A simple lightspeed experiment by single GPS horizon skimming.
Leo...@gmail.com
If we accept that the nature of non-locality is described as an
instantaneous exchange of "eigenstate" information and in addition can
have different levels of action, THEN I postulate that the quantum
mechanical universe is able to MIMIC relativity rules down to only a
few anomalies, which should be measurable by experiment. The different
levels of EPR action should be present between evaporated silver atoms
inside a Stern Gerlach experiment, or inside a classic EPR experiment,
or even at very long distance between ( anti)copy universes. See:
http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/
The consequence of this new model is, that the lightspeed in a complex
way is related to the mass and gravity field of massive objects like
the Earth.As a result, there is a relative simple possibility to check
the ether DRAG at a mountain summit, by the diurnal distance variation
measurements of single GPS satellite signals by a "single GPS-
receiver".
If the lightspeed around the Earth is dragged by gravity, then light
rays that are "skimming the Earth" are supposed to be less influenced
by the motion of the Earth. Thus GPS signals that are skimming the
Earth surface are also less influenced and will show at least diurnal
variation related to the orbital motion of the earth.
There is perhaps even a chance to find "some" universal variation, as
is measured by Dayton Miller .
See my proposal with sketch at:
http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot...influence.html
Small lightspeed anomalies, are already measured at mountain summits
in parallel direction with the Earth's orbital motion around the Sun
by Dayton Miller ( 1925-1928) and Yuri Galaev (Ukrain) , however due
to the very small variations, these results are still ignored by the
mainstream.A second interesting way to measure the ether speed was
performed by Y Galaev in 2002:THE MEASURING OF ETHER-DRIFT VELOCITY
AND KINEMATIC ETHER ISCOSITY WITHIN OPTICAL WAVES BANDPublished:
Spacetime and Substance, Vol.3, No.5 (15), 2002, P.207-224. Author: -
Yuri Galaev, Ph.D.; Senior research officer of the Institute for
Radiophysics & Electronics National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,
and corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
(RANS). see:http://narod.yandex.ru/100.xhtml?www.spacetime.narod.ru/
0015-pdf.zip
Leo...@gmail.com
http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-small-anomalies-could-influence.html
Leo Vuyk
Eric Gisse
<Leo...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip junk]
>Small lightspeed anomalies, are already measured at mountain summits
>in parallel direction with the Earth's orbital motion around the Sun
>by Dayton Miller ( 1925-1928) and Yuri Galaev (Ukrain) , however due
>to the very small variations, these results are still ignored by the
>mainstream.
No, they are ignored because the error analysis says there is no
significant signal.
[...]
Leo...@gmail.com
> No, they are ignored because the error analysis says there is no
> significant signal.
>
> [...]
Yes of course! it is about significance.
But Maurice Allais found at least "some"diurnal effects.
from wikipedia:
Allais's explanation for his observations contradicts the theory of
relativity.
Subsequently, in order to confront the optical anomaly with
established experimental results, Prof. Allais performed a statistical
analysis of the thousands of interferometer measurements of Dayton
Miller and found a corresponding periodicity with the sidereal day,
the equinoxes and other celestial events.
According to Allais, the anomalous effects demonstrate a sofar unknown
anisotropy of Space as well as an effect of total velocity.
However, his analysis disagrees with Robert S. Shankland's analysis of
Miller's data, which many physicists consider as the reference work on
the subject. Shankland attributed the deviations from relativity
predictions to systematic errors of readings and thermal
instabilities, despite Miller's claims to the contrary. The claim of
anisotropy of space is generally considered to be incompatible with
many modern experiments that have not shown any such anomalities.[2]
Roger Balian wrote a note to refute Allais's interpretation of
Miller's result.[3]
Leo.
Eric Gisse
>Eric, You wrote:>
>> No, they are ignored because the error analysis says there is no
>> significant signal.
>>
>> [...]
>
>
>Yes of course! it is about significance.
>But Maurice Allais found at least "some"diurnal effects.
>
>from wikipedia:
>Allais's explanation for his observations contradicts the theory of
>relativity.
Yes, gravitational shielding would refute GR in a big way. Except
Allais' observations have never been repeated in a conclusive fashion.
Rather dissapointing, actually.
>
>Subsequently, in order to confront the optical anomaly with
>established experimental results, Prof. Allais performed a statistical
>analysis of the thousands of interferometer measurements of Dayton
>Miller and found a corresponding periodicity with the sidereal day,
>the equinoxes and other celestial events.
Oh wow, a net effect in a gas mode interferometer whose run predates
modern experimental techniques by decades! Who'da thunk it?
Miller's results have been done to death on this newsgroup. Miller's
results do not stand against objective analysis, and the analyses that
"find" a signal massively contradict an even larger body of /other/
ether drift experiments.
>
>According to Allais, the anomalous effects demonstrate a sofar unknown
>anisotropy of Space as well as an effect of total velocity.
>
>However, his analysis disagrees with Robert S. Shankland's analysis of
>Miller's data, which many physicists consider as the reference work on
>the subject. Shankland attributed the deviations from relativity
>predictions to systematic errors of readings and thermal
>instabilities, despite Miller's claims to the contrary. The claim of
>anisotropy of space is generally considered to be incompatible with
>many modern experiments that have not shown any such anomalities.[2]
*scratches head*
Oh, still copying off Wikipedia...
