|
Is the Speed of Light in Interplanetary Space a Constant?
The late physicist Bryan G. Wallace discovered in 1961 that radar distance
measurements of the surface of the planet Venus did not support the
constancy of the speed of light. There were systematic variations in the
radar data containing diurnal, lunar and synodic components. Attempting to
get his results published in Physical Review Letters, he encountered great
resistance from referees, and eventually settled for a lesser journal (41).
In a letter to Physics Today (42) Wallace summarizes his findings as
follows:
The 1961 interplanetary radar contact with Venus presented the first
opportunity to overcome technological limitations and perform direct
experiments of Einstein's second postulate of a constant light speed of c in
space. When the radar calculations were based on the postulate, the
observed-computed residuals ranged to over 3 milliseconds of the expected
error of 10 microseconds from the best [general relativity] fit the Lincoln
Lab could generate, a variation range of over 30,000%. An analysis of the
data showed a component that was relativistic in a c+v Galilean sense.
Let us do a reality check here. If the speed of light in interplanetary
space is non constant, how could NASA not have noticed in its robotic
exploration of the solar system? Wallace makes the scandalous claim that
NASA has noticed, and has been using equations with non-relativistic
components to calculate signal transit times in the solar system all along:
At the December 1974 AAS Dynamical Astronomy Meeting, E. M. Standish Jr of
JPL reported that significant unexplained systematic variations existed in
all the interplanetary data, and that they are forced to use empirical
correction factors that have no theoretical foundation.(43)
In a 1973 paper (44), Wallace describes how the Lincoln Lab introduced
averaging to suppress the anomalous radar results and refused to release the
raw data to him, stonewalling his investigation.
The apparent improvement in the residuals for later years was due to the
fact that the Lab interpolated the 1964 [Venus] data to 12:00 UT and the
1967 data to one observation a day from 2:12 UT to 2:21 UT. The observing
time for the 1961 data ranged from 00:33 UT to 23:40 UT. The involved radar
astronomers are publicly claiming nearly complete agreement between their
recent radar analysis and general relativity, but my investigation reveals
otherwise. At the Fourth Texas Symposium of Relativistic Astrophysics, I.I.
Shapiro of the Lincoln Lab promised to send me any data I wanted. I read in
an article published by the lab that they had data for the same observing
dates covering a wide range of daily observing times from both the MIT and
USSR radar stations. I wrote Shapiro requesting this data 2/13/69; his
letters of 2/28/69 and 3/12/69 ignored my request. I made an issue of this
in my letter to him of 3/20/69, and in his reply of 3/27/69 he stated,
'Unfortunately the data do not exist in the form in which you wanted them
and hence, I cannot honor your request.'
Shapiro later sent me data that were completely worthless for making an
objective test of the relative velocity of light in space. The data were
from two MIT radar stations in Massachusetts. The separation between them
was only 0.2' of longitude and 20.6" of latitude and the observations had
been interpolated to 2:12 UT to 2:21 UT with only one observation per day.
It seems obvious that the Lab eliminated the variations by interpolating the
data for each day to the one observing time for that day that agreed with
the general relativity prediction. One could use the same method to prove
that a stopped clock keeps perfect time.
A subsequent letter submitted to Physics Today on July 9, 1984 was denied
publication. Wallace reproduced this letter in the chapter Publication
Politics of his self-published online book The Farce of Physics (45). In it,
he wrote
“During a current literature search, I requested and received a reprint of a
paper [T. D. Moyer, Celes. Mech., 23, 33(1981)] published by Theodore D.
Moyer of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The paper reports the methods used
to obtain accurate values of range observables for radio and radar signals
in the solar system. The paper's (A6) equation and the accompanying
information that calls for evaluating the position vectors at the signal
reception time is nearly equivalent to the Galilean c+v equation (2) in my
paper RADAR TESTING OF THE RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE. [B. G.
