Lunar laser ranging test of the invariance of c

[wisp]

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3934.pdf

Daniel Gezari ‘s (NASA/Goddard Spece Flight Centre) report is the first of its type of an attempt to measure c directly with a moving detector to confirm that light actually propagates the way special relativity suggests.

He finds the measured the speed of light from the earth to the moon and back is c-8.4m/s!

Even using different reference frames (classical and relativity) the -8.4m/s is still present. The measuring equipment is accurate to produce results of less than 1m/s.

He states logically that the results show light’s speed is affected by the motion of the earth towards the moon, and its speed is measured as c+200 +/- 10m/s. Where c = 299792458m/s, 200m/s is the earth’s speed towards the moon, and +/-10m/s is added because regardless of how the data is analysed (i.e. ignoring the 200m/s) light seems to be travelling slower that expected by 8.4m/s +/- 3.2ms (rounded to +/-10m/s).

There is a strong possibility that the speed of light is constant in a preferred reference frame and its speed measured depends on the motion of the observer after all.

[macaw]

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3934.pdf

Daniel Gezari ‘s (NASA/Goddard Spece Flight Centre) report is the first of its type of an attempt to measure c directly with a moving detector to confirm that light actually propagates the way special relativity suggests.

This is incorrect, such experiments have been performed since 1910. See here. They all contradict and falsify Gezari's paper.

He finds the measured the speed of light from the earth to the moon and back is c-8.4m/s!

Too bad for him.

Even using different reference frames (classical and relativity) the -8.4m/s is still present. The measuring equipment is accurate to produce results of less than 1m/s.

This only shows that he's consistent in his errors (more about it at the end of this post)

He states logically that the results show light’s speed is affected by the motion of the earth towards the moon, and its speed is measured as c+200 +/- 10m/s. Where c = 299792458m/s, 200m/s is the earth’s speed towards the moon, and +/-10m/s is added because regardless of how the data is analysed (i.e. ignoring the 200m/s) light seems to be travelling slower that expected by 8.4m/s +/- 3.2ms (rounded to +/-10m/s).

There is a strong possibility that the speed of light is constant in a preferred reference frame and its speed measured depends on the motion of the observer after all.

1. The article is NOT published in a peer reviewed journal, it was submitted to Nuovo Cimento but it has not been accepted.

2. The paper is refuted (on a daily basis) by GPS functionality. GPS relies on the fact that em speed from Earth to GPS satelittes is equal to the em speed in the reverse direction.

3. The paper is refuted by a large laboratory experiments on light speed dependency on the relative motion between the source and the receiver. See here

4. The author, according to his own admission measured the TWO-WAY light speed (see introduction). But , in doing so, he made a rookie mistake :

Since the Moon and the Earth are in relative motion wrt each other, what Gezari is measuring is their closing speed, i.e. c+v when they are moving towards each other and c-v when they are moving away from each other. This is painfully evident from paragraph 4.2.

Q1: What is your own ATM pertaining to the above subject?

[wisp]

This is incorrect, such experiments have been performed since 1910. See here. They all contradict and falsify Gezari's paper.

No they don’t. Gerari’s paper is the first accurate direct measurement of light’s speed in free space using a moving detector.

Gezari’s report states – page 2
"The local Lorentz invariance of c can now only be inferred from observations of moving sources, symmetry arguments, and the null results of ether drift and speed-of-light isotropy experiments. However, there are real difficulties with this view. Observations of moving sources cannot discriminate between special relativity and the old ether hypothesis, and do not favor one over the other, because the invariance of c to motion of the emitting source is a common feature of both special relativity and classical wave theory of light (discussed by Gezari 2009). Of course, one could argue that experiments with moving sources and moving observers should be equivalent and indistinguishable.
And
From the perspective of an experimentalist and observer this is all quite troubling. Rather that infer the invariance of c from indirect evidence it would be more straightforward, and more convincing, to simply measure the speed of light directly with a moving detector that was controlled or actively monitored by the observer. We have made such a measurement using the method of lunar laser ranging."

[macaw]

No they don’t. Gerari’s paper is the first accurate direct measurement of light’s speed in free space using a moving detector.

The above is aptently false, such experiments have been conducted many times before and falsify Gezari's incorrect experiment. I gave you a boatload of references.