>
>Roger Balian wrote a note to refute Allais's interpretation of
>Miller's result.[3]
>
>Leo.
So what is your point?
Leo...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 04:53:59 -0700, "LeoV...@gmail.com"
That even if there was no signal at all, it still remains an
interesting step to do simple experiments based on reasoning about
what our complex nature is.
Eric Gisse
Then take a cue from a century of experiments and forget about the
ether.
Tom Roberts
> Eric, You wrote:>
>> No, they are ignored because the error analysis says there is no
>> significant signal.
>
> But Maurice Allais found at least "some"diurnal effects.
Allais did not perform an error analysis on the RAW data. I did:
A) Miller's results have no significant signal.
B) A basic consideration of his analysis algorithm in the
frequency domain shows that the noise in his data will
be FORCED to look just like the "signal" he expected.
C) A modern analysis which models the drift of his interferometer
finds zero signal with an errorbar smaller than the false
signal Miller thought he found.
In short, this is every experimenter's nightmare: he was unknowingly
looking at statistically insignificant patterns in his systematic drift
that mimicked the appearance of a real signal.
See: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238
Tom Roberts
xx...@comcast.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: C) A modern analysis which models the drift of his
interferometer finds zero signal with an errorbar smaller than the
false signal Miller thought he found.
Did you mean "larger"
Tom Roberts
> On Oct 12, 7:43 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> C) A modern analysis which models the drift of his interferometer
>> finds zero signal with an errorbar smaller than the false
>> signal Miller thought he found.
> Did you mean "larger"
No. Smaller. Read the paper. His analysis technique is VERY bad by
modern standards. My technique models his instrument's drift
quantitatively, and obtains a MUCH smaller errorbar than Miller's
original and very flawed analysis. This is a general result: modeling a
background and subtracting it can greatly reduce the errorbar, in this
case by a factor of ~50 (his interferometer drift is HUGE).
The errorbar for MILLER'S analysis is larger than his result. So by
itself it shows his result is not significant.
Of course Miller himself could not know this -- the DSP analysis I used
is based on Shannon's sampling theorem, which was almost 20 years after
Miller published. And the computations I did in my analysis would have
required more than a century for him to perform manually.
Tom Roberts
Leo...@gmail.com
Hello Tom,
I am very impressed about your calculations!
Are you perhaps willing to do such calculations again ,
if I could find someone who is able to do the actual GPS
measurements?
I would be very pleased.
Leo Vuyk.
Leo...@gmail.com
I would like to hear your advise for an open advertisement on
internet:
I would suggest:
IN DEMAND; YOUNG ASTRONOMERS WORKING AT MOUNTAIN SUMMIT (TELESCOPE)TO
BE ABLE TO PERFORM THE NEXT SIMPLE GPS HORIZON SKIMMING LIGHTSPEED
TEST.?
Leo.
> Leo Vuyk.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Leo...@gmail.com
needs a particle MEMORY system to memorize "Lorentz polarization" or
"Fermion Consciousness".
If we imagine that in such a dense vacuum lattice, mass has to be able
to move and accelerate, then we need something very special to keep a
tennis ball in motion after it is hit by your racket. We need to
introduce a Higgs oscillating vacuum Lattice, which we could call
"COMPLEXIFIED Lorentz space" able to push or pull spinning Fermion
propellers and transform complete atoms to create "REAL Lorentz
dilation in time" but NO "Lorentz CONTRACTION".
Why? Because if we assume that gravity is dragging the lightspeed with
the Earth, then all the Michelson-Morley apparatusses should have
shown a diurnal effect!! originated solely by the contraction of the
apparatus itself!!
Thus ONLY "Lorentz TIME DELATION is real" and the logical result of a
quantum mechanical Higgs-Fermion collison process.
In other words, I would call these particles: "Lorentz polarized"
Fermion propeller particles with a double spin state, able to absorb
more "Casimir" vacuum energy from behind than from the front side.
( see Figure B) below.
HOWEVER in that case, every Fermion should have some sort of a
Memory :
I suggest the symmetrical Big Bang ENTANGLEMENT MEMORY is still acting
between two or more IDENTICAL but CPT ( Charge Parity and Time)
symmetric Universes to solve the so called "Schroedingers CAT problem"
and also the "Lorentz polarization" memory !!
Seconly, we should consider, that massive objects like the Earth will
drag their own peculiar reference frame with them. This is called
"LASOF""Local anti-symmetrical Oscillating Vacuum Frame", the origin
of small Radar reflection anomalies of Venus and Mercury.( described
later in this book). see:
http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/2006/02/gravity-dependent-lightspeed.html
> > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
Leo...@gmail.com
My open letter dated 16 october 2007 to professor Langley.
Dear professor Langley,
I am aware of your magnificent work on high precision GPS Point
positioning models.
