Re: to androcles 2

From: The Ghost In The Machine (ewill_at_sirius.athghost7038suus.net)
Date: 01/23/05 

Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:01:40 GMT

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
<dummy@dummy.net>
 wrote
on Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:34:24 GMT
<4TqId.192632$48.161439@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
> message news:0qt8c2-t03.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
>> In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
>> <dummy@dummy.net>
>> wrote
>> on Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:23:38 GMT
>> <KOiId.187233$Z7.101951@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>>>
>>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote
>>> in
>>> message news:9bm8c2-742.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
>>>> In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
>>>> <dummy@dummy.net>
>>>> wrote
>>>> on Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:09:36 GMT
>>>> <4P9Id.185546$Z7.51983@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>
>>>>> wrote
>>>>> in
>>>>> message news:vhf7c2-qnt.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
>>>>>> In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
>>>>>> <dummy@dummy.net>
>>>>>> wrote
>>>>>> on Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:04:51 GMT
>>>>>> <nl5Id.184989$48.157621@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:1106270776.184948.257440@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>> xxein: I'm not SR-GR either. So how come geo-stationary
>>>>>>>> satellite
>>>>>>>> clocks run faster than ours?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you assume that as if it were a fact?
>>>>>>> Did some lying dirtbag relativist tell you that?
>>>>>>> And you want to continue spreading the rumour?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shoot up a satellite and find out. Got a spare $100M or so?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are the one making outrageous claims. You do it.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have to. DoD did it for me with NST-2, and every
>>>> subsequent satellite is operating fine (with an adjustment
>>>> to their clock of about 4.46 * 10^-10).
>>>
>>> Bull***. You cannot adjust the orbital position of a satellite to be
>>> in
>>> two places at the same instant. Just because a clock isn't keeping
>>> time
>>> properly doesn't mean time itself has two values.
>>
>> Time has N values, where N is the number of observers.
>
> Bull***. Who fucking says so? You been listening to Wormley again?
> Harry Potter has N magic wands, where N is the number of observers.
> You can make it up any old crap as you go along, right?

So how does one measure absolute time, then?

Never mind Earthbound stuff -- that's got the problems of
a warped, twisted, and moving coordinate system.

[1] Warped: the Earth is big and is warping space. (Any particle
    with mass can do that, although the actual warpage is
    hard to detect on a scale smaller than an asteroid,
    without specialized equipment.)
[2] Twisted: The Earth is twisting space, as it's rotating.
[3] Moving: Anything on the Earth is moving relative
    to the center thereof, and for that matter to the
    Earth-Sun mass-center, and to the Sun-Galaxy
    mass-center, and to the Galaxy-Localgroup
    mass-center, ...

So...where's the space-time origin?

>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I do not find SR outrageous, given its many successes:
>>>>
>>>> - Mercury orbital perturbations.
>>>
>>> *** all to do with SR.
>>
>> Newton doesn't do it properly.
>
> Don't blame others. YOU don't do it properly.

Fine then. Calculate a priori the damage done to a clock
launched into space.

Also, while you're at it, calculate a priori the number
of muons that will reach Earth from space, given a certain
observed intensity through a simple detector.

Observation: 70 muons per square meter per second.
Computation: muon halflife 1.56 microseconds (at rest)
Atmospheric profile:
    0 m: 1.224 kg/m^3
    2500 m: 0.956 kg/m^3
    5000 m: 0.736 kg/m^3
    10000 m: 0.413 kg/m^3
    20000 m: 0.087 kg/m^3
    30000 m: 0.017 kg/m^3

These are taken from a NASA applet at

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/atmosi.html

the actual simulation formulae are at the next page:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/atmosmet.html

Let's assume that a random, otherwise unperturbed particle
hits an atmospheric element (probably an electron) and
immediately generates a muon. The muon would leave the
event at lightspeed, and sometime later decay. Half the
muons would decay after 1.56 microseconds. At lightspeed,
1.56 microseconds is 468 meters. If it decays prior
to hitting the ground the flash of light is in the
atmosphere, not in the sealevel detector, and is lost.

