Lunar Laser-Ranging Detection of Light-Speed Anisotropy
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: A Lesson In Sagnac and Rotating frames, For Paul, Tom and Jerry.
Next: A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
From: BradGuth on 13 Feb 2010 17:20 On Feb 12, 10:52 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > This is a very interesting discovery. > > Originally made here: > > Lunar Laser Ranging Test of the Invariance of c > Daniel Y. Gezarihttp://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934 > > Abstract: The speed of laser light pulses launched from Earth and > returned by a retro-reflector on the Moon was calculated from > precision round-trip time-of-flight measurements and modeled > distances. The measured speed of light (c) in the moving observers > rest frame was found to exceed the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s > by 200+/-10 m/s, just the speed of the observatory along the > line-of-sight due to the rotation of the Earth during the > measurements. This is a first-order violation of local Lorentz > invariance; the speed of light seems to depend on the motion of the > observer after all, as in classical wave theory, and implies that a > preferred reference frame exists for the propagation of light. > However, the present experiment cannot identify the physical system to > which such a reference frame might be tied. > > And there is additional analysis here: > > Lunar Laser-Ranging Detection of Light-Speed Anisotropy and > Gravitational Waves > Authors: Reginald T Cahill (Flinders University)http://arxiv.org/abs/1001..2358 > > Abstract: The Apache Point Lunar Laser-ranging Operation (APOLLO), in > NM, can detect photon bounces from retro-reflectors on the moon > surface to 0.1ns timing resolution. This facility enables not only the > detection of light speed anisotropy, which defines a local preferred > frame of reference - only in that frame is the speed of light > isotropic, but also fluctuations/turbulence (gravitational waves) in > the flow of the dynamical 3-space relative to local systems/observers. > So the APOLLO facility can act as an effective "gravitational wave" > detector. A recently published small data set from November 5, 2007, > is analysed to characterise both the average anisotropy velocity and > the wave/turbulence effects. The results are consistent with some 13 > previous detections, with the last and most accurate being from the > spacecraft earth-flyby Doppler-shift NASA data. You are going to make Einstein, Newton and Planck crawl up out of their graves, just to better explain all of this. Being that the relatively thin lithosphere of Earth is continually being complex tidal modulated by more than 300 mm (<540 mm), as well as aging, cooling and shrinking by some yet unknown amount (Earth is also losing mass), and the best laser ranging resolution of +/- 30 mm is all that we have to work with, leaves a wide margin of error thats up for subjective interpretation, as to how far and which way our moon is actually moving (supposedly away from us) per year. ~ BG
From: Surfer on 14 Feb 2010 10:13 On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:22:48 +1030, Surfer <no(a)spam.net> wrote: >This is a very interesting discovery. > >Originally made here: > >Lunar Laser Ranging Test of the Invariance of c >Daniel Y. Gezari >http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934 > >Abstract: The speed of laser light pulses launched from Earth and >returned by a retro-reflector on the Moon was calculated from >precision round-trip time-of-flight measurements and modeled >distances. The measured speed of light (c) in the moving observers >rest frame was found to exceed the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s >by 200+/-10 m/s, just the speed of the observatory along the >line-of-sight due to the rotation of the Earth during the >measurements. > Actually, after having a closer look at the paper I found this claim is wrong. The calculations don't properly account for movement of retro-reflector towards the observer in the rest frame of the observer. Sorry for any time that might have been wasted. > >And there is additional analysis here: > This fortunately subjects the raw data to a different analysis. > >Lunar Laser-Ranging Detection of Light-Speed Anisotropy and >Gravitational Waves >Authors: Reginald T Cahill (Flinders University) >http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.2358 > >Abstract: The Apache Point Lunar Laser-ranging Operation (APOLLO), in >NM, can detect photon bounces from retro-reflectors on the moon >surface to 0.1ns timing resolution. This facility enables not only the >detection of light speed anisotropy, which defines a local preferred >frame of reference - only in that frame is the speed of light >isotropic, but also fluctuations/turbulence (gravitational waves) in >the flow of the dynamical 3-space relative to local systems/observers. >So the APOLLO facility can act as an effective "gravitational wave" >detector. A recently published small data set from November 5, 2007, >is analysed to characterise both the average anisotropy velocity and >the wave/turbulence effects. The results are consistent with some 13 >previous detections, with the last and most accurate being from the >spacecraft earth-flyby Doppler-shift NASA data. > >