In my own -fully different- QM vacuum research, I came to surprising
conclusions about the origin of strong outliers in GPS signals which
are supported by your TOPEX-POSEIDON and CHAMP pseudorange residuals
up to 5 meters, which I found inside articles mentioned below
I came to the (anti-relativistic) conclusion, that the Earth's orbital
speed, ca. 30 km/sec, should be incorporated in the GPS signal speed.
The effect should be a GPS-LEO pseudorange residual decrease of max 3
meters.
My vacuum model predict that; If GPS signals are not directly pointing
into the surface of the massive gravitating Earth then the orbital
speed of the Earth should be accounted for.
Thus for ground based receivers this is mostly not the case.
On Earth, this effect should be measurable only on mountain summits or
high riser buildings. (see attachment) and also on internet:
http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-small-anomalies-could-influence.html
and perhaps:
http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/
ps. This is an open letter also visible on other locations.
I hope you like it.
Leo Vuyk.
Your articles which I see As a support of the vacuum effect mentioned
above:
Evaluation of High-Precision, Single-Frequency GPS Point Positioning
Models (2001)
http://gauss.gge.unb.ca/papers.pdf/iongnss2004.beran.pdf
GPS Phase-Connected, Precise Point Positioning
of Low Earth Orbiters (2004)
http://gauss.gge.unb.ca/papers.pdf/gnss01.bisnath.pdf
by Tomas Beran, Sunil B. Bisnath and Richard B. Langley
University of New Brunswick Ca.
Eric Gisse
Why do you waste people's time with obvious stupidities?
[snip remaining, unread]
Tom Roberts
> I came to the (anti-relativistic) conclusion, that the Earth's orbital
> speed, ca. 30 km/sec, should be incorporated in the GPS signal speed.
30 km/s is ~0.001*c. If a variation of that magnitude applied to the
propagation of signals from GPS satellites, but the receiver didn't
include it, it would induce errors on the order of
0.001*distance-to-satellite into the residuals in the receiver. As the
closest GPS satellite is about 20,000 km away from any receiver on
earth, this implies errors on the order of 20 km (or more). The
errorbars on position would be of that magnitude. They aren't. Your
"conclusion" is wrong.
This estimate is at local noon for a satellite near the horizon
to the east, and opposite in sign for one near the horizon to
the west. But the effect should go as cos(theta), where theta
is the angle from the eastern horizon, so at noontime it is
HUGE over most of the sky except near the zenith; at 6am and 6pm
is is much smaller for position but ENORMOUS for altitude --
such variations are not observed.
Tom Roberts
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jItRi.4610$wF3....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
: Leo...@gmail.com wrote:
: > I came to the (anti-relativistic) conclusion, that the Earth's orbital
: > speed, ca. 30 km/sec, should be incorporated in the GPS signal speed.
:
: 30 km/s is ~0.001*c.
Hahahahaha!
harry
"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:hbwRi.370968$xp6.2...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
For once you're right! Guess that Tom should repost his answer for ten times
less error. Shouldn't need to change the text much though...
Harald
Androcles
"harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1192689...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
:
: "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
: news:hbwRi.370968$xp6.2...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >
: > "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
: > news:jItRi.4610$wF3....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
: > : Leo...@gmail.com wrote:
: > : > I came to the (anti-relativistic) conclusion, that the Earth's
orbital
: > : > speed, ca. 30 km/sec, should be incorporated in the GPS signal
speed.
: > :
: > : 30 km/s is ~0.001*c.
: >
: > Hahahahaha!
:
: For once you're right!
Of course I'm right. Roberts is incompetent, and so are ewe.
: Guess that Tom should repost his answer for ten times
: less error.
Ewe carry on guessing, that's about your normal standard.
: Shouldn't need to change the text much though...
Ewe carry on guessing ...
Leo...@gmail.com
Thanks Tom for your serious approach: however:
There seems to be two different shaped LASOF ( local anti-symmetrical
oscillating vacuum frame) lightspeed extinction envelopes, for A:
Earth bound light sources and for B: Satellite- or space based light
sources.
Based on Radar reflection data of Venus and Mercury done by I.I
Shapiro, I concluded, that for Earth bound light sources, the LASOF
extinction envelope around the Earth, seems to be globular with a
diameter of 70 million km. see:
http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/2006/02/gravity-dependent-lightspeed.html
Based on sparse Formosat- Champ- Topex satellite data in combination
with the small anomalies measured by D.Miller ( 1926) and Y.Galaev, I
suggest, that for space based light sources, the LASOF envelope seems
to be ellipsoidal (or cigar shaped), with the major axis coinciding to
the Earth-Satellite axis of the same length ( 70 MILLION KM) and an
unknown minor axis.
Future satellite-GPS distance reading variations should give
information about the minor axis of the cigar shaped LASOF envelope.
http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-small-anomalies-could-influence.html
Leo Vuyk
Eric Gisse
That, amamzingly, has only been noticed by you.
>Based on Radar reflection data of Venus and Mercury done by I.I
>Shapiro, I concluded, that for Earth bound light sources, the LASOF
>extinction envelope around the Earth, seems to be globular with a
>diameter of 70 million km. see:
>http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/2006/02/gravity-dependent-lightspeed.html
Congratulations, you have discovered Shapiro delay. It is observed to
be exactly as predicted by general relativity.