Q2: Prove that "Gerari’s paper is the first accurate direct measurement of light’s speed in free space using a moving detector"

[wisp]

The above is aptently false, such experiments have been conducted many times before and falsify Gezari's incorrect experiment. I gave you a boatload of references.

Q2: Prove that "Gerari’s paper is the first accurate direct measurement of light’s speed in free space using a moving detector"

Can you give me one clear experiment that falsifies Gezari’s paper. I’ve looked through the list and can see anything specific?

Ans Q2. The proof is in his paper. Using very accurate time measurement resolutions of 0.1nS, coupled with the most accurate distance measurements ever made by mankind. I would like to see other lunar ranging papers to see if the offset value of -8.4m/s varies.
It doesn’t matter that the motion of the detector cannot be proven to be in motion as with SR it’s always relative. If the motion issue is ignored, why does light travel slower than expected by 8.4m/s! That’s something SR can’t explain, but an absolute ether model could.

Under SR you cannot prove the speed of light is constant. It’s postulated as constant and set accordingly using clocks synchronized Einstein’s way. This is why Gezari is being challenged on his method because it’s against SR thinking. But his experiment is simple - fire a laser at a mirror on the moon and very accurately measure light’s speed by the distance light travelled/time-of-flight. The answer he gets is not c but c-8.4m/s (ignoring the motion of the earth/moon).

[macaw]

Can you give me one clear experiment that falsifies Gezari’s paper. I’ve looked through the list and can see anything specific?

All experiments measuring light speed from moving sources falsify Gezari's paper.

Ans Q2. The proof is in his paper. Using very accurate time measurement resolutions of 0.1nS, coupled with the most accurate distance measurements ever made by mankind. I would like to see other lunar ranging papers to see if the offset value of -8.4m/s varies.

Gezari is NOT measuring light speed, he's measuring the closing speed.
Do you understand the difference?

It doesn’t matter that the motion of the detector cannot be proven to be in motion as with SR it’s always relative. If the motion issue is ignored, why does light travel slower than expected by 8.4m/s!

Light does not travel slower, his formula measures c-v, where v is the receding speed of the reflector.

That’s something SR can’t explain, but an absolute ether model could.

This is something that is elementary in SR, called "closing speed". Gezari doesn't understand it. Neither do you.

Under SR you cannot prove the speed of light is constant.

You cannot prove anything in respect to a theory. The scientific method shows that you can only disprove (falsify) a theory. The way prior experiments falsify Gezari's fringe paper.

It’s postulated as constant and set accordingly using clocks synchronized Einstein’s way. This is why Gezari is being challenged on his method because it’s against SR thinking.

Gezari is being challenged because he doesn't know basic physics. He measured closing speed and he claims he's measured variable light speed. This is a rookie mistake.

But his experiment is simple - fire a laser at a mirror on the moon and very accurately measure light’s speed by the distance light travelled/time-of-flight. The answer he gets is not c but c-8.4m/s (ignoring the motion of the earth/moon).

Q5: What happens if there is relative motion between the moon and the Earth? Show the formulas.

[wisp]

Too bad for him.
And
This only shows that he's consistent in his errors (more about it at the end of this post)

This 8.4m/s figure is significant. Tom Robert's link you referred to earlier had details of the lunar ranging accuracy:

"Lunar Laser Ranging· Bender et al., Science 182 (1973), pg 229.
The corner reflectors placed on the moon by the Apollo astronauts are used to verify GR with a net accuracy of 15 cm in the telescope-to-reflector distance."

This accuracy if 15cm is very precise. And the clock used to measure the laser light’s time-of-flight has a timing resolution of 0.1nS.
Overall one would expect the measured speed of light according to SR to be c +/-3m/s at most, so a figure of 8.4m/s slower than c show SR to be false. Simply dismissing the figure because it doesn’t fit SR theory is not good science. I very much doubt the clock's timing accuracy was adrift by 74nS - the time required for a slowing of light by 8.4m/s during the 2.636s time-of-flight.

Gerari states "So we cannot preclude the possibility that some part of the 8.4 m/s difference between co and c measured here is a real second-order residual due to motion of the Earth-Moon system relative to an absolute frame."

[wisp]

1. The article is NOT published in a peer reviewed journal, it was submitted to Nuovo Cimento but it has not been accepted.