The probability of the event reaching sea level is
therefore

    probability of hitting something at height h
    * probability of the particle surviving to sea level

    = P * r(h) * exp(-log(2) * h / 468.)

where r(h) is the density of the atmosphere, as a function
of height.

r(h) is a bit tricky. Since it's clear that most of the
muons will appear from tropospheric events in this
computation (the height of the troposphere is 11000m,
according to th above webpage), we can use a single
formula for r(h):

r(h) = 101.29 * (K(h)/288.08)^5.256 / (.2869 * K(h))
     = K(h) ^ 4.256 * 4.175 * 10^-11
     = (288.14 - 0.00649 * h) ^ 4.256 * 4.175 * 10^-11
     = exp(4.256 * log(288.14 - 0.00649 * h)) * 4.175 * 10^-11

where K(h) = T(h) + 273.1, presumably close to the temperature
of the atmosphere in Kelvin (the actual zero point is .06 off,
which isn't all that relevant here).

As a check, r(0) = 1.226 and r(5000) = .738, which is close enough.

So the total number of detected muons will be

N = P * integral(h = 0 to 11000)
     (exp(4.256 * log(288.14 - 0.00649 * h)) * 4.175 * 10^-11
      * exp(-log(2) * h / 468.))

where P is an adjustment factor. We happen to know N already;
it's 70 events/(m^2 sec).

The total number of *lost* muons will be

L = P * integral(h = 0 to 11000)
     (exp(4.256 * log(288.14 - 0.00649 * h)) * 4.175 * 10^-11
      * (1 - exp(-log(2) * h / 468.)))

Using numeric integration methods, I get:

N = P * 777.2
L = P * 7264.2

For every muon detected using these assumptions, we lose 9.3
in the atmosphere. This shouldn't be too hard to detect.

> You don't have a clue what you are are babbling about.

Of course not. Everyone knows that your assumptions are
the correct ones.

> You couldn't even describe ANY orbit mathematically, let alone that of
> Mercury, a planet you have never even seen (tell me where in the sky I
> can find it at midnight tonight), and you don't know what a perturbation
> is.

I know what a perturbation is qualitatively. I don't have
enough data regarding Mercury's orbit to compute it
quantitatively.

>
> You are like a football supporter, you want to cheer on your team and
> will spout any amount of crap without playing the game yourself or even
> knowing what the rules are. "Newton doesn't do it properly". What, did
> he kick the ball with his left foot? Was he offside?

He did a Charlie Brown.

>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> - Hafele-Keating (although it was a near thing).
>>>
>>>
>>> Total crap. An uncontrolled experiment that only showed a clock
>>> doesn't
>>> work properly when you throw it around. Big deal.
>>
>> And the errors were in accordance with SR/GR predictions precisely
>> why?
>
> Bull***. Let me see YOUR calculations.
> Don't have any? Didn't think so.
> England will win the World Cup, because I say so.
>
>
>> Clocks usually don't only show a few nanoseconds difference when
>> thrown around.
>
> Babble.
>

Try dropping a cesium clock on the floor, and let me know.

>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> - the aforementioned NST-2.
>>>
>>> The time of a satellite is where it is.
>>
>> The time of satellite is the time of satellite. Where is it is
>> a *space* issue. Of course the two are inseparable anyway.
>
> A year still is and always was exactly one orbit of the Earth around the
> Sun.
> If your artificial units of time, seconds, don't exactly match up to a
> year, then leap seconds are added to make it exact.
> Ths means you have to move your atomic clocks forward (or back) a
> second because they are not keeping correct time to the position of the
> Earth relative to the stars.
> THAT is where it is a space issue.
>
> You can easily measure the time by finding the position of the satellite
> (ANY satellite, such as the moons of Jupiter) and reading it like the
> face of a clock.
>
> What you are not able to do is find the position of the satellite from
> Earth is different from where it is from the satellite.
> It's midnight (because the Sun where it is in the sky) and the satellite
> is exacty overhead of Houston Texas looking up, but from the satellite
> looking down the city below is Melbourne Australia because the satellite
> keeps different time! You are crazy if you think any sane person is
> going to believe that ***!
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> - stellar deviation during eclipse (although it was a near thing).
>>>
>>> Total crap. The measurement waas midway between the Newtonian result
>>> and the GR result. Again, nothing to do with SR at all.
>>
>> Newtonian predicted a grav deviation for a lightbeam?
>>
>> Interesting.
>>
>> What is the mass of a lightbeam, then?
>
>
> Do your own homework. You'll find it interesting. Maybe the other team
> has a goal or two to score after all, even if they "don't do it
> properly".