>
>Based on sparse Formosat- Champ- Topex satellite data in combination
>with the small anomalies measured by D.Miller ( 1926) and Y.Galaev, I
>suggest, that for space based light sources, the LASOF envelope seems
>to be ellipsoidal (or cigar shaped), with the major axis coinciding to
>the Earth-Satellite axis of the same length ( 70 MILLION KM) and an
>unknown minor axis.
Oh yes, another crazy ass theory based upon discredited experiments. I
can't wait for Cahill's name to come up, too.
Leo...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:06:44 -0700, "LeoV...@gmail.com"
>
> Congratulations, you have discovered Shapiro delay. It is observed to
> be exactly as predicted by general relativity.
>
>
>
> >Based on sparse Formosat- Champ- Topex satellite data in combination
> >with the small anomalies measured by D.Miller ( 1926) and Y.Galaev, I
> >suggest, that for space based light sources, the LASOF envelope seems
> >to be ellipsoidal (or cigar shaped), with the major axis coinciding to
> >the Earth-Satellite axis of the same length ( 70 MILLION KM) and an
> >unknown minor axis.
>
> Oh yes, another crazy ass theory based upon discredited experiments. I
> can't wait for Cahill's name to come up, too.
>
>
>
> >Future satellite-GPS distance reading variations should give
> >information about the minor axis of the cigar shaped LASOF envelope.
>
> >Leo Vuyk- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Leo...@gmail.com
advantage: it is testable:
If my proposal for the Planetary (Earth) gravitational drag of the
Lightspeed has a realistic base, as mentioned below, then all GPS
signal readings taken by other satellites should account for such an
effect.
Improvement of onboard GPS readings for precise orbit determination
(POD) of Low Earth Orbiting (LEO) Satellites, like Formoasat-3, Camp,
or Jason-1-/Topex-Poseidon satellites and ISS, are suggested to be
possible, if these readings are taken into directions without any
Earth-Solar orbital lightspeed influence.
A: for signals not directed into the Earth surface: Above 21 degrees
above the horizontal-Earth line for Formosat-3 and Champ (both at
about the same height) and Above 34 degrees for Jason-Topex satellites
(cruising at higher levels) see figure B3.
OR;
B: if the orbital speed has no influence; GPS-readings taken
perpendicular to the axis of orbital motion of the Earth round the
Sun.
Outside these areas, the "Earth gravitational drag effect" should be
incorporated into the GPS-reading calculations. This should be the
case e.g. for so called LEO "GPS-occultations" skimming the Earth
atmosphere.
Leo Vuyk.
Leo...@gmail.com
bz
news:1193815798....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> You ar right: my proposal is weird and crazy, but there is a large
> advantage: it is testable:
>
> If my proposal for the Planetary (Earth) gravitational drag of the
> Lightspeed has a realistic base, as mentioned below, then all GPS
> signal readings taken by other satellites should account for such an
> effect.
>
....
> Outside these areas, the "Earth gravitational drag effect" should be
> incorporated into the GPS-reading calculations. This should be the
> case e.g. for so called LEO "GPS-occultations" skimming the Earth
> atmosphere.
>
You are neglecting the fact that the atmosphere is an ionized dielectric
material with various degrees of ionization.
The degree of ionization is influenced by solar radiation.
The nearer the GPS is to the horizon, the more variations that will be seen
in signal propagation DUE TO those factors.
You will see those variations as 'signal' in your experiment but those
variations are 'noise', as far as what you want to test.
Unfortunately, the 'noise' is correlated with the earths motion around the
sun, in the same way as the signals that you are searching for.
Absent a LOT more data than you have any means of collecting (the exact
ionization levels at each altitude for each volume of atmosphere along the
path that you are studying, along with any possible multi-path propagation
paths), you have no hope of digging a signal out of the noise.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Leo...@gmail.com
Hello BZ,
For my SIMPLE GPS EXPERIMENT on Earth at a moutain summit measuring
the possible diurnal distance variation of low horizon (Earth
skimming) GPS signals, you will be probably right.
However it is worth to try isn't it?.
At the other side of the test, between GPS and lEO or stll better High
ALTITUDE SATELLITES (FAR OUTSIDE THE ATHMOSPHER) the effect should be
multiplied, if the proposed cigar shaped LASOF area has a decreasing
gravitational drag-effect at these levels.
Leo Vuyk.
Tom Roberts
> [...]
Bottom line: it's been done already (flown a GPS receiver in the
orbiting space shuttle). A quick scan of the document below indicates
that the GPS position agrees with the independently computed reference
trajectory to within the uncertainties (200-300 meters [#]), and the GPS
velocity relative to the reference trajectory also agrees within the
uncertainties (2-3 m/s).
So your guesses/claims are refuted experimentally. See
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA280993
[#] SA was active during the flight, and the high orbital
speed degrades position accuracy.
Google for more (GPS "Space Shuttle")....
Tom Roberts
Eric Gisse
>You ar right: my proposal is weird and crazy, but there is a large
>advantage: it is testable:
I fail to see why that is relevant if you ignore observational
evidence that disproves your theory.
