Maximal Light Delay
r9...@verizon.net
>>First, thanks indeed for you intriguing and
thought-provoking book. The time is surely overdue for a move beyond a
cosmology essentially unchanged conceptually since the theories of
Newton and Laplace. And a question. If I read you correctly, the
detection of light is proposed to be the sudden emergence to
observability of a cumulative instantaneous effect. Presumably, then, a
more intense source at the same distance would produce the effect
sooner. But wouldn't that mean that for all the various experiments
carried out over years, the sources used just happened to have the
right intensity to make the apparent velocity come out the same?
Obviously far too much of a coincidence to be believable. So what am I
missing?<<
...The more intense source at the same distance should produce a rise
to a greater final amplitude than a less intense one, after r/c
seconds, and need less amplification butthe r/c second delay for both
the intense and weak source at the same distance, r, is implied by the
theory. More specifically, the oscillating longitudinal charge inside
the free electrons etc in say a vertical receiver antenna produces
transversely oscillating charge which produces in turn longitudinally
oscillating charge,OPPOSITE to the initial oscillating charge) in other
free electrons etc. So the more intense source provides more opposition
to the more intense cumulative effect.
This longtidinal oscillation produces in turn a transverse
oscillation which in turn produces a longitudinal oscillation etc.
The more intense source provides more intense initial oscillating
charge which is with r/c delay overcome by the above increasing
longitudinal charge induced in the above manner (see
http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/Radiation and Inductance
Uncle Al
>
> Here is a question I received recently and my answer.
>
> >>First, thanks indeed for you intriguing and
> thought-provoking book. The time is surely overdue for a move beyond a
> cosmology essentially unchanged conceptually since the theories of
> Newton and Laplace.
Idiot alert.
> And a question. If I read you correctly, the
> detection of light is proposed to be the sudden emergence to
> observability of a cumulative instantaneous effect.
gibber and goo
> Presumably, then, a
> more intense source at the same distance would produce the effect
> sooner.
[snip crap]
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Jim Klein
Jonathan Silverlight
r9...@verizon.net writes
>Here is a question I received recently and my answer.
Translated into English, I think Ralph is saying that a more intense
source is brighter than a less intense one :-)
>(see
>http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/Radiation and Inductance
>
"Not Found".
--
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
r9...@verizon.net
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
> In message <1121547217....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> r9...@verizon.net writes
> >Here is a question I received recently and my answer.
>
> Translated into English, I think Ralph is saying that a more intense
> source is brighter than a less intense one :-)
There is more to it. The question was why a more intense source is
not received sooner assuming that the forces producing the reception
are the cumulative effect of instantaneous forces at a distance.
The reason briefly is that the more intense source produces more
initial opposition. The details are in the link which can be found if
you paste the below corrected link into your address bar.
(see, http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/Radiation and Inductance.htm
>
>
> "Not Found".
Jonathan Silverlight
r9...@verizon.net writes
I'll leave the physics to the experts, but note in passing that spaces
in URLs are considered to be a Bad Idea.
As a biologist, I'll note that you are incorrect when you say "the human
eye can detect short bursts of 10 photons". The eye can detect single
photons.
And while your page only talks about nanosecond pulses, single-photon
detection of femtosecond pulses is apparently quite routine.
r9...@verizon.net
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
> In message <1121699060.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> r9...@verizon.net writes
> >
> >
> >Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
> >> In message <1121547217....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> eye can detect short bursts of 10 photons". The eye can detect single
> photons.
I am simply quoting a well known physics text and the quote does not
say that what you claim is not also possible-but it is strange that
they do not say the eye can detect single photons. As a biologist, how
do you measure the detection of a single photon by the human eye?
In any case this does not matter for the argument in the paper and the
point of the the paper which is that light is the cumulative effect
of instantaneous forces at a distance and not the movement of bundles
of energy, hf, which is called a photon where for visible light 1/f is
about 1/4 to 1/7 times 10^-14 seconds or 2.5 to 1.4 times 10^-15
seconds
> And while your page only talks about nanosecond pulses, single-photon
> detection of femtosecond pulses is apparently quite routine.
The experiment you are referring to used ten nanosecond pulses of
visible light (where each oscillation is more than a femtosecond so
that such pulses really dont apply to visible light) and showed that no
signal was received if such pulses were blocked during emission but
were received if only blocked at the expected time of reception.
Bob May
the process of the experiment. Please don't use it in any refutations.
--
Why isn't there an Ozone Hole at the NORTH Pole?
r9...@verizon.net
Bob May wrote:
> The Sandsbury IFS experiment has been proved to be invalid due to failure of
> the process of the experiment. Please don't use it in any refutation.
On the contrary, The Sandsbury experiment has been proved valid. see
http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/Pockells1.doc
Jonathan Silverlight
<bob...@nethere.com> writes
Actually, there is - or at least a depletion - but the consensus seems
to be that the North pole lacks the stable conditions and extreme cold
of the South pole. You disagree?
Jonathan Silverlight
>
>Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
>> In message <1121699060.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> r9...@verizon.net writes
>> >
>> >
>> >Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
>> >> In message <1121547217....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>> >
>> As a biologist, I'll note that you are incorrect when you say "the human
>> eye can detect short bursts of 10 photons". The eye can detect single
>> photons.
>
> I am simply quoting a well known physics text and the quote does not
>say that what you claim is not also possible-but it is strange that
>they do not say the eye can detect single photons. As a biologist, how
>do you measure the detection of a single photon by the human eye?
Easily found via Google (or any other search engine): look at
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html>, for
instance. Detection of single light photons by artificial means is
trivial, of course.
>
> In any case this does not matter for the argument in the paper and the
> point of the the paper which is that light is the cumulative effect
>of instantaneous forces at a distance and not the movement of bundles
>of energy, hf, which is called a photon where for visible light 1/f is
>about 1/4 to 1/7 times 10^-14 seconds or 2.5 to 1.4 times 10^-15
>seconds
But the fact that single photons can be detected invalidates your
argument about a cumulative effect, and I have absolutely no intention
of restarting the arguments against an instantaneous effect.
Two questions for the informed reader - is it meaningful to speak of a
single photon at radio wavelengths, and can such a photon be detected?
Helpful person
This has been pointed out before. It is well known.
However, a lesser known theory is that the Australians, being
descendents of the English penal colony, have actually stolen the ozone
from the southern hemisphere. (Yes, I am British!)
George Dishman
<r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1122480591.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
When I tried to check it, you couldn't supply
the control data necessary to determine any
of the signals.
Regardless of that, we have since confirmed the
finite propagation speed using the Pioneer 10
data which ruled out your hypothesis entirely.
(The previous discussions can be found in
sci.astro from spring of this year if anyone
wants to see how it was done.)
George
George Dishman
"Jonathan Silverlight" <jsilve...@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote
in message news:yUq82d$4795...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk...
...
> Two questions for the informed reader - is it meaningful to speak of a
Yes. Regardless of the wavelength, the energy
must be quantised.
> and can such a photon be detected?
The key would be to get the photon rate low
enough for individual detections. The hard
part of course is the background. Working in
a Faraday cage gets you part way there but
thermal photons from the cage material will
impose a lower frequency limit, and of course
the lower the frequency, the larger the cage
and the lower the temperature you need.
George
Harveyx
"George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dcdd7n$lo8$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "Jonathan Silverlight" <jsilve...@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid>
> wrote in message news:yUq82d$4795...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk...
> ...
>> Two questions for the informed reader - is it meaningful to speak of a
>> single photon at radio wavelengths, ..
>
> Yes. Regardless of the wavelength, the energy
> must be quantised.
Of course. And there are *plenty* of examples of energy levels separated by
radio/microwave frequencies, in the rotational spectra of molecules for
example, if that helps one to appreciate the fact.
>> and can such a photon be detected?
>
> The key would be to get the photon rate low
> enough for individual detections. The hard
> part of course is the background. Working in
> a Faraday cage gets you part way there but
> thermal photons from the cage material will
> impose a lower frequency limit, and of course
> the lower the frequency, the larger the cage
> and the lower the temperature you need.
>
> George
The longest wavelength at which single photons have been detected to my
knowledge was somewhere around 3um, in the mid IR (just.)
This utilised a superconducting bolometer, a very narrow meander line,
biased near its critical current & the abssorption of a single IR photon
makes it go transiently normal. The initial normal area makes the bias
current exceed the critical current in the rest of the line.
I dont recall the author; ex USSR.
The problem is not the background really, or getting the rate low enough,
its finding a mechanism that produces a detectable signal from these very
low energy photons. Photomultipliers, Geiger mode APDs etc use 'internal'
amplification mechanisms to convert the single electron intially liberated
into many. This device uses the superconducting/normal transition to
'amplify' the initial tiny signal. But no one has found a way at longer IR
or radio wavelengths to my knowledge.
Harvey
Harveyx
"Harveyx" <remove...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:42ea...@news.ecs.soton.ac.uk...
If interested, see the below, but Im sure there was ex-USSR work too.
Fabrication of a superconducting niobium nitride hot electron bolometer for
single-photon counting
Romestain R, Delaet B, Renaud-Goud P, Wang I, Jorel C, Villegier JC, Poizat
JP
NEW JOURNAL OF PHYSICS
6: art. no. 129 OCT 6 2004
Document type: Article Language: English Cited References: 49
Times Cited: 0
Abstract:
Superconducting photodetectors offer an interesting alternative to
traditional photon counting systems such as photomultiplier tubes and
avalanche photodiodes for applications in optical quantum information
processing. In these superconducting devices, different mechanisms are
exploited to detect the photon absorption, depending on the type of detector
(transition edge sensor, superconducting tunnel junction and hot electron
bolometer (HEB)). The first two are briefly presented; more emphasis is
given on HEB elaboration made with very thin superconducting NbN films due
to their unique capability of fast single-photon detection. Constraints on
NbN HEB elaboration and on electronic transport properties are presented in
the perspective of further improvement of the quantum efficiency in the
near-infrared.
