🚀 go-pugleaf

"Dale A Trynor" <dalet@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message news:3E50ED94.D5CA0696@nbnet.nb.ca...
> 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.

I am not familiar with the details which is why I was interested.
I would expect that the delay would be more than just the bending
predicted by Newtonian theory just as the angle of deflection is
double the Newtonian value. I suppose it deends on what "only bent"
meant in the sci.physics posts.

> .... 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.

It sounds like a good place to start at least. I am trying to do
something similar with a suspicion of my own and my first step is
to come up with a prediction, then look to see if reality matches
it. I suggest your best course would be to calculate the excess
delay your theory predicts as a function of the Sun-Earth-Mercury
angle in the tests mentioned before. Plot that curve and then go
looking to see if the actual measurements follow it. I am being
very careful (almost paranoid) to not find out the answer before
I can make the predictions because it is all too easy to convince
yourself there are good reasons for taking a certain approach once
you know what the target is and it sounds as though you are in the
ideal situation of not knowing yet too.

Alternatively, you could just see if the equation you get from your
theory matches the one mentioned from MTW. If it does, you cannot
distinguish it from GR with that test.

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