>
>If my proposal for the Planetary (Earth) gravitational drag of the
>Lightspeed has a realistic base, as mentioned below, then all GPS
>signal readings taken by other satellites should account for such an
>effect.
I can't wait for you to equate "gravitational drag" with gravitational
redshift.
>
>Improvement of onboard GPS readings for precise orbit determination
>(POD) of Low Earth Orbiting (LEO) Satellites, like Formoasat-3, Camp,
>or Jason-1-/Topex-Poseidon satellites and ISS, are suggested to be
>possible, if these readings are taken into directions without any
>Earth-Solar orbital lightspeed influence.
How about LAGEOS and LAGEOS II? You know, the craft that were designed
such that their position in the sky was known to millimeter accuracy?
The data is out there for you to use if you get off your ass to find
it. The data is good enough that the Lense-Thirring effect was
verified to within 10-15%.
You seem to be using LEO satellites for some goddamn reason. Things
like ISS are real shitty because it has a HUGE surface area and is
experincing significant atomsphereic drag. Sortof a downer for your
purposes.
Of course this doesn't even touch upon the larger issue of supernova
light curves and other effects that would be severely influenced
[read: fucked up] by other worthless and discredited ballistic theory
predictions.
>A: for signals not directed into the Earth surface: Above 21 degrees
>above the horizontal-Earth line for Formosat-3 and Champ (both at
>about the same height) and Above 34 degrees for Jason-Topex satellites
>(cruising at higher levels) see figure B3.
>OR;
>B: if the orbital speed has no influence; GPS-readings taken
>perpendicular to the axis of orbital motion of the Earth round the
>Sun.
>Outside these areas, the "Earth gravitational drag effect" should be
>incorporated into the GPS-reading calculations. This should be the
>case e.g. for so called LEO "GPS-occultations" skimming the Earth
>atmosphere.
THERE IS NO OBSERVED ERROR. You are trying to fix a problem that _does
not exist anywhere but in your mind_.
>
>Leo Vuyk.
bz
news:1193858110....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 31, 3:36 pm, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>> "LeoV...@gmail.com" <LeoV...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:1193815798....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > You ar right: my proposal is weird and crazy, but there is a large
>> > advantage: it is testable:
>>
....
>
> Hello BZ,
> For my SIMPLE GPS EXPERIMENT on Earth at a moutain summit measuring
> the possible diurnal distance variation of low horizon (Earth
> skimming) GPS signals, you will be probably right.
> However it is worth to try isn't it?.
I suggest that you look at the kinds of variation in path delays that are
commonly seen for point-to-point communications.
Unfortunately, there is very little point to point communications over the
distances and frequencies in the region of the spectrum used by GPS.
> At the other side of the test, between GPS and lEO or stll better High
> ALTITUDE SATELLITES (FAR OUTSIDE THE ATHMOSPHER) the effect should be
> multiplied, if the proposed cigar shaped LASOF area has a decreasing
> gravitational drag-effect at these levels.
As others have told you, such effects would show up as some rather large
errors in apparent position of the Satellites.
Such effects would almost certainly have been noticed.
But it certainly won't hurt for you to dig into some already collected data
and see what you can find. Just keep in mind that what you find may have
different causes.
Science generally progresses by trying to explain data that is different
from predicted, rather than having a theory and looking for data to support
it.
Leo...@gmail.com
Eric,
I am sorry that I was not able to describe my point clear enough for
you.
The LAGEOS satellite is only used as a signal reflection mirror
between the Earth and the LAGEOS satellite, which is in my proposal
not at all influenced by the orbital speed of the earth around the
Sun.
The reason is that the quantum mechanical vacuum is supposed to
compensate all signals running - in directions TO or FROM- the Earth
surface, with an only slowly decreasing influence up to an extinction
distance of 70 million km..
However if we would measure (GPS) signals which are NOT directed TO or
FROM the Earth surface, but are passing the Earth at higher altitudes
then it is interesting to measure, the influence of the SOLAR
reference frame.
This influence for Earth skimming signals, is supposed to be gradually
decreasing down to zero influence just at the surface of the earth.
As a consequence, I started this discussion with a call for a SIMPLE
GPS MOUNTAIN ( or high building) SUMMIT test, to measure at least some
diurnal influence on "low elevation" Earth skimming GPS signals.
All the GPS based Precise Orbit Determination (POD) reports of CHAMP
and FORMOSAT satellites, do report lots of "bad GPS readings" which
are automatically disregarded for POD determination. This could be a
sign for the intermingling solar Earth reference frames.
Leo Vuyk
Leo...@gmail.com
> As others have told you, such effects would show up as some rather large
> errors in apparent position of the Satellites.
> Such effects would almost certainly have been noticed.
Indeed these GPS distance reading errors would be large, even up to
3000m as Tom Flandern showed me, if the solar influence would be 100%.
However, if we take account for a gradually decrease of this influence
down to zero percent at the surface of the earth, then its a different
story.
Leo Vuyk
Leo...@gmail.com
> LeoV...@gmail.com wrote:
> > [...]