KeyWords Plus:
KEY DISTRIBUTION, TUNNEL-JUNCTION, NBN, DETECTOR, MICROBOLOMETER,
PHOTORESPONSE, INTERFERENCE, TECHNOLOGY, EFFICIENCY, RADIATION
Addresses:
Romestain R, Equipe CEA CNRS UJF Nanophys & Semicond, Spectrometrie Phys
Lab, BP 87, F-38400 St Martin Dheres, France
Equipe CEA CNRS UJF Nanophys & Semicond, Spectrometrie Phys Lab, F-38400 St
Martin Dheres, France
CEA Grenoble SPSMS LCP, F-38054 Grenoble 9, France
Single-photon-counting hotspot detector with integrated RSFQ readout
electronics
Gupta D, Kadin AM
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON APPLIED SUPERCONDUCTIVITY
9 (2): 4487-4490 Part 3 JUN 1999
Document type: Article Language: English Cited References: 10
Times Cited: 2
Abstract:
Absorption of an infrared photon in an ultrathin film (such as 10-nm NbN)
creates a localized nonequilibrium hotspot on the submicron length scale and
sub-ns time scale. If a strip similar to 1 mu m wide is biased in the middle
of the superconducting transition, this hotspot will lead to a resistance
pulse with amplitude proportional to the energy of the incident photon. This
resistance pulse, in turn, can be converted to a current pulse and
inductively coupled to a SQUID amplifier with a digitized output, operating
at 4 K or above. A preliminary design analysis indicates that this data can
be processed on-chip, using ultrafast RSFQ digital circuits, to obtain a
sensitive infrared detector for wavelengths up to 10 mu m and beyond, with
bandwidth of 1 GWz, that counts individual photons and measures their energy
with 25 meV resolution. This proposed device combines the speed of a
hot-electron bolometer with the single-photon-counting ability of a
transition-edge microcalorimeter, to obtain an infrared detector with
sensitivity, speed, and spectral selectivity that are unmatched by any
alternative technology.
KeyWords Plus:
FILMS
Addresses:
Gupta D, Hypres Inc, 175 Clearbrook Rd, Elmsford, NY 10523 USA
Hypres Inc, Elmsford, NY 10523 USA
Univ Rochester, Dept Elect & Comp Engn, Rochester, NY 14627 USA
Publisher:
IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC, NEW YORK
r9...@verizon.net
George Dishman wrote:
> <r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:1122480591.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/Pockells1.doc
>
> When I tried to check it, you couldn't supply
> the control data necessary to determine any
> of the signals.
>
there.
> Regardless of that, we have since confirmed the
> finite propagation speed using the Pioneer 10
> data which ruled out your hypothesis entirely.
>
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- or that the
speed of light delays used in determining the changes in position of
the craft are wrong.
The data you used is not accessible to anyone but you.
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 and that the craft is effectively moving in the equatorial plane.
r9...@verizon.net
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
> In message <1122264111.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> r9...@verizon.net writes
> >
> >Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
> >> In message <1121699060.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> r9...@verizon.net writes
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
> >> >> In message <1121547217....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >
> >> As a biologist, I'll note that you are incorrect when you say "the human
> >> eye can detect short bursts of 10 photons". The eye can detect single
> >> photons.
> >
> > I am simply quoting a well known physics text and the quote does not
> >say that what you claim is not also possible-but it is strange that
> >they do not say the eye can detect single photons. As a biologist, how
> >do you measure the detection of a single photon by the human eye?
>
> Easily found via Google (or any other search engine): look at
> <http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html>, for
> instance. Detection of single light photons by artificial means is
> trivial, of course.
>
Tell me in your own words.
> >
> > In any case this does not matter for the argument in the paper and the
> > point of the the paper which is that light is the cumulative effect
> >of instantaneous forces at a distance and not the movement of bundles
> >of energy, hf, which is called a photon where for visible light 1/f is
> >about 1/4 to 1/7 times 10^-14 seconds or 2.5 to 1.4 times 10^-15
> >seconds
>
> But the fact that single photons can be detected invalidates your
> argument about a cumulative effect,
It obviously does not. A single photon is an oscillation of charge
at frequency f having energy fh. Such oscillations occur in the emitter
and the receiver. Establishing the correspondence between a photon that
left the emitter at a specific time and a photon in the receicver at a
specific time is not determined by the ability to detect a single
photon.
Jonathan Silverlight
<remove...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> writes
Thanks to both - I definitely learn a lot from arguing with Ralph :-)
I asked the question because I was wondering if radar echoes from the
planets (or any other very faint radio signal) was composed of single
photons like the laser echoes from the Moon, but presumably that isn't
so.
George Dishman
<r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1122740137....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> George Dishman wrote:
>> <r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:1122480591.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> The Sandsbury experiment has been proved valid. see
>> > http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/Pockells1.doc
>>
>> When I tried to check it, you couldn't supply
>> the control data necessary to determine any
>> of the signals.
>>
> Try harder. If you need any help email me. The control data is all
> there.
I asked at the time but you said you hadn't
recorded it. Anyway I see no point in wasting
more time on it since the Pioneer data eliminated
the possibility.
>> Regardless of that, we have since confirmed the
>> finite propagation speed using the Pioneer 10
>> data which ruled out your hypothesis entirely.
>
> 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.
> or that the
> speed of light delays used in determining the changes in position of
> the craft are wrong.
Possibly but you need a correction that gives
a linear error while your gives a phase error
on the diurnal term. The characteristics are
completely wrong.
> 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. I even sent you
a copy of the data in Excel including my code
used to read the files as a macro. You could
have used that and stepped through to make sure
there was no trickery but you prefer to have an
excuse.
> 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
I make neither of those assumptions. Both
affect the magnitude of the diurnal, not
the phase.
> and that the earth's orbital motion is effectively
> zero
I made no such assumption, I posted the
calculation of the amount of error
introduced by the orbital motion for a
worst case alignment and showed it was
negligible.
> and that the craft is effectively moving in the equatorial plane.
That again affects only magnitude. The
results 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.
George
r9...@verizon.net
George Dishman wrote:
> <r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:1122740137....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > George Dishman wrote:
> >> <r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >> news:1122480591.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> The Sandsbury experiment has been proved valid. see
> >> > http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/Pockells1.doc
>
> 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.
.
>
> > 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.
The
> 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 mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/
wes...@graphics.cornell.nospam.edu
This may be a milestone in USENET: misspelling your own name.
--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
George Dishman
<r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1122868108....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> George Dishman wrote:
>> <r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:1122740137....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > George Dishman wrote:
>> >> <r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:1122480591.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.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
r9...@verizon.net
> >>
> >> 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.
Jonathan Silverlight
r9...@verizon.net 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.
As I've said before, this is all on file somewhere, and if instantaneous
communication was possible they would be using it.
George Dishman
<r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1123389370.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> George Dishman wrote:
>> <r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:1122868108....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.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
r9...@verizon.net
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
> In message <1123389370.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> r9...@verizon.net 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.
Jonathan Silverlight
>> 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.
"Increases in ..." What on Earth is that supposed to mean? And who are
your "people"?
>
>> 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.
Er... Are you sure you're taking the correct medication? :-)
"Going out on a limb" here would take someone to Stockholm, and the
Nobel Prize would only be the first step.
BTW, it's "don't" and "so much".
> The irony is that one third of the missions have been billions down
>the toilet.
For well understood reasons, which have nothing to do with your fantasy.
As I've said before, other missions have been hugely successful despite
depending on the speed-of-light delay. Occultation measurements are the
most obvious example, going back to Mariner 4 at Mars. And Galileo's
images of SL-9 hitting Jupiter.
BTW, could you remind me why the maximal delay is one second, and not
(for instance) one millisecond or one hour?
r9...@verizon.net
> >
>
> 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?????
Jonathan Silverlight
r9...@verizon.net writes
>
>George Dishman wrote:
>>
>> 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?????
>
Is English not your native language, or is it just that your posts don't
make sense?
It is a matter of record that three-way communication was the normal
method of tracking the Pioneer spacecraft, as it presumably is with the
Voyagers.
The speed-of-light delay combined with transmission and reception from a
rotating planet make that inevitable.
Bob May
Ralphie IFS!
You need to find the time delays of all of the various parts of the
experiment before you can really say that you have all the info and that
info hasn't been on your webiste.
Since you haven't bothered to do the work, your basic assumptions are all
wrong.
--
Why do penguins walk so far to get to their nesting grounds?
George Dishman
<r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1123604473.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> George Dishman wrote:
>> <r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:1123389370.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.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'll address that separately when I get time to
see what is there and what isn't.
>> > 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.
The data is publicly available from the NSSDC. The
files are also published on the web but you might
be paranoid about the sources.
>> > 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.
First, there are no "coding and decoding delays",
it is a transponder. Second repointing the antenna
to increase the signal would not change the frequency
so could not correct your error.
>> >> > 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.
No Ralph, your understanding is off, I am not
talking about the conventional analysis at all,
I am talking about yours.
<snip>
>> 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.
No Ralph, the orbital velocity does not change
the diurnal amplitude or phase, it has the wrong
frequency, once a year instead of once a day. Nor
did I assume the orbital velocity had no effect,
I posted the calculations that showed it was less
than a degree worst case.
The rotational velocity vector component is of
course what we are measuring.
