https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...attredirects=0
........................
In this simplified derivation I will show that "the ratio U/c depends
on the ratio of the difference between the up-link and down-link
signal propagation times to the total round trip signal propagation
time".

For this purpose let us consider two Pioneer type spacecraft A and B,
in the outer regions of the solar system, such that their separation
distance D=AB remains constant during the period of test. Both
spacecrafts are fitted with appropriate signal transmitters and
receivers. Let us assume the epoch of transmission of a signal pulse
from spacecraft A is t1, the epoch of reception and re-transmission
back, of the signal pulse at the spacecraft B is t2, and the epoch of
reception of the signal pulse back at the spacecraft A is t3. Let us
assume that both A and B are moving in the BCRF with a common velocity
U along AB. The up-link signal propagation time Tu from A to B is
given by,

Tu = t2-t1 ...... .................. (1)

. ~ D
t1 A1.........................B1
. - ~
t2 A2.........................B2

B1B2 = U*(t2-t1) = U*Tu .............. (2)

and the total distance traveled by the up-link signal pulse is,

D + U*Tu = c*Tu ................... (3)

Similarly, the down-link signal propagation time Td from B to A is
given by,

Td = t3-t2 ................ (4)

. D ~
t2 A2...........................B2
. ~ -
t3 A3...........................B3

A2A3 = U*(t3-t2) = U*Td ............... (5)

and the total distance traveled by the down-link signal pulse is,

D - U*Td = c*Td .................. (6)

Eliminating D from equations (3) and (6), we get,

U*(Tu+Td) = c* (Tu - Td)
Or,
U/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7)

Putting it in words, equation (7) reads,

The ratio U/c depends on the ratio of the difference between the up-
link and down-link signal propagation times to the total round trip
signal propagation time.
......
Now we need to focus our attention on this recorded data of up-link
and down-link signal propagation times Tu and Td..

In the formulation of this example we had assumed that both A and B
are moving in the BCRF (Barycentric Celestial Reference Frame) with a
common velocity U along AB and that their separation distance D
remains constant.over the entire testing period.

If however, we refer the positions and velocities of the same two
spacecrafts A and B to the GCRF (Geocentric Celestial Reference
Frame), the measure numbers depicting their positions and velocities
will change. In particular, the common velocity of spacecrafts A and B
along AB will now be a different value from U, say U1. But the
separation distance between A and B, which remained constant in BCRF,
will also remain constant in GCRF.

Similarly, if we refer the positions and velocities of the same two
spacecrafts A and B to the Galactic Reference Frame, the common
velocity of spacecrafts A and B along AB will now be a different value
say U2. But the separation distance between A and B, which remained
constant in BCRF, will also remain constant in the.Galactic Reference
Frame.

Finally, if we refer the positions and velocities of the same two
spacecrafts A and B to the Universal Reference Frame, the common
velocity of spacecrafts A and B along AB will now be a different value
say U3. But the separation distance between A and B, which remained
constant in BCRF, will also remain constant in the.Universal Reference
Frame.

But we have only one set of up-link and down-link time (Tu and Td)
data recorded in the on-board computers......

Well, if we refuse to get sucked into the general confusion created by
Relativity, the recorded up-link and down-link time data must remain
independent of the reference frames used to quantify the relative
positions of objects. Logically too, there is just no way in which the
recorded up-link and down-link time data could be physically different
for different reference frames. Practically also the Universal
Coordinated Time (UTC) is meant to be the universal time scale valid
for all practical reference frames.

Hence, with the understanding that the recorded up-link and down-link
time (Tu and Td) data is valid for all practical reference frames, let
us re-write equation (7) for various reference frames considered
above.

(a) In BCRF
U/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7A)
(b) In GCRF
U1/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7B)
(c) In Galactic Reference Frame
U2/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7C)
(d) In Universal Reference Frame
U3/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7D)

As seen above, U, U1, U2 and U3 are all different values representing
the common velocity of spacecraft A and B along the direction AB in
four different reference frames. But the RHS of all the four equations
listed above (7A to 7D) is just one single value. Obviously all of the
above mentioned four equations cannot be valid.

In the foregoing analysis, c has been assumed to be the universal
constant representing the speed of light or signal propagation in
vacuum. It is only due to the Relativity dominated current paradigm
that we had assumed the speed of signal propagation c to be the same
constant in all four reference frames considered above. The above
mentioned contradiction due to the inequality of LHS and RHS in three
of the four equations (7A to 7D) points to a significant conclusion
that c cannot be the same universal constant in all reference frames.

That is, the speed of signal propagation can be the isotropic value c
only in one particular reference frame which we may identify as the
Universal Reference Frame. This isotropic value of the speed of signal
propagation becomes the identifying characteristic feature of the
Universal Reference Frame.

The foregoing analysis suggests that we can detect the common
velocity, say U3 of two objects A and B separated by distance D,
simply by measuring the up-link and down-link signal propagation times
as at equation (7D) above. This procedure can then be extended to a
general technique for establishing the Universal Reference Frame, just
like BCRF.

From the foregoing discussion, we can develop a simple experimental
technique to measure the common velocity of two fixed objects A and B,
separated by distance D on the surface of earth. Even though the
objects A and B under consideration are fixed on the surface of earth,
we can well imagine their common motion in our solar system or in our
galaxy. Let U be the common instantaneous velocity of A and B along
the direction AB as measured in BCRF. Let us assume the speed of light
propagation in BCRF to be an isotropic constant c. As shown at
equation (7) above, the magnitude of U/c will be given by the ratio of
the difference between the up-link and down-link signal propagation
times to the total round trip signal propagation time.

For conducting this experiment, let us select two microwave
communication towers, separated by a distance D of about 30 km, as the
two objects A and B mentioned above. Exact distance between A and B is
not required to be measured. Since the determination of up-link and
down-link signal propagation time between A and B will require line of
sight communication, we need to position identical sets of test
equipment at about 20 m height on each of the two towers.