>
> Bottom line: it's been done already (flown a GPS receiver in the
> orbiting space shuttle). A quick scan of the document below indicates
> that the GPS position agrees with the independently computed reference
> trajectory to within the uncertainties (200-300 meters [#]), and the GPS
Dear Tom,
If the orbital Earth speed would maximum cause a difference of 3000
meter, then a 200-300 uncertainty at altitudes of low level orbitters
like the space shuttle, is for me an extra indication that we should
be inspired to investigate further.
The GPS uncertainty on earth is 1 inch!!
If the solar reference frame gradually intermingles with the Earth
reference frame ( for Earth skimming signals) then this is news!
Leo Vuyk
Leo...@gmail.com
For more clarity, I added a new image (C2) representing the geometry
of the Venus-Earth situation on 10th of April 1964. see:
http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/2006/02/gravity-dependent-lightspeed.html
bz
news:1194355855.2...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
...
>
> For more clarity, I added a new image (C2) representing the geometry
> of the Venus-Earth situation on 10th of April 1964. see:
> http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/2006/02/gravity-dependent-lights
> peed.html
>
I just looked at the original article on your web site.
The arrows you have added to the plot point to 'short term variations' that
disappear when (according to the same article) the correct mass is used for
the moon.
How do you justify using the uncorrected data rather than the corrected
data????
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
Eric Gisse
<bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>"Leo...@gmail.com" <Leo...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:1194355855.2...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
>
>...
>>
>> For more clarity, I added a new image (C2) representing the geometry
>> of the Venus-Earth situation on 10th of April 1964. see:
>> http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/2006/02/gravity-dependent-lights
>> peed.html
>>
>
>I just looked at the original article on your web site.
>The arrows you have added to the plot point to 'short term variations' that
>disappear when (according to the same article) the correct mass is used for
>the moon.
>
>How do you justify using the uncorrected data rather than the corrected
>data????
It gets him the answer he wants.
Eric Gisse
>
>Eric,
>I am sorry that I was not able to describe my point clear enough for
>you.
>The LAGEOS satellite is only used as a signal reflection mirror
>between the Earth and the LAGEOS satellite, which is in my proposal
>not at all influenced by the orbital speed of the earth around the
>Sun.
>The reason is that the quantum mechanical vacuum is supposed to
>compensate all signals running - in directions TO or FROM- the Earth
>surface, with an only slowly decreasing influence up to an extinction
>distance of 70 million km..
Low Earth orbit is lower than geosynchronous orbit which is lower than
70 million km.
Plus what you say is word salad that doesn't correspond to anything
but your pet theory that makes no quanitative predictiosn.
[snip junk]
Leo...@gmail.com
My gravity related LASOF proposal, could also give an explanation for
some poorly explained effects of Binaries (and other rotating
systems) , called the Quasi Periodic Oscillations (QPOs) and Super
Orbital Periodicities. See figure B,
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2787/2214/1600/fig%20b1.1.jpg
So the Maxwell equations could perhaps be extended by the LASOF
gravity relations which I described for the radar signals between
Earth and Venus or Mercury.
Eric Gisse
The DOA theories and discredited experiments just keep coming and
coming.
First you make references to "poorly explained effects" without giving
any literature references, explainations, or any other quanitative
description whatsoever. Since every deeply relativistic pulsar system
discovered [all two of them] obeys relativity to a T, I'm going to go
ahead and assume you are pulling problems right out of your ass as
usual.
Next you bring forth your useless jpeg in which you make no
quantitative predictions but do, once again, bring up Miller [whose
results have been discredited many a time] and Galaev [who hasn't
gotten his results past a decent journal review yet] while ignoring
the MASSIVE body of evidence which disagrees with you. Two results in
130 years vs dozens of results over the same time period is rather
curious, wouldn't you think?
Finally we have your continued misunderstandings of gravitation
theory. Extending Maxwell's equations as a theory of gravitation
[div.G = constant*rho, curl x G = 0] is classical field theory but is
TRIVIALLY nonrelativistic and even more obviously lacks the predictive
power of GR. I think having a 7 degree of freedom difference [10 in
the symmetric metric g_uv in GR, versus 3 degrees of freedom in a
vector field theory like Maxwell's equations] just might have
observable consequences.
It isn't as if you care, anyway. It is well known, even to you, that
GR correctly predicts the observed Shapiro delay between Venus and
Mercury, as well as a host of non-classical effects manifest in
situations like binary systems that cannot be explained using
non-relativistic theories.
Why don't you explain why there are no observed contradictions with
GR? While your at it, why don't you explain why only a handful of
experiments over a hundred and thirty years show /any/ sign of the
ether, and why none of them pass muster after objective error
analysis?
Leo...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:58:23 -0800, "LeoV...@gmail.com"
"Short Period Quasi-Regular Oscillations" of Venus and Mercury of
about 30 days, are described by I.I Shapiro in Radar Astronomy 1968,
page 170-172.
Examples of QPOs (Quasi Periodic Oscillations) or Orbital
Periodicities of Binaries are supposed to be examples of gravity
influenced LASOF lightspeed anomalies just like Venus and Mercury. see
below articles by: H.Lehmann, (Binary RZ-cas.) and P.G.Ostrov,
(Binary HV 2543).
http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-small-anomalies-could-influence.html
Leo Vuyk.
