<[email protected]> wrote in message
> George Dishman wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>> > George Dishman wrote:
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> The Sandsbury experiment has been proved valid. see
>> >> > http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/Pockells1.doc
>> I asked at the time but you said you hadn't
>> recorded it.
> What exactly is, 'it'?
You would need to check my emails at the
time. As I said I don't intend to rehash
>> > 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.
> The explanation is far from mundane. The explanation is that the
> trajectory based on many hours of light speed display is false and much
> moreso than Anderson's paper concludes. The random sample of data I
> analysed showed that the predicted values grew further and further away
> from the actual received values.
The larger error you saw over the short contact
period was not continued, if you analysed more
days, you would have found it was a discrepancy
in the amplitude of the diurnal. I got the same
result but tracked it down to your use of the
non-relativistic Doppler equation.
> This growing disparity implied that
> the acceleration of the craft to the sun was much larger than Anderson
Ii was so large, if the amount you found had been
continued, the craft would not have rendezvoused
with the planets!
> Clearly there is something wrong with the speed of light delay
> assumption; otherwise this data and this assumption show that all of
> the planets would have fallen into the sun long ago.
Clearly there was something wrong with your
analysis. I have explained what it is to you
>> Possibly but you need a correction that gives
>> a linear error while your gives a phase error
>> on the diurnal term.
> Put in any correction you want which will save the conventional
> speed of light delay assumption but there is no independently
> justifiable reason to do it.
No, to explain the error _you_ found, _you_ needed
a correction which was not linear.
>> > 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.
> No it is your problem that no one else except the three of you
> with a larger Government computer
I have no access to government computers since I
work for a private company, and I did all my work
at home on a low-end Dell desktop.
> has access to the evidence for your
> increasingly transparent nonsense.
It is your problem, I even gave you the code. If you
cannot read a binary value from a file when everyone
else can - AND the method is published - AND I gave
you the code to do it, it is your incompetence.
>> I even sent you
>> a copy of the data in Excel including my code
>> used to read the files as a macro.
> This was a selection of data supposedly obtained from the raw data
It was also the code to read it so all you had to do
was type in the directory where you had your own files
and press the import button.
> and did not explain why I could read all of
> the other raw data files on the web with my C+ program except the file
> that you made your selection from.
I didn't make the selection, you did. A long time
ago we talked about the situation when the delay
was supposed to be 12 hours. It lay in that file.
>> You could
>> have used that and stepped through to make sure
>> there was no trickery but you prefer to have an
> Sorry your steps were just more phony data.
Sorry, there was no data in the code to be
phony, only an example of the output.
>> > 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 and that the earth's orbital motion is effectively
>> > zero
>> I made no such assumption,
> You did in effect
No, it is a simple fact that a change of
amplitude of a sine wave does not alter
the time of the zero-crossing.
> and then tried to show that the differences
> between the conclusions based on these assumptions and the true
> conditions were minimal and that the craft is effectively moving in the
> equatorial plane.
The craft is not in that plane, it is close
to the ecliptic and it makes no difference
> You mean your phony data and phony assumptions
No, I mean the results that you could get and
check for yourself if you weren't incapable of
reading a simple binary file.
>>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.
> Your transparently phony argument is ruled out.
Your incompetence is clear, _anyone_ can
confirm the results of the test.
> But the point of this post is to point out that all of the standard
> reasons that people believe in the speed of light being valid for
> distances more than a second away,to point out that these reasons are
> all subject to other interpretations.
You cannot explain the Pioneer result, instead
you have been reduced to trying to discredit
the test with nothing more than what amounts to
personal insults. You cannot read the publicly
available data. When given code that reads it,
you refuse to step through it to confirm it has
no way to introduce any error or to make use of
it yourself or even to just look at it to see if
you can find why your own code doesn't work. You
are just sticking your head in the sand, and the
only reason for that is that you already know I
have eliminated every objection you raised to the
test. Tough luck Ralph, you have been exposed.