So what. I strongly believe that SR will be accepted as being false. What will that say about the thousands of peer reviewed papers that were published supporting it? Its demise will bring a painful lesson in accepting a theory that failed on day one to comply with common sense logic.

[wisp]

2. The paper is refuted (on a daily basis) by GPS functionality. GPS relies on the fact that em speed from Earth to GPS satelittes is equal to the em speed in the reverse direction.

GPS does not test the speed of light.

As Daniel Gezari states (Page 1):
"In fact, correlated, first-order variations in the time-off fight of electromagnetic signals measured with moving receivers are commonly observed in pursuit of much more subtle phenomena, such as in experiments searching for evidence of micro-gravity and quantum gravity effects (e.g., Williams et al. 1996, 2004) or in the operation of the Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite navigation system.
These timing variations are easily detected - and routinely corrected for - in modern optical ranging experiments, however, the full significance of such correlated, first-order effects has apparently not been fully appreciated."

[grapes]

These timing variations are easily detected - and routinely corrected for - in modern optical ranging experiments, however, the full significance of such correlated, first-order effects has apparently not been fully appreciated."

Of course, this is hard to believe!

Thanks for bringing these papers to our attention. Their resolution will probably furnish BAUT with a nice model of how to deal with these sort of things. They seem short, complete, and easily digested and understood--though I haven't done that yet!

Dr. Gezari, in the paper you link to in the OP, refers to other discussion in another of his papers that was submitted a couple days earier (18 Dec 2009):

Experimental Basis for Special Relativity in the Photon Sector

A search of the literature reveals that none of the five new optical effects predicted by the special theory of relativity have ever been observed to occur in nature. In particular, the speed of light (c) has never been measured directly with a moving detector to validate the invariance of c to motion of the observer, a necessary condition for the Lorentz invariance of c. The invariance of c can now only be inferred from indirect experimental evidence. It is also not widely recognized that essentially all of the experimental support for special relativity in the photon sector consists of null results. The experimental basis for special relativity in the photon sector is summarized, and concerns about the completeness, integrity and interpretation of the present body of experimental evidence are discussed.

[macaw]

Of course, this is hard to believe!

Thanks for bringing these papers to our attention. Their resolution will probably furnish BAUT with a nice model of how to deal with these sort of things. They seem short, complete, and easily digested and understood--though I haven't done that yet!

Dr. Gezari, in the paper you link to in the OP, refers to other discussion in another of his papers that was submitted a couple days earier (18 Dec 2009):

The Gezari claim is patently false. He is grossly ignorant of the many experiments already falsifying his fringe claims.

[macaw]

GPS does not test the speed of light.

This is wrong, as explained to you it does so, on a daily basis.
Q4: Please explain how GPS can work if the speed of em waves coming from GPS satelittes varied with the relative speed between satelittes and the Earth receptors.

As Daniel Gezari states (Page 1):
"In fact, correlated, first-order variations in the time-off fight of electromagnetic signals measured with moving receivers are commonly observed in pursuit of much more subtle phenomena, such as in experiments searching for evidence of micro-gravity and quantum gravity effects (e.g., Williams et al. 1996, 2004) or in the operation of the Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite navigation system.
These timing variations are easily detected - and routinely corrected for - in modern optical ranging experiments, however, the full significance of such correlated, first-order effects has apparently not been fully appreciated."

Gezari doesn't understand the basics of SR, even less how GPS works. Please stop using his fringe claims in support of your ATM and answer the questions in your own words.

[Cerveny]

This is wrong, as explained to you it does so, on a daily basis.
Q4: Please explain how GPS can work if the speed of em waves coming from GPS satelittes varied with the relative speed between satelittes and the Earth receptors.

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf
As I understand the "relativistic" corrections are omitted - to small. On the other had "Doppler effect" - it means the influence of speeds difference (between "observer" and the satellite) is significant. And it is just what the article of Daniel Gezari is about.

[Strange]

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf
As I understand the "relativistic" corrections are omitted - to small. On the other had "Doppler effect" - it means the influence of speeds difference (between "observer" and the satellite) is significant.

That is almost exactly the opposite of what that paper says if you actually read it. I have designed GPS systems and I know that all three relativistic effects need to be taken into account.

