In message <[email protected]>,
[email protected] writes
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
It's always "may" and "might" and "possible" in your arguments. And if
your "coding and decoding" argument had any basis in reality the times
involved would be completely arbitrary, depending on how the DSN
computers handled the data.
I have talked at length with people familiar with the procedures of
coding and decoding and with the increases in repetition length of the
carrier oscillations associated with each bit as the distance
"Increases in ..." What on Earth is that supposed to mean? And who are
As I've said before, this is all on file somewhere, and if instantaneous
communication was possible they would be using it.
The reason they dont is because some much money is at stake and no one
wants to go out on a limb when we have all been brainwashed to believe
the speed of light extrapolates indefinitely bla bla bla.
Er... Are you sure you're taking the correct medication? :-)
"Going out on a limb" here would take someone to Stockholm, and the
Nobel Prize would only be the first step.
BTW, it's "don't" and "so much".
The irony is that one third of the missions have been billions down
For well understood reasons, which have nothing to do with your fantasy.
As I've said before, other missions have been hugely successful despite
depending on the speed-of-light delay. Occultation measurements are the
most obvious example, going back to Mariner 4 at Mars. And Galileo's
images of SL-9 hitting Jupiter.
BTW, could you remind me why the maximal delay is one second, and not
(for instance) one millisecond or one hour?