sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Maximal Light Delay

Subject: Re: Maximal Light Delay
From: "George Dishman"
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:05:22 +0100
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.optics, sci.physics
<r9ns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:1122740137.032614.11940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> George Dishman wrote:
>> <r9ns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1122480591.355015.270830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> >
>>  The Sandsbury experiment has been proved valid. see
>> > http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/Pockells1.doc
>>
>> When I tried to check it, you couldn't supply
>> the control data necessary to determine any
>> of the signals.
>>
>   Try harder. If you need any help email me.  The control data is all
> there.

I asked at the time but you said you hadn't
recorded it. Anyway I see no point in wasting
more time on it since the Pioneer data eliminated
the possibility.

>> Regardless of that, we have since confirmed the
>> finite propagation speed using the Pioneer 10
>> data which ruled out your hypothesis entirely.
>
>   On the contrary. The Pioneer 10 anomalous acceleration
> to the sun data implies that the anomaly is large enough so that  all
> of the planets would long ago have fallen into the sun-

I agree, the anomaly is more likely to have
a mundane explanantion.

> or that the
> speed of light delays used in determining the changes in position of
> the craft are wrong.

Possibly but you need a correction that gives
a linear error while your gives a phase error
on the diurnal term. The characteristics are
completely wrong.

> The data  you used is not accessible to anyone but you.

... and Anderson and Markwardt.

If your code can't read the data when everyone
else can, that's your problem. I even sent you
a copy of the data in Excel including my code
used to read the files as a macro. You could
have used that and stepped through to make sure
there was no trickery but you prefer to have an
excuse.

> Also your implicit assumptions are not valid; namely, that the
> successive earth sites are effectively on the equator and that the tilt
> of the earth's rotation axis with respect to the equatorial plane is
> effectively zero

I make neither of those assumptions. Both
affect the magnitude of the diurnal, not
the phase.

> and that the earth's orbital motion is effectively
> zero

I made no such assumption, I posted the
calculation of the amount of error
introduced by the orbital motion for a
worst case alignment and showed it was
negligible.

> and that the craft is effectively moving in the equatorial plane.

That again affects only magnitude. The
results showed you had a discrepancy of
about 26 degrees (IIRC) in the location
of the craft measured from two sites on
the same day with a worst case systematic
error of less than 1 degree. That ruled
your model out.

George



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