Leo...@gmail.com
> On Nov 7, 11:36 am, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:58:23 -0800, "LeoV...@gmail.com"
>
> > <LeoV...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >My gravity related LASOF proposal, could also give an explanation for
> > >some poorly explained effects of Binaries (and other rotating
> > >systems) , called the Quasi Periodic Oscillations (QPOs) and Super
> > >Orbital Periodicities. See figure B,
> > >http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2787/2214/1600/fig%20b1.1.jpg
> > >So the Maxwell equations could perhaps be extended by the LASOF
> > >gravity relations which I described for the radar signals between
> > >Earth and Venus or Mercury.
>
> > The DOA theories and discredited experiments just keep coming and
> > coming.
>
> > First you make references to "poorly explained effects" without giving
> > any literature references, explainations, or any other quanitative
> > description whatsoever. Since every deeply relativistic pulsar system
> > discovered [all two of them] obeys relativity to a T, I'm going to go
> > ahead and assume you are pulling problems right out of your ass as
> > usual.
I hoped for a clean discussion.
My post (was numered 39) on Lehmann and Ostrov will show you.
I think there is no reason to be frustrated at all my dear.
I am only stirring into and interesting historical lightpeed wound.
Leo Vuyk.
>
> "Short Period Quasi-Regular Oscillations" of Venus and Mercury of
> about 30 days, are described by I.I Shapiro in Radar Astronomy 1968,
> page 170-172.
>
> Examples of QPOs (Quasi Periodic Oscillations) or Orbital
> Periodicities of Binaries are supposed to be examples of gravity
> influenced LASOF lightspeed anomalies just like Venus and Mercury. see
> below articles by: H.Lehmann, (Binary RZ-cas.) and P.G.Ostrov,
> (Binary HV 2543).http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-small-anomalies-...
>
> Leo Vuyk.- Hide quoted text -
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
<Leo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194438335....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
...
> I think there is no reason to be frustrated at all my
> dear. I am only stirring into and interesting historical
> lightpeed wound.
The "wound" is the festering sore left where your physics
education should have gone.
David A. Smith
bz
news:1194436884.3...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
> "Short Period Quasi-Regular Oscillations" of Venus and Mercury of
> about 30 days, are described by I.I Shapiro in Radar Astronomy 1968,
> page 170-172.
>
[quoting from http://bp2.blogger.com/
_ArDoWzECXSo/RzBkqmNiQCI/AAAAAAAAAUI/VrbNvnljiMo/s1600-
h/Dadar+astr+Shapiro+1a.jpg]
A careful investigation disclosed that these variations are due mostly to
an older (and incorrect) value for the earth-moon mass ratio having been
used in the American Ephemeris and somewhat to the basic ephemeris having
been prepared from general perturbation theory involving truncated Fourier
series.
[unquote]
They then show the JPL ephemeris based curve that has lost those "short
period quasi-regular Oscillations"
Why are you ignoring the clear source of the 30 day perturbations?
A small error in the mass ratio and truncating a series calculation too
early are clearly simpler explanations than what you have invented.
There is no need to invent some process that has never been observed and
that would have far reaching consequences that would have been observed.
At the very least, you should be starting from the JPL based data and
looking for unexplained periodic variations in that data.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Leo...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Dear LeoVuyk:
>
> <LeoV...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Dear David,
I am starting to be ashamed, because it looks as if some people become
frustrated and forgetting to suppress sarcasm.
Leo Vuyk.
Leo...@gmail.com
> "LeoV...@gmail.com" <LeoV...@gmail.com> wrote innews:1194436884.3...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
>
> > "Short Period Quasi-Regular Oscillations" of Venus and Mercury of
> > about 30 days, are described by I.I Shapiro in Radar Astronomy 1968,
> > page 170-172.
>
> _ArDoWzECXSo/RzBkqmNiQCI/AAAAAAAAAUI/VrbNvnljiMo/s1600-
> h/Dadar+astr+Shapiro+1a.jpg]
> A careful investigation disclosed that these variations are due mostly to
> an older (and incorrect) value for the earth-moon mass ratio having been
> used in the American Ephemeris and somewhat to the basic ephemeris having
> been prepared from general perturbation theory involving truncated Fourier
> series.
> [unquote]
>
> They then show the JPL ephemeris based curve that has lost those "short
> period quasi-regular Oscillations"
>
> Why are you ignoring the clear source of the 30 day perturbations?
>
> A small error in the mass ratio and truncating a series calculation too
> early are clearly simpler explanations than what you have invented.
>
> There is no need to invent some process that has never been observed and
> that would have far reaching consequences that would have been observed.
>
> At the very least, you should be starting from the JPL based data and
> looking for unexplained periodic variations in that data.
>
> --
> bz
>
> please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
> infinite set.
>
> bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Dear BZ,
Why did I invent this solution?
VERY SIMPLE:Because I did not understood CONSTANT C EVERYWHERE in a
non mathematical way, or better in a way which is based on geometrical
logic.
That is why.
Leo Vuyk.
