"r9ns" wrote in message
om...
This fact supports an optics experiment ...

Regardless, this thread isn't about optics so is
inappropriate in that group.

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
post and followups to sci.astro

"r9ns" wrote in message
om...
...

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

...

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"

You were arguing that it wasn't possible to tell the
two theories apart and I showed that the difference
was easily enough for us to use as a test. I make no
claims in that post about validity

I think it was pretty clear in context. It was your idea that this
data could be used to prove my opposition to the conventional model
was wrong.

No, it's the other way round. It was my suggestion
that the Pioneer data would provide a method to
test _your_ hypothesis.

That's the point I was making earlier this week, the
Snipping the details of 1) and 2) may make this clearer. Your
paragraph above says:

"Dishman ... mistakenly claimed that 1) ... and 2) ...
proved the validity of the conventional light speed delay
assumption,"

What I said it that the results are sufficiently far apart
to distinguish which site was transmitting. That is enough
to prove your theory false but it does not prove the
conventional theory correct as you imply. It is a subtle
but important point.

Ok. But the most important point is not so subtle, that the argument
is a circular argument that you were not aware of at first.

What is most important is that your text implies
I said we could prove a theory right (it doesn't
actually matter which theory) and that makes it
look as though I am unaware of the nature and
limitations of the scientific method. At worst,
that can be construed as libellous. Whether the
test is circular or not is merely a disagreement.

If you said "Dishman claimed that the lack of agreement of
the Pioneer results with the assumption of near-instantaneous
light propagation proved the invalidity of that assumption."
then that would be reasonable, just leave out the bit about
proving the conventional theory.

I am only asking you to correct the false impression you are
giving in the document at present.


An I am pressing you to say that you were not aware at first that
the argument was circular.

It isn't. Ignoring ConScan manouvres, there are
essentially only six variables to define the craft
trajectory, three to define a location and three
for the velocity at that point. The subsequent
motion is determined by gravitational forces. When
you have many thousands of readings, it is highly
unlikely that an incorrect model would be able to
fit the data when there are only six adjustable
values so that provides the test. There is nothing
circular about that.

snip

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.

Yes it does, the papers clearly say they were unable
to lock on to the craft signal without the uplink.
Unless there was a signal from the receive site, it
must have come from one of the other sites and since
in general they were below the horizon at the time of
reception, this disproves your near-instantaneous
hypothesis.

No examples have been shown where the received frequencies were
good and the transmitter was not on at the receiver site. qed.

I thought Craig told you of some, and certainly he
confirmed there were many such instances. I didn't
search myself since he had a better database.

However, the proof we have developed in the last few
weeks removes all these aspects. Since it only uses
the recorded frequencies, some basic information about
the Earth's orbit and a single assumption that the
craft is more than 10AU from Earth, I don't think you
can find a flaw in it (other than by claiming not toe
understand the method I use).


The flaw is not in my understanding but as I have said before the
changing projections of the orbital motion on the spin motion vector

That is the exactly where you go wrong. The orbital
motion has to be projected onto a line from the
craft to the site, not onto the rotational velocity.
This is a simple diagram which illustrates that:

http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Ralph/o...projection.gif

I hope I don't need to explain it any more.

in the two different hemispheres and different elevations causing
different starting times when the incoming frequencies are received
etc could account for the different patterns of the received
frequencies in the two sites.

Again that illustrates your lack of understanding,
the starting times are irrelevant. Since the method
finds the minimum in the rate of change, as long as
we have at least two samples before and two samples
after that time, we get the result. (Of course a
larger group reduces noise.)

Your unwillingness to acknowledge these possibilities is similar to
the delays in your acknowledging
1)that the wave theory of light implies the Doppler shift does not
imply the doppler shift implies the wave theory of light

I have never disputed that, in using your method I
have always assumed the speed component along the
joining line directly causes the shift regardless
of range, just as you claimed. That's why this is
how to do the projection of the orbital velocity

http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Ralph/o...projection.gif

2)that the closeness of the NASA ephemeris P10 trajectory based on the
conventional model is a circular argument.

This was never my argument and it is this lie that
I want you to remove from the page. My argument
was that the _inability_ of your_ model to match
the data with _any_ choice of initial conditions
proves that _your_ theory is wrong.

To see that the position of the craft assuming that the received
frequencies are transmitted from the receiving site at Madrid is
consistent with the position of the craft later at Canberra and
To see that the Anderson et al claim of anomalous acceleration 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 in a coordinate
system where the z axis is perpendicular to the plane of the celestial
equator and the x axis is a line in this plane to the vernal equinox
etc.
(T)(1+2(K1V1-13.059)/c=R1, ...

If K1 is an angle and V1 is the velocity then K1*V1
would also be a speed and could be added to 13.059
which I think is the radial speed of the craft but
why you add 1km/s is beyond me. Anyway, the term
(1+2(K1V1-13.059) is a speed. Assuming c is the speed
of light, (1+2(K1V1-13.059)/c is dimensionless so,
assuming R1 is the range to the craft, your equation
ends up as:

time * (speed / speed) = distance

so it equates time to distance. It doesn't make any
sense at all, unless of course R is a time or (T) is
a distance.

George