Shaprio delay is the measured time difference of two electromagnetic
signals.

** One is to bounce radar signal off another planet.

** The other one is what?

From all the literaures readily available, the second one seems to be
the guessed distance. Of course, if this is the case, it is going to
bring up a lot of trouble.

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Shaprio delay is ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay

Sam Wormley wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

Shaprio delay is the measured time difference of two electromagnetic
signals.

** One is to bounce radar signal off another planet.

** The other one is what?

From all the literaures readily available, the second one seems to be
the guessed distance. Of course, if this is the case, it is going to
bring up a lot of trouble.

Shaprio delay is ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay

Sorry, this is what I am asking. My question which is the other signal
(or the reference signal) that Shapiro was able to compare with the
radar bounced off from the surface of Venus for example.

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

Shaprio delay is the measured time difference of two electromagnetic
signals.

** One is to bounce radar signal off another planet.

** The other one is what?

From all the literaures readily available, the second one seems to be
the guessed distance. Of course, if this is the case, it is going to
bring up a lot of trouble.

Shaprio delay is ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay

Sorry, this is what I am asking. My question which is the other signal
(or the reference signal) that Shapiro was able to compare with the
radar bounced off from the surface of Venus for example.

Why don't you read the Wikipedia article, find the references cited by
Wikipedia, and find out?

Eric Gisse wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

Shaprio delay is the measured time difference of two electromagnetic
signals.

** One is to bounce radar signal off another planet.

** The other one is what?

From all the literaures readily available, the second one seems to be
the guessed distance. Of course, if this is the case, it is going to
bring up a lot of trouble.

Shaprio delay is ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay

Sorry, this is what I am asking. My question which is the other signal
(or the reference signal) that Shapiro was able to compare with the
radar bounced off from the surface of Venus for example.

Why don't you read the Wikipedia article, find the references cited by
Wikipedia, and find out?

Ok, but KW is right to question the parameters of the
experiment. (I frequently cite Shapiro, so an examination
of the experiment is a good thing for me).
A planet is NOT a point, it consists of craters, valleys
and an intrinsic radius etc. so not easy to radar range
precisely. What's the best reference? (Wiki sucks).
Weinberg uses 3C279 and 3C273 in Grav & Cosmo,
pg 194, which seems secure to me.
Ken

No, you folks still don't understand my point.

In MMX, to measure the time delay, you need to set up the interference
of two signals. Similarly, in Shapiro's experimentation, I do expect
the interferece of two signals as well. Now, one of them is given as
the radar signal sent to Venus, bounced off the surface, and received
back again. Then, what or where is the other one (the reference signal
that is not subjected to gravitational time dilation)?

For reference, we are talking about a time delay of 0.2 milli-second or
so.

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Shaprio delay is the measured time difference of two electromagnetic
| signals.
|
| ** One is to bounce radar signal off another planet.
|
| ** The other one is what?
|
| From all the literaures readily available, the second one seems to be
| the guessed distance. Of course, if this is the case, it is going to
| bring up a lot of trouble.
|

Shapiro delay.
"Radar signals passing near a massive object takes slightly longer to travel
to a target and longer to return (as measured by the observer) than it would
if the mass of the object were not present."

All that really means is the velocity of the Earth was not added to the
velocity of the radar in the aether that isn't there.
Thus if you attempt to illuminate Venus then the Earth is moving away from
the evening star and so the light take longer to reach it, whereas when it
is the
morning star it is moving away from Earth.
Therefore one gets a delay from the "expected" result no matter what.
The right way to do it is at noon and when the Earth, Sun and Venus are
aligned and no delay is caused by either atmosphere, Earth's or Venus's.
Not an easy task, but it sounds good and is fairly easy to fudge the result
to get agreement with established religion.

Androcles

On 8 Oct 2006 17:28:18 -0700, "Koobee Wublee"
wrote:

No, you folks still don't understand my point.

In MMX, to measure the time delay, you need to set up the interference
of two signals. Similarly, in Shapiro's experimentation, I do expect
the interferece of two signals as well. Now, one of them is given as
the radar signal sent to Venus, bounced off the surface, and received
back again. Then, what or where is the other one (the reference signal
that is not subjected to gravitational time dilation)?

For reference, we are talking about a time delay of 0.2 milli-second or
so.

There was no interference. They timed the round trip from radar to
Venus and back, when the path was tangent to the sun, and for several
months took periodic readings as the "impact parameter" (spacing)
increased and the delay thereby diminished. They derived a log
function from that.
John Polasek

John C. Polasek wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:


In MMX, to measure the time delay, you need to set up the interference
of two signals. Similarly, in Shapiro's experimentation, I do expect
the interferece of two signals as well. Now, one of them is given as
the radar signal sent to Venus, bounced off the surface, and received
back again. Then, what or where is the other one (the reference signal
that is not subjected to gravitational time dilation)?

For reference, we are talking about a time delay of 0.2 milli-second or
so.

There was no interference. They timed the round trip from radar to
Venus and back, when the path was tangent to the sun, and for several
months took periodic readings as the "impact parameter" (spacing)
increased and the delay thereby diminished. They derived a log
function from that.

Thanks for the first intelligent reply.

Do you have a specific link (an open one) talking about this?

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Shaprio delay is the measured time difference of two electromagnetic
signals.

** One is to bounce radar signal off another planet.

** The other one is what?

From all the literaures readily available, the second one seems to be
the guessed distance. Of course, if this is the case, it is going to
bring up a lot of trouble.

This may not be exactly right but I think the idea is that the measured
round trip time (when bouncing a radar signal off another planet) may
be different than what a constant speed of light would predict. The
Shapiro "delay" ("difference" might be more appropriate) is the
difference, in time, between what's expected based on the special
theory of relativity compared to actual measurements.

If you Google "The Farce of Physics" you can find the scoop on what
the Shapiro delay is about. See the section on "Light Lunacy."

Bob Fritzius