Re: P10 Acceleration: Light Speed Doesn't Extrapolate

From: Ralph Sansbury (r9ns_at_bestweb.net)
Date: 08/06/04 

Date: 6 Aug 2004 07:58:17 -0700

Skywise <into@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote in message news:<VV%Pc.8765$9Y6.1536@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

> > every where you turn people[who play fast and loose with supposed facts] are pointing you towards facts
> that prove you to be wrong.

   The scrutinized facts are 1) there are no clear measurements of
light speed delay beyond a so that the premise light speed does not
extrapolate beyond a second is possible and that it reduces the number
of total premises in physics and it does not violate any other
equations of Electromagnetism or Relativity except the equation ct=d.
(2)The spacecraft is always sending so even if the transmitter is off
the receiver could be receiving a frequency like those it receives
when the transmitter is on at the receiving station.
   2)The trajectory of the craft is based on assumptions about its
velocity and position at earlier times and assumptions about the
earthsite motions at uplink and downlink. That is the craft is placed
at successive positions in such a way as to confirm the standard light
speed delay model more than any other. The approx 16Hz average
difference compared to an approx 2500Hz average difference between the
conventional model prediction and the nearly instantaneous model is
due to placing the craft at positions that make the conventional
prediction match the observed radar.
   But this is just a circular argument: If A is true than B is true
and If B is true then A is true. So A is true.
   But the problem with the conventional model is that the radar data
does not remain consistent with the model and these assumptions and
the lack of fit increases even more than the anomalous acceleration
can account for.
   How to fix this?

   We can change the craft trajectory starting at any point so that
the predicted frequencies match the observed frequencies according to
the nearly instantaneous model transmitter earthsite motions.
   We note that the observed Doppler count frequency subtracted from
1MHz decreases minute by minute starting at 21:27(row14) by 12Hz per
minute but that if we do not subtract, the observed Doppler count
frequency increases minute by minute by 12Hz (since (1+.33(10^-8))T
where the transmitter frequency, T=2.291944138GHz implies 1m/sec
increase in velocity of the transmitter toward a fixed receiver
produces a positive 12hz Doppler shift).This EXACTLY corresponds to
the approx 1meter per second increase in the earthsite motion toward
the craft starting at 21:47 and the way in which this initial 1 meter
per second increase decreases slightly that is given by the nasa
ephemeris.
  This suggests that a projection of the earthsite motion onto a line
toward the possible position of the craft that produces a .5meter per
second motion toward the craft on uplink and again on downlink less
than a minute later would produce the Doppler count differences we
observe.
  This means that the given formula for the actual received frequency
based on the observed Doppler count is wrong. Note the observed
Doppler count is a measure of the downverted version of the actual
received frequency. The fixed frequency we need to add to this down
converted frequency to reconstruct the actual received frequency can
be inferred from the predicted frequency based on the above
assumption. It would be nice if we could get this from the archived
data etc but we cannot.
   Proof that the above assumption is valid is provided if the
predicted frequencies continue to match the observed frequencies
(perhaps without the need for an anomalous acceleration implying that
the planets are slowly spiraling into the sun.)

Relevant Pages