>> 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.
No comment? I hope you now understand that
as it is the basis of the test.
>> > 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.
We have a rough idea, it is several minutes at the start
and end of each contact which is why I reminded you to
avoid those periods last time we discussed this.
>> > 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.
Because it is true. In other instances there
was simultaneous transmission and reception.
> And that this reception
> could not have been otherwise produced eg by the craft transmitter
> always sending a carrier signal to the earth?????
The two modes can be easily distinguished as I showed
you, when the transponder mode is being used, the
Doppler is roughly doubled, once for the uplink and
again on the downlink. The graphs I posted illustrated
that.
George
Jonathan Silverlight
<geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> writes
>> 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.
>
>First, there are no "coding and decoding delays",
>it is a transponder. Second repointing the antenna
>to increase the signal would not change the frequency
>so could not correct your error.
This isn't my field so I will tread carefully :-) but there must be at
least _some_ delay in returning the signal. A quick search tells me a
transponder delay is usually of the order of microseconds, but the
figure is presumably published somewhere.
>>
>> 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.
>
>Because it is true. In other instances there
>was simultaneous transmission and reception.
But doesn't Ralph's idea assume a continuous link between transmitter
and receiver? That will usually not happen. The uplink is of short
duration, and the downlink is received by whichever station is in the
right place. The spacecraft may well have set by the time the signal
reaches it, or its signal reaches the ground.
>
>> And that this reception
>> could not have been otherwise produced eg by the craft transmitter
>> always sending a carrier signal to the earth?????
>
>The two modes can be easily distinguished as I showed
>you, when the transponder mode is being used, the
>Doppler is roughly doubled, once for the uplink and
>again on the downlink. The graphs I posted illustrated
>that.
--
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
Bob May
of the two antennas towards each other (go see the argumjents about the
reception of the Voyager signals. He allows that the receiving dish can be
over the horizon when a particular piece of info is sent from the satellite.
Needless to asy, that is the thinking of a nitwit who has no idea of how
things work in reality. According to this concetp, you really don't have to
tune the position fo the reciever to get the singal from such a target for
the dish.
Skywise
in news:VpUlZaGYNO$CF...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk:
> In message <ddidbf$t5n$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>, George Dishman
> <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>><r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>news:1123604473.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>First, there are no "coding and decoding delays",
>>it is a transponder. Second repointing the antenna
>>to increase the signal would not change the frequency
>>so could not correct your error.
>
> This isn't my field so I will tread carefully :-) but there must be at
> least _some_ delay in returning the signal. A quick search tells me a
> transponder delay is usually of the order of microseconds, but the
> figure is presumably published somewhere.
<Snipola>
Yes, there are delays in any piece of electronic equipment.
Electrical signals don't travel instantly.
However, Ralph believes that the delays are so long as to account
for the apparent speed of light. That is, a signal from a space
probe 10 light hours away is transmitted instantly, but the 10
hour delay is somewhere in the receiving equipment and not due
to the signal taking 10 hours to get here sue to a finite speed
of light.
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
r9...@verizon.net
> In message <1123442756.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> r9...@verizon.net writes
> >
> >Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
> >>
> >
> > 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.
What exactly dont you understand by this?
> >
> >> 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.
>
> For well understood reasons, which have nothing to do with your fantasy.
> As I've said before, other missions have been hugely successful despite
> depending on the speed-of-light delay. Occultation measurements are the
> most obvious example, going back to Mariner 4 at Mars. And Galileo's
> images of SL-9 hitting Jupiter.
> BTW, could you remind me why the maximal delay is one second, and not
> (for instance) one millisecond or one hour?
I have answered all of this before. Occulatation measurements may be
referring to Romer's discredited measurment method of the speed of
light and some similarity to whatever you are referring to with Mariner
4 and SL-9 hitting Jupiter.
As to the one second delay, this is implied by Bradley's light speed
measurement as explained at mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/book03.htm. That
is, the gpss system explains why it cant be a millisecond and the faint
radar or lidar moon reflections range includes 1 second up and down
even though the Newtonian distance of the moon implies a slightly
longer round trip according to the conventional light speed delay.
r9...@verizon.net
George Dishman wrote:
> <r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:1123604473.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > George Dishman wrote:
> >> <r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >> news:1123389370.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >>
> > 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
> > unspecified 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'll address that separately when I get time to
> see what is there and what isn't.
>
> >> > 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 data is publicly available from the NSSDC. The
> files are also published on the web but you might
> be paranoid about the sources.
>
My argument is that you only use data which cannot be read by a
program which can read all of the other NSSDC data but not this
specific one.
> >> > 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.
>
> First, there are no "coding and decoding delays",
> it is a transponder.
Perhaps the way the transponder is used causes a problem. You dont
know.
>Second repointing the antenna
> to increase the signal would not change the frequency
> so could not correct your error.
We are talking about Anderson's error in assuming the wrong position
and velocity of the craft based on the conventional light speed delay
assumption ten years after the craft's rendezvous with Jupiter.
We are talking about your error here in saying that these position
values and velocity values were estimated the same way the position
values and velocity values were estimated ten years earlier. This is
not true because at that time they could repoint the antenna and a
small angular change would not imply as large a change in miles between
Jupiter and the craft.
> >> >> > 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.
>
> No Ralph, your understanding is off, I am not
> talking about the conventional analysis at all,
> I am talking about yours.
I am talking about both. Your understanding is still off.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> 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.
>
> No Ralph, the orbital velocity does not change
> the diurnal amplitude or phase,
No George, You are ignoring the fact that The orbital velocities
as well as the rotational velocities and the craft site lines at sites
60 degrees apart at different times must be taken into account when
projections of these velocities on the craftsite lines are made. Your
continual oversimplification is embarassing.
it has the wrong
> frequency, once a year instead of once a day. Nor
> did I assume the orbital velocity had no effect,
> I posted the calculations that showed it was less
> than a degree worst case.
Your calculations dont take into account the projections on the
craftsite lines.
> The rotational velocity vector component is of
> course what we are measuring.
>
Your insistence on oversimplifying is just trolling and a waste of
time.
> >> 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.
>
> No comment? I hope you now understand that
> as it is the basis of the test.
My comment is above. You are oversimplifying and repeating your
transparent error. Its a waste of time.
> > And that this reception
> > could not have been otherwise produced eg by the craft transmitter
> > always sending a carrier signal to the earth?????
>
> The two modes can be easily distinguished as I showed
> you, when the transponder mode is being used, the
> Doppler is roughly doubled, once for the uplink and
> again on the downlink. The graphs I posted illustrated
> that.
But this is not what Markwardt said. You are trolling again. The
point is that Anderson's claim of an anomaly is correct but his claims
as to the size of the anomaly are contradicted by the data which says
the anomaly is much greater than claimed. The fact that Markwardt by
leaving out some data etc confirms Anderson's claim is the point here.
Jonathan Silverlight
>Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
>> In message <1123442756.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> r9...@verizon.net writes
>> >
>> >Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> > 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.
>
> What exactly dont you understand by this?
Your English, for one. Though I doubt that "increases in repetition
length blah blah blah" makes sense as a concept in any language. I
gather that George Dishman actually knows something about this. George?
And your refusal to name the experts you talked to (you snipped that
bit)
>
>> >
>> >> 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.
>>
>> For well understood reasons, which have nothing to do with your fantasy.
>> As I've said before, other missions have been hugely successful despite
>> depending on the speed-of-light delay. Occultation measurements are the
>> most obvious example, going back to Mariner 4 at Mars. And Galileo's
>> images of SL-9 hitting Jupiter.
>> BTW, could you remind me why the maximal delay is one second, and not
>> (for instance) one millisecond or one hour?
>
> I have answered all of this before. Occulatation measurements may be
>referring to Romer's discredited measurment method of the speed of
>light and some similarity to whatever you are referring to with Mariner
>4 and SL-9 hitting Jupiter.
Discredited? By whom? You could do the measurement today - there's a
classic SF story written by a professional astronomer where they do just
that, and get a very unexpected answer.
And I see you are saying "may" again. I say the measurements _are_ made
at certain times, which are on record, and which allow for the known
speed of light. In particular, the Galileo times are easily accessible
and I've cited them before.
Where's your list of spacecraft failures caused by assuming the delay
exists?
>
> As to the one second delay, this is implied by Bradley's light speed
> measurement as explained at
>mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/book03.htm. That
>is, the gpss system explains why it cant be a millisecond and the faint
>radar or lidar moon reflections range includes 1 second up and down
>even though the Newtonian distance of the moon implies a slightly
>longer round trip according to the conventional light speed delay.
>
1.5 seconds, not 1 - 240,000 miles. Theory and practice agree to within
a few centimeters. But I thought it was your contention that radar
echoes were illusions due to noise. You've said as much about Venus,
despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And as I've noted before,
there are nice examples of radar echoes from asteroids at intermediate
distances, such as this paper
<http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2001/pdf/2055.pdf>
But I thought it was also your contention that you could measure
instantaneous transmission in the laboratory.
--
"Doublethink - the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind
simultaneously, and accepting both of them"
George Dishman
"Jonathan Silverlight" <jsilve...@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote
in message news:snOL6AMxSS$CF...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk...
> In message <1123882771.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> r9...@verizon.net writes
>>Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
>>> In message <1123442756.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>> r9...@verizon.net writes
>>> >
>>> >Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > 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.
>>
>> What exactly dont you understand by this?
>
> Your English, for one. Though I doubt that "increases in repetition length
> blah blah blah" makes sense as a concept in any language. I gather that
> George Dishman actually knows something about this. George?
Hi Jonathan,
I am fairly familiar with error correction and detection
coding and designed some such systems about 20 years ago.
