Shapiro time delay is caused by Refraction. Gravitational time dilation does not exist.

[Marvas]

Shapiro time delay is caused by refraction. Gravitational time dilation does not exist.​

The Shapiro time delay effect, or gravitational time delay effect, is one of the four classic Solar System tests of general relativity. Radar signals passing near a massive object take slightly longer to travel to a target and longer to return than they would if the mass of the object were not present. The time delay is caused by time dilation, which increases the time it takes light to travel a given distance from the perspective of an outside observer.[...]
'Throughout this article discussing the time delay, Shapiro uses c as the speed of light and calculates the time delay of the passage of light waves or rays over finite coordinate distance according to a Schwarzschild solution to the Einstein field equations.'

And, just like Pound and Rebka, completely ignores refraction. Which makes his whole calculation wrong, because he does not understand basic physics, which require to take into consideration the index of refraction, which affects the speed of light and of radio waves (electro-magnetic waves in general), each time the wave enters a medium.

Which immediately shows that the radio wave will slow down when passing near a massive object, because of the atmosphere which surrounds the massive object, i.e. sun or planet, which causes the radio wave to refract and decrease its speed to v=c/n, where n is the index of refraction of the medium. And, since time is distance over velocity, t=d/v, then if the velocity v decreases the time t increases. So it will take a longer time for the radio wave to travel the same distance, then if it was traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum c. That’s where the time delay comes from. It has absolutely nothing to do with gravity or general relativity.

So, just like in the case of gravitational redshift, einsteinian pseudo-physicists have confused an effect produced by refraction with one of gravitation. Which proves once more that general relativity is an absurd pseudo-science based on a complete ignorance of classical physics and refraction.


This is just another example of how general relativity is illogically proven by these so called scientists, who don't know basic refraction physics and confuse a well known effect of refraction with an immaginary one of gravitation. They just have to know that v=c/n, where n is index of refraction, which is learned in highschool, and do the math, which any highschool student can do. Instead they use c everywhere, instead of v=c/n, and illogically 'prove' that time is slowed down by gravity, as predicted by general relativity. But all that they prove is Einstein's prediction that:

'Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I’m not sure about the universe.’​

 

[Marvas]

So no scientist can disprove my critiques of general relativity, but they don't approve them either. They just keep believing in their relative religion no matter what, despite the evidence which shows it's a completely false pseudo-science.

 

[Gibsense]

You appear to be saying my GPS works because of refraction. In contrast, everyone else in the universe (including Aliens I have spoken to) believes it to be a combination of effects from GR and SR.
NB Jokes should make one laugh not cry.

 

[Jim Franklin]

Oh dear - another victom of a random cool aid attack.

 

[Marvas]

You appear to be saying my GPS works because of refraction.

I was analising the Shapiro experiment, how did you get to GPS ?
I only said that the time delay of the radio signal that Shapiro used to prove time-dilation is caused by refraction ! And yes, the GPS radio signal is also delayed by atmospheric refraction !

One of the largest errors in GPS positioning is attributable to the atmosphere. The long, relatively unhindered travel of the GPS signal through the virtual vacuum of space changes as it passes through the earth’s atmosphere. Through both refraction and diffraction, the atmosphere alters the apparent speed and, to a lesser extent, the direction of the signal. This causes an apparent delay in the signal's transit from the satellite to the receiver.

The Ionospheric Effect | GEOG 862: GPS and GNSS for Geospatial Professionals

While the troposphere is no more cooperative than the ionosphere in terms of being consistent, the troposphere and the ionosphere are by no means alike in their effect on the satellite’s signal. The troposphere is refractive, its refraction of a GPS satellite’s signal is not related to its frequency. The refraction is tantamount to a delay in the arrival of a GPS satellite's signal.

The Tropospheric Effect, dtrop | GEOG 862: GPS and GNSS for Geospatial Professionals

So if that idiot Shapiro would be seeing a delay in the GPS signal, he would conclude that it is caused by earth's gravity, or the curvature of space, because he was a relative idiot who did not understand basic physics and who completelly ignored the delay from refraction in the sun's heliosphere and corona, confusing it with a gravitational time dilation.

In contrast, everyone else in the universe (including Aliens I have spoken to) believes it to be a combination of effects from GR and SR.

Have you spoken to Ron Hatch ? He is not an alien, but a GPS inventor with over 40 patents and he claims GPS disproves relativity. So maybe you should stop talking to aliens and relative idiots and do some actual research. Ron has clearly stated that there is no shift in frequency of the radio signal coming from GPS to earth, which completelly debunks Einstein's gravitational shift, and therefore general relativity. And the very claim that GPS works because of special and general relativity is non-sensical, because SR is a special case of GR which only applies in flat space, whereas GR applies in curved space. How do they apply SR and GR at the same time and location in space, is space flat and curved at the same time ? Or is this another of Einstein's 'dualities', i.e. a flat-curved space ?

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iQKTG5LQ05Y

 

[SMyers]

'The possibility that the red-shift may be due to some other cause, connected with the long time or distance involved in the passage of light from the nebula to observer, should not be prematurely neglected.' Edwin Hubble

gosh, and yet we continue to neglect it. i'm still curious how all the squiggly math works out when you apply red-shift as a time-decay function of the proton. if any one has attempted that i'd sure like to see the results.