Each set of the test equipment required at the two ends, consists of

(a) High Intensity Picosecond Pulsed Laser unit - 1 MHz PiLas with
single shot pulse option.
http://www.alsgmbh.com/?gclid=CIjMtr...FSRPagodggNUpQ

(b) PiLas Control Unit EIG 1000D with external trigger input from
single shot to 1 MHz.

(c) UltraFast 20/35 FS free space Photo Detector with focusing optics.

(d) GPS synchronized Precision Timing System 'GRM-3000' from
SpectraTime
http://www.spectratime.com/index.php?m=spp_gps_rb_mod

(e) Data Acquisition Computer

The availability of Picosecond Pulsed Laser unit - 1 MHz PiLas from
"Advanced Laser Diode Systems" and the GPS synchronized Precision
Timing System 'GRM-3000' from "Spectra Time" is a crucial technology
input for the conduct of this experiment on the surface of earth. The
1MHz PiLas system with its control unit EIG 1000D can be operated with
external trigger input from single shot to 1MHz. This can be used in
combination with UltraFast Photo Detectors - "UltraFast 20/35 FS free
space photo detector" placed at the opposite end.

As per SpectraTime,"The patented SRO-100 is the industry’s first smart
Rubidium clock, integrating complex synchronization functionality all
in one low-cost, super-small package. The SRO intelligently
synchronizes, disciplines, and controls any Stratum-1 reference such
as GPS, Cesium and Hydrogen Maser, at cutting-edge 1 ns resolution".
Regarding its GRM-3000 Module, the SpectraTime claims, "The GRM-3000
is a low-cost, GPS and Rubidium custom board-level module. It uses a
powerful GPS receiver and the patented smart SRO-100 SynClock+®,
integrating complex disciplining and synchronization functionality all
in one low-cost, super-small package. The SRO integrates SmarTiming+®
technology, providing a suite of built-in timing features. SmarTiming+
filters and disciplines any type of input reference, auto-adaptively
at leading-edge 1ns resolution".

Before commencement of the main experiment, the two sets of test
equipment will be positioned close by, say at a separation distance of
about one meter, to synchronize and calibrate their clocks and to
monitor their system delays. Thereafter, one set of test equipment
will be positioned on each of the two towers at about 20 m height. The
system will be aligned in such a way that the Laser beam from point A
is focused on the Photo detector at point B and the Laser beam from
point B is focused on the Photo detector at point A.

Since the two clocks at points A and B are synchronized with the GPS
time standard, they can be regarded as mutually synchronized in
absolute terms. That means, at any instant when the UTC time is t1,
both clocks will read t1. Their instantaneous time readouts, with
nanosecond time resolution, can be obtained with a trigger pulse.

For actual conduct of the experiment, the digital electrical pulse
generator or the PiLas controller is to be operated in a single shot
mode. In this mode the electrical pulse from the controller will
simultaneously trigger the Laser at point A to send out a short laser
pulse towards point B and also trigger the synchronized clock time
readout at A. This time readout, with a nanosecond resolution, will
get recorded in the data acquisition computer at A. When the laser
pulse transmitted from point A, reaches the photo detector at B, it
will be captured by the detector to produce a trigger pulse for time
readout at point B. This time readout, with a nanosecond resolution,
will get recorded in the data acquisition computer at B. The
difference between these two time readouts at B and A will provide the
up-link pulse propagation time Tu from point A to point B, in
nanoseconds.

Similarly, a single shot electrical pulse from the controller at B,
will simultaneously trigger the Laser at point B to send out a short
laser pulse towards point A and also trigger the clock B time readout.
This time readout, with a nanosecond resolution, will get recorded in
the data acquisition computer at B. When the laser pulse transmitted
from point B, reaches the photo detector at A, it will be captured by
the detector to produce a trigger pulse for time readout at point A.
This time readout, with a nanosecond resolution, will get recorded in
the data acquisition computer at A. The difference between these two
time readouts at A and B will provide the down-link pulse propagation
time Td from point B to point A, in nanoseconds.

As discussed above, the magnitude of U/c will be given by the ratio of
the difference between the up-link and down-link signal propagation
times to the total round trip signal propagation time.

U/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7)

For a separation distance D of about 30 km, the pulse return
propagation time (Tu + Td) will be of the order of 200,000
nanoseconds. We know that the orbital speed of earth in BCRF is about
30 km/s. But we also know that the orbital speed of our solar system
around the Galactic center is about 220 km/s. Further, our milky way
galaxy is estimated to be in motion with respect to the CMBR
background at about 500 km/s. Depending on whether we assume c to be
the isotropic speed of light propagation in BCRF, or the Galactic
Reference Frame or in the Universal Reference Frame, maximum value of
U in equation (7) can vary from about 30 km/s to about 500 km/s. Let
us therefore, aim to detect the common instantaneous velocity U (of A
and B along the direction AB) of the order of about 300 km/s in the
Universal reference frame. Then from equation (7),

Tu - Td = (300/300,000)*(200,000)
= 200 nanoseconds.

With the selected test equipment, as described above, we can surely
detect the up-link and down-link timing differences of the order of
100 or 200 nanoseconds. For this test we need to select points A and B
approximately along East-West direction and repeat the test at
different times of the day. Of course, another test series may be
conducted with line AB approximately aligned along North-South
direction. From the 24 hour recorded data of Tu and Td values, we can
estimate the maximum value of U/c, which will definitely show the
unique reference frame in which the speed of light propagation c has
to be regarded as an isotropic universal constant.

The simplified experimental test described above can be actually
conducted by students of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering
as a part of their academic study project. This experiment can also be
conducted by Physics students provided their Head of the department or
other Faculty members permit them to do so. It is quite likely that
the academic staff in Physics departments, who are completely
indoctrinated into the present cult of Relativity, may not allow the
conduct of the proposed experiment on the ground that it aims to
invalidate the Relativity Theories. On the other hand, students of
many other engineering streams can easily conduct the proposed
experiment and play a pioneering role in the advancement of
Fundamental Science.