The delays resulting from them are usually straightforward
but are not applicable to measurement of the carrier of
course, only the data.
On the other hand "increases in repetition length of the
carrier oscillations associated with each bit as the
distance increases." appears completely meaningless to me.
The only sense I can see in it might be if he meant that
lower data rates are used as the range increases due to
the reducing SNR, but that's stretching the language a
lot and is again of no interest when discussing carrier
frequency measurement.
HTH, but I doubt it.
George
George Dishman
"Jonathan Silverlight" <jsilve...@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote
in message news:VpUlZaGYNO$CF...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk...
> In message <ddidbf$t5n$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>, George Dishman
> <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>><r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>news:1123604473.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>First, there are no "coding and decoding delays",
>>it is a transponder. Second repointing the antenna
>>to increase the signal would not change the frequency
>>so could not correct your error.
>
> This isn't my field so I will tread carefully :-) but there must be at
> least _some_ delay in returning the signal. A quick search tells me a
> transponder delay is usually of the order of microseconds, but the figure
> is presumably published somewhere.
Be careful, most of the references you find with a
web search will probably be related to aircraft
transponders or similar. The ground can send a "who
are you" message and the craft replies with its
identification. In such a system, there will be a
delay.
In Pioneer, a continuous sine wave is sent as the
uplink. I'll gloss over details of shifts needed to
keep the frequencies in practical ranges and avoid
EMI problems, but in effect a receiver on the craft
pulls an on-board oscillator to 240 times the uplink
frequency. That is divided by 221 and sent back in
the form of a continuous sine wave. If you set up a
scope with one trace locked to one frequency and
also display another frequency on the second trace,
it will seem to drift across the screen. In this
case you could get 240 cycles on one trace and 221
cylces on the other (ignoring flyback time) and then
both traces would be solid. Between what points are
you going to measure a delay? All the DSN measures is
the received frequency.
If the uplink changes abruptly, there would be a delay
while the craft slowly adjusts the downlink frequency
to the new value which will be related to the bandwidth
of the PLL low-pass filter and may take a few seconds,
but we are talking of tracking the frequency once
locked for periods of several hours, each reading is
the average of 1 minute of carrier, and the spurious
readings during settling are discarded. Ralph even
noted that he had realised the first few entries for a
contact were corrupt and ignored them.
>>> 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.
>>
>>Because it is true. In other instances there
>>was simultaneous transmission and reception.
>
> But doesn't Ralph's idea assume a continuous link between transmitter and
> receiver?
No, what he is saying is that the periods of three-way
mode correspond to times when the receiving site was
also transmitting. Between those we see one-way mode.
If you assume that there might have been receive site
transmissions which were not documented, as I'm sure
he would if pushed, you cannot show an error in the
idea on logic alone.
I am fairly convinced that using the diurnal phase is
the only approach that is sufficiently robust and it
is completely effective in proving him wrong. His
inability to comprehend the method is an entirely
separate problem :-(
George
George Dishman
<r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1123884477.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
My argument is that the NSSDC supplied the data
and you wrote the program so it isn't my problem.
I can read the file using the same code that reads
the others so there must be a bug in your program.
I've given you my code so you have no excuse.
>> >> > 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.
>>
>> First, there are no "coding and decoding delays",
>> it is a transponder.
>
> Perhaps the way the transponder is used causes a problem. You dont
> know.
I do know, the paper explains clearly how the
system works and it is standard technology.
>>Second repointing the antenna
>> to increase the signal would not change the frequency
>> so could not correct your error.
>
>
> We are talking about Anderson's error in assuming the wrong position
> and velocity of the craft based on the conventional light speed delay
> assumption ten years after the craft's rendezvous with Jupiter.
No, re-read the paragraph above. We were at this
point talking of the period up to the Jupiter
encounter.
> We are talking about your error here in saying that these position
> values and velocity values were estimated the same way the position
> values and velocity values were estimated ten years earlier. This is
> not true because at that time they could repoint the antenna and a
> small angular change would not imply as large a change in miles between
> Jupiter and the craft.
It still doesn't change the frequency which is
what they use to navigate. Antenna pointing is
a useful check but too coarse for navigation.
>> >> >> > 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.
>>
>> No Ralph, your understanding is off, I am not
>> talking about the conventional analysis at all,
>> I am talking about yours.
>
> I am talking about both.
Exactly, my comments to which you responded
applied _only_ to yours.
> Your understanding is still off.
>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> No Ralph, the orbital velocity does not change
>> the diurnal amplitude or phase,
> No George, You are ignoring the fact that The orbital velocities
> as well as the rotational velocities and the craft site lines at sites
> 60 degrees apart at different times must be taken into account when
> projections of these velocities on the craftsite lines are made. Your
> continual oversimplification is embarassing.
Your inability to follow the method is what
is embarrassing. If I tried to take the angle
into account by estimating it, you would
claim the argument was circular, but I didn't
ignore it. What I did was calculate the worst
case contribution for any possible angle and
show that it was only a fraction of a degree
compeered to the test result of 26 degrees.
>> it has the wrong
>> frequency, once a year instead of once a day. Nor
>> did I assume the orbital velocity had no effect,
>> I posted the calculations that showed it was less
>> than a degree worst case.
>
> Your calculations dont take into account the projections on the
> craftsite lines.
Yes they do, but I use the worst case angle for
the orbital velocity.
>> The rotational velocity vector component is of
>> course what we are measuring.
>>
> Your insistence on oversimplifying is just trolling and a waste of
> time.
There is no simplification whatsoever, your
inability to follow simple geometry is the
problem.
>> >> 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.
>>
>> No comment? I hope you now understand that
>> as it is the basis of the test.
>
> My comment is above.
So you realise that calculating the time of
the zero crossing inherently means the
rotational velocity angle is 90 degrees to
the projection of the craft-site line onto
the equatorial plane and hence your reference
to not accounting for the projection is
unfounded? OK.
> You are oversimplifying and repeating your
> transparent error. Its a waste of time.
I have to keep repeating how the method works
until you understand it.
>> > 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?????
>>
>> The two modes can be easily distinguished as I showed
>> you, when the transponder mode is being used, the
>> Doppler is roughly doubled, once for the uplink and
>> again on the downlink. The graphs I posted illustrated
>> that.
>
> But this is not what Markwardt said.
You would have to take it up with him but you
asked if the signal could have been produced
"by the craft transmitter always sending a
carrier signal to the earth". That is one-way
mode and cannot be confused with three-way
mode due to the doubled diurnal Doppler
component.
> You are trolling again.
I answered your question. Whether that relates
to what Craig said is not my concern.
> The
> point is that Anderson's claim of an anomaly is correct but his claims
> as to the size of the anomaly are contradicted by the data which says
> the anomaly is much greater than claimed.
No it isn't, his value is accurate acording to
conventional theory. You have never calculated
the anomaly using conventional theory, only
your own version.
> The fact that Markwardt by
> leaving out some data etc confirms Anderson's claim is the point here.
No, the point is that you are incapable of
applying the full relativistic analysis. Don't
take that as an insult, I can't do it either,
the calculations are just too complex.
George
Scismgenie
The effect of solar radiation, and the axis of the earth?
Probably for the same reason Auroras are more frequent at the North
pole, and more intense, the magnetic field. Is ozone polarized
magnetically? Does the polarity of the earth's field affect Ozone
dispersion? Does Ozone Ionize?
Bob May
the magnetic field of the Earth directing the electrons to the north end of
the pole rather than the south end of the Earth's magnet.
I don't know if ozone is magnetic (never souught out that part of the
problem) but it is well known that the earth's orbit is an ellipse rather
than a circle and the tilt also amost perfectly matches the direction of the
line between the focal points of that ellipse.
Now, why does the Southern Polar Retion have such bad ozone holes while the
Northern Polar Region not? Please note while you are doing this research
that most of the "ozone depletion chemicals" are being used up in the north
where the ozone depletion isn't.
Bob May
something works with somebody that knows how the things work!
For example, transponders are very simple devices. They receive a signal
and then turn that signal around and send it off. Yep, there are delays in
doing so but those delays are well known (time of flight of the information
down a wire, across a filter or across a transistor is only a few of them)
and are easily calculated into the total delay of the device.
You haven't even figured out how an antenna can see a signal hwen that
signal hasn't come above the horison yet and the antenna isn't pointing at
it. For a reference, go out into the country with an AM radio and listen to
that radio while you rotate the antenna of that radio (that little black rod
with the coils around if if you don't know what an AM radio antenna looks
like) and you will find that it does matter which direction you point that
antenna to.
r9...@verizon.net
c++ compiler it is to be used with. You have not done the same. But
again it is strange that you have found no other set of data that shows
the same result as your one example. Perhaps you have tested what I
think is your oversimplified argument on other data and have found it
to give conflicting results.
> >> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> First, there are no "coding and decoding delays",
> >> it is a transponder.
> >
> > Perhaps the way the transponder is used causes a problem. You dont
> > know.
>
> I do know, the paper explains clearly how the
> system works and it is standard technology.
But there may have been some standard delays before the transponder
was used at the earthsite where two way communications were being used
as opposed to where one way comunications were used. And such delays
may have caused in part the time difference between the minimal Doppler
at the two earthsites that you attribute to different positions of the
craft.
>
> >>Second repointing the antenna
> >> to increase the signal would not change the frequency
> >> so could not correct your error.
> >
> >
> > We are talking about Anderson's error in assuming the wrong position
> > and velocity of the craft based on the conventional light speed delay
> > assumption ten years after the craft's rendezvous with Jupiter.
>
> No, re-read the paragraph above. We were at this
> point talking of the period up to the Jupiter
> encounter.
