|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#21
August 1st 05, 04:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
George Dishman wrote: wrote in message ups.com... George Dishman wrote: wrote in message oups.com... 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'? 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 said. 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. 
|
|
#23
August 6th 05, 12:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ups.com... George Dishman wrote: wrote in message ups.com... George Dishman wrote: wrote in message oups.com... 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 that. 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 said. 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 before. 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 excuse. 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 whatsoever. The results 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. George
|
|
#24
August 7th 05, 05:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
George Dishman wrote: wrote in message ups.com... 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 that. Because you dont know yourself. I told you I could not read the raw data on the web with your program or with mine. If your argument is valid with this data why can't you find some other data to make the same argument? 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. I analysed still more days and the error after increasing then decreasing got larger and worsened much more than any small relativistic effect could account for. This growing disparity implied that the acceleration of the craft to the sun was much larger than Anderson said. Ii was so large, if the amount you found had been continued, the craft would not have rendezvoused with the planets! It was years beyond the rendezvous with Jupiter!!! 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 before. But your explanation is transparently wrong. 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. What does that have to do with the fact that there is no independently justifiable reason for you 'correction' We are talking about all of the differences between the oversimplified assumptions you make and the actual relative orientation of the earthsites at different positions on the earth and the craft at different times. This is not answered by your brief incoherent allusion to sine wave amplitudes. 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 whatsoever. Not to you obviously. The results 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. I read these files for other time periods with no problem. Only the time period which you chose was a problem. I wonder why???? 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, I just did. They imply that there is something wrong with the speed of light assumption. I just cannot explain your unwillingness to show your method works for one other time period. Why dont you find some other time period and data instead of insulting me. My program can read all of these other time periods. instead you have been reduced to trying to discredit the test with nothing more than what amounts to personal insults. One objection I have to your argument again is that you are implicitly assuming that there is no difference between the earth's actual motions with the expected effects on the Doppler shift of the assumed immediately received radiation and the assumption that the earth is only rotating on its axis in the equatorial plane and that the axis is perpendicular to the equatorial plane and that the the craft is in this plane and that the the earth sites are at the equator. 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. In the final analysis the generally increasing disparity between the predicted and observed frequencies being larger than stipulated by Anderson show that the anomaly is larger and that the planets should long ago have fallen into the sun. This implies that the speed of light delay assumption is wrong.
|
|
#25
August 7th 05, 09:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#26
August 7th 05, 02:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message oups.com... George Dishman wrote: wrote in message ups.com... 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 that. Because you dont know yourself. OK, I dug around and found it. What I needed was the scope waveforms for a test in which the pulse width was shorter than the propagation time. We were talking about a double pulse test at the time in mails around 20th April 2003. Also you couldn't provide the circuit of the photodiode receiver as it was bought-in. I think you couldn't tell me the gain, bandwidth or transient response either but I'm not so sure about that. Anyway, there just wasn't enough information to reach any conclusions. I told you I could not read the raw data on the web with your program or with mine. If your argument is valid with this data why can't you find some other data to make the same argument? Why should I? This is your theory and in science that means it is up to you to do the work of finding the toughest tests you can to test it. I have been more than helpful just pointing out that the Pioneer 10 data can be used in this way but it's reasonable as you probably would not have discovered the possibility without a hint. It was only because I was already familiar with what was available that I could see you could use it. 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. I analysed still more days and the error after increasing then decreasing got larger and worsened much more than any small relativistic effect could account for. This growing disparity implied that the acceleration of the craft to the sun was much larger than Anderson said. Ii was so large, if the amount you found had been continued, the craft would not have rendezvoused with the planets! It was years beyond the rendezvous with Jupiter!!! Of course, but they were using the relativistic formulae throughout so prior to Jupiter they should have been navigating off bad data and missed the planet. Your numbers are out of the ball park entirely. 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 before. But your explanation is transparently wrong. My explanation matched the numbers you gave when we talked of it. 