Learned readers are welcome to give their valuable opinions on this
issue.

I have also compiled a short article, demonstrating a logical
conclusion that the speed c of light propagation in vacuum can be an
isotropic constant only in the Universal Reference Frame and not in
all inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion. In this
article (isotropy_experiment.pdf) I have also detailed the proposed
simplified test procedure for experimentally detecting the Universal
Reference Frame by measuring our velocity in this frame. This pdf
article can be downloaded from the following link.

https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...attredirects=0

As mentioned above, the proposed experiment can be actually conducted
by many engineering and physics students as a part of their academic
project curriculum. If you happen to know such students who are
looking for some challenging project ideas, you may kindly forward the
above mentioned link or the pdf file to them. I shall also approach
various academic institutes and universities in this regard, to ensure
that very many groups of students undertake this experimental project,
all over the globe.

GSS

http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

On Jun 5, 9:58*am, GSS wrote:
In addition, the theory has spawned an astonishing array of unproved and
unproveable ******* theories like time warps, vacuum energy, worm
holes, and black holes."

General Relativity (a) did not spawn any of these, (b) has nothing
speciic to do with any of them, and (c) POSTDATES the emergence of
each of these.

In particular it was MAXWELL who came up with the idea of vacuum
energy (and the negative energy sea); not Einstein & GR, not Dirac &
QED. But Maxwell.

From article 82 of the 1864 "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic
Field"

The 1864 paper (and 1861 paper) is included under: Maxwell's Original
Equations
http://federation.g3z.com/Physics/in...axwellOriginal

Note on the Attraction of Gravitation
(82) After tracing to the action of the surrounding medium both the
magnetic and the electric attractions and repulsions, and finding them
to depend on the inverse square of the distance, we are naturally led
to inquire whether the attraction of gravitation, which follows the
same law of the distance, is not also traceable to the action of a
surrounding medium.

Gravitation differs from magnetism and electricity in this; that the
bodies concerned are all of the same kind, instead of being of
opposite signs, like magnetic poles and electrified bodies, and that
the force between these bodies is an attraction and not a repulsion,
as is the case between like electric and magnetic bodies.

The lines of gravitating force near two dense bodies are exactly of
the same form as the lines of magnetic force near two poles of the
same name; but whereas the poles are repelled, the bodies are
attracted. ...

As energy is essentially positive, it is impossible for any part of
space to have negative intrinsic energy. Hence those parts of space in
which there is no resultant force, such as the points of equilibrium
in the space between the different bodies of a system, and within the
substance of each body, must have an intrinsic energy per unit of
volume greater than [the energy assoited with the largest possible
gravitational force (i.e. what we'd now call the Planck energy
density)]

The assumption, therefore, that gravitation arises from the action of
the surrounding medium in the way pointed out, leads to the conclusion
that every part of this medium possesses, when undisturbed, an
enormous intrinsic energy, and that the presence of dense bodies
influences the medium so as to diminish this energy wherever there is
a resultant attraction.

On Jul 3, 12:38 pm, Rock Brentwood wrote:
On Jun 5, 9:58 am, GSS wrote:

In addition, the theory has spawned an astonishing array of unproved and
unproveable ******* theories like time warps, vacuum energy, worm
holes, and black holes."

General Relativity (a) did not spawn any of these, (b) has nothing
speciic to do with any of them, and (c) POSTDATES the emergence of
each of these.

I did not say what you have quoted. In fact snipping bulk of the
original message has put the quoted text out of context. To make the
context clear, let me reproduce the relevant part of the original
message.
----------------------------------------
It may appear that making sensible and plausible suggestions for any
advancement or revision of the status quo is a tough job; but the
testing and evaluation of such suggestions is in reality the toughest
and most challenging task which most people would like to avoid.

GSS

Most of science and physics expertise will only test if publicly
funded, and then look only for whatever supports their mainstream
mindset. The spendy and time consuming GPB/SR fiasco is a good
example of mainstream cover-thy-butt via obfuscation on steroids.

~ BG

Isn't it a pity that huge amount of public funds have been wasted for
testing the current paradigm when the general public is either being
mislead or being kept in the dark. In this regard let me reproduce an
old message of Leonard Pardin, dated Jul 12, 2004 posted in these
newsgroups.

"Never in the history of the scientific world has so much money been
spent to prove a theory that has provided so little benefit. Almost a
hundred years after Einstein first proposed his General Theory of
Relativity, the theory is still unproved and unproveable. In addition,
the theory has spawned an astonishing array of unproved and
unproveable ******* theories like time warps, vacuum energy, worm
holes, and black holes."
---------------------------------------

So what you have quoted me saying, was in fact written by Leonard
Pardin on Jul 12, 2004.

Main context of the discussion was regarding testing and evaluation to
prove or disprove a theory or hypothesis.

In my previous message under this thread, I have put forward a
detailed experimental technique to detect absolute motion in space. In
essence, this experiment involves precision measurement of an up-link
and a down-link signal propagation times between two fixed points on
the surface of earth. Successful measurement of tiny difference
between the up-link and down-link times will provide a measure of
absolute motion in space and invalidate Relativity.

https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...attredirects=0

You may kindly give your valuable opinion on the proposed experiment.

GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

GSS wrote:

On Jul 3, 12:38 pm, Rock Brentwood wrote:

On Jun 5, 9:58 am, GSS wrote:


In addition, the theory has spawned an astonishing array of unproved and
unproveable ******* theories like time warps, vacuum energy, worm
holes, and black holes."

General Relativity (a) did not spawn any of these, (b) has nothing
speciic to do with any of them, and (c) POSTDATES the emergence of
each of these.