>
> > We are talking about your error here in saying that these position
> > values and velocity values were estimated the same way the position
> > values and velocity values were estimated ten years earlier. This is
> > not true because at that time they could repoint the antenna and a
> > small angular change would not imply as large a change in miles between
> > Jupiter and the craft.
>
> It still doesn't change the frequency which is
> what they use to navigate. Antenna pointing is
> a useful check but too coarse for navigation.
The point is that the changes in frequency and the changes in
strength of signal were both methods used to determine the position
and velocity ten years earlier and that when their false assumptions of
the time delay led to false assumption of the position and velocity,
these methods could be used to constantly correct the craft position
and velocity.
The basis for the correction was that the predicted velocity and
positions were not the same as those implied by successive observed
signal strength and doppler shifts.
Ten years of such corrections could have been done but I gather some
trial and error approach to fitting a trajectory was used instead ten
years or twenty years later. Perhaps the former data and method were
thrown out because the cumulative error was unbelievably great due to
the false speed of light delay assumptions.
>
> >> >> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> No Ralph, your understanding is off, I am not
> >> talking about the conventional analysis at all,
> >> I am talking about yours.
> >
> > I am talking about both.
>
> Exactly, my comments to which you responded
> applied _only_ to yours.
>
But you are saying that my analysis predicted frequencies that
further from the observed than the conventional prediction. True, but
this was because my analysis required the false initial positions and
velocities based on the conventional light speed delay assumptions.
Even using the false craft position estimates, the fact that they
are
roughly the same at the two times would be better. But the fact that
you
really have to do something like this shows the inadequacy of your
argument.
What I did was calculate the worst
> case contribution for any possible angle and
> show that it was only a fraction of a degree
> compeered to the test result of 26 degrees.
>
Your assumptions that this is the worst case are not justified.
No, because you do not take into account the orbital velocity and
the angle of the unknown but same position of the craft roughly at
roughly eight hours apart at earthsites that are about sixty degrees
apart. You could use the given conventional estimate of the craft
position and velocity in both cases. I would trust this more than your
worst case estimate based on questionable assumptions.
You are again making up your own question and answering it. My
question was how can I trust the confirmation of Anderson's claim by
someone who lied saying that there was no possibility of one way
communication from the craft when in fact there was.
> > You are trolling again.
>
> I answered your question. Whether that relates
> to what Craig said is not my concern.
>
> > The
> > point is that Anderson's claim of an anomaly is correct but his claims
> > as to the size of the anomaly are contradicted by the data which says
> > the anomaly is much greater than claimed.
>
> No it isn't, his value is accurate acording to
> conventional theory. You have never calculated
> the anomaly using conventional theory, only
> your own version.
No I calculated it according to both.
>
> > The fact that Markwardt by
> > leaving out some data etc confirms Anderson's claim is the point here.
>
> No, the point is that you are incapable of
> applying the full relativistic analysis. Don't
> take that as an insult, I can't do it either,
> the calculations are just too complex.
>
Nonsense. The .0001 relativistic increase in the mass of the craft
when in its average motion compared to when it was at rest on earth,
would not explain a further increase in mass above this to explain a
greater attraction of this mass toward the earth and the sun that would
explain the apparent rate of decrease in velocity of the craft with
respect to the sun as shown by the Doppler shift changes in the
radiation received from the craft. Hence the force of gravity must be
greater than we thought but then all of the planets would have fallen
into the sun. Maybe our light speed delay assumptions are cockeyed and
so the use of the assumptions and Doppler data to infer successive
positions and velocities of the craft lead to wrong estimates of
position and velocity. And if nasa realized this it would save billions
of dollars in failed missions.
Let me change the subject a little. The theory of maximal one second
light speed delay says that electromagnetic induction has to do with
changes in charge polarization inside electrons and nuclei in the
receiver before detectable oscillations of electrons with respect to
positive ions, occur and that the maximal delay is about one second.
The mechanism of charge polarization inside electrons and atomic
nuclei entails superluminal charged quark like particles orbiting
inside atomic nuclei and inside electrons and a widening of these
orbits in directions transverse and proportional to voltage
differences producing detectable electrical currents.
. This leads us to a mechanism to explain and confirm, fusion at low
energies of a beam or electrolytic current of deuterons. That is,
sufficiently polarized deuterons moving in parallel and sufficiently
close to one another will have their negative orbiting parts sometimes
come closer to and then come under the influence of the neighboring
positive deuteron core. The energy required to create and focus such a
beam would necessarily be less than the total of the gamma radiation
given off by the associated number of such fusions. This is in analogy
with electron excitation in exothermic chemical reactions where the
combination has less mass energy than the total of the input elements
etc...
Do you think it would be feasible to make a small scale elliptical
storage ring with the necessary electrical and electromagnetic focusing
devices to maintain an elliptical deuteron beam capable of producing a
small scale deuteron fusion electrical generator?
Jonathan Silverlight
r9...@verizon.net writes
> But there may have been some standard delays before the transponder
>was used at the earthsite where two way communications were being used
>as opposed to where one way comunications were used. And such delays
>may have caused in part the time difference between the minimal Doppler
>at the two earthsites that you attribute to different positions of the
>craft.
"May" again? :-) And it's meaningless to talk of a transponder being
used for one-way communication. The transponder is used to convert a
received signal into a transmitted one. Anyway, it isn't "used at the
earth site", but is on the spacecraft. You do know what a transponder
is, don't you?
>The point is that the changes in frequency and the changes in
>strength of signal were both methods used to determine the position
>and velocity ten years earlier and that when their false assumptions of
>the time delay led to false assumption of the position and velocity,
>these methods could be used to constantly correct the craft position
>and velocity.
> The basis for the correction was that the predicted velocity and
>positions were not the same as those implied by successive observed
>signal strength and doppler shifts.
> Ten years of such corrections could have been done but I gather some
>trial and error approach to fitting a trajectory was used instead ten
>years or twenty years later. Perhaps the former data and method were
>thrown out because the cumulative error was unbelievably great due to
>the false speed of light delay assumptions.
"Perhaps"? :-) Where do you get the idea that signal strength is a
useful method for obtaining range data? The paper explains very clearly
that the position in the sky is known to within a milliarcsecond. The
Pioneers don't have accurate range data, but Galileo, Ulysses, and
Cassini all do.
George Dishman wrote:
>>
>> You would have to take it up with him but you
>> asked if the signal could have been produced
>> "by the craft transmitter always sending a
>> carrier signal to the earth". That is one-way
>> mode and cannot be confused with three-way
>> mode due to the doubled diurnal Doppler
>> component.
>>
> You are again making up your own question and answering it. My
>question was how can I trust the confirmation of Anderson's claim by
>someone who lied saying that there was no possibility of one way
>communication from the craft when in fact there was.
Saying someone is lying is a serious accusation, but given the source It
will probably be ignored. What's your evidence for saying that?
One-way communication is what Pioneer 10 and 11 did all the time, though
it wasn't always "heard". Are you sure you know what one-way, two-way,
and three-way mean here?
r9...@verizon.net
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
> In message <1123965839....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> r9...@verizon.net writes
>
> > But there may have been some standard delays before the transponder
> >was used at the earthsite where two way communications were being used
> >as opposed to where one way comunications were used. And such delays
> >may have caused in part the time difference between the minimal Doppler
> >at the two earthsites that you attribute to different positions of the
> >craft.
>
> "May" again? :-)
is that in one case, one way communication was in effect and in the
other two or three way and that delays in use of the immediate
transponder could have occurred in the latter case. And this would
explain the funny numbers Dishman got in one instance but not in
another.
>
> >The point is that the changes in frequency and the changes in
> >strength of signal were both methods used to determine the position
> >and velocity ten years earlier and that when their false assumptions of
> >the time delay led to false assumption of the position and velocity,
> >these methods could be used to constantly correct the craft position
> >and velocity.
> > The basis for the correction was that the predicted velocity and
> >positions were not the same as those implied by successive observed
> >signal strength and doppler shifts.
> > Ten years of such corrections could have been done but I gather some
> >trial and error approach to fitting a trajectory was used instead ten
> >years or twenty years later. Perhaps the former data and method were
> >thrown out because the cumulative error was unbelievably great due to
> >the false speed of light delay assumptions.
>
> "Perhaps"? :-) Where do you get the idea that signal strength is a
> useful method for obtaining range data? The paper explains very clearly
> that the position in the sky is known to within a milliarcsecond. The
> Pioneers don't have accurate range data, but Galileo, Ulysses, and
> Cassini all do.
They have no idea where the craft really is because it is based on
false speed of light delay assumptions. The billions of dollars lost in
one third of the nasa missions is evidence. And it is not signal
strength per se we are talking about here but changes in signal
strength when they repoint the antenna.e
> George Dishman wrote:
>
> >>
> >> You would have to take it up with him but you
> >> asked if the signal could have been produced
> >> "by the craft transmitter always sending a
> >> carrier signal to the earth". That is one-way
> >> mode and cannot be confused with three-way
> >> mode due to the doubled diurnal Doppler
> >> component.
> >>
> > You are again making up your own question and answering it. My
> >question was how can I trust the confirmation of Anderson's claim by
> >someone who lied saying that there was no possibility of one way
> >communication from the craft when in fact there was.
>
> Saying someone is lying is a serious accusation, but given the source It
> will probably be ignored. What's your evidence for saying that?
You will just have to accept my word unless you look at all the
previous posts if you dont believe me. And read some physics when you
have a chance.
George Dishman
"Bob May" <bob...@nethere.com> wrote in message
news:11239628...@news-1.nethere.net...
