Aether or whatever

"GSS" wrote in message
ups.com...

reply contd.

In this regard let me express my viewpoint concerning the subject issue
" Aether or whatever" and the associated absolute reference frame.

Empty Space, Aether or Vacuum
-----------------------------
There are two notions of space in vogue. The first notion is of a
coordinate space and the second is that of physical space. Whereas the
metric scaling property is only associated with coordinate space, the
physical properties of permittivity, permeability and intrinsic
impedance are only associated with physical space.

Gravitational radiation can convey energy in the form of
'ripples' in the metric. In that sense it is physical.
Hulse & Taylor showed that the energy being lost from the
binary pulsar system matched the rate predicted by GR so
there seems to be observational evidence for this view.

....

Notion of Universal Reference Frame
-----------------------------------
The Universal or an Absolute reference frame may be defined as a
non-rotating inertial reference frame with its origin fixed with
respect to the 'Center of Mass' of the Universe. We know that the
origin of International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF or BCRF) is
fixed at the barycenter or the center of mass of the solar system. If
we could locate a point O in ICRF such that O is fixed with respect to
the center of mass of our Universe, then a celestial reference frame
with its origin at O could be referred as the Universal Reference
Frame. For this we need to determine the velocity of O in ICRF which
will lead us to determine the velocity of ICRF in the Universal
Reference Frame. For establishing the Universal Reference Frame with
reference to ICRF, we don't need to establish the location of the
center of mass of the Universe. *The speed of light is an isotropic
constant c and the measures of distance and time are absolute in this
frame.*

This Universal or Absolute reference frame can be experimentally
established with the use of available technology. For details kindly
refer to,
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sa...rsal_frame.pdf

Let me give you a brief description of the basic idea behind the
article "Experimental detection of Universal Reference Frame" referred
above.

Just for illustration, consider a ground station (A) in signal
communication with a Pioneer type spacecraft (B) at an approximate
distance D of 40 AU (40 * 1.5 * 10^11 m) from the station. Assume that
identical precision atomic clocks (synchronized in advance) along with
data processors are used at both ends (A and B) for signal
communication. Further assume that at an instant of time Ta_t a coded
signal pulse is transmitted from station A towards B (uplink signal)
containing the coded data of time Ta_t. Let this signal pulse reach
the spacecraft B at an instant of time Tb_r (as measured by the atomic
clock of B). Assume that at a subsequent instant of time Tb_t another
coded signal pulse is transmitted from spacecraft B towards station A
(downlink signal) containing the coded data of time Ta_t, Tb_r and
Tb_t. Let this downlink signal pulse reach ground station A at an
instant of time Ta_r. From this data, the data processor at A will
compute two intervals of time, first the uplink signal propagation time
Tu = Tb_r - Ta_t and second the downlink signal propagation time Td =
Ta_r - Tb_t.

Let us further assume that all measurements of distances and velocities
are done in the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF).
CASE I (ICRF)
In ICRF, speed of light (or signal propagation) is constant c and both
A and B are moving at uniform speed V1 (known) along the direction AB
as shown.

D
A.........................B
-----V1 -----V1

Therefore, c*Tu = D + V1*Tu ...(1)
and c*Td = D - V1*Td ...(2)
That is, Tu = D/(c-V1) ...(3)
and Td = D/(c+V1) ...(4)
Hence, V1 = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) ...(5)

OK.

CASE II (GCRF)
Assume that our solar system and hence ICRF is in motion in the
Galactic Celestial Reference Frame (GCRF) at a speed of U1 (~ 220 km/s)
along the direction AB. Assuming the speed of light c to be constant in
the GCRF and both A and B moving at uniform speed V1 (known) in ICRF
along the direction AB. Therefore, in GCRF both A and B will be seen to
be moving at uniform speed of U1+V1 along the direction AB as shown.

D
A.........................B
--------U1+V1 --------U1+V1

Therefore, c*Tu = D + (U1+V1)*Tu ...(6)
and c*Td = D - (U1+V1)*Td ...(7)
That is, Tu = D/(c-(U1+V1)) ...(8)
and Td = D/(c+(U1+V1)) ...(9)
Hence, (U1+V1) = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) ...(10)

snip duplicate

Or U1 = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) - V1 ...(16)

That would be the result for a Galilean universe.
A variant of this is to use a lateral beam of
fixed length as a reference rather than a clock.
If you think about that, you should see it produces
the Michelson-Morley setup.

That is the speed of the solar system (or ICRF) through the Universal
Reference Frame can thus be determined. This leads to the detection of
the Universal Reference Frame of absolute motion in which the speed of
light is a universal constant.

The measured value for U1 is zero. In practice
the MMX was done on Earth and a value of zero
for U1 can be obtained in two separate runs
six months apart. Between those, the Earth
changes its motion in the ICRF by 60km/s yet
the result for U1 remains zero in both cases.

George

harry wrote:
"GSS" wrote in message
ups.com...
......
If we specify a "frame of reference" in which the *medium* is at rest
then this frame of reference could "mean" an absolute reference frame
with respect to that medium.
In this regard let me express my viewpoint concerning the subject issue
" Aether or whatever" and the associated absolute reference frame.

Empty Space, Aether or Vacuum
-----------------------------
There are two notions of space in vogue. The first notion is of a
coordinate space and the second is that of physical space. Whereas the
metric scaling property is only associated with coordinate space, the
physical properties of permittivity, permeability and intrinsic
impedance are only associated with physical space. The notions of
physical space, empty space, vacuum, aether and their modern
reincarnation the quantum vacuum, all mean the same entity - call it
by any name. It is said that a rose by any other name will smell as
sweet. For detailed discussion of this issue kindly refer to,
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sa...her_vacuum.pdf

Notion of Universal Reference Frame
-----------------------------------
The Universal or an Absolute reference frame may be defined as a
non-rotating inertial reference frame with its origin fixed with
respect to the 'Center of Mass' of the Universe. We know that the
origin of International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF or BCRF) is
fixed at the barycenter or the center of mass of the solar system. If
we could locate a point O in ICRF such that O is fixed with respect to
the center of mass of our Universe, then a celestial reference frame
with its origin at O could be referred as the Universal Reference
Frame. For this we need to determine the velocity of O in ICRF which
will lead us to determine the velocity of ICRF in the Universal
Reference Frame. For establishing the Universal Reference Frame with
reference to ICRF, we don't need to establish the location of the
center of mass of the Universe. *The speed of light is an isotropic
constant c and the measures of distance and time are absolute in this
frame.*

This Universal or Absolute reference frame can be experimentally
established with the use of available technology. For details kindly
refer to,
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sa...rsal_frame.pdf

Let me give you a brief description of the basic idea behind the
article "Experimental detection of Universal Reference Frame" referred
above.

