[Semi-OT] Ping: Henry

Henry - just curious about your take on this website and the overview
lectures available therein concerning what the author refers to as "A
Correction to the Gravitational Model" involving a "transverse
gravitational redshift." It's been a long time since undergrad
cosmology and relativity stuff and I don't trust what little detail I
do recall. I'm interested in what you know/have read about this kind
of theory before.

www.stanford.ed/-afmayer


--
Herb

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
~ RAH

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in
message .com...
Henry - just curious about your take on this website and the overview
lectures available therein concerning what the author refers to as "A
Correction to the Gravitational Model" involving a "transverse
gravitational redshift." It's been a long time since undergrad
cosmology and relativity stuff and I don't trust what little detail I
do recall. I'm interested in what you know/have read about this kind
of theory before.

www.stanford.ed/-afmayer


I've been curious too. I read that site and the shorter presentation over
the weekend, and like you, I need more input . I'll be downloading the
larger presentations over lunch.

In article ,
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
Henry - just curious about your take on this website and the overview
lectures available therein concerning what the author refers to as "A
Correction to the Gravitational Model" involving a "transverse
gravitational redshift." ... www.stanford.ed/-afmayer

(That should be http://www.stanford.edu/~afmayer, I do believe.)

My bogometer went "ding!" on the third slide. This is practically a
textbook example of half-relativistic reasoning: assuming that relativity
applies to some parameters (speed of light is constant for all observers)
but not to others (time and distance are assumed the same for all
observers, which is not true), and thus producing either a contradiction
or a prediction of wonderful new phenomena. He discusses how the
situation appears from the ground, and then magically transfers the
results to the on-board observers, without considering that their
measurements of the various parameters would not agree with the ground
observer's.

He predicts that the effect on a GPS signal would be strongest when the
satellite is right down on the horizon. That's also the time when
atmospheric effects on the signal would be strongest, and most difficult
to correct accurately. The fact that his GPS data is from unpublished
work isn't encouraging.

At first glance, looking at his web page, you'd think he was faculty at
Stanford's Physics dept. The department, however, lists him as a
"visiting scholar"; it doesn't explain what that is, but evidently it's
not the same as "visiting professor".

Bottom line: a relativity expert I'm not, but I think the chances of
finding meaningful results there are too low to justify spending any more
of my time reading further.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:28:55 -0600, Herb Schaltegger wrote:

Henry - ... I'm interested in what you know/have read about this kind
of theory before.

www.stanford.ed/-afmayer

Ha! Your deception is laughably transparent,
vile Terry!

Even a young grub fresh out of the spawning
pens would know that the real address is:

http://www.stanford.edu/~afmayer

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just warming up their Mk.
17 chartreuse and mauve demi-formal battle cloaks?"