Dono
<>
http://www.takingdownwords.com/photos/uncategorized/turkey.jpg
Leo...@gmail.com
> On Oct 11, 9:12 am, "LeoV...@gmail.com"
>
> <>
>
> http://www.takingdownwords.com/photos/uncategorized/turkey.jpg
Dear Dono,
Thanks for your liberating humor.
Leo Vuyk.
bz
news:1194449607....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
> Dear BZ,
>
> Why did I invent this solution?
>
> VERY SIMPLE:Because I did not understood CONSTANT C EVERYWHERE in a
> non mathematical way, or better in a way which is based on geometrical
> logic.
> That is why.
>
It isn't really 'constant c everywhere'. It is only constant c in a vacuum,
away from gravity fields.
But for most (not all) practical purposes, it IS 'constant c' within small
areas that are mostly free of matter.
The speed is also (as best we can tell) 'independent of the motion of the
source'.
And the geometric explanation is 'that is the way electro magnetic energy
travels through space'.
The 'why' is no more (or less) understandable than 'why humans have 5
finger instead of 3 or 7'.
That is how it is, and we don't know why.
dlzc
On Nov 7, 8:25 am, "LeoV...@gmail.com" <LeoV...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2:11 pm, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear LeoVuyk:
>
> > <LeoV...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1194438335....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> > ...
>
> > > I think there is no reason to be frustrated at
> > > all my dear. I am only stirring into and
> > > interesting historical lightpeed wound.
>
> > The "wound" is the festering sore left where
> > your physics education should have gone.
>
> I am starting to be ashamed, because it looks as
> if some people become frustrated and forgetting
> to suppress sarcasm.
Are you claiming that "stirring into [an] interesting historical
lightpeed wound" was not sarcastic? You appear to be unaware that
Shapiro's results are within margins of error of what _General_
Relativity predicted. And you seem to ignore that your "explanation"
fails nearly every other test that GR passes.
Your words are archived for years. Have you no sense of self-pride?
David A. Smith
Leo...@gmail.com
Sorry I must leave my computer for a while.
Thanks anyhow.
Leo Vuyk
Eric Gisse
YAWN.
Continually pasting the well-known observation of Shapiro delay by
Shapiro simply makes you look /stupid/.
Leo...@gmail.com
To get more clarity about the key arguments I am using for my LASOF
idea, I searched and found new impressive data.
It is a clear example that GPS signals skimming the earth passing near
or at Higher altitudes, are less related to the earth frame and more
by the Solar frame.
In this case (CHAMP) providing outliers of 200 meters.
A clear example of GPS signal failures for the CHAMP Low Earth
Orbiters at 430 km altitude, is one of the reasons that so called
Kinematic Precise Orbit Determination (POD) by GPS readings is not
possible. Several other ground based systems and complex computer
programs are needed to compensate these errors.
However, if the LASOF idea about gravity (or Mass) related lightspeed
is incorporated in the GPS readings, then these errors are supposed to
vanish for a great deal.
I made a copy with my comment see:
http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-small-anomalies-could-influence.html
The information described above was found in "Near real time Precise
orbit determination of low earth satellites etc. pdf page 85, by:Tae-
Suk-Bae 2006. Ohio state university. See:
http://www.ceegs.ohio-state.edu/gsreports/reports/report_481.pdf
Leo Vuyk.
Leo...@gmail.com
>
> The information described above was found in "Near real time Precise
> orbit determination of low earth satellites etc. pdf page 85, by:Tae-
> Suk-Bae 2006. Ohio state university. See:http://www.ceegs.ohio-state.edu/gsreports/reports/report_481.pdf
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
My conclusion is still, that the reference frames of the planets
(Earth) and Sun are interfering in smooth way what I dubbed a LASOF
(Local A-Symmetrical Oscillating vacuum Frame).
The LASOF influences the quality of GPS signals if they are not
travelling into (or away from) the Earth surface and if they are
passing the Earth at a larger distance.
The LASOF influences also the speed of the outgoing signals from Earth
(like radar signals to Venus) and the additional speed (C+/-v ) will
become extinct after 70 million km from Earth.
Leo Vuyk.
http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/
Leo...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
The LASOF minor axis can be estimated at 11821 km!!
My conclusion is still, that the reference frames of the planets
(Earth) and Sun are interfering in smooth way what I dubbed a LASOF
(Local A-Symmetrical Oscillating vacuum Frame).
The LASOF influences the quality of GPS signals if they are not
travelling into (or away from) the Earth surface and if they are
passing the Earth at a larger distance.
The LASOF influences also the speed of the outgoing signals from Earth
(like radar signals to Venus) and the additional speed (C+/-v ) will
become extinct after 70 million km from Earth.
However, massive GPS signal outliers of 180 meters measured in 2003
(see below) are reason to calculate where the Earth related Lightspeed
drag is ending if the drag is originated by a so called LASOF
ellipsoid located around the Earth. Without any lightspeed drag these
outliers (as calculated before by T.Flandern) would be 3000 meter.
By linear interpolation this minor axis of the LASOF lightspeed drag
influence is calculated to be (only) 11821 km!!
See:
http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-small-anomalies-could-influence.html