Wallace, Spectros. Lett., 2, 361(1969)] The additional terms in the (A6)
equation correct for the effects of the troposphere and charged particles,
as well as the general relativity effects of gravity and velocity time
dilation.
The fact that the radio astronomers have been reluctant to acknowledge the
full theoretical implications of their work is probably related to the
unfortunate things that tend to happen to physicists that are rash enough to
challenge Einstein's sacred second postulate. Over twenty-three years have
gone by since the original Venus radar experiments clearly showed that the
speed of light in space was not constant, and still the average scientist is
not aware of this fact! This demonstrates why it is important for the APS to
bring true scientific freedom to the PR journal's editorial policy.
Supporting evidence comes from Ronald Hatch who finds that the NASA
equations for interplanetary navigation follow his MLET theory rather than
special relativity: (27)
The experimental evidence is almost overwhelming in support of the MLET
view. There is a large disjoint between the SRT theorists and the
experimentalists. The SRT theorists continue to claim that the speed of
light is automatically the velocity c and isotropic with respect to the
moving observer or experiment. But the SRT experimentalists do what is
necessary to explain and make sense of the measurements. The equations for
tracking and navigating the interplanetary probes developed by the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) for NASA clearly follow the MLET template."
Mr. Wallace died on April 19, 1997, his findings ignored and thus neither
confirmed nor refuted by the physics establishment. The question remains: Is
the speed of light in interplanetary space subject to systematic variations
in time?
Big Bang Cosmology - Beyond Empirical Falsification
Big Bang Cosmology, which is built on general relativity theory, is forced
to use a number of adjustable parameters and ad-hoc assumptions to agree
with observation, such as inflation, the assumption that most of the mass of
the universe must consist of 'dark matter', a kind of matter that cannot be
detected, but nevertheless must exist, for the sole reason that big bang
theory requires it, and now the latest fad, "dark energy", another
unobservable quantity that is nevertheless accepted by cosmologist as real
because it is needed to save big bang cosmology from empirical
falsification.
Two of the three vaunted "predictions" of big bang theory - the light
element abundances and the temperature of the microwave background are
actually retrodictions meaning that big bang theory failed to predict them
quantitatively correctly and was then adjusted after the data came in to fit
the observational evidence (46).
The third, the Hubble expansion, is entirely a figment of the imagination,
as veteran astronomer Halton Arp has pointed out for decades. There are
ample examples of high-redshift quasars that are physically connected to
low-redshift galaxies, and there is evidence that red shift is quantized.
But astronomy has failed to self-correct, and the only acknowledgement Arp
received from the scientific establishment was to be largely (though not
completely (47)) banned from publication in scientific journals or from
speaking at conferences, and to be denied telescope time. (48)] After being
told at Caltech that his research “was judged to be without value”, he found
scientific asylum at the Max Planck Institut für Astrophysik in Munich,
Germany, where he was allowed to continue his work. But suppression
continued. In Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, Arp
relates the following story (49):
'Just another isolated case'. Your eye slid over that phrase because you
wanted to see whether the referee was going to recommend publication. The
answer was: not for the Astrophysical Journal Letters. The message behind
the smooth, assured phrase was clear: 'No matter how conclusive the
evidence, we have the power to minimize and suppress it.' What was the
observation this time? Just two X-ray sources unmistakably paired across a
galaxy well known for its eruptive activity. The paper reported that these
compact sources of high-energy emission were both quasars, stellar-appearing
objects of much higher redshift than the central galaxy, NGC4258. Obviously,
they had originated from the galaxy, in contradiction to all official rules.
Slyly, the referee remarked that 'because there was no known cause for such
intrinsic, excessive redshifts the author should include a brief outline of
a theory to explain them.'