From: Androcles on 14 Feb 2010 10:24 "Surfer" <no(a)spam.net> wrote in message news:vi0gn5hu53udgk6kc3k9ig5769vrcddq75(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:22:48 +1030, Surfer <no(a)spam.net> wrote: > >>This is a very interesting discovery. >> >>Originally made here: >> >>Lunar Laser Ranging Test of the Invariance of c >>Daniel Y. Gezari >>http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934 >> >>Abstract: The speed of laser light pulses launched from Earth and >>returned by a retro-reflector on the Moon was calculated from >>precision round-trip time-of-flight measurements and modeled >>distances. The measured speed of light (c) in the moving observers >>rest frame was found to exceed the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s >>by 200+/-10 m/s, just the speed of the observatory along the >>line-of-sight due to the rotation of the Earth during the >>measurements. >> > > Actually, after having a closer look at the paper I found this claim > is wrong. The calculations don't properly account for movement of > retro-reflector towards the observer in the rest frame of the > observer. > > Sorry for any time that might have been wasted. > That's ok, it's not a waste. It has proven that the Moon moves back and forth at +/- 200 m/s relative to the Earth and the "invariance of c" test is a failure. The velocity of light is of course source dependent as some of us have always known, now you've found yet another confirmation. So... well done!
From: Richard D. Saam on 14 Feb 2010 12:41 BradGuth wrote: > Being that the relatively thin lithosphere of Earth is continually > being complex tidal modulated by more than 300 mm (<540 mm) > > ~ BG Do you have a reference for the 'tidal modulated by more than 300 mm (<540 mm)' I am interested in time periods, frequencies and harmonics Richard D. Saam
From: Uncle Al on 14 Feb 2010 16:47
Surfer wrote: > > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:22:48 +1030, Surfer <no(a)spam.net> wrote: > > >This is a very interesting discovery. > > > >Originally made here: > > > >Lunar Laser Ranging Test of the Invariance of c > >Daniel Y. Gezari > >http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934 > > > >Abstract: The speed of laser light pulses launched from Earth and > >returned by a retro-reflector on the Moon was calculated from > >precision round-trip time-of-flight measurements and modeled > >distances. The measured speed of light (c) in the moving observers > >rest frame was found to exceed the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s > >by 200+/-10 m/s, just the speed of the observatory along the > >line-of-sight due to the rotation of the Earth during the > >measurements. > > > > Actually, after having a closer look at the paper I found this claim > is wrong. The calculations don't properly account for movement of > retro-reflector towards the observer in the rest frame of the > observer. [snip] Sagnac effect. If you wish to ding relativity or quantum field theory, your falsifying observation must be consistent with all prior validated observations. This is not overmuch difficult. Physics always discards structure in favor of symmetry. Look in the garbage can. If the vacuum is demonstrably anisotropic, if the Equivalence Principle can be empirically falsified at will, all bets are off. Intensely opposite geometric parity atomic mass distributions are single crystals in enantiomorphic space groups P3(1)21 versus P3(2)21 and P2(1) versus P3(2) - opposite shoes. 1) Do opposite shoes vacuum free fall identically? (quartz or gamma-glycine) 2) Do opposite shoes have identical enthalpies of fusion to socks? (benzil) 3) Do Meissner-levitated opposite shoes spontaneously spin in opposite directions? (quartz) 4) Do molecular left-left, left-right, right-right paired propellers on a rigid shaft show spin population divergence versus time of day? http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/twistene.png Theory cannot transcend itself - certainly not perturbative treatments. "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." Somebody should look. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |