Lunar laser ranging test of the invariance of c

[macaw]

Gezari has taken the first step in reporting variance in light’s speed, I think other sites should publish their own reports (for a complete orbit) to support or disprove his claim. I hope this will be soon.

Gezari produced a crackpot, unpublishable paper.
When are you going to answer the questions posed against your ATM? You had enough time to think about them.

[Geo Kaplan]

{snip}


I bet that the speed of light not being constant in all direction in free space is that significant discovery that Murphy is hinting at, and he may already know this.

Unfounded speculation and wishful thinking on your part. Doesn't make it true, sorry.

The problem is how to report it, without making yourself the target of ridicule and upsetting the status quo.

That's not a problem. You see, in science, you get richly rewarded for "upsetting the status quo" as long as you have the evidence to back up your claims. The more controversial the claim, the higher the bar. Scientists know this, and are careful to clear the bar, instead of spending nights at a bar.

[AstroRockHunter]

Interesting paper: APOLLO: the Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation: Instrument Description and First Detections
Disappointing to note 1. Introduction, 1.1 Scientific Motivation discusses a variety theoretical explorations - possible existence of extra dimensions, and attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and gravity. I can’t see how their results can achieve that.

It has a lot of interesting detail. And has some basic errors, 5.2.1 page 23, System Clock, ~400km/s should be 400m/s, and ~1000km/s should be 1000m/s.

I googled some of facts about Murphy, see
http://spie.org/x38304.xml?ArticleID=x38304

Whilst praising general relativity’s on the point of the accuracy of the equivalence principle (I doubt we will be able to measure any violation of it).

Murphy says
"Much of the science that LLR investigates could break down as we push our levels of measurement further," says Murphy. "We are already in the interesting zone of the Equivalence Principle. Where will we find violation, if at all? We can probably go one more order of magnitude -- will that identify a new order of physics? Impossible to say, but right now I wouldn't be surprised to see a significant discovery made at any time ."

I believe that the new accurate data collected at the APO will reveal that the speed of light is slowed by the presence of an external ether flow. With LLR distance accuracies now in the order of a few mm, the data will show that the modelled path for a complete ordit of the moon will be offset towards one direction in space, which can only be caused by an ether flow.
There can only be 2 explanations for this:
1) The speed of light is constant, and the moon actually shifts towards one direction in space as it orbits the earth (unlikely, and also against the law of gravity)
2) The moon’s orbit is as the model predicts, but the speed of light is slower when aligned to one direction in space (more likely)

The big question the LLR sites will have to address soon is:
Do the LLR distances match the moon’s modelled orbital path over one complete orbital period?

They have reported LLR accuracies are to a within few mm, on the assumption that light’s speed is c. But if we try and compare the measurements to the modelled orbital path we may find, as Gezari has, that they don’t match.

Gezari’s offset was found to be 11m (t= 2.626 x speed light slows by 8.4m/s)/2 for one set of readings.

As the moon orbits the earth, offsets in the predicted orbit path may be found to be 10 to 100 m towards one direction in space!


I bet that the speed of light not being constant in all direction in free space is that significant discovery that Murphy is hinting at, and he may already know this. The problem is how to report it, without making yourself the target of ridicule and upsetting the status quo.
The interesting thing will be who will break the news first, Apache Point in New Mexico or Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur in France?

Gezari has taken the first step in reporting variance in light’s speed, I think other sites should publish their own reports (for a complete orbit) to support or disprove his claim. I hope this will be soon.

This does nothing to answer the questions that I asked in post #79. Please provide answers rather than speculation so that we may continue this discussion.

If you prefer to only rely on speculation, then there is no need to continue this thread.

[Cerveny]

I bet that the speed of light not being constant in all direction in free space is that significant discovery that Murphy is hinting at, and he may already know this.

I am on your side. There are two main objections against relativistic contractions:

• Mutual, full-valued point of view from subject and observer (a observer must have been shorted by the same way as explored subject)
• Very clear difference between the incoming and outgoing real, objective, subject’s influence at the explorer (in the first case the same signal act for a shorter time – this effect is inaccurately called “Doppler effect” )

Empty space without any metric base, without any countable “points”, elements, is too bizarre imagination. Yet empty (physical) space composed by uncountable number of real elements is even more bizarre…

[macaw]

I am on your side. There are two main objections against relativistic contractions:

The OP is not about any "contractions".

[captain swoop]

Cerveny, Please do not confuse the thread by introducing your own ATM idea.

[forrest noble]

wisp,

I am hoping you can give me your opinion concerning my question in posting #87,

respectfully, forrest

[MacMac]

Reg Cahill at Flinders has released an interesting paper on Gezari's results, see [URL="http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2010/PP-21-08.PDF"[/URL].

[grapes]

Reg Cahill at Flinders has released an interesting paper on Gezari's results, see http://www.ptep-online.com/index_fil...0/PP-21-08.PDF.

From the pdf:

Recently Gezari [22] has published some bouncetime* data, and performed an analysis of that data. The analysis and results herein are different from those in [22], as are the conclusions.

* Total travel time to moon and back.

and

However a bizarre accident of date and timing occurred during these observations.

Heh, heh, he said bizarre...

[AstroRockHunter]

Reg Cahill at Flinders has released an interesting paper on Gezari's results, see http://"http://www.ptep-online.com/i.../PP-21-08.PDF".

From the paper cited:

Herein we consider only these bounce times, and not the distance modellings, which are based on the assumption that the speed of light is invariant, and so at best are pseudo-ranges.

and:

From the bounce times, alone, it is not possible to extract the anisotropy velocity vector, as the actual distance to the retroreflector is not known. To do that a detailed modelling of the moon orbit is required, but one in which the invariance of the light speed is not assumed.