I already know the mass of a lightbeam. It's 0.
Exactly 0. Unequivocally, predictably, absolutely zero.

According to SR, that is.

Newtonian space is a little harder. The problem is that
a lightbeam does not travel at c, and the mass may or may
not depend on the frequency at all, though E = 1/2 m v^2.

In theory, Compton scattering should yield some interesting
results when electrons are hit by a series of photons of
constant energy (but non-constant velocity). In practice,
I for one have not heard of any results suggesting that
we get a spectrum of electron velocities from such scattering.
However, I'd have to study the matter -- but this does sound
like a very elegant setup for a proof that c'=c+v. All one
need do is merge two lightbeams, one of which is generated
by a tunable dye laser hitting a moving mirror (on a rotational
structure), the other from the laser itself. The laser
generates photons at a base energy; the mirror imparts
additional energy (and momentum). Taken together, the moving
phtons should nudge the electrons when the static photons
will not.

If Newtonian theory is correct, of course.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> - plausible supernova explanation (pending more data).
>>>
>>>
>>> Do come off it. You don't know *** about supernovae.
>>
>> I know they go bang and glow brightly. Given that they go bang
>> and glow brightly, and that the cloud surrounding the
>> supernova is now 10 ly in diameter for an event occurring
>> 7,000 years ago, and assuming linear projection, one
>> calculates 1/190 c, give or take. Given that, why don't
>> we see a somewhat brighter thing for nearly a century?
>
> Because YOU don't do it properly.
> In fact you don't do it at all. You have no idea what you are babbling
> about.

Of course not. I'm not a physicist. You, on the other hand,
have presumably been studying this matter for 30+ years.

You do have some vetted experiments, I trust?

>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> - observations of binary pairs, one of which is a neutron star
>>>> (which serves as a rather dandy "clock").
>>>
>>> Clear proof that the velocity of light is source dependent.
>>> http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Compare.JPG
>>
>> Without some explanation of those pictures, I might as well
>> put up two pictures of my own and claim that they are proof
>> that aliens are really ruling the world.
>>
>> You'll have to do better than that.
>
> You only have to ask, but its probably a waste of time explaining it to
> a mere team supporter.
> Oh well, here goes.
> The y-axis is distance. The x-axis is time. The slope is distance/time.
> Because c' = c+v, remember?
>
> At time t along the x-axis a ray of light leaves the x-axis and travels
> up the y-axis.

At slope c+v.

> At time t+1 another ray of light leaves the x-axis and travels up the
> y-axis, arriving
> at the top of the chart shortly after. If the second ray is going a tad
> faster than the first, it will gain on the first. If it is going a tad
> slower, it will fall behind. Either way, it still gets there.

No, it gets there *before* the first, if the length axis is
long enough. One possibility, for instance, is to assume
two satellites, one of which lands on the Moon ( d= 3.84 *
10^8 m), the other which orbits the moon at an approximate
velocity of 1.2 km/s, and an orbital height as close to
the Moon as practical. The second satellite pulses a
light beam to the lander and to the Earth. The lander
fires off a beam of its own after a preset delay.

It is very likely that the orbiter's beam will be slowed by its
orbital motion (we assume the orbiter is moving away
from the Earth). The time delta will be about

1.28000426668 - 1.28 = 4.267 microseconds.

If your theory is correct, that is.

> You, the observer, see the arrivals varying in time. Being at the top
> of the charts, you see exactly the same rate of arrival from both
> charts. How do you know which is the right chart?
> Does the time dilation occur at the source end, it is it spread out by
> the distance and only apparent at the observer end?

