Compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotrophy
in [Relativity]
|
From: Dono on 8 Apr 2008 09:39 On Apr 7, 10:57 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > > The agreement is exceptional. > > Resolving Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Anomalies with Measured Light Speed > Anisotropy > Cahill R.T.http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0039 > > Abstract > > Doppler shift observations of spacecraft, such as Galileo, NEAR, > Cassini, Rosetta and MESSENGER in earth flybys, have all revealed > unexplained speed `anomalies' - that the doppler-shift determined > speeds are inconsistent with expected speeds. Here it is shown that > these speed anomalies are not real and are actually the result of > using an incorrect relationship between the observed doppler shift and > the speed of the spacecraft - a relationship based on the assumption > that the speed of light is isotropic in all frames, i.e. invariant. > Taking account of the repeatedly measured light-speed anisotropy the > anomalies are resolved.... > Ok bozo, So, have a quick look at paragraph 2 in Cahill new "discovery". It is the Ives-Stilwell experiment explained via ballistic theory. Old hat. Bad hat. We already know the correct explanation of the experiment. It is called special relativity. Have you considered stopping sucking to Cahill?
From: Surfer on 8 Apr 2008 10:13 On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 06:39:28 -0700 (PDT), Dono <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >So, have a quick look at paragraph 2 in Cahill new "discovery". >It is the Ives-Stilwell experiment explained via ballistic theory. Old >hat. Bad hat. >We already know the correct explanation of the experiment. It is >called special relativity. > I don't see what past failures to detect light speed anisotopy have to do with this new evidence. The data is from: Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 091102, 2008. "Anomalous Orbital-Energy Changes Observed during Spaceraft Flybys of Earth" Anderson J.D., Campbell J.K., Ekelund J.E., Ellis J. and Jordan J.F., Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91109, USA. , Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 091102, 2008. The evidence for light speed anisotropy is that Cahill's predictions match the data, whereas predictions based on SR don't match the data.
From: Dono on 8 Apr 2008 10:21 On Apr 8, 7:13 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 06:39:28 -0700 (PDT), Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > > > >So, have a quick look at paragraph 2 in Cahill new "discovery". > >It is the Ives-Stilwell experiment explained via ballistic theory. Old > >hat. Bad hat. > >We already know the correct explanation of the experiment. It is > >called special relativity. > > I don't see what past failures to detect light speed anisotopy have to > do with this new evidence. > > The data is from: > > Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 091102, 2008. > > "Anomalous Orbital-Energy Changes Observed during Spaceraft Flybys of > Earth" > Anderson J.D., Campbell J.K., Ekelund J.E., Ellis J. and Jordan J.F., > Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, > Pasadena, California 91109, USA. > , Phys. Rev. Lett., > 100, 091102, 2008. > > The evidence for light speed anisotropy is that Cahill's predictions > match the data, whereas predictions based on SR don't match the data. You still continue to suck up to Cahill: 1. The paper By Anderson makes no claim to light speed anisotropy as explanation of the anomalous changes. 2. The used asswipe by Cahill makes a claim (see paragraph 2) that is nothing but ballistic theory applied to the Ives-Stilwell experiment. Understand?
From: Surfer on 8 Apr 2008 11:02 On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 07:21:27 -0700 (PDT), Dono <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >1. The paper By Anderson makes no claim to light speed anisotropy as >explanation of the anomalous changes. > Correct. But it provides data that can be interpreted in two ways: 1) In accordance with the orthodox interpretation of SR. In which case anomalies emerge in the analysis. 2) In accordance with Cahill's interpretation of SR. In which case no anomalies emerge. (That would seem to me to be a good thing.) >2. The used asswipe by Cahill makes a claim (see paragraph 2) that is >nothing but ballistic theory applied to the Ives-Stilwell experiment. > >Understand? I am not familiar with the Ives-Stilwell experiment so can't comment.
From: Dono on 8 Apr 2008 11:07
On Apr 8, 8:02 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 07:21:27 -0700 (PDT), Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > > > >1. The paper By Anderson makes no claim to light speed anisotropy as > >explanation of the anomalous changes. > > Correct. But it provides data that can be interpreted in two ways: > > 1) In accordance with the orthodox interpretation of SR. In which case > anomalies emerge in the analysis. > ....none of which has anything to do with anisotropic light speed. > 2) In accordance with Cahill's interpretation of SR. In which case no > anomalies emerge. (That would seem to me to be a good thing.) > "Cahill's interpretation of SR" is in fact no SR at all, it is the old ballistic theory. He applies it unknowingly (clear ignorance) to the Ives-Stilwell experiment and gets results in disagreement with the experiment. As such, he falsifies his own "theory" right starting from paragraph 2 . > >2. The used asswipe by Cahill makes a claim (see paragraph 2) that is > >nothing but ballistic theory applied to the Ives-Stilwell experiment. > > >Understand? > > I am not familiar with the Ives-Stilwell experiment so can't comment. Then learn it. Come back when you understand it. Until then, stay away. |