[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Maximal Light Delay

Subject: Re: Maximal Light Delay
Date: 31 Jul 2005 20:48:28 -0700
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.optics, sci.physics
George Dishman wrote:
> <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
> >> >
> I asked at the time but you said you hadn't
> recorded it.

   What exactly is, 'it'?

> >   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. This growing disparity implied that
the acceleration of the craft to the sun was much larger than Anderson

  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.

> 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.

> > 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 has access to the evidence for your
increasingly transparent nonsense.

 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
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.

 You could
> have used that and stepped through to make sure
> there was no trickery but you prefer to have an
> excuse.

  Sorry your steps were just more phony data.

> > 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 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.

> results

   You mean your phony data and phony assumptions

>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.

   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.
   Also to point out the solution of many of the problems of  modern
physics that results by acknowledging that there are masses at quasar
distances and within every atom of ourselves and of the earth that are
moving at superluminal velocities. see

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