Neither. Galilean metrics mean no time dilation at all.
This should be obvious to any true Newtonian aficionado.

x' = x-vt
t' = t

Of course SR has its own ideas:

x' = (x - vt) * Gamma
t' = (t - vx/c^2) * Gamma

and one can modify Galileo to put a master timeclock at the
origin, resulting in

x' = x-vt
t' = t - vx/c^2

>
>>>
>>>
>>>> - MMX null result.
>>> Clear proof that the velocity of light is source dependent and SR is
>>> garbage AS WELL.
>>
>> Emission theory is consistent with MMX's null result yes, but I
>> wouldn't consider that proof, merely lack of disproof, a far
>> weaker assertion.
>
> MMX DISPROVES SR.
> I'd explain it to you but you lack an open mind, you want to cheer on
> your team.

MMX does nothing regarding frictionless aether; it is entirely
consistent (with a stationary lightsource relative to the
cross-mirror config) with a frictionless aether, as with SR.

MMX merely disproves absolute aether.

>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> - various experiments using high-speed muons and pi_mesons decaying
>>>> into gamma rays, and the measurement of the velocity of the
>>>> gamma rays, and the time of decay.
>>>
>>> Of which you nothing about.
>>
>> I know that gamma rays are photons, that SR predicts results
>> consistent with experiment, and that pi mesons and muons
>> decay in consistent and even predictable ways.
>>
>> Is there more I need to know?
>
> Yes. A hell of a lot. The first thing you need to learn is that people
> are basically bigots and liars that want to cheer on their team. Go to
> a bar somewhere, sit and listen quietly to their bull*** and their
> worthless opinions.

Exactly. Therefore, of course, SR and GR are disproven because
people are bigots.

Got it.

> It's no different in these newsgroups, only the subject changes, not
> the people.
> The objective of science is to find out how Nature works, not someone's
> opinion of how they think Nature works.

Correct as far as it goes.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>> - theoretical computations involving decaying muons from
>>>> cosmic rays (c'=c+v would require a far brighter night sky
>>>> than observed).
>>>
>>> ROFLMAO!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> - particle mass gain during particle acceleration (as observed
>>>> by the accelerator)
>>>
>>> Snowball rolls downhill. It gains both mass and velocity.
>>
>> Interesting. So where is the extra particle mass coming from,
>> then?
>
> "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
> would it?"
> - Albert Einstein
> But of course everyone thinks they know all the answers (you are one of
> them), so no actual research take place. What we get is a bunch of kids
> using very expensive particle accelerators trying to prove Einstein was
> right, instead of researching the reverse process of E = mc^2.
>
> The clues are there:
>
> delta m = delta E/c^2.

No.

If m = 2E/c^2 (remember that E = 1/2 m c^2 in the Galilean system)
then dm/dt = 2dE/dt / c^2 = (2m dv^2/dt) / c^2
= 4m va / c^2, where a = dv/dt.

>
> Who is bothering to look?

What experiment(s) would you suggest?

>
> Not you, that's for sure. You want your science spoon fed to you. The
> idea never even occurred to you, I have to shove it under your nose.

I'm still awaiting a good explanation of a supernova in
Galilean-space. Best I've gotten so far is superluminal
travel of neutrinos -- an interesting idea, that.

The odd thing is that the neutrinos reached the Earth
at most three hours prior to the light explosion --
and it was a rather large burst, in the case of SN1987A.

