to do that.
Thats the preserve of relativists.

>Since you are an Android user, go to the "Desktop" view. "View History" is a tab near the top. Going back to the very beginnings of the LLR article, I find no >such assertions about the initial results of LLR measurements being against theoretical expectation.

Obviously you are not aware of how android is marketed and sold. You
imagine tabs. Each android device is different. Thats google for you. My
android device wont even let me see the messages deleted, let alone
any history tabs. Thats why Im ditching it as soon as possible.


>Likewise, spot-checking the article on "Sagnac effect" all the way back to the original contribution by User:Cleonis, I see no claim that Sagnac is consistent with c ± v, nor that it is inconsistent with classical physics. If there had ever been such a claim, it would have been a temporary aberration by a crackpot contributor that would have been reverted within hours. 18 December 2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sagnac_effect&oldid=403078254 22 >
>March 2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sagnac_effect&oldid=11433982

Right,  and if a relativist wanted to delete an erroneous claim about 
classical theory that other relativists have made. They'd leave the 
ridiculous claim in other earlier versions?

>Wikipedia has many deficiencies

Definitely. It can be rewritten.

But lets see you back up your side of events.
You say relativists have always accepted sagnac can be explained classically.
(sigh). So you accept that light can travel isotropically at c relative to 
a rotating source as classical theory predicts?
If so then whats all this relativists stuff about light not being possible 
travelling at c in a non inertial rotating frame?
Or have relativists now changed their mind and allowed this to happen?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392319

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 8:05:28 AM UTC-5, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
> 
> >(sigh) 
> 
> Ohh! Cheer up!
> 
> >I was *HOPING* that, having shown you that it was possible to go back in time, that you would do so *YOURSELF*.
> 
> 
> What? Rewrite wiki history?. Im afraid I wouldnt be allowed to do that.
> Thats the preserve of relativists.
> 
> >Since you are an Android user, go to the "Desktop" view. "View History" is a tab near the top. Going back to the very beginnings of the LLR article, I find no >such assertions about the initial results of LLR measurements being against theoretical expectation.
> 
> Obviously you are not aware of how android is marketed and sold. You
> imagine tabs. Each android device is different. Thats google for you. My
> android device wont even let me see the messages deleted, let alone
> any history tabs. Thats why Im ditching it as soon as possible.

(sigh)
Wikipedia by default sends the Android a mobile presentation of its web pages.
You can override this default view.
At the bottom of the screen there will be an option to switch to a Desktop view.
The desktop view may be awkward and cramped on your tablet/phone, but it will
have all of the features that I have mentioned.
 
> >Likewise, spot-checking the article on "Sagnac effect" all the way back to the original contribution by User:Cleonis, I see no claim that Sagnac is consistent with c ± v, nor that it is inconsistent with classical physics. If there had ever been such a claim, it would have been a temporary aberration by a crackpot contributor that would have been reverted within hours. 18 December 2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sagnac_effect&oldid=403078254 22 >
> >March 2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sagnac_effect&oldid=11433982
> 
> Right,  and if a relativist wanted to delete an erroneous claim about 
> classical theory that other relativists have made. They'd leave the 
> ridiculous claim in other earlier versions?
> 
> >Wikipedia has many deficiencies
> 
> Definitely. It can be rewritten.
> 
> But lets see you back up your side of events.
> You say relativists have always accepted sagnac can be explained classically.

Sagnac devices are normally low speed devices. At low speed, there is very 
little difference between the predictions of relativity and classical theory.

> (sigh). So you accept that light can travel isotropically at c relative to 
> a rotating source as classical theory predicts?

Very imprecise wording. I have no idea what you mean. Classical theory does
not state what you think it states, so your question is equivalent to "When
did you stop beating your wife?"

So when did you stop beating your wife?
And how long were you incarcerated?

> If so then whats all this relativists stuff about light not being possible 
> travelling at c in a non inertial rotating frame?
> Or have relativists now changed their mind and allowed this to happen?

You are very confused.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392417

Prokoryatic Caspase Homolog...

>> So you accept that light can travel isotropically at c relative to 
>> a rotating source as classical theory predicts?

>Very imprecise wording. I have no idea what you mean. Classical theory does not state what you think it states, so your question is equivalent to "When did >you stop beating your wife?"

Whats imprecise about my above question? Its clear and unambiguous. 
But I knew that as a relativist and a true hypocrite you wouldnt be able to answer it.
Because on the one hand you pretend,  as the revised wiki pages rewritten by dishonest 
relativists do, that sagnac is now consistent with classical theory and its predictions. The reason
being that the old relativist argument that light travels at c+-v in the labframe in sagnac 
for classical has been shown to be mathematically incorrect. As you know, if classical
theory dictates light is always at c relative to a rotating source, it is not possible to
have this light travel at a constant speed c+-v in the *lab frame* if one does the maths
correctly. Because this erroneous assumption means it will be a VARIABLE speed in the 
source frame for a classical model.
Yet when pressed, you are unable to admit that light can travel isotropically at c relative to a 
rotating source. Because that is not consistent with special relativity. Even though,  hypocritically,
you accept that light can travel at c relative to a rotating source as classical theory dictates.
I know this because your very own sagnac wiki pages admit that sagnac is consistent
with a classical model where light is always at c relative to a source only. True schizoid
hypocrisy from relativists. And you try to get out of this by trying to make it sound like 
I am a wife beater?!!! You are sick.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 6  [1] 2 3 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web