I did not say what you have quoted. In fact snipping bulk of the
original message has put the quoted text out of context. To make the
context clear, let me reproduce the relevant part of the original
message.
----------------------------------------

It may appear that making sensible and plausible suggestions for any
advancement or revision of the status quo is a tough job; but the
testing and evaluation of such suggestions is in reality the toughest
and most challenging task which most people would like to avoid.


GSS


Most of science and physics expertise will only test if publicly
funded, and then look only for whatever supports their mainstream
mindset. The spendy and time consuming GPB/SR fiasco is a good
example of mainstream cover-thy-butt via obfuscation on steroids.


~ BG


Isn't it a pity that huge amount of public funds have been wasted for
testing the current paradigm when the general public is either being
mislead or being kept in the dark. In this regard let me reproduce an
old message of Leonard Pardin, dated Jul 12, 2004 posted in these
newsgroups.

"Never in the history of the scientific world has so much money been
spent to prove a theory that has provided so little benefit. Almost a
hundred years after Einstein first proposed his General Theory of
Relativity, the theory is still unproved and unproveable. In addition,
the theory has spawned an astonishing array of unproved and
unproveable ******* theories like time warps, vacuum energy, worm
holes, and black holes."
---------------------------------------

So what you have quoted me saying, was in fact written by Leonard
Pardin on Jul 12, 2004.

Main context of the discussion was regarding testing and evaluation to
prove or disprove a theory or hypothesis.

In my previous message under this thread, I have put forward a
detailed experimental technique to detect absolute motion in space. In
essence, this experiment involves precision measurement of an up-link
and a down-link signal propagation times between two fixed points on
the surface of earth. Successful measurement of tiny difference
between the up-link and down-link times will provide a measure of
absolute motion in space and invalidate Relativity.

https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...attredirects=0


Rather than hiding behind proposals for a new experiment which you know
will not be done, why don't you try to show any mistakes in a century
of experiments which have all supported relativity. I know that involves
work and you just want to complain but you would look as though
you were serious if you put in at least a tiny bit of effort.


You may kindly give your valuable opinion on the proposed experiment.

GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

On Jul 3, 9:10*pm, doug wrote:
GSS wrote:
On Jul 3, 12:38 pm, Rock Brentwood wrote:

On Jun 5, 9:58 am, GSS wrote:

In addition, the theory has spawned an astonishing array of unproved and
unproveable ******* theories like time warps, vacuum energy, worm
holes, and black holes."

General Relativity (a) did not spawn any of these, (b) has nothing
speciic to do with any of them, and (c) POSTDATES the emergence of
each of these.

I did not say what you have quoted. In fact snipping bulk of the
original message has put the quoted text out of context. To make the
context clear, let me reproduce the relevant part of the original
message.
----------------------------------------

It may appear that making sensible and plausible suggestions for any
advancement or revision of the status quo is a tough job; but the
testing and evaluation of such suggestions is in reality the toughest
and most challenging task which most people would like to avoid.

GSS

Most of science and physics expertise will only test if publicly
funded, and then look only for whatever supports their mainstream
mindset. *The spendy and time consuming GPB/SR fiasco is a good
example of mainstream cover-thy-butt via obfuscation on steroids.

~ BG

Isn't it a pity that huge amount of public funds have been wasted for
testing the current paradigm when the general public is either being
mislead or being kept in the dark. In this regard let me reproduce an
old message of Leonard Pardin, dated Jul 12, *2004 posted in these
newsgroups.

"Never in the history of the scientific world has so much money been
spent to prove a theory that has provided so little benefit. *Almost a
hundred years after Einstein first proposed his General Theory of
Relativity, the theory is still unproved and unproveable. In addition,
the theory has spawned an astonishing array of unproved and
unproveable ******* theories like time warps, vacuum energy, worm
holes, and black holes."
---------------------------------------

So what you have quoted me saying, was in fact written by Leonard
Pardin on Jul 12, 2004.

Main context of the discussion was regarding testing and evaluation to
prove or disprove a theory or hypothesis.

In my previous message under this thread, I have put forward a
detailed experimental technique to detect absolute motion in space. In
essence, this experiment involves precision measurement of an up-link
and a down-link signal propagation times between two fixed points on
the surface of earth. Successful measurement of tiny difference
between the up-link and down-link times will provide a measure of
absolute motion in space and invalidate Relativity.

https://sites.google.com/a/fundament.../Home/book_fil...

Rather than hiding behind proposals for a new experiment which you know
will not be done,

I am not *hiding behind* proposals for a new experiment but am
*coming forward* with a proposal for a new experiment to break the
century old deadlock. I am sure the simplified experiment proposed
here can be actually conducted by most of the science students in all
colleges and universities. You have to just order the specified laser
and timer units and conduct the test.

why don't you try to show any mistakes in a century
of experiments which have all supported relativity.

I along with many other learned readers in these forums, have been
doing just that for more than a decade. It is a different matter that
you people are so thoroughly indoctrinated into the cult of relativity
that you just turn a blind eye and deaf ear to all of 'our'
arguments.

I know that involves
work and you just want to complain but you would look as though
you were serious if you put in at least a tiny bit of effort.

Kindly be honest and tell me if you have actually read whole of my
original post (along with links) in this thread.


You may kindly give your valuable opinion on the proposed experiment.

GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

On Jul 3, 9:34*am, GSS wrote:
[...]

*I along with many other learned readers in these forums, have been
doing just that for more than a decade. It is a different matter that
you people are so thoroughly indoctrinated into the cult of relativity
that you just turn a blind eye and deaf ear to all of 'our'
arguments.

Whereas people like you are completely unburdened by an education in
physics and are thus free to revolutionize the subject from the
comfort of the chair.

[...]

GSS wrote:

On Jul 3, 9:10 pm, doug wrote:

GSS wrote:

On Jul 3, 12:38 pm, Rock Brentwood wrote:

On Jun 5, 9:58 am, GSS wrote:

In addition, the theory has spawned an astonishing array of unproved and
unproveable ******* theories like time warps, vacuum energy, worm
holes, and black holes."

