Re: The Shapiro's experiment HOAX. A 1968 TIME article.

On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 9:28:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 17.10.2024 03:05, skrev rhertz:

I FORGOT TO INCLUDE THE LINK:
>
Shapiro Time Delay Using Newtonian Gravitation

>
So now your point is that Shapiro's measurements
were correct, but Newton predicts the same as GR? :-D
>
It is never too late to change your mind when
you have realised that Shapiro delay isn't a HOAX.
>

>
https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM

>
A very interesting paper due to fig 2.
>
In 1971 Shapiro made new measurements with
the Arecibo telescope.
>
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.26.1132
"Fourth Test of General Relativity: New Radar Result"
Quote:
" Abstract
  New radar observations yield a more stringent test of the predicted
  relativistic increase in echo times of radio signals sent from Earth
  and reflected from Mercury and Venus. These "extra" delays may be
  characterized by a parameter 𝜆 which is unity according to general
  relativity and 0.93 according to recent predictions based on a scalar-
  tensor theory of gravitation. We find that 𝜆=1.02. The formal standard
  error is 0.02, but because of the possible presence of systematic
  errors we consider 0.05 to be a more reliable estimate of the
  uncertainty in the result."
>
Look at fig. 2.
It shows the measurements with Haystack in 1965 and
with Arecibo in 1971 (1970?).
Shapiro's prediction for the Shapiro delay is now
confirmed to within 5%.
>
Thanks for the reference, Richard!
>
--------------------
>
But does Newton predict the same delay as GR for the Shapiro delay?
>
See equation (2) : mₚ = Eₚ/c²
>
This is the reference given for this equation:
   R. Skinner, Relativity for Scientists and Engineers,
   Dover, New York, 1982.
>
Say no more! :-D
>
Here is a correct derivation of the Newtonian prediction:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.00229

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SARCASM, OBVIOUSLY!
MY POST WITH THE ALTERNATE NEWTONIAN VERSION WAS TO PROVE THAT
RELATIVITY IS AN ABSOLUTE PILE OF CRAP!
THE KINK CONTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THE DERIVATION OF "A CASSINI'S DELAY
FORMULA CLONE", BUT IT'S BASED ON BLACK HOLES AND PHOTONS, AND IS A
SAMPLE ABOUT THAT ANY IMBECILE WITH SOME MATH SKILLS CAN DERIVE THE SAME
RESULTS AS PURE BREED GR RELATIVISTS.
THE DISMISSAL OF THE IMPACT OF OPTICAL PHENOMENA LIKE REFRACTION IS
NOTABLE. PLUS, ANY OF THESE FORMULAE CONTAIN FOUR ASTRONOMICAL DISTANCES
TO VENUS OR MERCURY, DATA THAT (STILL TODAY) CONTAIN IMPORTANT
UNCERTAINTIES, BEYOND ERROR BARS.
ADD TO THE ABOVE THAT c IS FIXED BY INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS, DUE TO
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LABS WORLDWIDE MOUNTING UP TO +/- 200 KM/SEC,
AND YOU HAVE AN INTERESTING CONTEXT OPEN TO FRAUD, FUDGING AND COOKING
DATA. NOT TO MENTION THE HUGE AMOUNT OF PERTURBATIONS, NOISE AND PULSE
DISTORTIONS THAT REQUIRE COLLECTING DATA BY THE THOUSAND AND
POST-PROCESSING IT WITH DUBIOUS ALGORITHMS.
GO BACK TO YOUR GARDENING HOBBY. IT SUITS BETTER FOR YOUR MELTED BRAIN.