🚀 go-pugleaf

George Dishman wrote:

> "Dale A Trynor" <dalet@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message news:3E4FAAA7.BCC3BC66@nbnet.nb.ca...
> > To be honest now that you mention it I am a bit unsure if the Shapiro
> > effect is the same or different from the Shapiro delay. Maybe I should
> > have said Shapiro delay.

[snip]

>
> > too lazy today and ran out of time for it. Maybe tomorrow.
> >  http://world.std.com/~sweetser/PopScience/timeDelay/timeDelay.html
>
> Isn't this just saying that gravitational bending as the path
> gets closer to the Sun extends the path therefore it takes
> longer at the same speed,

Dale Trynor wrote:
I occasionally point out that for the theory I promote to actually work, then the time delay
must be more than if the light had only been made longer because it was bent, as if by
mirrors. If that were the case then any delays would only have been because the light must
take a longer bent path, that actually involves no time dilated effect at all and the theory I
promote on the gravitational expansion of space is useless. It has been occasionally pointed
out even in sci.physics that this delay is more than if it were only bent, however I do plan
to post asking more on this important detail as I need to be more sure myself about any
uncertainties from anyone. Tiny measures like this always leaves someone with ideas on how it
could all be wrong and we see them here quite often.

So even if gravity dilates time and that's reasonably well established or proven and I can
discribe why it must work and how. Its still essential for the theory I promote that one is
able to show that the light delay must also work on light traveling either radically or
diagonally as would also be the case of light traveling through a lens. If it the time
dilation dose not work on light traveling as would be the case through a lens, then even the
fact that time dilation dose exists, the theory I promote would not survive as the time
dilation effect must be isotropic.
It would also be a bit difficult to prove if one cannot use something as simple as a
gravitational lens to illustrate and or to test the theory with. If time dilated contraction
of matter were to only occur where we could not see or measure this change, then how would one
prove such a theory that gravity expands space and that black holes become all but infinitely
large for any close up observers. Things traveling through a gravitational lens gives us a way
of measuring these changes.


The theory is also in trouble if the time delay were to turn out to be caused by different
effects than the ones expected. An unlikely example is if it only become delayed when it
travels away from the gravity. However this would be easily disproved if light contained in an
orbit would show no time delay but display a delay only when it escapes the orbit. This
speculation could also involve the possibility of light speeding up rather than staying as a
constant to its origin, as it went towards the gravity potential, and so this question would
have to be looked at in different ways. While I am trying to to find ways of disproving the
theory I haven't been getting many good ideas on how that could be done and the above is about
the best I have been able to come up with at this time. I would like to hear any ideas on
this.

> the Shapiro Delay being the excess
> over the time in the absence of the Sun?

>
> --
> George Dishman
> The arrow of time points in many directions.