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. What does that have to do with the fact that there is no independently justifiable reason for you 'correction' It is not _my_ correction, it is _yours_. I don't think you understand this at all. _You_ applied _your_ theory to the data and found a discrepancy. _You_ now need to find a correction either to the motion of the craft or to the equations you use to make the data predicted using _your_ theory match what was measured. If you can adjust the trajectory to fit _your_ theory then you have a success. If you cannot, then you have nothing and the question of the anomaly remains open. We are talking about all of the differences between the oversimplified assumptions you make and the actual relative orientation of the earthsites at different positions on the earth and the craft at different times. This is not answered by your brief incoherent allusion to sine wave amplitudes. If an object moves in a circle, the x coordinate is a sine wave. If you tilt the plane of the circle through the y axis, the x coordinate remains a sine wave but with reduced amplitude. At 90 degrees tilt, the circle lies in the y-z plane and the amplitude becomes zero. Changing the declination of the craft so that it is not in the equatorial plane has that effect. I designed the test to use only the zero-crossings so that the amplitude has no effect on the result. The test couldn't be done if the craft were in line with Polaris but that is not the case. 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 whatsoever. Not to you obviously. Not to the result of the test. It is designed so that the amplitude doesn't alter the result. The results 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. I read these files for other time periods with no problem. Only the time period which you chose was a problem. I wonder why???? Me too. Perhaps because you know I'm right? Maybe because there are two different data formats, one with tape blocks and one without. Without seeing your code I can't tell, but everyone else can read the files. 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, I just did. They imply that there is something wrong with the speed of light assumption. I just cannot explain your unwillingness to show your method works for one other time period. Firstly because it is your task to prove your theory, not mine. Secondly, because it took me several days of work to process the data and I have better things to do. Finally, you seem unable to grasp the way the processing works and still insist there is something wrong with it so what's the point? You will ignore it anyway. Why dont you find some other time period and data instead of insulting me. My program can read all of these other time periods. instead you have been reduced to trying to discredit the test with nothing more than what amounts to personal insults. One objection I have to your argument again is that you are implicitly assuming that there is no difference between the earth's actual motions with the expected effects on the Doppler shift of the assumed immediately received radiation and the assumption that the earth is only rotating on its axis in the equatorial plane and that the axis is perpendicular to the equatorial plane and that the the craft is in this plane and that the the earth sites are at the equator. 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. OK, let's go over it again. I do not make any such assumption, the cosine of the latitude of the sites times the radius of the Earth gives the perpendicular distance from the site to the axis. That affects the tangential speed of the site as the Earth rotates. The _amplitude_ of the diurnal component of the Doppler shift depends on that speed. That component is a sine wave. It also depends on the elevation of the craft above the plane of the equator so we have a general formula for the speed of A = 435m/s * cos(lat) * cos(elev) The shift is then df = A * sin(theta) However, the time at which the zero crossing occurs is when theta = 0 or 180 degrees and is therefore independent of A. 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. The craft uses a phase-locked transponder and we are not looking at data, just the carrier frequency so there is no coding or decoding involved. The worst case delay would be one cycle at 2.2GHz but we don't use the delay anyway, only frequency. The receive frequency is measured directly at the station and include allowances for cable lengths from the antenna to the receiver so there is no question of any relaying. I have assumed the signal was transmitted from the same station as you wished, that hypothesis is what we were testing of course. In the final analysis the generally increasing disparity between the predicted and observed frequencies being larger than stipulated by Anderson show that the anomaly is larger and that the planets should long ago have fallen into the sun. This implies that the speed of light delay assumption is wrong. If you get a different result from Anderson et al when trying to use conventional theory, it shows you have failed to apply it correctly because Markwardt has independently confirmed their analysis. If the larger error appears when you try to use your own theory, it implies your theory is wrong. To get anywhere, you need to apply your theory and show that the discrepancy vanishes for the whole set of data (including the files you cannot yet read). George
|
|
#27
August 7th 05, 08:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jonathan Silverlight wrote: In message .com, writes 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. I have talked at length with people familiar with the procedures of coding and decoding and with the increases in repetition length of the carrier oscillations associated with each bit as the distance increases. None of this I can assure you is arbitrary. But all of it explains why the delay in receiving data modulated on the received carrier increases with distance due to the decreased strength of the received signals and having nothing to do with the speed of light. As I've said before, this is all on file somewhere, and if instantaneous communication was possible they would be using it. The reason they dont is because some much money is at stake and no one wants to go out on a limb when we have all been brainwashed to believe the speed of light extrapolates indefinitely bla bla bla. The irony is that one third of the missions have been billions down the toilet. It would be wiser dont you think to take the money from nasa and give it to the doe to get safe fusion energy to replace oil.
