Path: ...!news.nobody.at!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!cleanfeed4-a.proxad.net!nnrp5-1.free.fr!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: The Shapiro's experiment HOAX. A 1968 TIME article.
From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Reply-To: jjlxa31@xs4all.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:58:47 +0200
References: <db18709b6ba689b9c07245000ff1b094@www.novabbs.com> <EgMPO.1766243$4J12.285784@fx12.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Organization: De Ster
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6)
Lines: 125
Message-ID: <670ffed7$1$32085$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Oct 2024 19:58:47 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.10.137.58
X-Trace: 1729101527 news-1.free.fr 32085 213.10.137.58:51717
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Bytes: 6015

Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

> Den 14.10.2024 02:43, skrev rhertz:
> > I think that Time Magazine is a die hard Einstein's theories and figure
> > promoter since 1945 (3 times Man of the Year covers, plus Man of the
> > Century). It's not hard to trace Time Magazine roots with the Jew
> > community and with Princeton.
> > 
> > This article, from 1968, narrates very lightly the Shapiro's experiment,
> > and hail it as "almost a proof" of General Relativity. With articles
> > like this one, Shapiro was extraordinarily hyped and granted him a
> > global name and public funding for his next "experiments".
> 
> It's a popular article in TIMES magazine, not a scientific paper.
> 
> Why didn't you read Shapiro's paper?
> 
> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1968.pdf
> 
> > 
> > I want to remark that this was published 46 years ago, and FAIL TO
> > EXPLAIN that the prime subject of the experiment (gov. sponsored) was to
> > measure the location of THE CENTER OF THE SUN, as it was vital for
> > newtonian celestial mechanics to be applied to interplanetary travels.
> > It was a secret experiment (1965), which competed with Russian efforts
> > in the same sense. Part of the HOAX was narrated in the book "The Farce
> > of Physics".
> 
> This is nonsense.
> The Haystack radar was even modified to make Shapiro's
> experiment possible.
> 
> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1968.pdf
> 
> "Several years ago it became evident that a new
>   test of general relativity was technically feasible.
>   The proposed experiment was designed to verify
>   the prediction that the speed of propagation
>   of a light ray decreases as it passes through
>   a region of increasing gravitational potential.
>   . . .
>   An intensive program was therefore undertaken
>   early in 1965 to build a new transmitter and
>   receiver system to provide the Lincoln Laboratory
>   Haystack radar with the capability to measure
>   to within 10 ?sec the time delays of pulses traveling
>   between the earth and Mercury or Venus
>   when either planet was on the other side of the sun
>   from the earth — the superior conjunction alignment.
>   The improved radar was put into operation shortly
>   before the last such conjunction of Venus,
>   which occurred on 9 November 1966."
> 
> > 
> > The exact orbits of planets (and distances to them) was known very
> > grossly, FAR BEYOND the error margins of the 1965 experiments.
> 
> This is wrong. Read Shapiro's paper!
> 
> 
> > Shapiro's
> > experiment WAS A BYPRODUCT of the main experiment. What was ALLEGEDLY
> > MEASURED in 1965 was A DELAY OF 5 msec on a round trip of 23 minutes
> > between Mercury and Earth (both at opposite sides of the Sun). They
> > considered an error of +/- 20%, being that the PRECISION was to be about
> > 3.6E-06 (3.6 ppm), a value HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE for such epoch, being
> > that THE NOISE involved in the measurement of a powerful radar signal
> > (at the reception) WAS EQUAL OR HIGHER than the received signal itself.
> 
> Of course the received signal was much smaller than the noise.
> The transmitted power was 300 kW, and the received signal could be
> as small as 1e-21 W.
> 
> Hint: Cross correlation.
> 
> > 
> > I post the entire article, so you can have a laugh.
> 
> The idiot laughs at what he doesn't understand.
> 
> > 
> > https://time.com/archive/6834981/physics-probing-einstein-with-radar/
> > 
> 
> When you are done laughing, you can read Shapiro's paper.
> 
> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1968.pdf
> 
> But since you invariably fail to understand and always misinterpret
> what you read, it probably is no point in trying to read it.

Moreover, Shapiro's paper is titled
FOURTH TEST OF GENERAL RELATIVITY: --PRELIMINARY RESULTS-- [Emph. JJL]

For Shipiro the results were at the edge of what was technically
possible to detect, -at the time-.
Nowadays taking Shapiro delay has to be incorporated
into space probe tracking and orbit determination.
Nutters worry about popular reports of the original experiment,
while the results themselves are standard everyday engineering.

Hint for RH:
All interplanetry spacecraft are equipped with transponders.
These devices respond to an incoming radio pulse by responding
with a reply pulse, with a known delay.
The replies are of course detected routinely,
and measured delays are used for orbit calculation and navigation.

More hint for RH: radar echos diminish with r^-4,
and are soon lost in the noise.
Transponder reception and response goes with r^-2,
and still works reliably for spacecraft beyond PLuto,
like the Voyagers. All you need is a big radio dish.

Final hint: The Parker near solar probe for example
would be hopelessly lost if Shapiro delay on its signals
wouldn't be taken into account correctly.
While you whine about it the mission engineers who fly the thing
routinely take it into account without even giving it another thought,

Jan