Just for illustration, consider a ground station (A) in signal
communication with a Pioneer type spacecraft (B) at an approximate
distance D of 40 AU (40 * 1.5 * 10^11 m) from the station. Assume that
identical precision atomic clocks (synchronized in advance) along with
data processors are used at both ends (A and B) for signal
communication. Further assume that at an instant of time Ta_t a coded
signal pulse is transmitted from station A towards B (uplink signal)
containing the coded data of time Ta_t. Let this signal pulse reach
the spacecraft B at an instant of time Tb_r (as measured by the atomic
clock of B). Assume that at a subsequent instant of time Tb_t another
coded signal pulse is transmitted from spacecraft B towards station A
(downlink signal) containing the coded data of time Ta_t, Tb_r and
Tb_t. Let this downlink signal pulse reach ground station A at an
instant of time Ta_r. From this data, the data processor at A will
compute two intervals of time, first the uplink signal propagation time
Tu = Tb_r - Ta_t and second the downlink signal propagation time Td =
Ta_r - Tb_t.

Let us further assume that all measurements of distances and velocities
are done in the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF).
CASE I (ICRF)
In ICRF, speed of light (or signal propagation) is constant c and both
A and B are moving at uniform speed V1 (known) along the direction AB
as shown.

D
A.........................B
-----V1 -----V1

Therefore, c*Tu = D + V1*Tu ...(1)
and c*Td = D - V1*Td ...(2)
That is, Tu = D/(c-V1) ...(3)
and Td = D/(c+V1) ...(4)
Hence, V1 = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) ...(5)

CASE II (GCRF)
Assume that our solar system and hence ICRF is in motion in the
Galactic Celestial Reference Frame (GCRF) at a speed of U1 (~ 220 km/s)
along the direction AB. Assuming the speed of light c to be constant in
the GCRF and both A and B moving at uniform speed V1 (known) in ICRF
along the direction AB. Therefore, in GCRF both A and B will be seen to
be moving at uniform speed of U1+V1 along the direction AB as shown.

D
A.........................B
--------U1+V1 --------U1+V1

Therefore, c*Tu = D + (U1+V1)*Tu ...(6)
and c*Td = D - (U1+V1)*Td ...(7)
That is, Tu = D/(c-(U1+V1)) ...(8)
and Td = D/(c+(U1+V1)) ...(9)
Hence, (U1+V1) = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) ...(10)

CASE III (UCRF)
Assume that our solar system and hence ICRF is in motion in the
Universal Celestial Reference Frame (UCRF) at a speed of U1 (~ 500
km/s) along the direction AB. Assuming the speed of light c to be
constant in the UCRF and both A and B moving at uniform speed V1
(known) in ICRF along the direction AB as shown. Therefore, in UCRF
both A and B will be seen to be moving at uniform speed of U1+V1 along
the direction AB.

D
A.........................B
------------U1+V1 ------------U1+V1

Therefore, c*Tu = D + (U1+V1)*Tu ...(11)
and c*Td = D - (U1+V1)*Td ...(12)
That is, Tu = D/(c-(U1+V1)) ...(13)
and Td = D/(c+(U1+V1)) ...(14)
Hence, (U1+V1) = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) ...(15)

Or U1 = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) - V1 ...(16)

That is the speed of the solar system (or ICRF) through the Universal
Reference Frame can thus be determined. This leads to the detection of
the Universal Reference Frame of absolute motion in which the speed of
light is a universal constant.

For illustration, if U1+V1= 300 km/s and D= 6*10^12 m then,
Tu = 6e+12/(3e+8-3e+5)= 20020.02 sec
= 5 hr, 33 mts, 40.02 sec
Td = 6e+12/(3e+8+3e+5)= 19980.02 sec
= 5 hr, 33 mts, 0.02 sec
Therefore, Tu-Td = 40 seconds.
and Tu+Td = 11 hr, 6 mts, 40.04 sec
But if we calculate the Tu+Td by the usual relation,
Tu+Td = 2D/c = 1.2e+13/3e+8
= 40000 sec = 11 hr, 6 mts, 40.00 sec
Thus at a spacecraft distance of 40 AU, the anomaly in total up and
down signal propagation time could be as large as 40 milli seconds.

[It appears that in actual Pioneer 10 and 11 space missions the ranging
data could not be used possibly due to such abnormal differences
between uplink and downlink signal propagation times]

Quoting from arXiv:qc/0104064 v5
Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11

"A range measurement is made by phase modulating a signal onto the
up-link carrier and having it echoed by the transponder. The
transponder demodulates this ranging signal, filters it, and then
re-modulates it back onto the down-link carrier. At the ground station,
this returned ranging signal is demodulated and filtered."

Again quoting from arXiv:gr-qc/0208046 v1
Independent Confirmation of the Pioneer 10 Anomalous Acceleration

"For spacecraft ranging, a unique repeating ranging code is modulated
onto the 2 GHz carrier wave. Upon return from the spacecraft, the
received ranging code is correlated with the transmitted one, and a
range time delay can be computed, modulo the period of the ranging code
pattern. No **reliable** range data were available for Pioneer 10, and
so I analyzed only the Doppler tracking data."

However if U1+V1= 300 km/s and D= 6*10^6 m then,
Tu-Td = 40 micro seconds
The accuracy of modern atomic clocks is of the order of a few nano
seconds and the synchronization accuracy between two atomic clocks can
be expected to be well within a microsecond range.

Therefore, to experimentally establish an Absolute or Universal
reference frame all that is required is to measure the uplink (Tu) and
downlink (Td) signal propagation times separately to compute the
velocity (U1) of the ICRF in the Absolute reference frame (equation
(16)).

I lost track of what you were doing but here it's clear: from signal
propagation times it's *impossible* - at least in theory - to determine an
Absolute Reference frame.

If we properly establish the Earth Centered Earth Fixed (ECEF)
reference frame and then accurately determine the detailed motion of
ECEF in the 'Solar Reference Frame' it will imply that we have properly
established the 'Solar Reference Frame'. If we properly establish the
International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF) and then accurately
determine the detailed motion of ICRF in the 'Galactic Reference Frame'
it will imply that we have properly established the 'Galactic Reference
Frame'. Finally if we properly establish the International Celestial
Reference Frame (ICRF) and then accurately determine the detailed
motion of ICRF in the 'Absolute Reference Frame' it will imply that we
have properly established the 'Absolute Reference Frame'. This is
precisely what I had attempted to explain above. Kindly study it once
again.

That's the ABC (in fact the first postulate) of SRT.

That is exactly why the SRT is fundamentally wrong!!!

Thus, without having had a close look at it, I can safely assume that
you didn't correctly apply the Lorentz transformations or its alternative of
{relativity of simultaneity + time dilation + length contraction}. The
locally determined speed of light in vacuum is always isotropically c.

Harald

In the above illustrations, all measurements of time, distance and
velocities are referred to one common inertial reference frame and
hence the Lorentz transformations are just not applicable.

Let me once again illustrate the main principle by which the common
velocity V of two objects A and B separated by distance D=AB in ICRF
(where c is assumed to be an isotropic constant) can be determined just
by measuring the up and down signal propagation times. [We may consider
A to be an Earth Station, B a spacecraft, D= 40 AU and V=30 km/s]

~ D
A1.........................B1 ~
A2.........................B2
~
A3.........................B3

At some instant of time t1 let the position of objects A and B in the
ICRF be A1 and B1 (as shown) such that D=A1B1. At another instant of
time t2 let the position of objects A and B in the ICRF be A2 and B2
(as shown) such that D=A2B2. At still another instant of time t3 let
the position of objects A and B in the ICRF be A3 and B3 (as shown)
such that D=A3B3.