> Ralphie IFS, it is quite interesting that you succeed so well arguing how
> something works with somebody that knows how the things work!
> For example, transponders are very simple devices. They receive a signal
> and then turn that signal around and send it off. Yep, there are delays
> in
Bob, that is not how the Pioneer transponder works, it
is nothing more than a PLL. The downlink frequency is
locked to exactly 240/221 times the uplink carrier.
That is why Ralph's comments on delays are completely
irrelevant in this context.
What you said is perfectly correct for the more usual
use of the term.
George
George Dishman
<r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1123965839....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Here is the page I wrote in February:
http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Ralph/index.htm
The first link has the Excel sheet which includes the
code. Use "Tools", "Macro", "Visual Basic Editor" to
access it. If it doesn't appear, Excel may show the
wrong page by default, choose "Sheet1 (Control)" from
the project panel on the left. This assumes you have
Office 2003. In case you still cannot get into it, the
code itself is here:
http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Ralph/Code_For_Ralph.txt
As you can see it is trivial and written to be obvious
that there is no trick data included.
> I gave you the web site of my c++ code and of the
> c++ compiler it is to be used with. You have not done the same.
See above. I have more recent versions with extra
features but that is the one I gave you at the time.
Is it code on your web site? I checked back and can't
find it as an attachement to any of your mails.
> But
> again it is strange that you have found no other set of data that shows
> the same result as your one example. Perhaps you have tested what I
> think is your oversimplified argument on other data and have found it
> to give conflicting results.
No, there are others but the 12 hour round trip in the
March data means that the zero crossing is well within
the contact period. All the days I have looked at give
the same answer qualitatively but it takes some time
to do the full analysis and prepare graphs and I have
better things to do with my time than repeat something
I have already completed.
>> >> >> > 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.
>> >>
>> >> First, there are no "coding and decoding delays",
>> >> it is a transponder.
>> >
>> > Perhaps the way the transponder is used causes a problem. You dont
>> > know.
>>
>> I do know, the paper explains clearly how the
>> system works and it is standard technology.
>
> But there may have been some standard delays before the transponder
> was used at the earthsite where two way communications were being used
> as opposed to where one way comunications were used.
There is often a period at the start of a contact where
the system worked in one-way mode before changing to
three-way but these are easily distinguished as I said
but that isn't a delay of the signal. There is no way
to introduce a delay since the transponder is simply a
PLL used to lock the downlink frequency to a multiple
of the uplink. We are not talking about data here.
> And such delays
> may have caused in part the time difference between the minimal Doppler
> at the two earthsites that you attribute to different positions of the
> craft.
No. Think about the configuration.
>> >>Second repointing the antenna
>> >> to increase the signal would not change the frequency
>> >> so could not correct your error.
>
>> > We are talking about Anderson's error in assuming the wrong position
>> > and velocity of the craft based on the conventional light speed delay
>> > assumption ten years after the craft's rendezvous with Jupiter.
>>
>> No, re-read the paragraph above. We were at this
>> point talking of the period up to the Jupiter
>> encounter.
>>
>> > We are talking about your error here in saying that these position
>> > values and velocity values were estimated the same way the position
>> > values and velocity values were estimated ten years earlier. This is
>> > not true because at that time they could repoint the antenna and a
>> > small angular change would not imply as large a change in miles between
>> > Jupiter and the craft.
>>
>> It still doesn't change the frequency which is
>> what they use to navigate. Antenna pointing is
>> a useful check but too coarse for navigation.
>
> The point is that the changes in frequency and the changes in
> strength of signal were both methods used to determine the position
> and velocity ten years earlier
No they weren't. The methods were integration of
the frequency and the dedicated ranging system.
Pointing is adjusted to maximise signal to noise
ratio.
> and that when their false assumptions of
> the time delay led to false assumption of the position and velocity,
> these methods could be used to constantly correct the craft position
> and velocity.
> The basis for the correction was that the predicted velocity and
> positions were not the same as those implied by successive observed
> signal strength and doppler shifts.
The basis was that there was a difference between
integrated Doppler and the ranging measurement. The
error was of the order of 12m IIRC (it's in the paper)
whereas your claimed error would be millions of km.
> Ten years of such corrections could have been done but I gather some
> trial and error approach to fitting a trajectory was used instead ten
> years or twenty years later. Perhaps the former data and method were
> thrown out because the cumulative error was unbelievably great due to
> the false speed of light delay assumptions.
The cumulative error was a few tens of metres,
tens of nanoseconds in a round trip of hours.
>> >> >> >> > 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.
>> >>
>> >> No Ralph, your understanding is off, I am not
>> >> talking about the conventional analysis at all,
>> >> I am talking about yours.
>> >
>> > I am talking about both.
>>
>> Exactly, my comments to which you responded
>> applied _only_ to yours.
>>
> But you are saying that my analysis predicted frequencies that
> further from the observed than the conventional prediction. True,
That is actually the point you have been making
> but
> this was because my analysis required the false initial positions and
> velocities based on the conventional light speed delay assumptions.
Then the correct approach is to alter them by
trial and error until you eliminate the error.
Your solution is then no longer dependent on
those values, they would just be the seeds for
your iterative solution. That is what I meant
by saying _you_ needed to apply a correction
to _your_ solution.
Now my point was that I think you will find
the shape of the errors means they cannot be
removed but it's up to you to see if that's
the case, I'm just stating an expectation.
>> > Your understanding is still off.
I hope you now understand the nature of my comment.
I disagree. Determining the positions directly
from the data without any assumptions or estimates
has to be better, and since you are complaining
about assumptions, your own argument justifies my
approach.
Showing that the worst possible value for an unknown
term cannot explain the discrepancy is standard
practice, it is what Anderson et al do in the error
budget table and you will find something similar in
many papers.
> But the fact that you
> really have to do something like this shows the inadequacy of your
> argument.
The approach is standard practice.
>> What I did was calculate the worst
>> case contribution for any possible angle and
>> show that it was only a fraction of a degree
>> compeered to the test result of 26 degrees.
>>
> Your assumptions that this is the worst case are not justified.
Sorry, if we project some value onto a line, the
result is cos(theta) times the magnitude. The
worst case is the magnitude itself and the only
assumption made is that
-1 <= cos(theta) <= +1
I think that is justified.
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> No comment? I hope you now understand that
>> >> as it is the basis of the test.
>> >
>> > My comment is above.
>>
>> So you realise that calculating the time of
>> the zero crossing inherently means the
>> rotational velocity angle is 90 degrees to
>> the projection of the craft-site line onto
>> the equatorial plane and hence your reference
>> to not accounting for the projection is
>> unfounded? OK.
>>
> No, because you do not take into account the orbital velocity
See above, I deal with that separately.
> and
> the angle of the unknown but same position of the craft roughly at
> roughly eight hours apart at earthsites that are about sixty degrees
> apart. You could use the given conventional estimate of the craft
> position and velocity in both cases.
I don't need any estimate, the method gives me the
location without one.
> I would trust this more than your
> worst case estimate based on questionable assumptions.
I think
-1 <= cos(theta) <= +1
is not questionable IMO.
>> > But this is not what Markwardt said.
>>
>> You would have to take it up with him but you
>> asked if the signal could have been produced
>> "by the craft transmitter always sending a
>> carrier signal to the earth". That is one-way
>> mode and cannot be confused with three-way
>> mode due to the doubled diurnal Doppler
>> component.
>>
> You are again making up your own question and answering it. My
> question was how can I trust the confirmation of Anderson's claim by
> someone who lied saying that there was no possibility of one way
> communication from the craft when in fact there was.
Mt reply is that I don't believe he lied because
in the posts I saw he was talking about some
contacts, not all, and I have confirmed that
there are some where that is true. If you know
of a post where he said otherwise then give me
a link.
>> > You are trolling again.
>>
>> I answered your question. Whether that relates
>> to what Craig said is not my concern.
>>
>> > The
>> > point is that Anderson's claim of an anomaly is correct but his claims
>> > as to the size of the anomaly are contradicted by the data which says
>> > the anomaly is much greater than claimed.
>>
>> No it isn't, his value is accurate acording to
>> conventional theory. You have never calculated
>> the anomaly using conventional theory, only
>> your own version.
>
> No I calculated it according to both.
You have never done a GR analysis, your attempt
at the conventional theory used the conventional
delay but Newtonian space and time.
>> > The fact that Markwardt by
>> > leaving out some data etc confirms Anderson's claim is the point here.
>>
>> No, the point is that you are incapable of
>> applying the full relativistic analysis. Don't
>> take that as an insult, I can't do it either,
>> the calculations are just too complex.
>>
> Nonsense.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064
Did you use equation (3) given in the Anderson paper
for the prediction of the motion of the various bodies
including the craft?
Did you use equation (4) to calculate the light time?
I don't think you did.
In fact the first time I looked, you didn't even use
the relativistic Doppler equation but the Newtonian
equation for a moving observer on both legs! Have you
fixed that?
> The .0001 relativistic increase in the mass of the craft
> when in its average motion compared to when it was at rest on earth,
> would not explain a further increase in mass above this to explain a
> greater attraction of this mass toward the earth and the sun ...
Galileo showed that acceleration is independent
of the mass of a small test body so this is a
complete red herring. To do the conventional
analysis you need to use all the equations given
in the Anderson paper. Tinkering with the old
"relativistic mass" idea is of no relevance,
the mass is invariant in the proper equations.
...
> Let me change the subject a little. ...
> Do you think it would be feasible to make a small scale elliptical
> storage ring with the necessary electrical and electromagnetic focusing
> devices to maintain an elliptical deuteron beam capable of producing a
> small scale deuteron fusion electrical generator?
