Re: Pioneer 10 test of light speed delay
r9ns_at_verizon.net
Date: 02/24/05
- Next message: kenseto: "Re: Expanding Space"
- Previous message: Anthony Ayiomamitis: "Re: New Image of the Week"
- In reply to: George Dishman: "Re: Pioneer 10 test of light speed delay"
- Next in thread: George Dishman: "Re: Pioneer 10 test of light speed delay"
- Reply: George Dishman: "Re: Pioneer 10 test of light speed delay"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 24 Feb 2005 09:19:36 -0800
George Dishman wrote:
> "Jonathan Silverlight"
<jsilverlight@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote
> in message news:MIO3DYgekOHCFwrH@merseia.fsnet.co.uk...
> ...
> > I don't know just how useful this is, but it's possible to use the
> > Celestia program <http://www.shatters.net/celestia/> to visualise
Earth as
> > seen from Pioneer 10, and to include or remove the light travel
delay.
>
> I hadn't found this before, thanks Jonathan.
>
> > Might help resolve whether two-way mode is possible.
>
> Two-way mode is always possible from Ralph's point of view
> since the same site is both transmitting and receiving
> simultaneously.
>
> > Does anyone else think Ralph is just trolling?
> He is incapable of seriously addressing evidence
> against his theory because he mentally blocks it
> out. Notice he was happy to discuss my approach
> up to the time when I showed his theory failed
> the test, after which he snipped everything I
> said about it and tried to replace it with
> discussion of his own calculations.
Not true George.
The main argument against you is the impossibility of anomolous
acceleration of the magnitude implied by Horizons evidence which you
say is not as accurate as Anderson and Markwardt evidence- which has
never been shown.
Also 1)You have to realize whats wrong with your argument that
minimum received radiation at times at two earthsites a certain time
apart that are not this same time apart. I am assuming your data is
correct even though there is something wrong with the data tape
compared to the other data tapes that are of a size that can be read
without any problem by my program.
This would be the case if the earthsite positions were at the same
latitude and if the earth were not orbiting.
Just saying that these effects are minimal or negligible over the
small time period could not account for the observed disparity is not
enough.
I suspect that the main effect is the earth's orbital movement and
your lack of understanding of basic astronomy eg the difference between
the solar and sidereal day which is similarly explained, leads you to
make such arguments.
2)The fact that Horizons positions of the spacecraft and earthsite
motions at the time of transmission according to the conventional light
speed delay assumption give a more accurate prediction than a
prediction that assumes the transmission time was a few seconds earlier
is due to the fact that the spacecraft positions have been determined
using the conventional light speed delay assumption.
But even so the conventional assumptions leads in one hour to a
trend of increasing disparities between the predicted and actual
received values that Markwardt claims can be made smaller and smaller
by linearly extrapolating the transmission earthsite motions to
fractions of a minute and by assuming an anomalous acceleration. No
details, only general comments as to method, are given to support these
extravagant claims and the evidence suggests that he is not being
truthful here as in the case that transmissions could not be received
if the transmitter was off at the receiver site because the earthcraft
free running transmitter is always unstable unless it is receiving
radiation from the earth.
When the spacecraft position is changed it predicts the exact
received frequency and if adjusments are made for the exact time of
transmission allowing for the unknown turnaround time at the
spacecraft, the position and velocity of the spacecraft can be modified
so that a sequence of positions is possible that gives predicted
frequencies that match the observed as shown on my website.
But the main thing is that you dont have to assume an anomalous
acceleration.
You can work out the details, with my help if you cant do it on your
own, according to the method shown on my web page
- Next message: kenseto: "Re: Expanding Space"
- Previous message: Anthony Ayiomamitis: "Re: New Image of the Week"
- In reply to: George Dishman: "Re: Pioneer 10 test of light speed delay"
- Next in thread: George Dishman: "Re: Pioneer 10 test of light speed delay"
- Reply: George Dishman: "Re: Pioneer 10 test of light speed delay"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