|
|
#28
August 7th 05, 11:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#29
August 9th 05, 05:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
George Dishman wrote: wrote in message oups.com... OK, I dug around and found it. What I needed was the scope waveforms for a test in which the pulse width was shorter than the propagation time. We were talking about a double pulse test at the time in mails around 20th April 2003. Also you couldn't provide the circuit of the photodiode receiver as it was bought-in. I think you couldn't tell me the gain, bandwidth or transient response either but I'm not so sure about that. Anyway, there just wasn't enough information to reach any conclusions. All of this necessary information is on my web page. The point is that 12ns laser pulses were received by the photodiode when the photodiode was blocked at the photodiode 30 feet away before the expected time of arrival about 30ns after being emitted but these pulses were not received if the pulse was blocked at the photodiode during the time of emission. In both cases the conditions of the apparatus were the same so that any differences had to be due to the difference in time when the pulse was blocked and when it was not blocked. I told you I could not read the raw data on the web with your program or with mine. If your argument is valid with this data why can't you find some other data to make the same argument? Why should I? This is your theory But your argument against it is based on data which is not publicly available and false set of assumptions. It was years beyond the rendezvous with Jupiter!!! Of course, but they were using the relativistic formulae throughout so prior to Jupiter they should have been navigating off bad data and missed the planet. Your numbers are out of the ball park entirely. Nonsense. There were other ways at these closer distances to correct the position errors caused by assuming ten or twenty minute light speed delays on top of similar coding and decoding delays etc eg, the signal strength could be increased by repointing the antenna in the correct direction. 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. What does that have to do with the fact that there is no independently justifiable reason for you 'correction' It is not _my_ correction, it is _yours_. I don't think you understand this at all. Your understanding is off. The conventional delay assumptions required corrections. The conventional delay assumption implied an anomalous acceleration and the data showed that it was much larger than claimed by Anderson. This in turn implies that the conventional light speed delay assumptions used by Anderson were wrong. The two second delay assumption given the wrong positions of the craft also obviously required large corrections but this was due to incorrect assumptions about light speed delay. OK, let's go over it again. I do not make any such assumption, the cosine of the latitude of the sites times the radius of the Earth gives the perpendicular distance from the site to the axis. That affects the tangential speed of the site as the Earth rotates. The _amplitude_ of the diurnal component of the Doppler shift depends on that speed. It also depends on the angle between the craft-site line at that time and the orbital velocity vector as well as the rotational velocity vector. The projection of these velocities on the craft-site line must both be zero to have a zero Doppler shift due to the motion of the earth. That component is a sine wave. It also depends on the elevation of the craft above the plane of the equator so we have a general formula for the speed of A = 435m/s * cos(lat) * cos(elev) The shift is then df = A * sin(theta) However, the time at which the zero crossing occurs is when theta = 0 or 180 degrees and is therefore independent of A. 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. The craft uses a phase-locked transponder and we are not looking at data, just the carrier frequency so there is no coding or decoding involved. The worst case delay would be one cycle at 2.2GHz but we don't use the delay anyway, only frequency. The frequency received at a specifid time depends on the delay and we don't know what added delays there are in the turning off of the oscillation emitted by the craft and turning on of the phaselocked transponder after perhaps coding and decoding of data sent with the uplink carrier. In the final analysis the generally increasing disparity between the predicted and observed frequencies being larger than stipulated by Anderson show that the anomaly is larger and that the planets should long ago have fallen into the sun. This implies that the speed of light delay assumption is wrong. If you get a different result from Anderson et al when trying to use conventional theory, it shows you have failed to apply it correctly because Markwardt has independently confirmed their analysis. How can you believe confirmation from the same person who said that reception occurred at earth sites where there was no transmission which necessarily implied the earthsite reception had to have been from signals sent earlier from another earthsite and reflected back by the craft to explain the reception at this time. And that this reception could not have been otherwise produced eg by the craft transmitter always sending a carrier signal to the earth?????
|
|
#30
August 9th 05, 08:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model | newedana | Astronomy Misc | 236 | May 2nd 06 09:25 AM |
| Beyond Linear Cosmology and Hypnotic Theology | Yoda | Misc | 0 | June 30th 04 07:33 PM |
| How many sci.astro.amateur members does it take to change a light bulb? | Terry B | Amateur Astronomy | 18 | June 18th 04 09:22 PM |
| Mind-2, Time waves and Theory of Everything | Yoda | Misc | 0 | April 20th 04 06:11 AM |
| UFO Activities from Biblical Times (LONG TEXT) | Kazmer Ujvarosy | SETI | 2 | December 25th 03 07:33 PM |
Linear Mode