[macaw]

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf
As I understand the "relativistic" corrections are omitted - to small.

wrong, you got things backwards. All relativistic corrections are needed and used.

[wisp]

This is wrong, as explained to you it does so, on a daily basis.
Q4: Please explain how GPS can work if the speed of em waves coming from GPS satelittes varied with the relative speed between satelittes and the Earth receptors.

Gezari doesn't understand the basics of SR, even less how GPS works. Please stop using his fringe claims in support of your ATM and answer the questions in your own words.

From your "Tom Roberts" link in #2

“The Global Positioning System (GPS)
While not really an experiment, and not really any sort of test of SR, the GPS is an interesting and useful system in which relativity plays an important part. In particular it has become the best and most economical method of highly accurate time transfer around the globe.”

[macaw]

From your "Tom Roberts" link in #2

“The Global Positioning System (GPS)
While not really an experiment, and not really any sort of test of SR, the GPS is an interesting and useful system in which relativity plays an important part. In particular it has become the best and most economical method of highly accurate time transfer around the globe.”

I asked you not to cut and paste and to give your own answers.
The GPS tracking through trilateration would fail if light speed were variable, as in the Gezari paper. So, you need to go back and answer the challenge at Q4:

Q4: Show how the GPS trilateration would work if light speed were variable. Use your own formulas, please.

[Strange]

From your "Tom Roberts" link in #2

“The Global Positioning System (GPS)
While not really an experiment, and not really any sort of test of SR, the GPS is an interesting and useful system in which relativity plays an important part. In particular it has become the best and most economical method of highly accurate time transfer around the globe.”

Apart from being completely irrelevant to the question asked, that is an almost surreal bit of highlighting. Was it supposed to imply that GPS doesn't use SR? How about the in which relativity plays an important part bit? How many GPS processors have you designed?

[wisp]

3. The paper is refuted by a large laboratory experiments on light speed dependency on the relative motion between the source and the receiver. See here

No they don’t. Gerari’s paper is the first accurate direct measurement of light’s speed in free space using a moving detector.

Gezari’s report states – page 2
"The local Lorentz invariance of c can now only be inferred from observations of moving sources, symmetry arguments, and the null results of ether drift and speed-of-light isotropy experiments. However, there are real difficulties with this view. Observations of moving sources cannot discriminate between special relativity and the old ether hypothesis, and do not favor one over the other, because the invariance of c to motion of the emitting source is a common feature of both special relativity and classical wave theory of light (discussed by Gezari 2009). Of course, one could argue that experiments with moving sources and moving observers should be equivalent and indistinguishable.
And
From the perspective of an experimentalist and observer this is all quite troubling. Rather that infer the invariance of c from indirect evidence it would be more straightforward, and more convincing, to simply measure the speed of light directly with a moving detector that was controlled or actively monitored by the observer. We have made such a measurement using the method of lunar laser ranging."

[Tensor]

No they don’t. Gezari’s paper is the first accurate direct measurement of light’s speed in free space using a moving detector.

Hold on there. Where in that paper does Gezari show the exact calculations of the interaction between distance and motion? I'll give you the answer, there are none. He claims he's modeled the combination of distance and motion by (from what I can gather, he isn't really clear on his method) combining the NAIF/SPICE toolkit and the IERS. He's claimed a accuracy of plus or minus 1m which I don't argue. But he doesn't show his full calculations on how exactly he's using the combination of both those sources. Why not? Until he provides his calculations on how he combined the two different scourses, he does not have a exact distance or motion and so doe not have an exact measurement.

I also question several things in his discussion:

Time dilation is taken as conclusively demonstrated by the extended half lives of energetic particles, but the causal relationship between time dilation and particle lifetimes is really only hypothetical and the underlying physical process is not understood.

There are more than just extended particle half lives that demonstrated time dilation. Also, would you care to explain the underlying physical process of the charge of a electron to me?

E = mc2 can be derived without special relativity, as shown by Gould (2005).

Yes, so what? He's cherry-picking and obfuscating. You do know that that equation is a special example of a more general equation, right? The important part of that equation is the general equation, which includes momentum. Gould goes on, in that paper, to explain that whole general equation E² = (mc²)²+(pc)² requires SR.

