To see that the Anderson et al claim of anomalous accleration could
also be due to the fact that light speed does not extrapolate to
distances where the time is beyond a few seconds, do the following
simple calculation with your data from Madrid and Canberra:


1) Solve for K1 given V1=earthsite velocity wrt sun
(T)(1+2(K1V1-13.059)/c=R1, so ((R1-T)c+2T(13.059))/2V1T=K1
The arccos of K1 is the angle between, V1, the velocity of
the earth site wrt the sun and the line to the craft from the receiver
site at this time.

2)from Aldebaran RA=4h36min calculate unit vector from earthsite
toward Aldebaran in Taurus as indicative of the general direction of
the craft without assuming a specific tractory but based presumably on
previous angle of reception data not in the 1987, 88 etc archived
frequency data.

3)Determine from (2)which of the lines implied by K1 is the unique
direction to the craft.
email




"George Dishman" wrote in message ...

...
Dishman and Markwardt, mistakenly claimed that 1)the approximate
agreement of the results of this procedure with the NASA ephemeris,
and 2)the lack of agreement of these results with the assumption of
some other light speed delay assumption proved the validity of the
conventional light speed delay assumption,

At no time have I ever made such a claim. Sansbury is aware
of this and is simply lying.

Nonsense. On Feb 12 2003 you ran some tables from Horizon and said
"Note that the first has changed by 1kHz..." and your tables showed a
1171.3424Hz closer prediction according to the conventional model than
my nearly instantaneous model and then you concluded "They are
sufficiently far apart to distinguish the hypotheses"
Do you remember now and retract your accusation?





But this is a classic
"petitio principi" where the conclusion, here the craft trajectory,
is assumed in the premise.

In March 1988, the round trip time was
approximatelt 12 hours. This means that when the receiving
site was in contact, the transmitting site was hidden by the
bulk of the Earth. While often the receiving site would also
be transmitting the uplink for the next contact, Markwardt
has confirmed there are many documented instances where the
receiving site was not transmitting.

When Sansbury invented fictious, undocumented transmissions
from the receiving site to account for the failure of his
hypothesis, I pointed out

snip

I invented nothing of the sort. The Anderson paper and other
materials about P10 that you sent to me, say that the craft was always
transmitting and that 99percent of the receptions occurred while the
transmitter was on.
Thus the fact that in some very few instances where Markwardt
claims there was reception when the transmitter was off does not mean
that the receiver could not have been receiving signals sent directly
from the craft and not signals received by the craft and relayed back
to the earth site receiver.