A simple lightspeed experiment by single GPS horiz

More
17 years 1 month ago #18335 by Stoat
Suppose we took a blank c.d. and recorded onto it a fall away tone. Then placed a half mirror over this, a laser and detector. There might be a problem with the disk being slightly uneven but I'm sure that could allowed for. One advantage would be that as we're making flat parabolas, the pseudo curvature can be altered, with a different tone, fairly cheaply.

(Edited) Oh yeah, we could use the laser to measure if the disk and half mirror are distorted. Deutsche Grammophon would be the people to see about making a really good one, perhaps the experimental set up would give them something they could use with quality control

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 1 month ago #19732 by tvanflandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Leo Vuyk</i>
<br />due to the very small variations, these results are still ignored by the mainstream.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You seem to be out of touch with modern astronomy. New data types such as GPS, VLBI, SLR, lunar and planetary ranging, and spacecraft tracking have 1000 to almost 10,000 times better precision than was available to Dayton Miller, and have proved, without a shadow of a doubt, that no such variations in the speed of light (as Miller's apparatus suggested) exist in the near-Earth environment.

Because Miller did not control for pressure variations, that is the most probably source of the anomaly his apparatus saw. But whatever the error source was, we are now certain that the speed of light has no such variations. GPS couldn't work as it does if they existed. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 1 month ago #18157 by Leo Vuyk
Replied by Leo Vuyk on topic Reply from
I am aware of GPS results.
however "low elevation GPS" data is never used because of its unreliability!!
However in my gravity dragged lightspeed proposal, even some Miller results on mount Wilson could have been originated by this "skimming" effect.

To understand my new lightspeed experiment better, we should also explain mass in motion,

MASS IN MOTION
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:
bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/2006/02/g ravity-dependent-lightspeed.html

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 4 weeks ago #19927 by Leo Vuyk
Replied by Leo Vuyk on topic Reply from
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:
bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/2006/0...could-influence.html
and perhaps:
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)
gauss.gge.unb.ca/papers.pdf/iongnss2004.beran.pdf
GPS Phase-Connected, Precise Point Positioning
of Low Earth Orbiters (2004)
gauss.gge.unb.ca/papers.pdf/gnss01.bisnath.pdf

by Tomas Beran, Sunil B. Bisnath and Richard B. Langley
University of New Brunswick Ca.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 4 weeks ago #19930 by tvanflandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Leo Vuyk</i>
<br />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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This statement appears nonsensical on its face. If Earth's orbital speed affected GPS signal speeds, it would be by 30 km/s, which would produce 3 km errors, not 3 m errors.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This too seems contrary to established physics because the effect of the atmosphere on light propagation speed is very small compared to 30 km/s. Moreover, GPS satellite-to-satellite signals have no effects at all from the atmosphere or from proximity to Earth's surface, yet show no trace of the 30 km/s orbital motion.

If you wish to become better informed about GPS basics, I recommend the article at: metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter.ASP -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 4 weeks ago #18168 by Leo Vuyk
Replied by Leo Vuyk on topic Reply from
Thank you Tom for your attention.

However, I stick to my calculations leading to 3 meter residuals.
it seems to me quite simple, but I could have made a mistake which I did not see.
professor Langley measured residuals of 5 meters for the so called Radio Occultation between one (horizon skimming) GPS signal and the CHAMP satellite.
I calculated that the distance between these two satellites woulkd have been ca. 30.000km So if the GPS signal travelled with an additional speed of 30 km/sec.in addition to C, then the calculation goes as follows:
30.000x 300.000/ 300.030= 29.997 meters ( so 3 m difference!)

I must admit that my math notes where always poor.
But I can't make it 30 km.
Leo.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.541 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum