Re: Light Speed Test versus Special Relativity

From: Jim Greenfield (jgreen_at_seol.net.au)
Date: 03/24/05 

Date: 23 Mar 2005 20:23:40 -0800

"Stan Byers" <sbyers11@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<DYKdnVNi2Jg7zqHfRVn-3A@comcast.com>...
> Gentlemen of physical science.
>
> This notice is posted with a request for reviews. All comments, corrections
> and alternate views are welcome. Reviews may be posted on this group or
> emailed. Reviews will not be posted on the web site or news groups without
> the reviewing author's prior permission. The links for the graphs are
> listed below and the graphs are currently available on the website.
>
> Io's period change graphs via Excel spread***.
>
> Earth retreating from Jupiter
> http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/IoAppro.gif
>
> Earth approaching Jupiter
> http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/IoEcipChange4.gif

Stan,
While I am a strong supporter of the 'ballistic theory' (feel free to
borrow
c'=c+v ), I think you have stuffed up. As George D points out, I think
you are mistaking the changed travel (distance) as altered speed for
the light.
I don't know what the time difference in the 'signal' time interval
would be for Io due to c-v as it is regressing from earth, and c+v as
it approaches, but I think it would only be of the order 1 second, not
1,000.
For Cassini, with a light travel time of about 5000 sec, and its
velocity
6,000 km/hr (horizontal orbit ref us), the difference in signal travel
will only be .1 sec between its approach and regression from us.
So what is needed to be observed and measured, is only that 'event'
(signal)
exactly as Io winks out (eclipsed) and then on. As this is likely to
be in the same ballpark as Cassini, I'm afraid we won't see it (time
it) accurately enough to account for the various motions which have
taken place meanwhile.

Regards
Jim G
c'=c+v

PS: Good luck with the polite approach; ask difficult (for SR)
questions,
and expect abuse, ridicule, (anything but concise, logical answers)