My mind flashed back through 30 years of evidence, ignored by people who
were sure of their theoretical assumptions. Anger was my only honest option-
but stronger than that provoked by worse 'peer reviews' because this was not
even my paper. I did not have to stop and worry that my response was ruled
by wounded personal ego. How did this latest skirmish begin? Several years
earlier an X-ray astronomer had come into my office with a map of the field
around NGC4258. There were two conspicuous X-ray sources paired across the
nucleus of the galaxy. He asked if I knew where he could get a good
photograph of the field, so he could check whether there were any optical
objects that could be identified with the X-ray sources. I was very pleased
to be able to swivel my chair around to the bookshelves in back of me and
pull out one of the best prints in existence of that particular field. I had
taken it with the Kitt Peak National Observatory, 4-meter telescope about a
dozen years previously. (..)
Wolfgang Pietsch quickly found a small pointing correction to the satellite
positions and established that his X-ray pair coincided with blue stellar
objects at about 20th apparent magnitude. At that instant I knew that the
objects were almost certainly quasars, and once again experienced that
euphoria that comes at the moment when you see a long way into a different
future. In view of the obvious nature of these objects I felt Pietsch showed
courage and scientific integrity in publishing the comment: 'If the
connection of these sources with the galaxy is real, they may be bipolar
ejecta from the nucleus.'
Arp then describes how establishment obstruction delayed the necessary
confirmatory observation for two years.
Then the dance of evasion began. It was necessary to obtain optical spectra
of the blue stellar candidates to confirm that they were quasars and
ascertain their redshifts. A small amount of time was requested on the
appropriate European telescope. It was turned down. (..) The Director of the
world's largest telescope in the US requested a brief observation to get the
redshifts. It was not done. The Director of the X-ray Institute requested
confirmation. It was not done. Finally, after nearly two years, E. Margaret
Burbidge with the relatively small 3-meter reflector on Mount Hamilton, on a
winter night, against the night sky glow from San Jose, recorded the spectra
of both quasars. It was fortunate that mandatory retirement had been
abolished in the US, because by this time, Margaret had over 50 years of
observing experience. Of course, the referee report from which I quoted was
directed against her paper, which reported this important new observation".
Arp concludes and generalizes,
What was particularly appalling about this series of events was that
Margaret Burbidge was someone who had given long and distinguished service
to the scientific community. Professor at the University of California,
Director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and President of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science among other contributions. It
seems it was permissible to let her fly anywhere in the world doing onerous
administrative tasks, but her scientific accomplishments were not to be
accorded elementary scientific respect and fair treatment.
Some would argue that this is a special case, owing to the climate of
opinion where the offices of the Astrophysical Journal Letters are located.
But, as events in the following chapters make clear, the problem is
pervasive throughout astronomy, and, contrary to its projected image,
endemic throughout most of current science. Scientists, particularly at the
most prestigious institutions, regularly suppress and ridicule findings
which contradict their current theories and assumptions.
G. Burbidge gives the following devastating summary of the anti-scientific
conduct of the astrophysical establishment:(50)
The existence of a class of objects which have redshifts not largely due to
the cosmic expansion was not predicted either in the hot big bang cosmology
or in QSSC. How is this phenomenon dealt with in each hypothesis? As far as
that big bang model is concerned its supporters are in complete denial. They
never mention the observational evidence, do not allow observers who would
like to report such evidence any opportunity to do this in cosmology
conferences, argue against its publication, and if forced to comment on the
data, simply argue that they are wrong.
Astronomer Thomas Van Flandern has essentially
argued that Big Bang cosmology does not qualify as science anymore: (46)
The Big Bang (..) no longer makes testable predictions wherein proponents
agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is
continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries. (..)
Perhaps never in the history of science has so much quality evidence
accumulated against a model so widely accepted within a field (..) One must
wonder why, in this circumstance, four good alternative models are not even
being comparatively discussed by most astronomers.
One of these models is Quasi-Steady State Cosmology (QSSC) proposed in 1993
by Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar. Another one is Plasma Cosmology, developed
by Hannes Alfvén.