Let us assume that at t1 a signal pulse is transmitted from A1 towards
B1. By the time this signal pulse reaches the location B1, B is no
longer there and has moved forward. Let us assume that the signal pulse
reaches B2 at time t2. Then,

B1B2 = V*(t2-t1) = V*Tu
and D + B1B2 = D + V*Tu = c*Tu ...(1)
Or Tu = D/(c-V) ...(2)

Let us now assume that at t2 a signal pulse is transmitted back from
the spacecraft transponder at B2 towards A2. At time t3 this signal
pulse reaches the location A3, where A has also just reached. Then,

A2A3 = V*(t3-t2) = V*Td
and D - A2A3 = D - V*Td = c*Td ...(3)
Or Td = D/(c+V) ...(4)

Therefore from (1) and (3) we get,

V = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu + Td) ... (5)

That shows how we can determine the common velocity V of two objects A
and B in ICRF when they are relatively at rest (relative velocity
between A and B is zero). By the same principle we can determine the
common velocity U of two objects A and B in Absolute Reference Frame to
detect or establish the Absolute Reference Frame (provided we know the
velocities of these objects in ICRF) as explained in the previous post.

GSS

"GSS" wrote in message
ups.com...
....
"GSS" wrote in message
ups.com...

[It appears that in actual Pioneer 10 and 11 space missions the ranging
data could not be used possibly due to such abnormal differences
between uplink and downlink signal propagation times]

Quoting from arXiv:qc/0104064 v5
Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11

"A range measurement is made by phase modulating a signal onto the
up-link carrier and having it echoed by the transponder. The
transponder demodulates this ranging signal, filters it, and then
re-modulates it back onto the down-link carrier. At the ground station,
this returned ranging signal is demodulated and filtered."

Again quoting from arXiv:gr-qc/0208046 v1
Independent Confirmation of the Pioneer 10 Anomalous Acceleration

"For spacecraft ranging, a unique repeating ranging code is modulated
onto the 2 GHz carrier wave. Upon return from the spacecraft, the
received ranging code is correlated with the transmitted one, and a
range time delay can be computed, modulo the period of the ranging code
pattern. No **reliable** range data were available for Pioneer 10, and
so I analyzed only the Doppler tracking data."

The problem was that the transponder lost lock with
the uplink whenever they tried to use the technique
so the craft would revert to using the on-board
oscillator instead of returning a frequency based on
that of the uplink. An error in propagation times
would simply have been seen as a slightly different
range but since the range isn't known to that accuracy
by any other means, it would not be detectable.

George

George Dishman wrote:
"GSS" wrote in message
ups.com...

reply contd.

In this regard let me express my viewpoint concerning the subject issue
" Aether or whatever" and the associated absolute reference frame.

Empty Space, Aether or Vacuum
-----------------------------
There are two notions of space in vogue. The first notion is of a
coordinate space and the second is that of physical space. Whereas the
metric scaling property is only associated with coordinate space, the
physical properties of permittivity, permeability and intrinsic
impedance are only associated with physical space.

Gravitational radiation can convey energy in the form of
'ripples' in the metric. In that sense it is physical.
Hulse & Taylor showed that the energy being lost from the
binary pulsar system matched the rate predicted by GR so
there seems to be observational evidence for this view.

What about the LIGOs experiment which was intended to measure such
changes in the 'metric'?

...

Notion of Universal Reference Frame
-----------------------------------
The Universal or an Absolute reference frame may be defined as a
non-rotating inertial reference frame with its origin fixed with
respect to the 'Center of Mass' of the Universe. We know that the
origin of International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF or BCRF) is
fixed at the barycenter or the center of mass of the solar system. If
we could locate a point O in ICRF such that O is fixed with respect to
the center of mass of our Universe, then a celestial reference frame
with its origin at O could be referred as the Universal Reference
Frame. For this we need to determine the velocity of O in ICRF which
will lead us to determine the velocity of ICRF in the Universal
Reference Frame. For establishing the Universal Reference Frame with
reference to ICRF, we don't need to establish the location of the
center of mass of the Universe. *The speed of light is an isotropic
constant c and the measures of distance and time are absolute in this
frame.*

This Universal or Absolute reference frame can be experimentally
established with the use of available technology. For details kindly
refer to,
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sa...rsal_frame.pdf

Let me give you a brief description of the basic idea behind the
article "Experimental detection of Universal Reference Frame" referred
above.

Just for illustration, consider a ground station (A) in signal
communication with a Pioneer type spacecraft (B) at an approximate
distance D of 40 AU (40 * 1.5 * 10^11 m) from the station. Assume that
identical precision atomic clocks (synchronized in advance) along with
data processors are used at both ends (A and B) for signal
communication. Further assume that at an instant of time Ta_t a coded
signal pulse is transmitted from station A towards B (uplink signal)
containing the coded data of time Ta_t. Let this signal pulse reach
the spacecraft B at an instant of time Tb_r (as measured by the atomic
clock of B). Assume that at a subsequent instant of time Tb_t another
coded signal pulse is transmitted from spacecraft B towards station A
(downlink signal) containing the coded data of time Ta_t, Tb_r and
Tb_t. Let this downlink signal pulse reach ground station A at an
instant of time Ta_r. From this data, the data processor at A will
compute two intervals of time, first the uplink signal propagation time
Tu = Tb_r - Ta_t and second the downlink signal propagation time Td =
Ta_r - Tb_t.

Let us further assume that all measurements of distances and velocities
are done in the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF).
CASE I (ICRF)
In ICRF, speed of light (or signal propagation) is constant c and both
A and B are moving at uniform speed V1 (known) along the direction AB
as shown.

D
A.........................B
-----V1 -----V1

Therefore, c*Tu = D + V1*Tu ...(1)
and c*Td = D - V1*Td ...(2)
That is, Tu = D/(c-V1) ...(3)
and Td = D/(c+V1) ...(4)
Hence, V1 = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) ...(5)

OK.

Well, your OK means that you agree with me so far.
That means if A and B are moving at uniform speed V1 along the
direction AB in the ICRF (where the speed of light is assumed to be an
isotropic constant c) then the signal propagation uplink time Tu will
be *different* from the downlink time Td as long as V1 is different
from zero. That is, you agree that V1 can be computed from the relation
(5).

CASE II (GCRF)
Assume that our solar system and hence ICRF is in motion in the
Galactic Celestial Reference Frame (GCRF) at a speed of U1 (~ 220 km/s)
along the direction AB. Assuming the speed of light c to be constant in
the GCRF and both A and B moving at uniform speed V1 (known) in ICRF
along the direction AB. Therefore, in GCRF both A and B will be seen to
be moving at uniform speed of U1+V1 along the direction AB as shown.

