Gravity variations [Archive]

backdoorstudent

Apr28-04, 01:28 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Whatever became of this? Has it been reproduced or invalidated? Does\nit violate General Relativity?\n\nhttp://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v62/i4/e041101\n\nTitle: Precise measurement of gravity variations during a total solar\neclipse\nAbstract: The variations of gravity were measured with a high\nprecision LaCoste-Romberg D gravimeter during a total solar eclipse to\ninvestigate the effect of a solar eclipse on the gravitational field.\nThe observed anomaly (7.0±2.7) x 10-8 m/s2during the eclipse implies\nthat there may be a shielding property of gravitation.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Whatever became of this? Has it been reproduced or invalidated? Does
it violate General Relativity?

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v62/i4/e041101

Title: Precise measurement of gravity variations during a total solar
eclipse
Abstract: The variations of gravity were measured with a high
precision LaCoste-Romberg D gravimeter during a total solar eclipse to
investigate the effect of a solar eclipse on the gravitational field.
The observed anomaly (7.0±2.7) x 10-8 m/s2during the eclipse implies
that there may be a shielding property of gravitation.

carlip@no-physics-spam.ucdavis.edu

May12-04, 01:26 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>backdoorstudent <backdoorstudent@yahoo.com> wrote:\n> Whatever became of this? Has it been reproduced or invalidated? Does\n> it violate General Relativity?\n\n> http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v62/i4/e041101\n\n> Title: Precise measurement of gravity variations during a total solar\n> eclipse\n\nThis one, at least, is dead: see Unnikrishnan et al., Phys. Rev. D 63,\n062002 (2001). Unnikrishnan et al. actually use the non-eclipse data\nfrom this experiment to put a strong limit on ``gravitational shielding\'\'\nby the Earth.\n\nVan Flandern and Yang have a reasonable-looking explanation for the\noccasionally reported anomalous results during eclipses: see Phys. Rev.\nD 67, 022002 (2003).\n\nIncidentally, if you are using PROLA to look at these papers, you might\nbe able to look at the "Show Articles Citing This One" feature (depending\non whether you\'re at an institution that has a subscription). That\nwould give you a reference to both Unnikrishnan et al. and Van Flandern\nand Yang.\n\nSteve Carlip\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>backdoorstudent <backdoorstudent@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Whatever became of this? Has it been reproduced or invalidated? Does
> it violate General Relativity?

> http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v62/i4/e041101

> Title: Precise measurement of gravity variations during a total solar
> eclipse

This one, at least, is dead: see Unnikrishnan et al., Phys. Rev. D 63,
062002 (2001). Unnikrishnan et al. actually use the non-eclipse data
from this experiment to put a strong limit on ``gravitational shielding''
by the Earth.

Van Flandern and Yang have a reasonable-looking explanation for the
occasionally reported anomalous results during eclipses: see Phys. Rev.
D 67, 022002 (2003).

Incidentally, if you are using PROLA to look at these papers, you might
be able to look at the "Show Articles Citing This One" feature (depending
on whether you're at an institution that has a subscription). That
would give you a reference to both Unnikrishnan et al. and Van Flandern
and Yang.

Steve Carlip

Paul Stowe

May17-04, 08:06 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>On Wed, 12 May 2004 18:26:58 +0000 (UTC), carlip@no-physics-spam.ucdavis.edu\nwrote:\n\n>backdoorstudent <backdoorstudent@yahoo.com> wrote:\n>> Whatever became of this? Has it been reproduced or invalidated? Does\n>> it violate General Relativity?\n>\n>> http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v62/i4/e041101\n>\n>> Title: Precise measurement of gravity variations during a total solar\n>> eclipse\n>\n>This one, at least, is dead: see Unnikrishnan et al., Phys. Rev. D 63,\n>062002 (2001). Unnikrishnan et al. actually use the non-eclipse data\n>from this experiment to put a strong limit on ``gravitational shielding\'\'\n>by the Earth.\n>\n>Van Flandern and Yang have a reasonable-looking explanation for the\n>occasionally reported anomalous results during eclipses: see Phys. Rev.\n>D 67, 022002 (2003).\n>\n> Incidentally, if you are using PROLA to look at these papers, you might\n> be able to look at the "Show Articles Citing This One" feature (depending\n> on whether you\'re at an institution that has a subscription). That\n> would give you a reference to both Unnikrishnan et al. and Van Flandern\n> and Yang.\n\nThe Van Flandern/Yang paper can be found @\n\nhttp://www.eclipse2006.boun.edu.tr/sss/paper01.pdf\n\nPaul Stowe\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On Wed, 12 May 2004 18:26:58 +0000 (UTC), carlip@no-physics-spam.ucdavis.edu
wrote:

>backdoorstudent <backdoorstudent@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Whatever became of this? Has it been reproduced or invalidated? Does
>> it violate General Relativity?
>
>> http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v62/i4/e041101
>
>> Title: Precise measurement of gravity variations during a total solar
>> eclipse
>
>This one, at least, is dead: see Unnikrishnan et al., Phys. Rev. D 63,
>062002 (2001). Unnikrishnan et al. actually use the non-eclipse data
>from this experiment to put a strong limit on ``gravitational shielding''
>by the Earth.
>
>Van Flandern and Yang have a reasonable-looking explanation for the
>occasionally reported anomalous results during eclipses: see Phys. Rev.
>D 67, 022002 (2003).
>
> Incidentally, if you are using PROLA to look at these papers, you might
> be able to look at the "Show Articles Citing This One" feature (depending
> on whether you're at an institution that has a subscription). That
> would give you a reference to both Unnikrishnan et al. and Van Flandern
> and Yang.

The Van Flandern/Yang paper can be found @

http://www.eclipse2006.boun.edu.tr/sss/paper01.pdf

Paul Stowe

greywolf42

May20-04, 03:47 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE><carlip@no-physics-spam.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message\nnews:c7e7qd\\$5ti\\$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu ...\n> backdoorstudent <backdoorstudent@yahoo.com> wrote:\n> > Whatever became of this? Has it been reproduced or invalidated? Does\n> > it violate General Relativity?\n>\n> > http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v62/i4/e041101\n>\n> > Title: Precise measurement of gravity variations during a total solar\n> > eclipse\n>\n> This one, at least, is dead: see Unnikrishnan et al., Phys. Rev. D 63,\n> 062002 (2001). Unnikrishnan et al. actually use the non-eclipse data\n> from this experiment to put a strong limit on ``gravitational shielding\'\'\n> by the Earth.\n\nOne doesn\'t get to use theory to show that Wang\'s physical experimental\nobservation is \'dead.\' The assumptions used by Unnikrishnan do not control\nphysical experiments.\n\n> Van Flandern and Yang have a reasonable-looking explanation for the\n> occasionally reported anomalous results during eclipses: see Phys. Rev.\n> D 67, 022002 (2003).\n\nOf course, that doesn\'t mean that shielding is not possible. Just\nthat there could be another explanation.\n\n> Incidentally, if you are using PROLA to look at these papers, you might\n> be able to look at the "Show Articles Citing This One" feature (depending\n> on whether you\'re at an institution that has a subscription). That\n> would give you a reference to both Unnikrishnan et al. and Van Flandern\n> and Yang.\n\nOthers of us without subscriptions to PROLA will just have to visit the\nlibrary again.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for return e-mail}\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky><carlip@no-physics-spam.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:c7e7qd$5ti$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
> backdoorstudent <backdoorstudent@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Whatever became of this? Has it been reproduced or invalidated? Does
> > it violate General Relativity?
>
> > http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v62/i4/e041101
>
> > Title: Precise measurement of gravity variations during a total solar
> > eclipse
>
> This one, at least, is dead: see Unnikrishnan et al., Phys. Rev. D 63,
> 062002 (2001). Unnikrishnan et al. actually use the non-eclipse data
> from this experiment to put a strong limit on ``gravitational shielding''
> by the Earth.

One doesn't get to use theory to show that Wang's physical experimental
observation is 'dead.' The assumptions used by Unnikrishnan do not control
physical experiments.

> Van Flandern and Yang have a reasonable-looking explanation for the
> occasionally reported anomalous results during eclipses: see Phys. Rev.
> D 67, 022002 (2003).

Of course, that doesn't mean that shielding is not possible. Just
that there could be another explanation.

> Incidentally, if you are using PROLA to look at these papers, you might
> be able to look at the "Show Articles Citing This One" feature (depending
> on whether you're at an institution that has a subscription). That
> would give you a reference to both Unnikrishnan et al. and Van Flandern
> and Yang.

Others of us without subscriptions to PROLA will just have to visit the
library again.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}