🚀 go-pugleaf

[Photon gas AEther.]; carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote: >
> In sci.physics Sue... <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> >> In sci.physics Sue... <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote: >
> >> > carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> >> >> In sci.physics Sue... <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote:-=-
> > I haven't seen any so called Shapiro delays that convincingly
> > eliminate the dielectric effects we would normally expect in
> > regions where we expect gas to be densier, like near our
> > planet but not near our moon.
>
> 1.  Dielectric effects are frequency-dependent.  Observations of
> Shapiro time delay look at multiple frequencies, allowing these
> effects to be eliminated.
>
> 2.  The best current measurement (Bertotti et al., Nature 425,
> 374-376, 25 September 2003) agrees with the GR prediction at a
> precision of 2x10^{-5}. Are you suggesting that some unknown
> frequency-independent dielectric effects around the Sun manage,
> by [NOT] coincidence, to reproduce GR at this precision?

$$                                Yes.

  Do you think that's likely?

$$                   Yes. This is NOT "coincidence".

> 3.  The measurement in the citation above also looks at the delay as a
> function of distance from the Sun, out to many times the radius of the
> Sun.  The functional form of dependence of the delay on distance exactly
> matches the GR prediction.  Are you suggesting that "gas" around the Sun
> just happens to have exactly the density profile needed to exactly mimic
> this prediction as well?

$$                 Yes ..your "[photon] gas", etc etc.

> Do you think that's likely?

$$   Yes.!! Your "[photon] gas" WORKiNG FLUiD is ABSOLUTELY essential.

$$  [Brackets mine,            ```Brian A M Stuckless, Ph.T (Tivity)].

> > IMHO, the dielectric contibution of intestellar [photon]gas [etc]
> > is underestimated in such claims.  Such an  explanation is
> > consistant with: http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v60/i3/p173_1
 -=-
> > I was considering composite, as atomic or nuclear matter.
> > We can *extract* an e+ or e- from composite particles so an
> > alternating electrical couple is possible.  A fundamental
> > particle can not radiate its electical opposite under any
> > circumastances...      ...ignoring spooky things like neutrios.
>
> >> Remember, the original question (at least where I climbed on
> >> to this thread) was whether you believe gravity to be
> >> electromagnetic in nature.
>
> > More correctly, electro-inductive. Yes it seems plausible.
 -=-
> > The energy of a charge pair is certainly electrically charged.
> > Light, Van der Walls, London and Magnetic force has no
> > net electrical charge.
 -=-
> So if gravity is "electro-inductive," why are the gravitational
> masses different?
> More sharply, why is the difference in gravitational mass
> exactly equal to the difference in binding energy divided by c^2?
> Do you have a quantitative "electro-inductive" explanation?
> Or do you argue that this is another odd coincidence?
>
> Steve Carlip > > >> > >> Steve Carlip
Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality).
Re: Photon gas ambient (AEther) medium.                   End of POST.