General Relativity (a) did not spawn any of these, (b) has nothing
speciic to do with any of them, and (c) POSTDATES the emergence of
each of these.

I did not say what you have quoted. In fact snipping bulk of the
original message has put the quoted text out of context. To make the
context clear, let me reproduce the relevant part of the original
message.
----------------------------------------

It may appear that making sensible and plausible suggestions for any
advancement or revision of the status quo is a tough job; but the
testing and evaluation of such suggestions is in reality the toughest
and most challenging task which most people would like to avoid.

GSS

Most of science and physics expertise will only test if publicly
funded, and then look only for whatever supports their mainstream
mindset. The spendy and time consuming GPB/SR fiasco is a good
example of mainstream cover-thy-butt via obfuscation on steroids.

~ BG

Isn't it a pity that huge amount of public funds have been wasted for
testing the current paradigm when the general public is either being
mislead or being kept in the dark. In this regard let me reproduce an
old message of Leonard Pardin, dated Jul 12, 2004 posted in these
newsgroups.

"Never in the history of the scientific world has so much money been
spent to prove a theory that has provided so little benefit. Almost a
hundred years after Einstein first proposed his General Theory of
Relativity, the theory is still unproved and unproveable. In addition,
the theory has spawned an astonishing array of unproved and
unproveable ******* theories like time warps, vacuum energy, worm
holes, and black holes."
---------------------------------------

So what you have quoted me saying, was in fact written by Leonard
Pardin on Jul 12, 2004.

Main context of the discussion was regarding testing and evaluation to
prove or disprove a theory or hypothesis.

In my previous message under this thread, I have put forward a
detailed experimental technique to detect absolute motion in space. In
essence, this experiment involves precision measurement of an up-link
and a down-link signal propagation times between two fixed points on
the surface of earth. Successful measurement of tiny difference
between the up-link and down-link times will provide a measure of
absolute motion in space and invalidate Relativity.

https://sites.google.com/a/fundament.../Home/book_fil...

Rather than hiding behind proposals for a new experiment which you know
will not be done,


I am not *hiding behind* proposals for a new experiment but am
*coming forward* with a proposal for a new experiment to break the
century old deadlock. I am sure the simplified experiment proposed
here can be actually conducted by most of the science students in all
colleges and universities. You have to just order the specified laser
and timer units and conduct the test.

You have been trying to claim that the issue cannot be
settled until YOUR experiment is done. That is standard
crank talk.


why don't you try to show any mistakes in a century
of experiments which have all supported relativity.


I along with many other learned readers in these forums, have been
doing just that for more than a decade. It is a different matter that
you people are so thoroughly indoctrinated into the cult of relativity
that you just turn a blind eye and deaf ear to all of 'our'
arguments.

You have shown nothing but your dislike of relativity. You have
done nothing to refute any experiments much less all of the
experiments. Why should anyone pay any attention to your
ideas when they have been shown to be wrong?


I know that involves
work and you just want to complain but you would look as though
you were serious if you put in at least a tiny bit of effort.


Kindly be honest and tell me if you have actually read whole of my
original post (along with links) in this thread.

I have looked at what you have done. Section 23.2 starts you off onto
philosophy instead of science. You want the explainations in a
form that you approve of. The universe is not under any requirement
to work the way you want it to. Section 23.3 has wandered off into
a complete fantasy and is in conflict with all current theories.
Section 2.5 would bring a laugh to high school students. Chapter 4 shows
you have a complete misunderstanding of reference frames.

You obviously spent a lot of time on this "book". It would have been
better spent learning some physics.


You may kindly give your valuable opinion on the proposed experiment.

We know the results--it will agree with all the other experiments.
You want to hide from the experiments that have been done to pretend
that you will see something different. It would be a total waste of
time to look for the anisotropy you somehow hate when it has been
measured to be smaller than any motion you could have.


GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

On Jul 4, 12:04 am, doug wrote:
GSS wrote:
On Jul 3, 9:10 pm, doug wrote:
......
Main context of the discussion was regarding testing and evaluation to
prove or disprove a theory or hypothesis.

In my previous message under this thread, I have put forward a
detailed experimental technique to detect absolute motion in space. In
essence, this experiment involves precision measurement of an up-link
and a down-link signal propagation times between two fixed points on
the surface of earth. Successful measurement of tiny difference
between the up-link and down-link times will provide a measure of
absolute motion in space and invalidate Relativity.

https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...attredirects=0

Rather than hiding behind proposals for a new experiment which you know
will not be done,

I am not *hiding behind* proposals for a new experiment but am
*coming forward* with a proposal for a new experiment to break the
century old deadlock. I am sure the simplified experiment proposed
here can be actually conducted by most of the science students in all
colleges and universities. You have to just order the specified laser
and timer units and conduct the test.

You have been trying to claim that the issue cannot be
settled until YOUR experiment is done. That is standard
crank talk.

No, the issue can also be settled if YOU are prepared to discuss it
logically.
Let us make a beginning straight away. Kindly give a specific (not
evasive) response where ever you are specifically requested (with * *
marks) to do so.
Consider two objects A and B separated by distance D and moving in
BCRF with a common uniform velocity U along AB. If we assume that c is
the isotropic constant speed of light propagation in BCRF, then it can
be shown that the ratio U/c depends on the ratio of the difference
between the up-link (from A to B) and down-link (from B to A) signal
propagation times to the total round trip signal propagation time.