I have no idea, you would need to ask someone
in the particle physics field, but it would
not be cheap and since your theory is proven
to be incorrect, it is unlikely anyone would
fund you.
George
Jonathan Silverlight
r9...@verizon.net writes
>
>Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
>> In message <1123965839....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> r9...@verizon.net writes
>>
>> > But there may have been some standard delays before the transponder
>> >was used at the earthsite where two way communications were being used
>> >as opposed to where one way comunications were used. And such delays
>> >may have caused in part the time difference between the minimal Doppler
>> >at the two earthsites that you attribute to different positions of the
>> >craft.
>>
>> "May" again? :-)
> Read the whole sentence The obvious (unless you are retarded)point
>is that in one case, one way communication was in effect and in the
>other two or three way and that delays in use of the immediate
>transponder could have occurred in the latter case. And this would
>explain the funny numbers Dishman got in one instance but not in
>another.
>
"Could have" ? (again). But this discussion has been going on so long
you'll have to remind me where George mentions one way communication. It
isn't very useful for this work, because you need the accuracy of the
ground transmission (which is referred to hydrogen masers). You need two
way. And as Anderson et al. note, although you need three way
communication in the real world of long delays and a rotating Earth, it
can't be used for range work (which isn't relevant to Pioneer anyway).
Could you explain where the delay is happening (i.e. which spacecraft
system is doing it) and, more important, _why_?
>>
>> "Perhaps"? :-) Where do you get the idea that signal strength is a
>> useful method for obtaining range data? The paper explains very clearly
>> that the position in the sky is known to within a milliarcsecond. The
>> Pioneers don't have accurate range data, but Galileo, Ulysses, and
>> Cassini all do.
>
>They have no idea where the craft really is because it is based on
>false speed of light delay assumptions. The billions of dollars lost in
>one third of the nasa missions is evidence. And it is not signal
>strength per se we are talking about here but changes in signal
>strength when they repoint the antenna.e
You've repeated that "one third of NASA missions" (note capital letters)
so often you probably believe it. So (again), where is the list of
missions lost due to assuming a speed of light? And (again) what does
changes in signal strength due to changing the direction of an antenna
with a beam width of the order of minutes of arc have to do with
accuracy of a milliarcsecond?
Bear in mind that these methods have been successful in tracking the
Voyagers, which visited four planets with an accuracy of a few
kilometers.
BTW, where's your reply to my comment about your measuring instantaneous
effects in the laboratory? Don't you see a contradiction there?
r9...@verizon.net
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
> In message <1123986703.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> r9...@verizon.net writes
> >
> >Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
> >> In message <1123965839....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> r9...@verizon.net writes
> >>
> >> > But there may have been some standard delays before the transponder
> >> >was used at the earthsite where two way communications were being used
> >> >as opposed to where one way comunications were used. And such delays
> >> >may have caused in part the time difference between the minimal Doppler
> >> >at the two earthsites that you attribute to different positions of the
> >> >craft.
> >>
> >> "May" again? :-)
> > Read the whole sentence The obvious (unless you are retarded)point
> >is that in one case, one way communication was in effect and in the
> >other two or three way and that delays in use of the immediate
> >transponder could have occurred in the latter case. And this would
> >explain the funny numbers Dishman got in one instance but not in
> >another.
> >
>
>
Could you explain where the delay is happening (i.e. which spacecraft
> system is doing it) and, more important, _why_?
>
decoded for ten minutes and the data was used to control things on the
craft eg changing the position of the craaft antenna or whatever and
then coding of the response for ten minutes was sent back with carrier
whose frequency had been changed in phase to match the uplink frequency
and phase and sent back to earth.
> >>
> >> "Perhaps"? :-) Where do you get the idea that signal strength is a
> >> useful method for obtaining range data?
I did not say that.
The paper explains very clearly
> >> that the position in the sky is known to within a milliarcsecond. The
> >> Pioneers don't have accurate range data, but Galileo, Ulysses, and
> >> Cassini all do.
> >
> >They have no idea where the craft really is because it is based on
> >false speed of light delay assumptions. The billions of dollars lost in
> >one third of the nasa missions is evidence. And it is not signal
> >strength per se we are talking about here but changes in signal
> >strength when they repoint the antenna.e
>
> You've repeated that "one third of NASA missions" (note capital letters)
> so often you probably believe it. So (again), where is the list of
> missions lost due to assuming a speed of light?
google on it. one third is a low estimate to exclude failures not
occurring at launch.
<snip>
> Bear in mind that these methods have been successful in tracking the
> Voyagers, which visited four planets with an accuracy of a few
> kilometers.
You are confusing again the methods used to determine Pioneer 10s
positions as it moved near Jupiter with the method used ten years
later.
> BTW, where's your reply to my comment about your measuring instantaneous
> effects in the laboratory? Don't you see a contradiction there?
What was your comment? See mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/book03.htm
George Dishman
<r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1124026486.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
That's much clearer Ralph, let's correct some
details. The uplink carrier is switched on at a
frequency which should be close to where the craft
is listening and is then swept up and down a little
in frequency so that it will sweep through the
receiver's relatively narrow band filter. The craft
locks onto this at some point and changes the
downlink frequency to follow the uplink with
negligible delay. After the sweep is completed, the
uplink sits at a fixed frequency (at the transmit
site) for the next few hours. The craft sees a
Doppler induced shift on the uplink and keeps the
downlink frequency at 240/221 times the uplink with
negligible delay.
Data is modulated onto the uplink signals carrying
commands. These may illicit a response which would
be sent seconds (or even hours) later as you say but
we are not looking at those, we have no information
on the commands or responses.
What we are dealing with is a series of measurements
of the frequency of the downlink which is that sent
from the craft modified by the Doppler shift at the
receive site. In your model, both sites are the same
of course and the total round trip delay is less
than 2 seconds.
George
Jonathan Silverlight
And your evidence is? As has been explained to you, there is no
"decoding" and no "coding" and no delay while "the data was used to
control things on the craft". But I did find this, which suggests there
might be a small delay in the PLL
<http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/t-33979_Pioneer_10_acceleration.html>.
It's from a sci.astro discussion a bit over a year ago.
>
>
>> >>
>> >> "Perhaps"? :-) Where do you get the idea that signal strength is a
>> >> useful method for obtaining range data?
>
> I did not say that.
You did. I've added emphasis to your comment.
In message <1123965839....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
r9...@verizon.net writes
>The point is that the changes in frequency and the _changes in strength
>of signal_ were both methods used to determine the position and
>velocity ten years ago.
>
>The paper explains very clearly
>> >> that the position in the sky is known to within a milliarcsecond. The
>> >> Pioneers don't have accurate range data, but Galileo, Ulysses, and
>> >> Cassini all do.
>> >
>> >They have no idea where the craft really is because it is based on
>> >false speed of light delay assumptions. The billions of dollars lost in
>> >one third of the nasa missions is evidence. And it is not signal
>> >strength per se we are talking about here but changes in signal
>> >strength when they repoint the antenna.e
>>
>> You've repeated that "one third of NASA missions" (note capital letters)
>> so often you probably believe it. So (again), where is the list of
>> missions lost due to assuming a speed of light?
>
> google on it. one third is a low estimate to exclude failures not
>occurring at launch.
I can find the figures for failed missions. But the number lost due to
ignoring the speed-of-light delay is zero (0). Unless you can show me an
example.
>
><snip>
>
>> Bear in mind that these methods have been successful in tracking the
>> Voyagers, which visited four planets with an accuracy of a few
>> kilometers.
>
> You are confusing again the methods used to determine Pioneer 10s
>positions as it moved near Jupiter with the method used ten years
>later.
>
>> BTW, where's your reply to my comment about your measuring instantaneous
>> effects in the laboratory? Don't you see a contradiction there?
>
>What was your comment? See mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/book03.htm
>
That page doesn't mention your experiments, and the link to
<http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/Pockels1.doc> doesn't work (also, the
page you cite is messed up, so the figures don't appear)
r9...@verizon.net
> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > 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 specified and
> >> >> > unspecified 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.
> >> >
> >> >> >> > 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?
> >> >> >>
> >> > program which can read all of the other NSSDC data but not this
> >> > specific one.
> >>
Here is the page I wrote in February:
>
> http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Ralph/index.htm
>
> The first link has the Excel sheet which includes the
> code. Use "Tools", "Macro", "Visual Basic Editor" to
> access it. If it doesn't appear, Excel may show the
> wrong page by default, choose "Sheet1 (Control)" from
> the project panel on the left. This assumes you have
> Office 2003. In case you still cannot get into it, the
> code itself is here:
>
> http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Ralph/Code_For_Ralph.txt
>
> As you can see it is trivial and written to be obvious
> that there is no trick data included.
>
Sorry I see the program but it is not a c++ program and you dont
provide a complier etc. and the data file was corrupted or not in
readable format
> > I gave you the web site of my c++ code and of the
> > c++ compiler it is to be used with. You have not done the same.
>
> See above.
Its not the same and I cant access it.
> > But
> > again it is strange that you have found no other set of data that shows
> > the same result as your one example. Perhaps you have tested what I
> > think is your oversimplified argument on other data and have found it
> > to give conflicting results.
>
> No, there are others but...
No graphs are necessary. Just show the received frequencies at two
successive sites and their times and what the sites are.
> >> >> >> > 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.
> >> >>
> > But there may have been some standard delays before the transponder
> > was used at the earthsite where two way communications were being used
> > as opposed to where one way comunications were used.