D
A.........................B
--------U1+V1 --------U1+V1

Therefore, c*Tu = D + (U1+V1)*Tu ...(6)
and c*Td = D - (U1+V1)*Td ...(7)
That is, Tu = D/(c-(U1+V1)) ...(8)
and Td = D/(c+(U1+V1)) ...(9)
Hence, (U1+V1) = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) ...(10)

It is a well known fact that in the Galactic reference frame, our solar
system is moving with a velocity of about 220 km/s. That is U1 is about
220 km/s. As per 'SR' the speed of light should be an isotropic
constant c in the Galactic reference frame as well. Therefore, from the
uplink and downlink times Tu and Td as measured in GCRF, the velocity
U1+V1 can be easily computed by using relation (10). Do you agree?

Now if you agreed with the use of relation (5) above, how can you
disagree with the use of relation (10). The crucial point here is how
can you assume the speed of light propagation to be an isotropic
constant in ICRF and not in GCRF?

snip duplicate

Or U1 = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) - V1 ...(16)

That would be the result for a Galilean universe.
A variant of this is to use a lateral beam of
fixed length as a reference rather than a clock.
If you think about that, you should see it produces
the Michelson-Morley setup.

No, that is wrong.
The MM experiment was based on light interference fringes and no time
measurements were involved. The proposed experiment is based on time
measurements only and no interference fringes are involved.

GSS

"GSS" wrote in message
oups.com...
George Dishman wrote:
"GSS" wrote in message
ups.com...

reply contd.

In this regard let me express my viewpoint concerning the subject issue
" Aether or whatever" and the associated absolute reference frame.

Empty Space, Aether or Vacuum
-----------------------------
There are two notions of space in vogue. The first notion is of a
coordinate space and the second is that of physical space. Whereas the
metric scaling property is only associated with coordinate space, the
physical properties of permittivity, permeability and intrinsic
impedance are only associated with physical space.

Gravitational radiation can convey energy in the form of
'ripples' in the metric. In that sense it is physical.
Hulse & Taylor showed that the energy being lost from the
binary pulsar system matched the rate predicted by GR so
there seems to be observational evidence for this view.

What about the LIGOs experiment which was intended to measure such
changes in the 'metric'?

LIGO was built to make a measurement at a certain
sensitivity and also with the knowledge that the
experience gained from the initial design would
allow the desig to be improved. The strength of
ripples being produced isn't known well and LIGO
was expected not to be sensitive enough. The next
generation is probably marginal and we might get
lucky and see something, and the third generation
is where we will probably start wondering if
nothing is seen. All these systems can only detect
thing like mergers of black holes, ordinary events
produce signals that are far too low.

snip
In ICRF, speed of light (or signal propagation) is constant c and both
A and B are moving at uniform speed V1 (known) along the direction AB
as shown.

D
A.........................B
-----V1 -----V1

Therefore, c*Tu = D + V1*Tu ...(1)
and c*Td = D - V1*Td ...(2)
That is, Tu = D/(c-V1) ...(3)
and Td = D/(c+V1) ...(4)
Hence, V1 = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) ...(5)

OK.

Well, your OK means that you agree with me so far.
That means if A and B are moving at uniform speed V1 along the
direction AB in the ICRF (where the speed of light is assumed to be an
isotropic constant c) then the signal propagation uplink time Tu will
be *different* from the downlink time Td as long as V1 is different
from zero.

Yes, provided the measuring apparatus is at rest
in the frame in which A and B are moving.

That is, you agree that V1 can be computed from the relation
(5).

Yes.

CASE II (GCRF)
Assume that our solar system and hence ICRF is in motion in the
Galactic Celestial Reference Frame (GCRF) at a speed of U1 (~ 220 km/s)
along the direction AB. Assuming the speed of light c to be constant in
the GCRF and both A and B moving at uniform speed V1 (known) in ICRF
along the direction AB. Therefore, in GCRF both A and B will be seen to
be moving at uniform speed of U1+V1 along the direction AB as shown.

D
A.........................B
--------U1+V1 --------U1+V1

Therefore, c*Tu = D + (U1+V1)*Tu ...(6)
and c*Td = D - (U1+V1)*Td ...(7)
That is, Tu = D/(c-(U1+V1)) ...(8)
and Td = D/(c+(U1+V1)) ...(9)
Hence, (U1+V1) = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) ...(10)

It is a well known fact that in the Galactic reference frame, our solar
system is moving with a velocity of about 220 km/s. That is U1 is about
220 km/s. As per 'SR' the speed of light should be an isotropic
constant c in the Galactic reference frame as well. Therefore, from the
uplink and downlink times Tu and Td as measured in GCRF, the velocity
U1+V1 can be easily computed by using relation (10). Do you agree?

If the measuring apparatus is at rest relative
to the centre of the galaxy, yes.

Now if you agreed with the use of relation (5) above, how can you
disagree with the use of relation (10).

I don't disagre, and I also agree (16). The point
is that when the measurement is made and the value
of U1 is calculated, the answer is always zero.
that is what so surprised Michelson and Morley.

The crucial point here is how
can you assume the speed of light propagation to be an isotropic
constant in ICRF and not in GCRF?

Experiments tell us it is isotropic in both.

snip duplicate

Or U1 = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) - V1 ...(16)

That would be the result for a Galilean universe.
A variant of this is to use a lateral beam of
fixed length as a reference rather than a clock.
If you think about that, you should see it produces
the Michelson-Morley setup.

No, that is wrong.
The MM experiment was based on light interference fringes and no time
measurements were involved.

The light sent down one leg of known distance
produces a time reference for the measurement of
the speed of the other leg. It is perhaps easier
to see if you think of an MMX oriented first with
one leg north-south and the other east-west. Then
rotate the apparatus such that the north-south
leg is not moved (it is the axis of rotation) but
the other leg is now vertical. The time the light
takes along the north-south leg is a fixed reference
against which the time for the other beam can be
measured in units of fractions of a cycle of the
light. Of course that isn't possible in practice
because of gravity but it should help you grasp the
equivalence.

The proposed experiment is based on time
measurements only and no interference fringes are involved.

Using an interference technique allows time
measurements with much higher resolution than any
simple clock. Bottom line is that your proposal
is just a repeat of the MMX and we already know
the answer, U1 as measured above will be zero for
_all_ inertial frames.

George

George Dishman wrote:
"GSS" wrote in message
oups.com...
George Dishman wrote:
"GSS" wrote in message
ups.com...

In this regard let me express my viewpoint concerning the subject issue
" Aether or whatever" and the associated absolute reference frame.

Empty Space, Aether or Vacuum
-----------------------------
There are two notions of space in vogue. The first notion is of a
coordinate space and the second is that of physical space. Whereas the
metric scaling property is only associated with coordinate space, the
physical properties of permittivity, permeability and intrinsic
impedance are only associated with physical space.

Gravitational radiation can convey energy in the form of
'ripples' in the metric. In that sense it is physical.
Hulse & Taylor showed that the energy being lost from the
binary pulsar system matched the rate predicted by GR so
there seems to be observational evidence for this view.

What about the LIGOs experiment which was intended to measure such
changes in the 'metric'?

LIGO was built to make a measurement at a certain
sensitivity and also with the knowledge that the
experience gained from the initial design would
allow the design to be improved. The strength of
ripples being produced isn't known well and LIGO
was expected not to be sensitive enough.