>
>> Is the particle accelerator sticking things together?
>> Only at the very end of the experiment when they go *crash*,
>> perhaps.
>
> "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
> would it?"
> - Albert Einstein
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are a few anomalies that concern me, such as dark matter
>>>> and dark energy. However, I'm not sure I'm qualified to discuss
>>>> them intelligently beyond noting their existence.
>>>
>>> Let's face it, you are not qualified to discuss anything
>>> intelligently.
>>> You believe what you are told to believe, without question.
>>
>> Oh, naturally. I lack equipment for checking c' = c+v.
>
> You've got a brain. You've got a computer. You've got access to
> empirical data, on the internet and in libraries.
> You've got access to the sky, get a telescope and a spectrometer. The
> hardest part would be developing an open mind.
> The rest is just slog. It's 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration. That's a
> fact of life.
>
>
>> The best I can do is find a 7-gallon jug of water and
>> a photomultiplier, do some simple calculations regarding
>> muons (which themselves are suspect, as they depend on
>> observations made by others regarding their decay),
>> and calculate that a muon, originating in the upper
>> atmosphere, wouldn't make it down here without either
>> traveling far faster than lightspeed or slowing down
>> time relative to us.
>>
>> Another possibility is measuring a length of cat5 cable,
>> and the ping delay between two machines. Unfortunately
>> the ping delay through my central router is 150 microseconds
>> and with a jitter of maybe 8 microseconds. And of course
>> all that shows is static lightspeed anyway, even were
>> I to have a perfect pingtimer and the cable actually
>> transmitted at lightspeed (it's copper so I doubt it).
>> Still, I have a 25-foot cable (7.6 m) and some shorties;
>> I might do some crude measurements and by creatively
>> arranging the cable I might prove isotropy through the
>> aether, in a manner similar to MMX -- if the error is
>> small enough, which I don't know at this point.
>>
>> Unfortunately I can no longer find the relevant webpage
>> that shows the muon decay calculations in more detail.
>> But never mind, you believe what you want; the scientific
>> cabal, of course, will provide me with a tinfoil hat in due
>> course as the GPS satellites are converted into mind
>> control devices and precisely position all heretics to
>> turn into screaming yellow zombies.
>>
>> (Screaming, to add to the value. Yellow, because of an
>> artifact of the mind control beam. Zombies, because
>> what else does one create with a mind control beam?
>> Highly intelligent pandimensional beings?)
>>
>> You'll have to make do with a leather fedora and, if you
>> can find one, the tranny from a decommissioned 1969 Honda.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you want more formal references, jingle Sam Wormley; many
>>>> of these are from the reference he occasionally posts,
>>>> detailing the experiments showing the above.
>>>
>>> Oh, so that where you get your bull*** from...
>>
>> Among other places, yes. Is there a more authoritative reference
>> that I should be looking at?
>
>
> Yes. Your own mind. Use it. Forget authority, look only at the raw
> data.

And where should I get the raw data? Certainly not from you.

(Not that I trust Sam, either. I'm not a scientist; I'm
a mathematician by training in college and a software
specialist. However, a software specialist by nature has
to be a bit of a scientist, if only because we get to
play "what the *hell* is our code *doing*?!", and formulate
at least a preliminary hypothesis as to how a bug manifsts,
and then fix the bug and prove it is fixed to quality assurance.

> Doesn't matter who provides a theory to explain it, provide
> your own theory.
> The Wormleys of this world don't think, they parrot.
> Those that can barely think will only ever try to fit the data into
> whatever theory
> they are comfortable with. Consideration of any alternative just isn't
> possible to them.

And what alternatives should we consider? I see the following
alternatives.

[1] Standard rigid aether theory, with a fixed origin somewhere
    in the Universe. From a mathematical standpoint, the
    transforms would be:

    x = x_0-vt_0; t = t_0

    where x_0 and t_0 are the origin of the Universe -- wherever
    it is.

    Because the Earth has a delta v of about 2 * 10^-4, leading
    to various effects of the order of 2 * 10^-4, the
    effects should be easy to spot using equipment such as
    MMX; if one assumes a 120m half-lightpath both ways (nominal)
    and a "canoe/airspeed" model, the wavelengths at rest
    are 120m / (5 * 10^-7 m) = 2.4 * 10^8.
    for 600 THz / 500 nm blue-green light traveling at speed c.

    #Wav with: 2.4 * 10^8 * 3e8 / (3e8 + 3e4) = 239976002.4
    #Wav against: 2.4 * 10^8 * 3e8 / (3e8 - 3e4) = 240024002.4
    #Wav along: 239976002.4+240024002.4=480000004.8

    #Wav cross 1: 2.4 * 10^8 * sqrt(3e8^2 + 3e4^2)/3e8 = 240000001.2
    #Wav both: 480000002.4

    #Wav shift: 24000.0

    As the unit rotates (it was designed to float on a bearing
    of mercury) this should be ridiculously easy to detect.

