Re: Pioneer 10 test of light speed delay
r9ns_at_verizon.net
Date: 02/25/05
- Next message: Eric Chomko: "Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?"
- Previous message: Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy): "Re: kookdancers digest"
- 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: 25 Feb 2005 09:04:23 -0800
George Dishman wrote:
> <r9ns@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:1109265576.776321.258620@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > George Dishman wrote:
> >
> >> He is incapable of seriously addressing evidence
> >> against his theory because
> > Not true George.
>
> Your reply illustrates it perfectly thanks.
>
> > The main argument against you is the impossibility of anomolous
> > acceleration of the magnitude implied by Horizons evidence ...
>
> That is of no relevance to whether your theory
> passes the test I designed as I predicted.
>
Your test is irrelevant if the conventional light speed delay
assumption implies that anomalous accleration must occur to make the
predicted received radiation from the spacecraft match the observed
radiation.
> > which you
> > say is not as accurate as Anderson and Markwardt evidence- which
has
> > never been shown.
>
> The evidence is there for all to see in the papers.
>
This is a lie. You know it and everyone who reads the references you
give and the general statments and lack of specific support that you
say are the evidence, know it.
>
> > 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 agree, if I only _said_ they were negligible,
> that would be unacceptable, just as your _claim_
> that they are not negligible is also unacceptable.
> However I calculated the errors
No you make calculations based on questionable assumptions without
answering my objections to these assumptions.
>
> I also pointed out that since the latitude only
> affects the magnitude, I designed the test to use
> only a zero croosing hence the latitude does not
> influence the result. Again you seem to have
> forgotten this and have never addressed it.
But this is not true because of the projections and the changing
angles of the earths motions wrt the supposed position of the craft.
>
> > 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.
>
> Since the transverse motion of the craft is of the
> order of 1km/s and the range is ~40AU, one would
> assume that the sidereal day
I am not talking about this but about the analogy between the
orbital correction for the sidereal vs solar day and the orbital
correction that help explains the 20 minute or whatever difference in
the times of minimal
Doppler shift caused by the earthsite motions.
>
>
>
>
>
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: Eric Chomko: "Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?"
- Previous message: Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy): "Re: kookdancers digest"
- 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
|