Are the Riemannian metric components dimensional quantities or
dimensionless quantities? In what dimensions and to what level of
accuracy is the *strength of ripples* intended to be measured in LIGO?

If g_ij is the space component of a 'flat' metric and h_ij is the space
component of Riemannian metric induced by a gravitational field, then
it can be shown that this change in space components of the metric is
associated with the 'deformation' of space and the corresponding strain
tensor components e_ij are given by,
2 e_ij = h_ij - g_ij
Could it be that in the LIGO project, intensity of such spatial strain
components associated with the 'gravity wave ripples' is intended to be
measured with high accuracy?

The next
generation is probably marginal and we might get
lucky and see something, and the third generation
is where we will probably start wondering if
nothing is seen.

What do you think of people who are already wondering whether all such
projects aimed at testing GR involve 'criminal' waste of Human
resources when GR could be falsified on fundamental theoretical and
conceptual grounds?

All these systems can only detect
thing like mergers of black holes, ordinary events
produce signals that are far too low.

How do you mentally visualize a 'black hole'? Isn't it a mathematical
singularity in the 'spacetime' continuum. Isn't the 'spacetime' itself
an abstract entity of a mathematical model and not a physical entity
which could be visualized?

snip
In ICRF, speed of light (or signal propagation) is constant c and both
A and B are moving at uniform speed V1 (known) along the direction AB
as shown.

D
A.........................B
-----V1 -----V1

Therefore, c*Tu = D + V1*Tu ...(1)
and c*Td = D - V1*Td ...(2)
That is, Tu = D/(c-V1) ...(3)
and Td = D/(c+V1) ...(4)
Hence, V1 = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) ...(5)

OK.

Well, your OK means that you agree with me so far.
That means if A and B are moving at uniform speed V1 along the
direction AB in the ICRF (where the speed of light is assumed to be an
isotropic constant c) then the signal propagation uplink time Tu will
be *different* from the downlink time Td as long as V1 is different
from zero.

Yes,

This simple 'yes' was good enough for the present argument. Your making
it conditional appears to be an after thought intended to protect your
future arguments!!

provided the measuring apparatus is at rest
in the frame in which A and B are moving.

In the portion snipped by you, relevant introduction has been missed
out. Let me re-insert that portion.
--------------------------------
[Let me give you a brief description of the basic idea behind the
article "Experimental detection of Universal Reference Frame" referred
above.

Just for illustration, consider a ground station (A) in signal
communication with a Pioneer type spacecraft (B) at an approximate
distance D of 40 AU (40 * 1.5 * 10^11 m) from the station. Assume that
identical precision atomic clocks (synchronized in advance) along with
data processors are used at both ends (A and B) for signal
communication. Further assume that at an instant of time Ta_t a coded
signal pulse is transmitted from station A towards B (uplink signal)
containing the coded data of time Ta_t. Let this signal pulse reach
the spacecraft B at an instant of time Tb_r (as measured by the atomic
clock of B). Assume that at a subsequent instant of time Tb_t another
coded signal pulse is transmitted from spacecraft B towards station A
(downlink signal) containing the coded data of time Ta_t, Tb_r and
Tb_t. Let this downlink signal pulse reach ground station A at an
instant of time Ta_r. From this data, the data processor at A will
compute two intervals of time, first the uplink signal propagation time
Tu = Tb_r - Ta_t and second the downlink signal propagation time Td =
Ta_r - Tb_t.

Let us further assume that all measurements of distances and velocities
are done in the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF).]
-----------------------------------

In the Pioneer 10 and 11 space probes, the measuring apparatus is
located in the DSN ground station (A) and the spacecraft (B) both of
which are in *motion* in the ICRF. As per your above mentioned
condition if the measuring apparatus were to be *at rest* in ICRF,
gravity will immediately pull it towards the center of the Sun!!! You
may be surprised to know that neither there is any physical object
which is *at rest* in the ICRF nor it is physically possible for any
physical object to remain *at rest* in the ICRF. Hence your 'after
thought' condition "provided the measuring apparatus is at rest in the
frame in which A and B are moving" is invalid, redundant and uncalled
for.

Instead what you could have asked for is that all distance and time
measurements must be valid in the reference frame used and I agree to
that.

That is, you agree that V1 can be computed from the relation
(5).

Yes.

CASE II (GCRF)
Assume that our solar system and hence ICRF is in motion in the
Galactic Celestial Reference Frame (GCRF) at a speed of U1 (~ 220 km/s)
along the direction AB. Assuming the speed of light c to be constant in
the GCRF and both A and B moving at uniform speed V1 (known) in ICRF
along the direction AB. Therefore, in GCRF both A and B will be seen to
be moving at uniform speed of U1+V1 along the direction AB as shown.

D
A.........................B
--------U1+V1 --------U1+V1

Therefore, c*Tu = D + (U1+V1)*Tu ...(6)
and c*Td = D - (U1+V1)*Td ...(7)
That is, Tu = D/(c-(U1+V1)) ...(8)
and Td = D/(c+(U1+V1)) ...(9)
Hence, (U1+V1) = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) ...(10)

It is a well known fact that in the Galactic reference frame, our solar
system is moving with a velocity of about 220 km/s. That is U1 is about
220 km/s. As per 'SR' the speed of light should be an isotropic
constant c in the Galactic reference frame as well. Therefore, from the
uplink and downlink times Tu and Td as measured in GCRF, the velocity
U1+V1 can be easily computed by using relation (10). Do you agree?

If the measuring apparatus is at rest relative
to the centre of the galaxy, yes.

This condition is invalid, redundant and uncalled for as shown above.

Now if you agreed with the use of relation (5) above, how can you
disagree with the use of relation (10).

I don't disagree, and I also agree (16). The point
is that when the measurement is made and the value
of U1 is calculated, the answer is always zero.

Wrong.
As per arXiv:qc/0104064 v5, (Fig.3), Pioneer 11 is traveling
approximately in the direction of Sun's orbital motion about the
galactic center and Pioneer 10 is traveling in opposite direction.
Therefore along the direction AB, the magnitude of U1 is *known* to be
about 220 km/s. Once you agree to the "fact" that the speed of light
propagation is an isotropic constant in GCRF and you agree to the
validity of relation (10), there is absolutely no reason why we should
not get U1 to be of the order of 220 km/s.

GSS

"GSS" wrote in message
oups.com...
George Dishman wrote:
"GSS" wrote in message
oups.com...
George Dishman wrote:
"GSS" wrote in message
ups.com...

In this regard let me express my viewpoint concerning the subject
issue
" Aether or whatever" and the associated absolute reference frame.

Empty Space, Aether or Vacuum
-----------------------------
There are two notions of space in vogue. The first notion is of a
coordinate space and the second is that of physical space. Whereas the
metric scaling property is only associated with coordinate space, the
physical properties of permittivity, permeability and intrinsic
impedance are only associated with physical space.

Gravitational radiation can convey energy in the form of
'ripples' in the metric. In that sense it is physical.
Hulse & Taylor showed that the energy being lost from the
binary pulsar system matched the rate predicted by GR so
there seems to be observational evidence for this view.

