Research supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration finds first-order violation of local Lorentz invariance
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: The Opposing Law
Next: Arindam Banerjee's tactics of abuse EXPOSED (Was: Re: Exactly why the theories of relativity are complete nonsense - the basic mistake exposed!)
From: tominlaguna on 4 Jan 2010 14:26 Conclusion of Experiment: "The most straightforward analysis and interpretation of two-way lunar laser ranging measurement of c presented here suggests that light propagating between the Earth and the Moon obeys a classical rather than special relativistic addition of velocities law. On the face of it, this constitutes a first-order violation of local Lorentz invariance and implies that light propagates in an absolute reference frame, a conclusion that most physicists (except perhaps some contemporary field theorists) would be reluctant to accept. ..." Paper has been Submitted to Il Nuovo Cimento B and can be found at: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818 Dr. Bryan Wallace noted the same in papers published in Spectroscopy Letters, 1969 & 1971 relating to radar ranging measurements of Venus.
From: Androcles on 4 Jan 2010 14:46 <tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:iaf4k5hgith6h06ulbv6pn5pm990gi9c56(a)4ax.com... > Conclusion of Experiment: > > "The most straightforward analysis and interpretation of two-way lunar > laser ranging measurement of c presented here suggests that light > propagating between the Earth and the Moon obeys a classical rather > than special relativistic addition of velocities law. On the face of > it, this constitutes a first-order violation of local Lorentz > invariance (true) > and implies (false)
From: Dono. on 4 Jan 2010 14:50 On Jan 4, 11:26 am, tominlag...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > Paper has been Submitted to Il Nuovo Cimento B > and can be found at: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818 > The Daniel Gezari guy is an idiot, his "method" doesn't factor in the motion (at about 10m/s) between the lab (sender) and the reflector on the moon. Based on this error, he "recovers" a ~10m/s variance from the known light speed and he concludes that the speed of light is dependent on the speed of the source. Idiot.
From: tominlaguna on 5 Jan 2010 01:15 On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:55:00 +0100, YBM <ybmess(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: >tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com a �crit : >> Conclusion of Experiment: >> >> "The most straightforward analysis and interpretation of two-way lunar >> laser ranging measurement of c presented here suggests that light >> propagating between the Earth and the Moon obeys a classical rather >> than special relativistic addition of velocities law. On the face of >> it, this constitutes a first-order violation of local Lorentz >> invariance and implies that light propagates in an absolute reference >> frame, a conclusion that most physicists (except perhaps some >> contemporary field theorists) would be reluctant to accept. ..." >> >> Paper has been Submitted to Il Nuovo Cimento B >> and can be found at: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818 > >Strange enough : the "Conclusion of Experiment" quoted above cannot >be found neither in the ArXiv Web pages nor the paper itself which >states abolutely NOTHING about a "first-order violation of local >Lorentz". My apologies to all... I included a link to the wrong Gezari paper. The correct link is: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934 The quote from the Conclusion section is from this paper which is titled: "Lunar Laser Ranging Test of the Invariance of c". Thank you, YBM.
From: tominlaguna on 5 Jan 2010 01:32
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 19:46:29 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: > ><tominlaguna(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:iaf4k5hgith6h06ulbv6pn5pm990gi9c56(a)4ax.com... >> Conclusion of Experiment: >> >> "The most straightforward analysis and interpretation of two-way lunar >> laser ranging measurement of c presented here suggests that light >> propagating between the Earth and the Moon obeys a classical rather >> than special relativistic addition of velocities law. On the face of >> it, this constitutes a first-order violation of local Lorentz >> invariance >(true) I agree with you... >> and implies >(false) I agree with you... Gezari, incorrectly, goes right to that Aether place. He does discuss Ritz in one section of the paper I was citing from, titled: "Lunar Laser Ranging Test of the Invariance of c." The correct link should have been: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934 I am curious as to why he didn't provide a discussion on the Sagnac Effect which might explain the variance. |