Mass increase was straightforwardly accounted for by the Ritz (1909) theory of electrodynamics and gravitation,

Well, then you should be able to show the prediction of Ritz's theory explains the inspiral of the binary pulsars, right? Otherwise, Ritz's theory doesn't apply.

To be honest, these three point sounds just like Gezari doesn't like relativity for some reason, more than he can show it to be wrong. I've got a few more, but I'll wait for now.

[grapes]

Gezari, not Gerari, but I have another issue, that I need a few more minutes with.

[grapes]

Hold on there. Where in that paper does Gezari show the exact calculations of the interaction between distance and motion? I'll give you the answer, there are none. He claims he's modeled the combination of distance and motion by (from what I can gather, he isn't really clear on his method) combining the NAIF/SPICE toolkit and the IERS. He's claimed a accuracy of plus or minus 1m which I don't argue. But he doesn't show his full calculations on how exactly he's using the combination of both those sources. Why not? Until he provides his calculations on how he combined the two different scourses, he does not have a exact distance or motion and so doe not have an exact measurement.

We can make a few stabs at it. He says:

At the time these shots were launched it was just sunrise at APO (latitude b = 32.605° N, longitude ℓ = 254.18°), which is 7.07h west of the Greenwich meridian; the azimuth and altitude angles of the Moon were θ = 122°, φ = 41°, and the angle between the Earth’s orbital velocity vector (V_E = 30 km/s) and the line-of-sight to the Moon was ψ = 46°. The speed of the observatory along the line-of-sight changes continuously as v_O = V_E cosb sinZ during the measurements, where V_E is the Earth rotation speed at the equator, b is the latitude of the observatory and Z is the zenith angle of the Moon at the observatory site.

His results are amazingly regular--which is what attracted me to this problem--in fact, they're so regular, I think we can deal with just a single data point. So, for myself, I chose the first one, from Table 1. You can refer to his Figure 2 (which I've attached below) also--it appears that his Modeled Time-of-Flight T_LB+T_BR is just D_LB+D_BR divided by the speed of light c (299,792458 m/s), or a round-trip time of just over 2.6 seconds.

One thing that jumped out at me was the calculations involving the surface of the earth. He doesn't seem to account for the almost 3000 meter altitude of APO (Apache Point Observatory) nor the oblateness of the earth nor the geodetic character of latitude--but I've convinced myself that none of those would result in the discrepany that he reports. But, the distance from the moon to APO is dependent upon the longitude of APO. Their website gives it as 105° 49' 13" W, which is 254.1797°--not much different from Gazari's value above of 254.18°, but Gazari's value translates into 105° 49' 12" W, a difference of exactly 1". 1" at a latitude of 32° is about 25 meters, or over 50 meters round-trip, which in 2.6 seconds would make a difference of nearly 20m/s, two or three times the result that he seems to be reporting. So, we can't use his published values to check his results.

[macaw]

two or three times the result that he seems to be reporting. So, we can't use his published values to check his results.

This is because Gezari rolls the relative speed between the Earth and the Moon into the calculated (not measured, since he doesn't measure the speed directly) speed of light. An embarassing mistake but not as surprising since Gezari denies that the correct functionality of GPS is based on GR and implcitly on the constancy of light speed.

[wisp]

We can make a few stabs at it. He says:His results are amazingly regular--which is what attracted me to this problem--in fact, they're so regular, I think we can deal with just a single data point. So, for myself, I chose the first one, from Table 1. You can refer to his Figure 2 (which I've attached below) also--it appears that his Modeled Time-of-Flight T_LB+T_BR is just D_LB+D_BR divided by the speed of light c (299,792458 m/s), or a round-trip time of just over 2.6 seconds.

One thing that jumped out at me was the calculations involving the surface of the earth. He doesn't seem to account for the almost 3000 meter altitude of APO (Apache Point Observatory) nor the oblateness of the earth nor the geodetic character of latitude--but I've convinced myself that none of those would result in the discrepany that he reports. But, the distance from the moon to APO is dependent upon the longitude of APO. Their website gives it as 105° 49' 13" W, which is 254.1797°--not much different from Gazari's value above of 254.18°, but Gazari's value translates into 105° 49' 12" W, a difference of exactly 1". 1" at a latitude of 32° is about 25 meters, or over 50 meters round-trip, which in 2.6 seconds would make a difference of nearly 20m/s, two or three times the result that he seems to be reporting. So, we can't use his published values to check his results.