What about the LIGOs experiment which was intended to measure such
changes in the 'metric'?

LIGO was built to make a measurement at a certain
sensitivity and also with the knowledge that the
experience gained from the initial design would
allow the design to be improved. The strength of
ripples being produced isn't known well and LIGO
was expected not to be sensitive enough.

Are the Riemannian metric components dimensional quantities or
dimensionless quantities? In what dimensions and to what level of
accuracy is the *strength of ripples* intended to be measured in LIGO?

I suggest you look at this. There are other on-line
sources of information so dig around abit.

http://www.srl.caltech.edu/~shane/sensitivity/

If g_ij is the space component of a 'flat' metric and h_ij is the space
component of Riemannian metric induced by a gravitational field, then
it can be shown that this change in space components of the metric is
associated with the 'deformation' of space and the corresponding strain
tensor components e_ij are given by,
2 e_ij = h_ij - g_ij
Could it be that in the LIGO project, intensity of such spatial strain
components associated with the 'gravity wave ripples' is intended to be
measured with high accuracy?

At first it will be low accuracy, as the technology
develops, it will improve.

http://lisa.nasa.gov/

The next
generation is probably marginal and we might get
lucky and see something, and the third generation
is where we will probably start wondering if
nothing is seen.

What do you think of people who are already wondering whether all such
projects aimed at testing GR involve 'criminal' waste of Human
resources when GR could be falsified on fundamental theoretical and
conceptual grounds?

All these systems can only detect
thing like mergers of black holes, ordinary events
produce signals that are far too low.

How do you mentally visualize a 'black hole'?

At two levels, observationally as the event horizon
and theoretically like the diagrams he

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html

Isn't it a mathematical
singularity in the 'spacetime' continuum.

That is what happens if you extrapolate GR to
the centre without taking account of QM.

Isn't the 'spacetime' itself
an abstract entity of a mathematical model and not a physical entity
which could be visualized?

No, the metric must be physical in some sense
since it can transport energy away from a binary
system (Hulse and Taylor).

snip
In ICRF, speed of light (or signal propagation) is constant c and both
A and B are moving at uniform speed V1 (known) along the direction AB
as shown.

D
A.........................B
-----V1 -----V1

Therefore, c*Tu = D + V1*Tu ...(1)
and c*Td = D - V1*Td ...(2)
That is, Tu = D/(c-V1) ...(3)
and Td = D/(c+V1) ...(4)
Hence, V1 = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) ...(5)

OK.

Well, your OK means that you agree with me so far.
That means if A and B are moving at uniform speed V1 along the
direction AB in the ICRF (where the speed of light is assumed to be an
isotropic constant c) then the signal propagation uplink time Tu will
be *different* from the downlink time Td as long as V1 is different
from zero.

Yes,

This simple 'yes' was good enough for the present argument. Your making
it conditional appears to be an after thought intended to protect your
future arguments!!

Actually I made an assumption. The ICRF is a
reference system which uses very distant sources
to produce a definition which has very low
rotation. I further assumed you would be using
the barycentre of the solar system as the origin
of your measurements. A comment you make below
suggests that was not wrong.

provided the measuring apparatus is at rest
in the frame in which A and B are moving.

In the portion snipped by you, relevant introduction has been missed
out. Let me re-insert that portion.

Let me pick out the important part:

--------------------------------
[Let me give you a brief description of the basic idea behind the
article "Experimental detection of Universal Reference Frame" referred
above.

Just for illustration, consider a ground station (A) in signal
communication with a Pioneer type spacecraft (B) at an approximate
distance D of 40 AU (40 * 1.5 * 10^11 m) from the station. Assume that
identical precision atomic clocks (synchronized in advance) along with
data processors are used at both ends (A and B) for signal
communication. Further assume that at an instant of time Ta_t a coded
signal pulse is transmitted from station A towards B (uplink signal)
containing the coded data of time Ta_t. Let this signal pulse reach
the spacecraft B at an instant of time Tb_r (as measured by the atomic
clock of B). Assume that at a subsequent instant of time Tb_t another
coded signal pulse is transmitted from spacecraft B towards station A
(downlink signal) containing the coded data of time Ta_t, Tb_r and
Tb_t. Let this downlink signal pulse reach ground station A at an
instant of time Ta_r. From this data, the data processor at A will
compute two intervals of time, first the uplink signal propagation time
Tu = Tb_r - Ta_t and second the downlink signal propagation time Td =
Ta_r - Tb_t.

Here it is:

Let us further assume that all measurements of distances and velocities
are done in the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF).]

You see, that is what I was repeating above, "all
measurements of distances and velocities are done
in the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF)".

In the Pioneer 10 and 11 space probes, the measuring apparatus is
located in the DSN ground station (A) and the spacecraft (B) both of
which are in *motion* in the ICRF.

Exactly.

As per your above mentioned
condition if the measuring apparatus were to be *at rest* in ICRF,
gravity will immediately pull it towards the center of the Sun!!!

OK, that is what tells me you are using a solar system
barycentre origin.

You
may be surprised to know that neither there is any physical object
which is *at rest* in the ICRF nor it is physically possible for any
physical object to remain *at rest* in the ICRF.

By that argument, you requirement "Let us further
assume that all measurements of distances and
velocities are done in the International Celestial
Reference Frame (ICRF)." is not achievable.

Hence your 'after
thought' condition "provided the measuring apparatus is at rest in the
frame in which A and B are moving" is invalid, redundant and uncalled
for.

On the contrary, you have now admitted that the Pioneer
setup does not meet your own criterion that "all
measurements of distances and velocities are done in
the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF)".
Do you now see why it was important.

Instead what you could have asked for is that all distance and time
measurements must be valid in the reference frame used and I agree to
that.

I am not asking for anything, I was repeating back
your own requirement. In reality the measurements
are made in the frame of the DSN site antenna. What
you would need to do is transform the measurements
from that frame to the ICRF (or whatever) and to do
that you need transform equeations. That is where
the problem lies - which do you use, Galilean or
Lorentzian? Either way you are assuming your result
and you produce a circular argument.

If you look through the Pioneer paper, you will find
most of the physical equations are stated in the solar
system barycentric frame and much of the work is
invloved in translating actual measurements between
frames.

That is, you agree that V1 can be computed from the relation
(5).

Yes.

CASE II (GCRF)
Assume that our solar system and hence ICRF is in motion in the
Galactic Celestial Reference Frame (GCRF) at a speed of U1 (~ 220
km/s)
along the direction AB. Assuming the speed of light c to be constant
in
the GCRF and both A and B moving at uniform speed V1 (known) in ICRF
along the direction AB. Therefore, in GCRF both A and B will be seen
to
be moving at uniform speed of U1+V1 along the direction AB as shown.

