sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Maximal Light Delay

Subject: Re: Maximal Light Delay
From: Jonathan Silverlight
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 23:21:55 +0100
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.optics, sci.physics
In message <1123442756.135641.121740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, r9ns@xxxxxxxxxxx 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.

"Increases in ..." What on Earth is that supposed to mean? And who are your "people"?


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
the toilet.

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?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>