Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>>Please, please, please, everybody click and read the link. Here, let me share with you a couple of…errrr….THERMONUCLEAR BOMBS dropped on Standard Theory just in the abstract and first few paragraphs:
I'll post the abstract and the conclusions:
ABSTRACT
Contrary to the assertion of Special Relativity, the speed of light is not always constant relative to a moving observer. The Global Positioning System (GPS) shows that the speed of light in the Earth Centered Inertial (ECI) non-rotating frame remains at c relative to the frame—but not relative to an observer or receiver moving in that frame. When a GPS receiver changes its translation speed relative to the ECI frame, the speed of light measured relative to the receiver changes. A crucial experiment of the constancy of the speed of light relative to a moving receiver could be conducted in the following way: Let two GPS satellites and two airplanes be positioned in a straight line. Let the two airplanes travel at the same speed directly toward one of the two satellites and directly away from the other satellite. The travel time differences of GPS signals arriving at the two airplanes is measured and recorded with the airplanes flying first toward one of the satellites and then flying the opposite direction toward the other satellite. The travel time differences obtained as the airplanes fly in opposite directions are compared. If the travel time difference is the same when the velocity of the airplanes is changed, then the speed of light is indeed constant relative to the moving airplanes, otherwise it is not. The calculation using the GPS range equation and the results of a Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) differential GPS test have shown that the constancy of the speed of light relative to moving airplanes is not correct. The change of the time difference could reach about 10 ns for subsonic airplanes and 30 ns for supersonic airplanes. The result of this crucial experiment is not only important scientifically, but also indicates the possibility of a new way to directly measure vehicle speed relative to the ECI frame.
CONCLUSIONS
The strong evidence is that the constancy of the speed of light is wrong. The speed of light is not always c relative to a moving observer (receiver). Instead, the speed of light is always c relative to the chosen inertial (isotropic light speed) frame. A crucial experiment using GPS has been proposed to verify this claim. This isotropy of light speed relative to the chosen frame is strongly supported by the one-way Sagnac effect. It is clear from the GPS range equation that the motion of the observer during the signal transit time implies that the speed of light relative to a moving observer is not isotropic and clearly differs from c due to the receiver motion. This is also videnced by the JPL space probe equations described by Moyer. In other words, the Sagnac effect is not due to rotational motion. Contrary to Ashby’s claims, the Sagnac effect is caused by any motion of the observer or receiver relative to the chosen inertial frame.
The measurement of the travel time differences between two receivers in motion first one way and then the other can be used as a crucial experiment. Virtually all of the measurement error sources are canceled by the multiple differencing involved in the experiment. This means that the proposed crucial experiment should be capable of easily resolving the fundamental question: “Is the speed of light constant relative to the receiver or is it constant relative to the chosen inertial frame?”
Finally, assuming the crucial test verifies that the speed of light is constant with respect to the chosen inertial frame, it shows that a new method of measuring the velocity is possible. Specifically, measuring the time difference between the signal transit time in the forward and backward direction should give a direct measure of the velocity.
************************************************
Very interesting stuff. Although, I must admit I always misunderstood why light was seen as immune to relativity. None the less, ya, cool, shows that the speed of light is relative to the frame of reference.
Anyone, who thinks this supports geocentricism, needs to understand that any frames of reference, period, the idea that motion is relative to who is observing it and from where, refutes the idea of a stationary earth.
Basically, if this paper is correct, it shows we still don't understand everything about light (something no physicist would ever claim we completely understand, light is beyond mysterious) or about relativity (same deal). The only thing it says about the Earth's rotation is that the Sagnac effect satellites is not caused by it, but because of frames of reference.
Again, even if one takes this to mean that the earth isn't moving (which is a gross misinterpretation), it means relativity is true, and that one cannot differ between stationary and moving in the universe if a single object is moving, which geocentricism says is happening.
EDIT: omfg, I am so surprised that the paper posted by trans has nothing to do with what he is saying! As such a reputable scholar, I'm sure he will be quick to apologize and recognize his error, then restate his modified theory to incorporate this recognition. You know, the same way he has done with all of the other citations we have shown aren't correct.
Originally written by Wang & Hatch
A crucial experiment of the constancy of the speed of light relative to a moving receiver could be conducted in the following way: Let two GPS satellites and two airplanes be positioned in a straight line. Let the two airplanes travel at the same speed directly toward one of the two satellites and directly away from the other satellite. The travel time differences of GPS signals arriving at the two airplanes is measured and recorded with the airplanes flying first toward one of the satellites and then flying the opposite direction toward the other satellite. The travel time differences obtained as the airplanes fly in opposite directions are compared. If the travel time difference is the same when the velocity of the airplanes is changed, then the speed of light is indeed constant relative to the moving airplanes, otherwise it is not.
also, let me just point to this part of the abstract
the part where the people proposing a new way of interpreting data provide an experiment where their thesis could be proven wrong, and the word used to describe the test is "crucial".
ya
kinda reminds me of something I was saying last page, and something a certain poster has yet to provide for their new interpretation of data....
Originally posted by inimalist
notice how willing Trans is to argue points of specific fact which can be muddled (re: post hoc-ed) to fit any possible theory, yet never provides novel predictions of geocentric theory?
lol but I thawt that if one thing is wrong, then that automatically makes teh othar thing right, so you don't has to prove it! It's science! 😆
Also, Transfinitum could you please describe to me the orbit of Mars. Does it go around the sun or around the Earth or around both the sun and Earth?
We currently have two rovers on Mars and an orbiter circling around the planet. People at NASA believe that the Earth goes around the Sun, just like all of the other planets. From Mars, we have to find the Earth in order to send information back home. We know were Earth is because we have a mathematical model of the solar system. If the model is incorrect, as you have said, then we would not find Earth. Why have we not had any problems?
We also have at least two probes that are on the outer edge of the solar system. Why have they not shown us how you are right? Could it be because you are wrong?
Originally posted by leonheartmmcan you please for the love of god crush him. im begging you do it
hey you forgot the fact that the gps system accurately{both for the sattelite's motions and the motion of the object or person} compensates for any time dilation caused my movement of the object, hence making your entire experiment useless.