D
A.........................B
--------U1+V1 --------U1+V1

Therefore, c*Tu = D + (U1+V1)*Tu ...(6)
and c*Td = D - (U1+V1)*Td ...(7)
That is, Tu = D/(c-(U1+V1)) ...(8)
and Td = D/(c+(U1+V1)) ...(9)
Hence, (U1+V1) = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) ...(10)

It is a well known fact that in the Galactic reference frame, our solar
system is moving with a velocity of about 220 km/s. That is U1 is about
220 km/s. As per 'SR' the speed of light should be an isotropic
constant c in the Galactic reference frame as well. Therefore, from the
uplink and downlink times Tu and Td as measured in GCRF, the velocity
U1+V1 can be easily computed by using relation (10). Do you agree?

If the measuring apparatus is at rest relative
to the centre of the galaxy, yes.

This condition is invalid, redundant and uncalled for as shown above.

Nope, it is essential if you are to avoid assuming
your result in the form of the transforms and
producing a circular argument.

Now if you agreed with the use of relation (5) above, how can you
disagree with the use of relation (10).

I don't disagree, and I also agree (16). The point
is that when the measurement is made and the value
of U1 is calculated, the answer is always zero.

Wrong.

Not wrong at all - you snipped the proof:

The MM experiment was based on light interference fringes and no time
measurements were involved.

The light sent down one leg of known distance
produces a time reference for the measurement of
the speed of the other leg. It is perhaps easier
to see if you think of an MMX oriented first with
one leg north-south and the other east-west. Then
rotate the apparatus such that the north-south
leg is not moved (it is the axis of rotation) but
the other leg is now vertical. The time the light
takes along the north-south leg is a fixed reference
against which the time for the other beam can be
measured in units of fractions of a cycle of the
light. Of course that isn't possible in practice
because of gravity but it should help you grasp the
equivalence.

The proposed experiment is based on time
measurements only and no interference fringes are involved.

Using an interference technique allows time
measurements with much higher resolution than any
simple clock. Bottom line is that your proposal
is just a repeat of the MMX and we already know
the answer, U1 as measured above will be zero for
_all_ inertial frames.

The fact is that existing experiments have tried
to measure the anisotropy in the speed of light
that your experiment is addressing and they always
give a null result.

As per arXiv:qc/0104064 v5, (Fig.3), Pioneer 11 is traveling
approximately in the direction of Sun's orbital motion about the
galactic center and Pioneer 10 is traveling in opposite direction.
Therefore along the direction AB, the magnitude of U1 is *known* to be
about 220 km/s. Once you agree to the "fact" that the speed of light
propagation is an isotropic constant in GCRF and you agree to the
validity of relation (10), there is absolutely no reason why we should
not get U1 to be of the order of 220 km/s.

For a Galilean universe, your analysis is correct,
I am not disputing that. You can also consider the
dipole of the CMBR and get an even higher value.

The _fact_ is that the MMX has been performed with
a resolution better than 1km/s which should show
up the 220km/s or the CMBR value and at least the
60km/s variation over 6 months due to the Earth's
orbital motion round the sun but it always gives
a null result.

George

George Dishman wrote:
"GSS" wrote in message
oups.com...
..........
Isn't the 'spacetime' itself
an abstract entity of a mathematical model and not a physical entity
which could be visualized?

No, the metric must be physical in some sense
since it can transport energy away from a binary
system (Hulse and Taylor).

snip
In ICRF, speed of light (or signal propagation) is constant c and both
A and B are moving at uniform speed V1 (known) along the direction AB
as shown.

D
A.........................B
-----V1 -----V1

Therefore, c*Tu = D + V1*Tu ...(1)
and c*Td = D - V1*Td ...(2)
That is, Tu = D/(c-V1) ...(3)
and Td = D/(c+V1) ...(4)
Hence, V1 = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) ...(5)

OK.

Well, your OK means that you agree with me so far.
That means if A and B are moving at uniform speed V1 along the
direction AB in the ICRF (where the speed of light is assumed to be an
isotropic constant c) then the signal propagation uplink time Tu will
be *different* from the downlink time Td as long as V1 is different
from zero.

Yes,

This simple 'yes' was good enough for the present argument. Your making
it conditional appears to be an after thought intended to protect your
future arguments!!

Actually I made an assumption. The ICRF is a
reference system which uses very distant sources
to produce a definition which has very low
rotation. I further assumed you would be using
the barycentre of the solar system as the origin
of your measurements. A comment you make below
suggests that was not wrong.

provided the measuring apparatus is at rest
in the frame in which A and B are moving.
......
Let us further assume that all measurements of distances and velocities
are done in the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF).
...
In the Pioneer 10 and 11 space probes, the measuring apparatus is
located in the DSN ground station (A) and the spacecraft (B) both of
which are in *motion* in the ICRF.

Exactly.

As per your above mentioned
condition if the measuring apparatus were to be *at rest* in ICRF,
gravity will immediately pull it towards the center of the Sun!!!

OK, that is what tells me you are using a solar system
barycentre origin.

You
may be surprised to know that neither there is any physical object
which is *at rest* in the ICRF nor it is physically possible for any
physical object to remain *at rest* in the ICRF.

By that argument, you requirement "Let us further
assume that all measurements of distances and
velocities are done in the International Celestial
Reference Frame (ICRF)." is not achievable.

By what logic do you say "is not achievable"?
ICRF has been well established and extensively used. All ground
stations, spacecrafts and planets are in motion in this reference frame
and their positions and velocities are given or measured in this frame.
No physical object is *at rest* in the ICRF. I have no problem in using
ICRF. The Pioneer set up is essentially based on ICRF. Quoting from
arXiv:gr-qc/0208046 v1,
"The epoch of transmission from the Earth is t1, the epoch of
interaction of the signal with the Pioneer 10 spacecraft is t2, and the
epoch of reception back at the Earth is t3."
And
"The 3-vectors r1, r2, and r3 represent the positions of the
corresponding antenna at the corresponding epoch, and v1, v2, and v3
represent the velocities. The vector difference, r12, is defined as r2
- r1. **These vector quantities are measured in the solar system
barycenter frame**. The original station times in the ATDF records are
referred to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). When computing Earth
rotation and orientation quantities, the Terrestrial Dynamical Time
(TDT) timescale is used. Conversion between the UTC, TDT and TDB
timescales is straightforward using standard practices."

Hence your 'after
thought' condition "provided the measuring apparatus is at rest in the
frame in which A and B are moving" is invalid, redundant and uncalled
for.

On the contrary, you have now admitted that the Pioneer
setup does not meet your own criterion that "all
measurements of distances and velocities are done in
the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF)".

No, I have neither 'admitted' nor implied that Pioneer set up does not
meet my criterion as clarified above.

Do you now see why it was important.

No, I still don't see why you demanded that "provided the measuring
apparatus is at rest in the frame in which A and B are moving"

Instead what you could have asked for is that all distance and time
measurements must be valid in the reference frame used and I agree to
that.

I am not asking for anything, I was repeating back
your own requirement. In reality the measurements
are made in the frame of the DSN site antenna. What
you would need to do is transform the measurements
from that frame to the ICRF (or whatever) and to do
that you need transform equations. That is where
the problem lies - which do you use, Galilean or
Lorentzian?

There is absolutely no problem whatsoever.

Let us focus on our specific illustrative example where precision time
Ta_t is measured with atomic clock at A, Tb_r and Tb_t are measured
with atomic clock at B and finally Ta_r is again measured with atomic
clock at A. Then we compute the signal propagation,
Uplink time Tu = Tb_r - Ta_t .... (A1)
Downlink time Td = Ta_r - Tb_t .... (A2)
These atomic time measurements are absolute and can be automatically
recorded in the computer data. It is up to the user whether to use this
timing data in Barycentric Celestial Reference Frame or the Galactic
Celestial Reference Frame. In the beginning of this illustrative
example it was stated that in the BCRF (or ICRF) both A and B are
moving with a uniform velocity V1 = 30 km/s along AB. The solar system
as a whole is known to be moving in the Galactic Celestial Reference
Frame at a velocity of U1 = 220 km/s. From the above mentioned timing
data, this velocity can be computed as shown earlier, by the relation,

Velocity = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) ...... (A3)

where c is an isotropic constant speed of light propagation in the
Celestial Reference Frame under consideration. Now, in actual
experiment if the measured timing data Tu and Td are such that the
velocity obtained from equation A3 above, yields a value of the order
of 30 km/s it will imply that the speed of light propagation is an
isotropic constant in the BCRF as is generally being assumed. On the
other hand if the measured timing data Tu and Td are such that the
velocity obtained from equation A3 above, yields a value of the order
of 250 km/s it will imply that the speed of light propagation is an
isotropic constant in the Galactic Celestial Reference Frame. However,
if the measured timing data Tu and Td are such that the velocity
obtained from equation A3 above, yields a value of the order of 400
km/s or above, it will imply that the speed of light propagation is an
isotropic constant in the Universal or Absolute Celestial Reference
Frame.

There is only one *extremely unlikely* situation when Tu = Td, which
will confirm the SR postulate that speed of light propagation is an
isotropic constant in *all* celestial reference frames.

Isn't it an exciting test of relativity theories as well as for
detecting the Universal or Absolute Reference Frame?

GSS

George Dishman wrote:
No, that is wrong.
The MM experiment was based on light interference fringes and no time
measurements were involved.

The light sent down one leg of known distance
produces a time reference for the measurement of
the speed of the other leg. It is perhaps easier
to see if you think of an MMX oriented first with
one leg north-south and the other east-west. Then
rotate the apparatus such that the north-south
leg is not moved (it is the axis of rotation) but
the other leg is now vertical. The time the light
takes along the north-south leg is a fixed reference
against which the time for the other beam can be
measured in units of fractions of a cycle of the
light. Of course that isn't possible in practice
because of gravity but it should help you grasp the
equivalence.

The proposed experiment is based on time
measurements only and no interference fringes are involved.

Using an interference technique allows time
measurements with much higher resolution than any
simple clock. Bottom line is that your proposal
is just a repeat of the MMX and we already know
the answer, U1 as measured above will be zero for
_all_ inertial frames.
I would have thought both sides of the argument would have a problem
disproving the other.For instance if the refractive index of the suns
atmosphere isnt sufficient to explain the amount of bending of light
then what is the refractive index or density of the atmosphere at that
point to which it is being compared? My guess is that this vital piece
of information isnt known and you only guess that atmospheric
refraction doesnt give the right answer. . (I have read recently that
the latest SOHO data has made scientists admit that they know little of
the sun and its atmosphere. Which makes makes one wonder how we can say
for sure what the density is now , let alone back in Eddingtons time
when the supposed proof of gravitational bending was observed.) THe
same assumption was made about SN decay time curves. The researchers
said the data couldnt fit a non expanding universe .In fact none of
them had ever checked to make sure it couldnt . And as I have shown
here on sci astro the data fits both models equally as well.
Another point is the known high temperature of the `corona` I believe
its referred to. There must be a temperature inversion if the corona is
hotter than the suns surface. This is the reverse of the mirage on
earth and if the mirage is cool to hot bending light away from the
angle of entry then I would have thought the corona being hot to cool
would do the opposite and create a optical situation where star light
was bent towards the sun. Presumably the extreme difference in
temperature gradient seen in the suns atmosphere would only exxagerate
this effect . Allowing the corona to punch above its relative thin
gaseous density.
If this argument is valid then it also can answer davids point about
the bending being possible well away from the angle of the sun in the
sky without any `slowing` of inner planets by an unobserved dense gas.
In other words any relative lack of density of the suns atmosphere is
made up for by its extreme heat gradient between the surface
temparature and the susn outer `atmosphere`
Another point thats worth considering is this. If the bending observed
supposedly fits exactly the predicted amount by GR then this in itself
must invalidate it as proof of GR. Simply because even if there were
gravitational bending , any unmodeled atmospheric bending would in fact
also have to be taken into account. This would imply that any observed
bending would have to be significantly greater than predicted by GR to
account for both effects
And a more general argument for aether theory is this. What properties
of an aether stipulate it having to have a `wind`. Why cant the aether
have the same properties vis a vis light as the standard model vacuum?
Those who claim that aether has to create a wind that supposedly wasnt
observed by MM are fabricating an imaginary unnneccesary unmodeled
property of aether just to discredit it.One could just as well use the
same argumnent agaisnt the standard model. If the vacuum doesnt predict
a wind and yet allows EMR as a wave to propogate through it then its
just as valid for an aether model to stipulate the same . For instance
maybe the aether isnt particulate but rather a pure magnetic field
where each point in that field can vary in strength and polarity
direction. This allows not only a wave only model of light to operate
but also a wave only theory of how mass exists in aether as oscillating
nodal points of wave energy.
Sean
(Ive got a reply for the other thread its just taken me a bit of time)

sean wrote:
George Dishman wrote:
No, that is wrong.
The MM experiment was based on light interference fringes and no time
measurements were involved.

The light sent down one leg of known distance
produces a time reference for the measurement of
the speed of the other leg. It is perhaps easier
to see if you think of an MMX oriented first with
one leg north-south and the other east-west. Then
rotate the apparatus such that the north-south
leg is not moved (it is the axis of rotation) but
the other leg is now vertical. The time the light
takes along the north-south leg is a fixed reference
against which the time for the other beam can be
measured in units of fractions of a cycle of the
light. Of course that isn't possible in practice
because of gravity but it should help you grasp the
equivalence.

The proposed experiment is based on time
measurements only and no interference fringes are involved.

Using an interference technique allows time
measurements with much higher resolution than any
simple clock. Bottom line is that your proposal
is just a repeat of the MMX and we already know
the answer, U1 as measured above will be zero for
_all_ inertial frames.

I would have thought both sides of the argument would have a problem
disproving the other.

Not really, Gurcharn's suggestion is to perform an
experiment to measure anisotropy of the speed of
light using atomic clocks and a spacecraft. My point
is that it serves the same purpose as the MMX so
the result is already known. I think we should be able
to settle that quite easily.

For instance if the refractive index of the suns
atmosphere isnt sufficient to explain the amount of bending of light

What does that have to do with the Michelson-Moreley
experiment?

then what is the refractive index or density of the atmosphere at that
point to which it is being compared? My guess is that this vital piece
of information isnt known ...

Your guess is wrong. Craig Markwardt gave references
in a thread a year or two back on exactly that subject
if you want to dig it out.

George