|Subject:||Re: Maximal Light Delay|
|Date:||Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:15:08 +0100|
|Newsgroups:||sci.astro, sci.optics, sci.physics|
In message <1123389370.894968.136540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
It may be that the difference between the real motions and this simplified assumption is negligible but it is not obvious to me from your brief remarks. Another consideration is that the radiation received in one case may have been sent directly from the craft and in the other case sent from the craft after having been relayed from the same earth station. In the relayed case the speed of light delay ignoring any coding and decoding delay would have been a only a second more according to the proposed hypothesis. But possible coding and decoding delay may have changed things. Your argument does not take this into consideration.
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. As I've said before, this is all on file somewhere, and if instantaneous communication was possible they would be using it.
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: David Tholen the psychotic troll in the news, Raving Loonie|
|Next by Date:||Re: CMBR and neutron stars, Martin Brown|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: Maximal Light Delay, r9ns|
|Next by Thread:||Re: Maximal Light Delay, r9ns|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|