The figures in his paper - 3. Observations
Just set the scene for observations made. They were made at sunrise at the APO (lat and long were given so you could lookup the station on google earth is you wished). The fact they are rounded up doesn’t make them the same as the ones used by NASA for lunar ranging calculations - Lunar ranging measurements is one of the most precise distance measurements ever made, and is equivalent in accuracy to determining the distance between Los Angeles and New York to one hundredth of an inch.
I google earthed the figures and it took me straight to the AP observatory.
This has nothing to do with the data used to measure the speed of light in the experiment, which was found to be slower than c by 8.4m/s.

[Tensor]

One thing that jumped out at me was the calculations involving the surface of the earth. He doesn't seem to account for the almost 3000 meter altitude of APO (Apache Point Observatory)

Snip.....

make a difference of nearly 20m/s, two or three times the result that he seems to be reporting. So, we can't use his published values to check his results.

First off, thanks for the Calcs. I still get the feeling that something isn't right. I just don't know what it is. I've been looking in the IERS site, and found quite a few things, that basically show his paper's conclusions are pretty much useless, but nothing that shows his calculations, in general, are wrong. I know it's there, just not where.

[Cerveny]

There are more than just extended particle half lives that demonstrated time dilation.

If it is true then every swift-passing - it means almost all - particles must have extended my life
Take a laser pointer, direct it on the Moon (distance L), switch on and press stopwatch. How long will take part since you can see the light point on the Moon surface? 2*L/C. Where is any contraction/extension?

[wisp]

Hold on there. Where in that paper does Gezari show the exact calculations of the interaction between distance and motion? I'll give you the answer, there are none. He claims he's modeled the combination of distance and motion by (from what I can gather, he isn't really clear on his method) combining the NAIF/SPICE toolkit and the IERS. He's claimed a accuracy of plus or minus 1m which I don't argue. But he doesn't show his full calculations on how exactly he's using the combination of both those sources. Why not? Until he provides his calculations on how he combined the two different scourses, he does not have a exact distance or motion and so doe not have an exact measurement.

I also question several things in his discussion:



There are more than just extended particle half lives that demonstrated time dilation. Also, would you care to explain the underlying physical process of the charge of a electron to me?



Yes, so what? He's cherry-picking and obfuscating. You do know that that equation is a special example of a more general equation, right? The important part of that equation is the general equation, which includes momentum. Gould goes on, in that paper, to explain that whole general equation E² = (mc²)²+(pc)² requires SR.



Well, then you should be able to show the prediction of Ritz's theory explains the inspiral of the binary pulsars, right? Otherwise, Ritz's theory doesn't apply.

To be honest, these three point sounds just like Gezari doesn't like relativity for some reason, more than he can show it to be wrong. I've got a few more, but I'll wait for now.

I think the guys at NASA know what they’re doing when it comes to Lunar Ranging. The distances measured are the most accurate made by mankind.

What do you mean by the interaction between distance and motion?
Light leaves the laser, and the clock records the launch time LT and the modelled distances are noted: DL, DLB, etc.
Light hits the mirror and the motion/distance of the moon relative to the earth-moon centres are noted to great accuracy.
There is a lot of data given - both modelled and measured. This can be analysed in many different ways using classical or SR models.
But the question remains. Why is there a large discrepancy in light’s measured speed of - 8.4 m/s.
And of course the motion of an object does not affect the speed of a photon launching/bouncing/hitting it. So as long as we know the modelled distances, the motion of the object does not transfer onto the photon’s speed.
**
Re:Time Dilation
From SR perspective the underlying physical process of time dilation is not understood. The mathematical relationship that exists between different inertial fames can only mean there can never be a physical process involved. If on the other hand the motion were relative to an absolute ether frame then an underlying physical process could be found. As a body moves relative to the ether absolute frame it would experience time dilation.

[macaw]

Re:Time Dilation
From SR perspective the underlying physical process of time dilation is not understood.

This is false, the process is very well understood (by the people in the mainstream physics).

The mathematical relationship that exists between different inertial fames can only mean there can never be a physical process involved.

Q9: Why would you claim such athing? The time dilation predicted in SR has been measured thruogh many experiments, do you think that measurement is not part of the physical reality?