*Kindly confirm whether you agree that the difference between the up-
link and down-link signal propagation times will be non-zero whenever
their common uniform velocity U along AB is non-zero. If you don't
agree, give specific logical reasons for the same*

For this purpose let us consider two Pioneer type spacecraft A and B,
in the outer regions of the solar system, such that their separation
distance D=AB remains constant during the period of test. Both
spacecrafts are fitted with appropriate signal transmitters and
receivers. Let us assume the epoch of transmission of a signal pulse
from spacecraft A is t1, the epoch of reception and re-transmission
back, of the signal pulse at the spacecraft B is t2, and the epoch of
reception of the signal pulse back at the spacecraft A is t3. Let us
assume that both A and B are moving in the BCRF with a common velocity
U along AB. The up-link signal propagation time Tu from A to B is
given by,

Tu = t2-t1 ....................... (1)

.. ~ D
t1 A1.........................B1
.. - ~
t2 A2.........................B2

B1B2 = U*(t2-t1) = U*Tu ......... (2)

and the total distance traveled by the up-link signal pulse is,

D + U*Tu = c*Tu ..................... (3)

Similarly, the down-link signal propagation time Td from B to A is
given by,

Td = t3-t2 ....................... (4)

.. ~
t2 A2.........................B2
.. ~ -
t3 A3.........................B3

A2A3 = U*(t3-t2) = U*Td ........ (5)

and the total distance traveled by the down-link signal pulse is,

D - U*Td = c*Td ..................... (6)

Eliminating D from equations (3) and (6), we get,

U*(Tu+Td) = c* (Tu - Td)
Or,
U/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7)

Putting it in words, equation (7) reads,

The ratio U/c depends on the ratio of the difference between the up-
link and down-link signal propagation times to the total round trip
signal propagation time.

*Kindly confirm whether you agree with the derivation and validity of
equation (7) above. If you don't agree, give specific logical reasons
for the same*

In the above illustrative example, U is the common velocity of two
spacecrafts A and B, along the direction AB. It is important to note
that this velocity does not depend on the separation distance D
between A and B. We have assumed that both of the spacecrafts A and B,
are equipped with precisely synchronized Cesium atomic clocks and
identical microprocessor controlled Transponders, to transmit and
receive coded signal pulses automatically.

We have also assumed that at time t1(measured in UTC) the transponder
at A is triggered to send a signal pulse from A towards B with coded
information of t1 contained in the pulse. When this pulse reaches B at
time t2 (measured in UTC), it triggers a return pulse from B towards A
with the coded information of time t2 contained in the return pulse.
When the return pulse reaches A at time t3, it triggers the next
forward pulse from A towards B with the coded information of time t3
contained in this forward pulse. This process could keep repeating
automatically, while the real time data of up-link and down-link
signal propagation times keeps getting recorded in the on-board
computers.

Now we need to focus our attention on this recorded data of up-link
and down-link signal propagation times Tu and Td.

*Kindly confirm whether you agree with the measurement of clock times
t1, t2 and t3 in UTC standard. If you don't agree, give specific
logical reasons for the same*

In the formulation of this example we had assumed that both A and B
are moving in the BCRF (Barycentric Celestial Reference Frame) with a
common velocity U along AB and that their separation distance D
remains constant.over the entire testing period.

If however, we refer the positions and velocities of the same two
spacecrafts A and B to the GCRF (Geocentric Celestial Reference
Frame), the measure numbers depicting their positions and velocities
will change. In particular, the common velocity of spacecrafts A and B
along AB will now be a different value from U, say U1. But the
separation distance between A and B, which remained constant in BCRF,
will also remain constant in GCRF.

Similarly, if we refer the positions and velocities of the same two
spacecrafts A and B to the Galactic Reference Frame, the common
velocity of spacecrafts A and B along AB will now be a different value
say U2. But the separation distance between A and B, which remained
constant in BCRF, will also remain constant in the.Galactic Reference
Frame.

Finally, if we refer the positions and velocities of the same two
spacecrafts A and B to the Universal Reference Frame, the common
velocity of spacecrafts A and B along AB will now be a different value
say U3. But the separation distance between A and B, which remained
constant in BCRF, will also remain constant in the Universal Reference
Frame.

*Kindly confirm whether you agree that values of U, U1, U2 and U3, as
described above, will be different. If you don't agree, give specific
logical reasons for the same*

But we have only one set of up-link and down-link time (Tu and Td)
data recorded in the on-board computers.

Well, if we avoid the general confusion created by Relativity, the
recorded up-link and down-link time data must remain independent of
the reference frames used to quantify the relative positions of
objects. Logically too, there is just no way in which the recorded up-
link and down-link time data could be physically different for
different reference frames. Practically also the Universal Coordinated
Time (UTC) is meant to be the universal time scale valid for all
practical reference frames.

Hence, with the understanding that the recorded up-link and down-link
time (Tu and Td) data is valid for all practical reference frames, let
us re-write equation (7) for various reference frames considered
above.

(a) In BCRF
U/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ...... (7A)
(b) In GCRF
U1/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7B)
(c) In Galactic Reference Frame
U2/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7C)
(d) In Universal Reference Frame
U3/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7D)

As seen above, U, U1, U2 and U3 are all different values representing
the common velocity of spacecraft A and B along the direction AB in
four different reference frames. But the RHS of all the four equations
listed above (7A to 7D) is just one single value. Obviously all of the
above mentioned four equations cannot be valid.

In the foregoing analysis, c has been assumed to be the universal
constant representing the speed of light or signal propagation in
vacuum. It is only due to the Relativity dominated current paradigm
that we had assumed the speed of signal propagation c to be the same
constant in all four reference frames considered above. The above
mentioned contradiction due to the inequality of LHS and RHS in three
of the four equations (7A to 7D) points to a significant conclusion
that c cannot be the same isotropic universal constant in all
reference frames.

*Kindly confirm whether you agree with the above conclusion that c
cannot be the same isotropic universal constant in all reference
frames. If you don't agree, give specific logical reasons for the
same*

That is, the speed of signal propagation can be the isotropic value c
only in one particular reference frame which we may identify as the
Universal Reference Frame. This isotropic value of the speed of signal
propagation becomes the identifying characteristic feature of the
Universal Reference Frame.