Bold mine.

This is what we've been saying. Gezari mistakenly uses distances calculated assuming the invariance of the speed of light to try to prove that light speed is variable.

I'm guessing that wisp has decided that we are correct and has abandoned his/her attempt to defend Gezari's paper.

[Tensor]

I'm not sure I would use Cahill to refute Gezari. That's sorta like using David McGowan to refute Bart Sibrel. However, this paper does go into the the reason the conclusion of Gerazi's paper is in error (an error in the calculation of the frame of reference). He also mentions the distance was found using c as an invariant.

[AstroRockHunter]

I'm not sure I would use Cahill to refute Gezari. That's sorta like using David McGowan to refute Bart Sibrel. However, this paper does go into the the reason the conclusion of Gerazi's paper is in error (an error in the calculation of the frame of reference). He also mentions the distance was found using c as an invariant.

You are absolutely right, Tensor. The paper you write succinctly summarizes the problems with Gezari's paper. It is a much better refutation.

[forrest noble]

My quote from posting #87

......... It (also) seems to me that the opposite effect could be seen from the Earth when it is rotating away from the moon if the reported results were valid. Can you think of any reason why a lunar laser shoot regarding the Earth's rotation away from the direction of the moon would not also be possible? The additional observation of the opposite effect would certainly seem like corroborative evidence in support of an aether making the exact distance to the moon seemingly less important.

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_fil...0/PP-21-08.PDF

In light of the above paper as well as the original paper by Gezari
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3934.pdf

It would seem that one of the problems concerning the purported effect is in regard to the proof of the exact distance to the moon or the closing speed between the Earth and moon at the time of the testing/ shoot as well as changes as noted in the link by Tensor.
http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/PS...002.3968v1.pdf

It also would seem that on the opposite side of the Earth the same test could be performed, precisely 1/2 of a sidereal day of rotation later which accordingly should result in a subtractive effect (i.e. less than the conventional speed of light if the original results are valid). If so the exact distance to the moon or closing speed would seem less important and could be subtracted out of the results. Also if a close to simultaneous shoot (or one sidereal day later) could be done at a higher latitude the rotation effect should also accordingly be less.

Does anybody have any idea why such confirmation testing might be too difficult or also inconclusive?

[Tensor]

The paper you write succinctly summarizes the problems with Gezari's paper. It is a much better refutation.

Just to be clear, I did not write the paper. I just linked to it.

[AstroRockHunter]

Just to be clear, I did not write the paper. I just linked to it.

My mistake. I meant to say 'cite'. (Didn't there used to be an embarrassed smilie?)

[macaw]

Reg Cahill at Flinders has released an interesting paper on Gezari's results, see [URL="http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2010/PP-21-08.PDF"[/URL].

Crackpot paper, by crackpot author (Reg Cahill) published in crackpot journal (Progress in Physics)

[macaw]

I'm not sure I would use Cahill to refute Gezari. That's sorta like using David McGowan to refute Bart Sibrel.

Nicely put :-)

However, this paper does go into the the reason the conclusion of Gerazi's paper is in error (an error in the calculation of the frame of reference). He also mentions the distance was found using c as an invariant.

And Gezari gets shown the door.

[Tensor]

It also would seem that on the opposite side of the Earth the same test could be performed, precisely 1/2 of a sidereal day of rotation later which accordingly should result in a subtractive effect (i.e. less than the conventional speed of light if the original results are valid). If so the exact distance to the moon or closing speed would seem less important and could be subtracted out of the results. Also if a close to simultaneous shoot (or one sidereal day later) could be done at a higher latitude the rotation effect should also accordingly be less.

Does anybody have any idea why such confirmation testing might be too difficult or also inconclusive?

I can't tell you why it might be too difficult or inconclusive. What I can tell you is why it's not needed. When APO is shooting the beam, it's not just doing it for twenty minutes and then stopping. It shoots ALL night.

Granted, the timing (hence the distance )will change throughout the night as the Earth-Moon distance changes, the rotation of the Earth brings the moon closer (it's farther away near the horizon), etc. But it should, and so far does, change in a predictable manner. Ya think that big of a difference, causing an unpredictable change, would have been noticed by now?

After all, all the observations go into the calculations for the Earth-Moon distance. Since they have it down to mm sized errors, anything that big ( +-200 mps) would cause a big change in the error bars. Something that hasn't been seen.

[Nereid]

I can't tell you why it might be too difficult or inconclusive. What I can tell you is why it's not needed. When APO is shooting the beam, it's not just doing it for twenty minutes and then stopping. It shoots ALL night.

Granted, the timing (hence the distance )will change throughout the night as the Earth-Moon distance changes, the rotation of the Earth brings the moon closer (it's farther away near the horizon), etc. But it should, and so far does, change in a predictable manner. Ya think that big of a difference, causing an unpredictable change, would have been noticed by now?

After all, all the observations go into the calculations for the Earth-Moon distance. Since they have it down to mm sized errors, anything that big ( +-200 mps) would cause a big change in the error bars. Something that hasn't been seen.

It's also quite interesting to see the list of effects that have to be modelled to get mm accuracy, and the amount of work that's been done to ensure that these effects are addressed in a robust, independent manner.

forrest noble, I echo Tensor's suggestion: take some time - quite a lot of time - to learn the details of this long-running LLR experiment.

[grapes]

HUb' check your PMs

[HUb']

HUb' check your PMs

2:40 YES she is from MASS? donno the abriv Thanks for the boost: Q worked: