Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Paul.B.Andersen" Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: The Shapiro's experiment HOAX. A 1968 TIME article. Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:28:19 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 61 Message-ID: References: <670ffed7$1$32085$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <2fcf10d29b40e102861392bbb5f1cb0c@www.novabbs.com> <41430c0c0b42eba6ebdbfe7bc21f5784@www.novabbs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:25:41 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b64583a61c0905c2d2102283e71360fd"; logging-data="2847104"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+OJPo1vRAOr0Rqj+F2GK1L" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:jlBG0b/e2V1XtPgxSAe8iKiHTF8= In-Reply-To: <41430c0c0b42eba6ebdbfe7bc21f5784@www.novabbs.com> Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 3175 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 -- Paul https://paulba.no/