*Kindly confirm whether you agree with the above conclusion that the
speed of signal propagation can be the isotropic value c only in one
particular reference frame which we may identify as the Universal
Reference Frame. If you don't agree, give specific logical reasons for
the same*


why don't you try to show any mistakes in a century
of experiments which have all supported relativity.

I along with many other learned readers in these forums, have been
doing just that for more than a decade. It is a different matter that
you people are so thoroughly indoctrinated into the cult of relativity
that you just turn a blind eye and deaf ear to all of 'our'
arguments.

You have shown nothing but your dislike of relativity. You have
done nothing to refute any experiments much less all of the
experiments. Why should anyone pay any attention to your
ideas when they have been shown to be wrong?

Well, if you close your eyes, you will see nothing!

I know that involves
work and you just want to complain but you would look as though
you were serious if you put in at least a tiny bit of effort.

Kindly be honest and tell me if you have actually read whole of my
original post (along with links) in this thread.

I have looked at what you have done. Section 23.2 starts you off onto
philosophy instead of science. You want the explanations in a
form that you approve of. The universe is not under any requirement
to work the way you want it to. Section 23.3 has wandered off into
a complete fantasy and is in conflict with all current theories.
Section 2.5 would bring a laugh to high school students. Chapter 4 shows
you have a complete misunderstanding of reference frames.

That is fair enough, at least you have *looked at* what I have done.
If you are willing to discuss with me, you will surely start
understanding what I have written. Let us begin with section 23.2
(a) Mathematical representations supposed to describe physical reality
are not sufficient to enable us to mentally visualize the associated
physical phenomenon. Such mathematical representations must be
supported by causal linkages, physical explanations and logical
foundations, to adequately describe physical reality.

What is your objection to it? Do you think it does not concern
physics?
How do you mentally visualize *spacetime*, *spacetime curvature* and
*spacetime metric*, if you consider them to be physical entities? Can
you distinguish between physical and mathematical entities?
What is the physical mechanism by which a massive body influences the
metric and the curvature of spacetime in its vicinity?
What is the logical foundation for the current belief that the speed c
of light propagation in vacuum must be an isotropic constant in all
inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion?

GSS

On Jul 4, 12:04*am, doug wrote:
GSS wrote:
.................
In my previous message under this thread, I have put forward a
detailed experimental technique to detect absolute motion in space. In
essence, this experiment involves precision measurement of an up-link
and a down-link signal propagation times between two fixed points on
the surface of earth. Successful measurement of tiny difference
between the up-link and down-link times will provide a measure of
absolute motion in space and invalidate Relativity.

https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...attredirects=0

You have been trying to claim that the issue cannot be
settled until YOUR experiment is done.

No, the issue can also be settled through logical discussions.

Consider two objects A and B separated by distance D and moving in
BCRF (Barycentric Celestial Reference Frame) with a common uniform
velocity U along AB. If we assume that c is the isotropic constant
speed of light propagation in BCRF, then it can be shown that the
ratio U/c depends on the ratio of the difference between the up-link
(from A to B) and down-link (from B to A) signal propagation times to
the total round trip signal propagation time.

For this purpose let us consider two Pioneer type spacecraft A and B,
in the outer regions of the solar system, such that their separation
distance D=AB remains constant during the period of test. Both
spacecrafts are fitted with identical synchronized precision clocks
and appropriate signal transmitters and receivers. Let us assume the
epoch of transmission of a signal pulse from spacecraft A is t1, the
epoch of reception and re-transmission back, of the signal pulse at
the spacecraft B is t2, and the epoch of reception of the signal pulse
back at the spacecraft A is t3. Let us assume that both A and B are
moving in the BCRF with a common velocity U along AB. The up-link
signal propagation time Tu from A to B is given by,

Tu = t2-t1 ....................... (1)

.. ~ D
t1 A1.........................B1
.. - ~
t2 A2.........................B2

B1B2 = U*(t2-t1) = U*Tu ......... (2)

and the total distance traveled by the up-link signal pulse is,

D + U*Tu = c*Tu ..................... (3)

Similarly, the down-link signal propagation time Td from B to A is
given by,

Td = t3-t2 ....................... (4)

.. ~
t2 A2.........................B2
.. ~ -
t3 A3.........................B3

A2A3 = U*(t3-t2) = U*Td ........ (5)

and the total distance traveled by the down-link signal pulse is,

D - U*Td = c*Td ..................... (6)

Eliminating D from equations (3) and (6), we get,

U*(Tu+Td) = c* (Tu - Td)
Or,
U/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7)

Putting it in words, equation (7) reads,

The ratio U/c depends on the ratio of the difference between the up-
link and down-link signal propagation times to the total round trip
signal propagation time.

*Kindly confirm whether you agree with the derivation and validity of
equation (7) above.*

In the above illustrative example, U is the common velocity of two
spacecrafts A and B, along the direction AB. It is important to note
that this velocity does not depend on the separation distance D
between A and B. We have assumed that both of the spacecrafts A and B,
are equipped with precisely synchronized atomic clocks and identical
microprocessor controlled Transponders, to transmit and receive coded
signal pulses automatically.

We have also assumed that at time t1(measured in UTC) the transponder
at A is triggered to send a signal pulse from A towards B with coded
information of t1 contained in the pulse. When this pulse reaches B at
time t2 (measured in UTC), it triggers a return pulse from B towards A
with the coded information of time t2 contained in the return pulse.
When the return pulse reaches A at time t3, it triggers the next
forward pulse from A towards B with the coded information of time t3
contained in this forward pulse. This process could keep repeating
automatically, while the real time data of up-link and down-link
signal propagation times keeps getting recorded in the on-board
computers.

Now we need to focus our attention on this recorded data of up-link
and down-link signal propagation times Tu and Td.