[2] Frictionless aether/emissive theory. This theory simply assumes
    that, instead of the aether being a rigid matrix that holds
    all light rays in abeyance to travel c within it, that the
    aether acts more like a hockey rink: a slapshotted "photon"
    will travel at c relative to the stick slapping it (the
    light emitter). MMX is useless for such an experiment, as the
    puck is traveling at c everywhere. However, MMX might be
    modified by using a moving light source, or feeding MMX from
    light generated from a bouncing mirror arrangement. I'd
    frankly have to look.

    Careful observation of Venus may be of assistance here.
    The mean orbital speed of Venus is 35 km/s -- about
    5 km/s more than our own. As Venus "overtakes" us,
    the photons are going to hit Earth at 5 km/s faster
    than c, according to frictionless theory; this means
    that the energy of each photon will be multiplied
    by a factor of (3e8 + 5e3)^2 / 3e8^2 = 33 parts
    per million. Presumably we can identify spectra in
    Venus that correspond to, say, sulphur or oxygen, and
    check their alignment relative to an emitting source
    right next to the measurement instrument.

    As Venus swings by us, the light shift should swing by in the
    opposite direction, going 33 parts per million the other way.

    As we face down upon the Solar System (somewhere above
    the Arctic Circle of the Earth), the Earth is rotating
    counterclockwise and revolving counterclockwise.
    The Moon revolves counterclockwise as well. Venus swings
    behind the Sun and becomes the EvenStar. As it overtakes
    us Venus vanishes for a time, then becomes the MornStar.
    During its EvenStar phase, its spectra will be shifted
    a maximum of 67 ppm from its MornStar phase; comparing
    spectra should be simple enough, if the instrument is
    suitably calibrated -- or if photons from an excited
    gas are mixed in with Venus's incoming light, and the
    two compared side-by-side.

    The best observations would be done when Venus is
    showing first or third quarter, relative to Earth.
    This is when the delta is at maximum.

    (For its part SR predicts a much smaller waveshift;
    gamma = 1 + 1.39 * 10^-10 -- or 139 parts per trillion.
    It is not clear to me whether this waveshift is observable
    or not given current equipment. However, it is an easily
    discernable result from emission theory, from the looks
    of things.)

[3] Gaseous aether/refraction theory. In this theory, the
    light source behaves as in [2], but the aether can have
    swirls and eddies and such in it, consistent with
    various observations such as those on Venus. Because this
    theory appears ill-specified I'm not sure I can go much
    further with it, but I think Henri Wilson in particular
    was suggesting something along these lines, some months back.

[4] Standard SR, time distortions, length distortions, and all.

I could see myself doing some observation work on Venus, but
that's about it. I've already mentioned the muon observations,
which are even simpler but have a few too many assumptions
for my liking.

If one has access to a radiotelescope one can also use it as
a giant radar dish; the reflecting signals will bounce off
Venus (or anything else handy), much like a gigantic mirror.
The predictions are as follows:

[1] Light speed enters at c relative absolute space, hits the
    mirror, and changes direction but is still traveling at
    c relative to absolute space. The issues are similar
    to those regarding the MMX along path, and can be easily
    measured.

[2] The beam will come back with a relative velocity of
    c + 2v, where v is the velocity of the mirror relative
    to the source. It is far from clear how this will
    manifest to the receiver, frequencywise, though the
    simplest model will look at the situation from the
    standpoint of the mirror, which sees waves coming in at
    frequency f(c+v)/c and dutifully reflects them back.
    The source will see them accelerated *again* with
    a factor f(c+v)^2/c^2 = f(1+v/c)^2. For Venus the
    beam will shift frequencies by about 33 parts per
    million again. It will also come back faster by a
    maximum of about 28.6 milliseconds earlier or later
    than a beam hitting a stationary (relative to Earth)
    mirror at the same distance -- which can be determined
    by putting timecodes in the radar pulses. Some care
    will have to be done here if one uses a large number
    of simultaneously active telescopes, as the width of
    the Earth is about 21.3 milliseconds.

[3] Too ill-specified to make an exact computation.

[4] The beam travels at c everywhere but will be frequency-shifted
    by about 280 parts per trillion -- if that.

>
> Androcles.
> 

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.