Re: Pioneer 10 test of light speed delay

From: George Dishman (george_at_briar.demon.co.uk)
Date: 11/21/04 

Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:03:13 -0000

Ralph, I note you have again added sci.optics to the
list. I have removed it again as I have no intention
of adding to the spam. This conversation has no optics
content whatsoever.

"r9ns" <r9ns@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:30e10dee.0411200959.46570eb5@posting.google.com...
> "George Dishman" <george.dishman@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<1100553890.11437.0@damia.uk.clara.net>...
>> "r9ns" <r9ns@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>

[restored snip]
>> > We assume the craft in this data is at these times moving away from
>> > the sun at about 13.059km/sec ...
> <snip>
>> > according to 1)the conventional model
>> > and 2)its initial launch velocity etc. and the projection of this on
>> > the earthsite to craft line is, through a nearly zero angle, 13.059.
>>
>> That is incorrect, according to the conventional
>> model, the angle is about 11 degrees. However, we
>> aren't discussing the conventional model. Show how
>> we are to calculate this angle in your "easier"
>> method.
>>
> The maximal angle between lines from Pluto at 40AU to the earth and
> to the sun is 1.4 deg not 11 deg.

The angle between the craft's motion and the craft-to-Sun
line is 11.4 degrees. Remember these from last year:

http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Ralph/Path.gif
http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Ralph/Geometry.gif

The angle between the velocity vector and the craft-to-site
line varies from 10.1 to 12.7 and back over the course of a
year.

>> Show how you did this and the results you obtained.
>> Exactly what are the RA and Decl for these dates?
>>
> You are confusing azimuth and elevation which are changing and RA
> and Decl which are not.

You cannot calculate the remaining values you asked about
without first finding the RA and Dec, and your theory gives
inconsistent results for the RA.

> Here is the method again ...

No Ralph, that's your method. Any accurate theory must be
able to give good predictions in _all_ circumstances. If
your theory gives consistent results for your test but
inconsistent results for mine, then the theory is still
proven to be wrong. Using the sine component that results
directly from the rotation of the Earth proves
conclusively that your theory is wrong so I'm not going
to waste any further time on your alternative method, one
failed test is sufficient.

If you cannot follow the proof or the calculation of the
effect of the orbital motion, I will be happy to explain
it to you. Otherwise I will write it up as a web page as
I have time and let you know the URL (hopefully later
this week).

George

Quantcast