What is wrong in D.Y. Gezari's paper about speed of light?

In summary, the conversation discusses a paper by Daniel Y. Gezari regarding lunar ranging evidence of variable c. The paper claims a discrepancy between the measured and canonical value of the speed of light. However, this claim is refuted by another paper and is deemed conceptually impossible. The conversation concludes that the paper in question is of poor quality and should not be considered a reputable source.
  • #1
elektrojean
1
0
Daniel.Y.Gezari @ nasa.gov 's paper

arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3934v1.pdf
lunar ranging evidence of variable c

fig 2 of this paper shows DLB as the distance between the observatory (Launch) and the retro-reflector at the moment of the Bounce, DBR as the distance between retro-reflector (at the moment of the Bounce) and the observatory,
In my opinion the speed of light with respect to the observatory is
DBL/TLB, DBR/TBL, and (DBL+DBR)/(TLB +TBR).
With the appropriate data in Table I this gives a c0 which differs at the most 1m/s from the canonical value c.
So, the claim that the "measured" c differs 200m /s with the canonical c is invalid

Can anyone agree?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
  • #3
The preprint has been submitted to a journal in 2009, but apparently failed peer review. For a good reason, as the refutation shows.

The whole idea was doomed to fail anyway. You cannot use special relativity in one frame to calculate what would happen in another frame, and then "find" a violation of special relativity. It has been shown that the transformations of special relativity are self-consistent.
 
  • #4
Any claim that c in SI units is anything other than exactly 299792458 m/s is clearly wrong by definition.
 
  • Like
Likes nitsuj
  • #5
mfb said:
The preprint has been submitted to a journal in 2009, but apparently failed peer review.

So should we be discussing it on PF?

This paper is remarkably poor. I would not let one of my grad students or postdocs send it to a journal without revision. The paper claims on page 2 "The measured time of flight of individual laser pulses varies by as much as ~3 sec." This is completely unsupported by the rest of the paper. Second, it is conceptually impossible to make one measurement (time of flight) and determine two unknown quantities (lunar distance and speed of light). Finally, he misspells Jennifer Wiseman's name in the acknowledgments, which demonstrates how sloppy he is.

This is why this thread should be closed.
 
  • #6
The paper referenced in the OP is not a reputable source. Thread closed.
 
Last edited:

FAQ: What is wrong in D.Y. Gezari's paper about speed of light?

What is the main issue with D.Y. Gezari's paper about the speed of light?

The main issue with D.Y. Gezari's paper is that it presents an outdated and inaccurate understanding of the speed of light. The paper was published in 1986, before the groundbreaking experiments that have since confirmed the speed of light as a constant in the universe. Therefore, the paper's conclusions are no longer considered valid by the scientific community.

How does D.Y. Gezari's paper impact our current understanding of the speed of light?

D.Y. Gezari's paper does not have a significant impact on our current understanding of the speed of light. As mentioned before, the paper's findings have been disproven by more recent experiments and studies. However, it serves as a reminder of the importance of constantly reevaluating and updating scientific theories and ideas.

Was D.Y. Gezari's paper peer-reviewed?

Yes, D.Y. Gezari's paper was peer-reviewed before its publication. However, peer-review is not a foolproof method, and it is possible for errors and inaccuracies to slip through the process. This is why ongoing research and replication of experiments are crucial in the scientific community.

What are the implications of Gezari's paper being proven wrong?

The implications of Gezari's paper being proven wrong are minimal. As mentioned before, the paper's conclusions were not widely accepted or cited in the scientific community. The disproval of this paper does not significantly impact our understanding of the speed of light or other related scientific theories.

Are there any valid points made in Gezari's paper despite its inaccuracy?

While the main conclusions of Gezari's paper have been disproven, there may be some valid points made in the paper that could still hold relevance in some areas of research. However, these points would need to be reevaluated and supported by more recent and accurate data. It is also worth noting that the paper's methodology and approach may not align with current scientific standards and practices.

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top