In the formulation of this example we had assumed that both A and B
are moving in the BCRF with a common velocity U along AB and that
their separation distance D remains constant over the entire testing
period.

If however, we refer the positions and velocities of the same two
spacecrafts A and B to the GCRF (Geocentric Celestial Reference
Frame), the measure numbers depicting their positions and velocities
will change. In particular, the common velocity of spacecrafts A and B
along AB will now be a different value from U, say U1. But the
separation distance between A and B, which remained constant in BCRF,
will also remain constant in GCRF.

Similarly, if we refer the positions and velocities of the same two
spacecrafts A and B to the Galactic Reference Frame, the common
velocity of spacecrafts A and B along AB will now be a different value
say U2. But the separation distance between A and B, which remained
constant in BCRF, will also remain constant in the Galactic Reference
Frame.

Finally, if we refer the positions and velocities of the same two
spacecrafts A and B to the Universal Reference Frame, the common
velocity of spacecrafts A and B along AB will now be a different value
say U3. But the separation distance between A and B, which remained
constant in BCRF, will also remain constant in the Universal Reference
Frame.

But we have only one set of physically measured up-link and down-link
time (Tu and Td) data recorded in the on-board computers.

Well, as per the actual physical situation, the recorded up-link and
down-link time data must remain independent of the reference frames
used to quantify the relative positions of objects. Logically too,
there is just no way in which the recorded up-link and down-link time
data could be physically different for different reference frames.

Hence, with the understanding that the recorded up-link and down-link
time (Tu and Td) data is valid for all practical reference frames, let
us re-write equation (7) for various reference frames considered
above.

(a) In BCRF
U/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7A)
(b) In GCRF
U1/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7B)
(c) In Galactic Reference Frame
U2/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7C)
(d) In Universal Reference Frame
U3/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7D)

As seen above, U, U1, U2 and U3 are all different values representing
the common velocity of spacecraft A and B along the direction AB in
four different reference frames. But the RHS of all the four equations
listed above (7A to 7D) is just one single value. Obviously all of the
above mentioned four equations cannot be valid.

In the foregoing analysis, c has been assumed to be the universal
constant representing the speed of light or signal propagation in
vacuum. It is only due to the Relativity dominated current paradigm
that we had assumed the speed of signal propagation c to be the same
constant in all four reference frames considered above. The above
mentioned contradiction due to the inequality of LHS and RHS in three
of the four equations (7A to 7D) points to a significant conclusion
that c cannot be the same isotropic universal constant in all
reference frames.

*Kindly confirm whether you agree with the above conclusion that c
cannot be the same isotropic universal constant in all reference
frames. If you don't agree, give specific logical reasons for the
same.*

That is, the speed of signal propagation can be the isotropic value c
only in one particular reference frame which we may identify as the
Universal Reference Frame. This isotropic value of the speed of signal
propagation becomes the identifying characteristic feature of the
Universal Reference Frame.

The crux of the logic here is that once we accept the notion of UTC as
a universal measure of time, derived from the automated physical
measurements of real atomic clocks, the speed of signal propagation
cannot be an isotropic value c in all inertial reference frames in
relative uniform motion.

https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...attredirects=0

I have forwarded the above referred article, to most of the leading
space agencies, research centers and academic institutions, requesting
them to undertake the proposed project. In essence, this experiment
involves precision measurement of an up-link and a down-link signal
propagation times between two fixed points. Successful measurement of
tiny difference between the up-link and down-link times, will provide
a measure of absolute motion in space and invalidate Einstein's Theory
of Relativity.

Invalidation of Relativity could trigger a paradigm shift in
fundamental physics. For this reason I am keenly interested in the
proposed experiment to detect absolute motion in space. With
appropriate support, this experiment can be conducted by all competent
Physicists and Engineers, as a fundamental research project.

As you might be aware, billions of dollars have already been wasted in
trying to validate Einstein's Relativity Theories. The proposed
experiment is expected to cost about $20,000 or so and I am sure, it
will finally and firmly invalidate the Relativity Theories. If the
project is successful, it will be viewed as a pioneering contribution
for the advancement of Fundamental Physics.

Learned readers are requested to give their opinion whether, even
after successful demonstration of absolute motion in space, through
the proposed experiment, the Relativity theories can still manage to
sustain themselves through some weird excuses?

GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info

On Aug 9, 2:04*am, GSS wrote:
...We have assumed that both of the spacecrafts A and B,
are equipped with precisely synchronized atomic clocks and identical
microprocessor controlled Transponders, to transmit and receive coded
signal pulses automatically.

This is both a conceptual and practical problem.

Practically, there are no oscillators (atomic clocks), stable enough
and capable of being integrated onto a spacecraft, which could do such
precision ranging. All clocks drift. On the earth, keeping stable
time is problem enough, requiring large environmentally controlled
vaults, placed in many parts of the world.

Conceptually, relativity prescribes that distant clocks cannot be kept
synchronized, except by using the very light pulses you propose to
use.

In fact, the method you propose is used today for spacecraft clock
synchronization. One method used by NASA is known as USCCS (and uses
a relay satellite system known as TDRSS).



In the foregoing analysis, c has been assumed to be the universal
constant representing the speed of light or signal propagation in
vacuum. *It is only due to the Relativity dominated current paradigm
that we had assumed the speed of signal propagation c to be the same
constant in all four reference frames considered above. *The above
mentioned contradiction due to the inequality of LHS and RHS in three
of the four equations (7A to 7D) points to a significant conclusion
that c cannot be the same isotropic universal constant in all
reference frames.

It's odd that you are using classical physics to "disprove"
relativity. A more logical approach would be to use the full
prescriptions of relativity, and show that a contradiction exists.
That is known as a proof by contradiction. Instead you used the
partial assumptions mixing relativity and classical physics, and then
attempted to show a contradiction. The contradiction you claim would
only demonstrate that your initial mixed assumptions were incorrect.

CM