In An Open Letter to the Scientific Community, Eric Lerner has charged that
(..) Virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are
devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all
the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of
the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field
has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the
theory. (51)
Anti-Gravity
In 1992, Russian scientist Eugene Podkletnov published claims to have
observed partial gravitational shielding above a rotating superconductor
(51). The scientific establishment reacted with scorn and dismissed the
claims on a-priori grounds (52):
Most physicists laughed at Podkletnov's report. Riley Newman, a professor of
physics at UC Irvine who has been involved in gravity research for 20 years,
typified the reaction when he commented, 'I think it's safe to say gravity
shielding is not conceivable.' Like many scientists, he felt that Podkletnov
must have made a mistake, measuring magnetic fields or air currents instead
of genuine weight reduction.
And yet, few of Podkletnov's critics actually bothered to read his
description of his work. Their reaction was so dismissive, it almost sounded
like prejudice. From their perspective he was an outsider, a nonmember of
the 'gravity establishment.' They couldn't believe that a major discovery in
physics had been made by such a no-status dilettante fooling around at some
obscure lab in Finland.
First published at
http://www.suppressedscience.net/physics.html
©2007. This text may be freely copied and/or
reposted as long as it is not changed and is reproduced in its entirety.
History of Banking Fraud:
The Coming Battle
By M. W. WALBERT
The Coming Battle
documents from Congressional records, newspaper reports and writings by
the founding fathers and others a chronology of events long forgotten that
shaped our fledgling nation from 1776 to 1899. Read about the manipulation
of our money and its supply, the intentional creation of recessions,
depressions and panics, manipulation of the stock markets, and the
demonetization of silver.
Secrets of the Federal Reserve
by Eustace Mullins
Eustace Mullins' carefully
researched and documented treatise picks up from Walbert's expose' of
control of the money supply and the economy and
brings it to the mid 1980's.
The
World Order
How control of the world's money has inexorably led to an ever tighter
grip on control of the world's people.
Uranium Wars by Leuren Moret
How control of the world's people has inexorably led to wider use of
depopulation methods which include spreading radioactivity in food,
water, air, and the human genome.
Taking Back Your Power
by Allen Aslan Heart
WHAT CAN YOU DO? Stop playing THEIR game. Take back
your power. Stop paying taxes that are not legal or lawful. Stop paying
bills you don't really owe. Stop using THEIR money. There ARE ways if you
open your mind and look for the gaps in their fences that keep the sheeple
in their pasture. Are you chattel or a real person? You are the one who
makes that choice.
Our experienced
debt elimination service professionals have been
helping people with
debt elimination,
tax freedom, and
credit repair for over
ten years. To contact them
click here.
This
Real Debt Elimination
information is
for the purpose of education and broadening horizons ONLY.
See
Real Debt Elimination links
Your Credit File Rights
For debt elimination to be successful
you must know your rights. Get rid of debt.
Zombie Debt:
Debt is Hard to Kill
There's a hot new growth
industry: companies that buy ancient bad debts for pennies and squeeze
you to pay. Here's debt elimination ideas how to get them off your
back.
Sleazy
New Debt Collector Tactics
It may not be your debt,
but it could be your problem. Collection agencies are bullying
blameless consumers into paying debts they never owed. Eliminate your
debt and be free. Get rid of debt.
Debt Collection Practices: When
Hardball Tactics Go Too Far
Dealing with a debt
collector can be one of life's most stressful experiences. Harassing
calls, threats, and use of obscene language can drive you to the edge.
Debt elimination is the solution.
An
Outcry Rises as Debt Collectors Play Rough
The rise in American consumer debt
has been accompanied by a sharp increase in complaints about
aggressive and sometimes unscrupulous tactics by debt collection
agencies, a phenomenon that has government regulators increasingly
concerned. Debt elimination removes any advantage they claim.
Get rid of debt.
Debt Collection Puts on a
Suit
As consumer loans hit an all-time
high, the industry gets more sophisticated. That means that debt
elimination skills must are even more important.
© 2007, Allen Aslan Heart / White Eagle Soaring of the Little Shell Pembina Band, a
Treaty
Tribe of the Ojibwe Nation
|