The "Venus/Mercury Radar Reflection Conjunction Anomaly", is a firm motive to question Special relativity and a support for the idea of "Planetary lightspeed frame dragging" by a so called LASOF. ( Local Anti-Symmetrical Oscillati

On Nov 7, 8:59 am, "[Only registered users see links. ]" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

"Short Period Quasi-Regular Oscillations" of Venus and Mercury of
about 30 days, are described by I.I Shapiro in Radar Astronomy 1968,
page 170-172. see

Examples of QPOs (Quasi Periodic Oscillations) or Orbital
Periodicities of Binaries are supposed to be examples of gravity
influenced LASOF lightspeed anomalies just like Venus and Mercury. see
below articles by: H.Lehmann, (Binary RZ-cas.) and P.G.Ostrov,
(Binary HV 2543).
[Only registered users see links. ]

Leo Vuyk.

Dear LeoVuyk:

<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1194436941.072467.267600@19g2000hsx.googlegro ups.com...
....
....

GR predicts what we see. GR describes gravitational time
dilation also. Your "modification" becomes superfluous, and
overcompensates for what is measured.


If Maxwell did not already fit in with GR, perhaps it could. But
your hand waving argument makes no quantitative predictions to
test. Maxwell would roll over in his grave.

....
<link defective, so is removed>

You have nothing, Leo, but wasted time.

....
l> "Short Period Quasi-Regular Oscillations" of Venus

Sorry, non starter. Now try and explain how binary pulsars are
slowing down. GR provides the mechanism. You provide
empty-headed "fudge factors".

David A. Smith

Dear LeoVuyk:

<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1194436941.072467.267600@19g2000hsx.googlegro ups.com...
....
....

GR predicts what we see. GR describes gravitational time
dilation also. Your "modification" becomes superfluous, and
overcompensates for what is measured.


If Maxwell did not already fit in with GR, perhaps it could. But
your hand waving argument makes no quantitative predictions to
test. Maxwell would roll over in his grave.

....
<link defective, so is removed>

You have nothing, Leo, but wasted time.

....
l> "Short Period Quasi-Regular Oscillations" of Venus

Sorry, non starter. Now try and explain how binary pulsars are
slowing down. GR provides the mechanism. You provide
empty-headed "fudge factors".

David A. Smith

On Nov 7, 1:59 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <[Only registered users see links. ]>
wrote:

On Nov 7, 1:59 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <[Only registered users see links. ]>
wrote:

On Nov 7, 1:59 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <[Only registered users see links. ]>
wrote:

Dear David,

(Sorry for my former empty post)

I appreciate your honest attempt to let me see my superfuous efforts,
however, if I say that the Quantum Mechanical world is able to MIMIC
relativity rules down to small anomalies and as a result, to a certain
measurable scale, then- I hope- even you should that perspective see
as a challenge?


One of the other "measurable " GR MIMIC effects should be that the
contraction rules- just like the lightspeed around massive objects
like Planets- should also have measurable anomalous effects.
This subject however I have to do research on, because it was not
direct related to my book ( about QM and free will).

Leo Vuyk.

On Nov 7, 1:59 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <[Only registered users see links. ]>
wrote:

Dear David,

(Sorry for my former empty post)

I appreciate your honest attempt to let me see my superfuous efforts,
however, if I say that the Quantum Mechanical world is able to MIMIC
relativity rules down to small anomalies and as a result, to a certain
measurable scale, then- I hope- even you should that perspective see
as a challenge?


One of the other "measurable " GR MIMIC effects should be that the
contraction rules- just like the lightspeed around massive objects
like Planets- should also have measurable anomalous effects.
This subject however I have to do research on, because it was not
direct related to my book ( about QM and free will).

Leo Vuyk.

Dear LeoVuyk:

<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1194510199.151689.160810@o80g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
....

If we can measure the scale, and not "statistically", relativity
applies. Now in the large, we have more surprises in store.


It is a place where meaningful work can be done, yes. But you
strain at a single phenomenon, using "building blocks" that have
already failed so many other places, and act as if you are
contributing. And your solution would apply in other
circumstances, creating a larger effect than is observed.

You construct an edifice to meet a customer's requirements, and
carve a satisfactory design that will get the customer happy,
meet local laws, stand the test of time, and hopefully not turn
your stomach in 10 or 20 years, right?

GR describes what we see in your single phenomenon. And it
describes the precesion of the perihelion of Mercury. And it
describes the speeding up of the period of binary pulsars. And
it describes frame dragging (LAGEOS). And it describes
gravitational time dilation. And with special simplifications it
becomes SR, with its succcesses in its more limited realm. And
with futher special simplifications it becomes Newton's laws,
with their appeal to our high school teachers, and consequently
our "common sense". GR does this with a single equation. Not a
simple straightforward equation, but no "knobs" or special
arbitrary numbers or reliance on "visual constructs".

You do not work at the scale of the small, to show how the
classical derives from the quantum. You work on a single
illusioin you can create, for a single data set. And you do it
in such a way that we cannot make a quantitative test of your
inference.

I believe that you are sincere, in your intent to help.
Unfortunately, you only serve to delude yourself into a feeling
of competence in this subject. It is a subject worth study, more
than just a couple of web pages. Are you up to the challenge of
learning more?

David A. Smith

Dear LeoVuyk:

<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1194510199.151689.160810@o80g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
....

If we can measure the scale, and not "statistically", relativity
applies. Now in the large, we have more surprises in store.


It is a place where meaningful work can be done, yes. But you
strain at a single phenomenon, using "building blocks" that have
already failed so many other places, and act as if you are
contributing. And your solution would apply in other
circumstances, creating a larger effect than is observed.

You construct an edifice to meet a customer's requirements, and
carve a satisfactory design that will get the customer happy,
meet local laws, stand the test of time, and hopefully not turn
your stomach in 10 or 20 years, right?

GR describes what we see in your single phenomenon. And it
describes the precesion of the perihelion of Mercury. And it
describes the speeding up of the period of binary pulsars. And
it describes frame dragging (LAGEOS). And it describes
gravitational time dilation. And with special simplifications it
becomes SR, with its succcesses in its more limited realm. And
with futher special simplifications it becomes Newton's laws,
with their appeal to our high school teachers, and consequently
our "common sense". GR does this with a single equation. Not a
simple straightforward equation, but no "knobs" or special
arbitrary numbers or reliance on "visual constructs".

You do not work at the scale of the small, to show how the
classical derives from the quantum. You work on a single
illusioin you can create, for a single data set. And you do it
in such a way that we cannot make a quantitative test of your
inference.

I believe that you are sincere, in your intent to help.
Unfortunately, you only serve to delude yourself into a feeling
of competence in this subject. It is a subject worth study, more
than just a couple of web pages. Are you up to the challenge of
learning more?

David A. Smith

On Nov 8, 2:09 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <[Only registered users see links. ]>
wrote:

Thank you David for your positive critical reaction.
I am sorry but I must think about my own reaction now.

Leo Vuyk.