If on the other hand the motion were relative to an absolute ether frame then an underlying physical process could be found. As a body moves relative to the ether absolute frame it would experience time dilation.

Q10: How does the presence of an aether frame affect the time dilation. Derivethe time dilation equation of your ATM from base principles (the presence of the "aether frame")

[AstroRockHunter]

... [SNIP] ... I think the guys at NASA know what they’re doing when it comes to Lunar Ranging. The distances measured are the most accurate made by mankind.

Assuming that this statement is true (and I believe that it is) what makes the measurement so accurate?

To answer my own question, from the fact that NASA, and other institutions, bounced laser light off of reflectors placed on the moon. Now, bouncing laser light off of the moon doesn't, in and of itself, yield the answer magically. What happens is that the round trip of the light is timed very accurately, and that time is multiplied by the speed of light (which is defined as c)!

Since the earth/moon distance is determined in this manner, and the models of the earth/moon distance is based on this procedure, then the next question that needs to be answered is:

Direct Question:

How can one use the same procedure to prove that the speed of light is not constant?

On a lighter note, if the guys at NASA are really that good at this measurment thing, then where did the saying 'guess the units, hit the planet' come from?

[Tensor]

I think the guys at NASA know what they’re doing when it comes to Lunar Ranging. The distances measured are the most accurate made by mankind.

Yes, it's accuracy depends on SR working. How do you reconcile accepting SR to measure the distance, but accepting this experiment somehow shows SR to be wrong? Meteorman (heheheh) has also asked you this.

This can be put one of two ways. If the accuracy is right, then the experiment can't be right and the experimenter has made a mistake some where. If the experiment is right, then the accuracy isn't right. But, if the accuracy isn't right, then the experiment can't be right. Either way, the experiment can't be right.

What do you mean by the interaction between distance and motion?
Light leaves the laser, and the clock records the launch time LT and the modelled distances are noted: DL, DLB, etc.
Light hits the mirror and the motion/distance of the moon relative to the earth-moon centres are noted to great accuracy.
There is a lot of data given - both modelled and measured. This can be analysed in many different ways using classical or SR models.
But the question remains. Why is there a large discrepancy in light’s measured speed of - 8.4 m/s.

What you seem to be missing is that the distances and the motions of the two bodies come from two different data bases. Those two have to be combined. He does not explain how he does this. He explains how to do the distance. He explains how he does the motions. He doesn't explain how he puts the two together to get his model.

And of course the motion of an object does not affect the speed of a photon launching/bouncing/hitting it. So as long as we know the modelled distances, the motion of the object does not transfer onto the photon’s speed.

Again, modeled distance, with modeled, motion. What if his model is off? Without the explanation of how he combines the two databases, we don't know, do we? For instance, when using the Earth Orientation Model, does he use the 1996 or 2003 conventions? Did he use the Rapid, monthly, or long term data? And which file or either of those? You see. There is a distinct lack of data in that paper.

A few other things, The Earth orientation model, is converted from the International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF). The ITRF is converted from the International Terrestrial Reference System (ITRS). Did he round somewhere? Did they round somewhere? Is there an error when it was converted? We don't know, because he didn't provide the data.


On the IERS site among the explanations for the ITRS are these nuggets:

1) The unit of length is the meter (SI). This scale is consistent with the TCG time coordinate for a geocentric local frame, in agree- ment with IAU and IUGG (1991) resolutions. This is obtained by appropriate relativistic modelling;

2) The scale depends on some physical parameters (e.g. geo-gravitational constant GM and speed of light c) and relativistic modeling.

So the ITRS scale (the meter) and, as a result, the distance light traveled, all have c as a constant and on top of that, relativistic modeling in it. The paper is trying to prove c is a different value, when the distance being used to show c is different is based on c being a constant. You don't think there may be a problem there?

Re:Time Dilation
From SR perspective the underlying physical process of time dilation is not understood. The mathematical relationship that exists between different inertial fames can only mean there can never be a physical process involved. If on the other hand the motion were relative to an absolute ether frame then an underlying physical process could be found. As a body moves relative to the ether absolute frame it would experience time dilation.

As I've asked many time before. Explain the physical process of and a positive and negative magnetic charge attracting each other. All of our theories are models, not actual physical processes.