>
> There is often a period at the start of a contact where
> the system worked in one-way mode before changing to
> three-way but these are easily distinguished as I said
> but that isn't a delay of the signal. There is no way
> to introduce a delay since the transponder is simply a
> PLL used to lock the downlink frequency to a multiple
> of the uplink. We are not talking about data here.
I understand how it might have been used the question is how it was
used.
> > And such delays
> > may have caused in part the time difference between the minimal Doppler
> > at the two earthsites that you attribute to different positions of the
> > craft.
> > The point is that the changes in frequency and the changes in
> > strength of signal were both methods used to determine the position
> > and velocity ten years earlier
>
> No they weren't.
Yes they were
>The methods were integration of
> the frequency and the dedicated ranging system.
> Pointing is adjusted to maximise signal to noise
> ratio.
And used in the integration.
> > and that when their false assumptions of
> > the time delay led to false assumption of the position and velocity,
> > these methods could be used to constantly correct the craft position
> > and velocity.
> > The basis for the correction was that the predicted velocity and
> > positions were not the same as those implied by successive observed
> > signal strength and doppler shifts.
>
> The basis was that there was a difference between
> integrated Doppler and the ranging measurement.
This is essentially what I said in a much clearer way. I am not
trying to impress morons with jargon but to say what happened as
clearly and simply as possible.
I am not trying to bring up red herrings all the time.
The
> error was of the order of 12m IIRC (it's in the paper)
> whereas your claimed error would be millions of km.
>
Not true. The error is increasing to twice this and my claim is just
this. The point is that false speed of light delay assumption required
constant corrections and you are covering up this basic point why?
> > Ten years of such corrections could have been done but I gather some
> > trial and error approach to fitting a trajectory was used instead ten
> > years or twenty years later. Perhaps the former data and method were
> > thrown out because the cumulative error was unbelievably great due to
> > the false speed of light delay assumptions.
>
> The cumulative error was a few tens of metres,
>tens of nanoseconds in a round trip of hours
There is no round trip of hours and the error is every second.
>> But you are saying that my analysis predicted frequencies that
> > were further from the observed than the conventional prediction. True,
> > > but
> > this was because my analysis required the false initial positions and
> > velocities based on the conventional light speed delay assumptions.
>
> Then the correct approach is to alter them by
> trial and error until you eliminate the error.
> Your solution is then no longer dependent on
> those values, they would just be the seeds for
> your iterative solution. That is what I meant
> by saying _you_ needed to apply a correction
> to _your_ solution.
>
That is what you need to do if you have nothing better to do and
want to ignore all of the evidence that the anomaly no matter what is
tried, is much larger than claimed . In fact the correct approach is to
go back and look at all of the corrections that were made from the day
of launch and see that if the right speed of light delay assumptions
were made there would have been no need for constant corrections.
Of course this is not available although the records were obtained.
Why?
What is your explanation for this?
The point is that no matter what nasa does with the data and the wrong
speed of light delay assumptions they get errors which imply the
planets should have fallen into the sun long ago(even though Anderson
claims it is smaller than the data shows if you take into account the
miniscule curvature of space time and throw out "bad" data)
Since this is so obviously the case it is foolish of you to pretend
otherwise and play little mind games. You say the earth is not in orbit
but is only rotating in the equatorial plane and that the rotation
axis is perpendicular to the rotation axis and that the craft is also
in the equatorial plane.
Of course you are not literally saying this, but your claim that the
craftsite lines from two different earthsites 60degrees apart to
wherever the craft is are equivalent to a line from the equatorial
plane at the longitude of the site to the same but unknown craft
position at some unknown time during the period of exposure of each
site to the craft.
And that this equivalence is explained by the fact that Acos(0)=A.
Such mind games do not disprove my contention that two way
communication at one earth site produces the received frequencies at
that earth site during the time of exposure of the craft at that
earthsite. And that two way communication with another earth site when
the craft rises in view of this other earthsite produces the received
frequencies at this other earth site.
Also that the projection of the orbital and rotational earthsite
motions onto the lines from these earthsites will be minimal when the
vector sum of the orbital and rotational earthsite motions produce a
vector perpendicular to one of these lines.
Clearly we cannot substitute for these two lines and two
projections, these other lines and projections on them you want to use
to make your cockamamie argument.
> > You are again making up your own question and answering it. My
> > question was how can I trust the confirmation of Anderson's claim by
> > someone who lied saying that there was no possibility of one way
> > communication from the craft when in fact there was.
>
> Mt reply is that I don't believe he lied because
> in the posts I saw he was talking about some
> contacts, not all,
He said and you damn well know he said that there was no possibility
of one way communication from the craft at specific times when
frequencies were received, when in fact there was.
> >> > The
> >> > point is that Anderson's claim of an anomaly is correct but his claims
> >> > as to the size of the anomaly are contradicted by the data which says
> >> > the anomaly is much greater than claimed.
> >>
> >> No it isn't, his value is accurate acording to
> >> conventional theory. You have never calculated
> >> the anomaly using conventional theory, only
> >> your own version.
> >
> > No I calculated it according to both.
>
>You have never done a GR analysis,
.
This is a red herring. The magnitude of the difference between gr and
Newtonian analysis on the received frequencies is on the order of
.0001Hz and the difference between the observed and predicted
frequencies is on the order of tens of Hz..
Most people with common sense can see through this. They threw out
all of the corrected positions from launch to a time period 20 years
later based on the false speed of light delay assumption as these got
worse and worse.
Why?
The small gr effects are acknowledged to be very small relative to
the magnitudes of the differences here between the observed doppler and
the predicted doppler that get worse and worse as the relativistic
effects get smaller and smaller. Thus this data itself says that there
is something wrong with the trial and error procedure using the
conventional light speed delay assumption in predicting the observed
frequency.
>
> > Let me change the subject a little. ...
> > Do you think it would be feasible to make a small scale elliptical
> > storage ring with the necessary electrical and electromagnetic focusing
> > devices to maintain an elliptical deuteron beam capable of producing a
> > small scale deuteron fusion electrical generator?
>
> I have no idea, you would need to ask someone
> in the particle physics field, but it would
> not be cheap and since your theory is proven
> to be incorrect, it is unlikely anyone would
> fund you.
>
Its not simply my theory which is increasingly shown to be
correct(google on polarized deuterons and electron structure) but
actual results of cold fusion and warm fusion experiments. But my
theory of superluminally orbiting charged particles inside atomic
nuclei and electrons whose orbits become wider when a potential
difference is applied for example in producing a deuteron beam leads to
the possibility of fusion in a dense enough beam in complete analogy to
exothermic chemical reactions.
Your insistent opposition to my theory with red herrings and vague
illogical arguments that have been shown to be just that on now several
occasions(this is strike 3 where the first strike was that the Doppler
shift implied the infinite extrapolation of light and the second strike
was that binary stars did) and then with facts you know to be lies from
supposed nasa authorities, has the other immoral consequence of
impeding development of a cheap, safe, nuclear source of energy.
I thought that your knowledge of electronics might include knowledge
of electrostatic and electromagnetic focusing methods of electrons in
cathode ray tubes and someone as smart as you could scale this up to
deuteron beams and storage rings.
Bob May
actions is a constant and is added into the time involved in figuring out
when the response should be getting back to the earth. It doesn't change,
can't change and won't change just because yo don't understnd reality.
Jonathan Silverlight
r9...@verizon.net writes
>George Dishman wrote:
(Much snipped)
>>
>> The cumulative error was a few tens of metres,
>>tens of nanoseconds in a round trip of hours
>
>There is no round trip of hours
According to your fantasy. But if they have instantaneous communication,
why do they need three-way contact? The station that sent the signal
could receive it.
>
>>
>> Mt reply is that I don't believe he lied because
>> in the posts I saw he was talking about some
>> contacts, not all,
>
> He said and you damn well know he said that there was no possibility
>of one way communication from the craft at specific times when
>frequencies were received, when in fact there was.
>
Reference please. Yet again, one way communication was always possible.
The spacecraft were always transmitting, and one station was always in
sight of the spacecraft (that is why there are three stations).
>
>
> Most people with common sense can see through this. They threw out
>all of the corrected positions from launch to a time period 20 years
>later based on the false speed of light delay assumption as these got
>worse and worse.
Where do you get that idea? Observations of the "Pioneer anomaly"
started in 1980, about 8 years after launch. Before that time the effect
is masked by solar radiation pressure.
George Dishman
<r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1124043045.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"The first link has the Excel sheet ..."
It is an Excel sheet. You opened it before but said
you couldn't get into the code, you could only see
the results and didn't trust them. I have repeated
the instructions for accessing the code above.
> and you dont
> provide a complier
None needed, is is a Visual Basic script as I said.
Just press the button to run it or display the Debug
toolbar and Excel includes the interpreter that lets
you single step through the code looking at the sheet
to see what it does as it goes.
> etc. and the data file was corrupted or not in
> readable format
What data file? The second link is the VB code as a
plain text file. Internet Explorer will display it
just by following the link. Just looking at it will
show there is no data in it, that was the point!
>> > I gave you the web site of my c++ code and of the
>> > c++ compiler it is to be used with. You have not done the same.
>>
>> See above.
>
> Its not the same and I cant access it.
>
>> > But
>> > again it is strange that you have found no other set of data that shows
>> > the same result as your one example. Perhaps you have tested what I
>> > think is your oversimplified argument on other data and have found it
>> > to give conflicting results.
>>
>> No, there are others but...
>
> No graphs are necessary.
Yes they are. First you have to look at the graph
to identify the periods of one-way versus three-way
operation, second you have to identify the rapid
sweep periods and third you need to note the period
of settling time for the transponder. That lets you
identify the periods of valid data.
> Just show the received frequencies at two
> successive sites and their times and what the sites are.
The method requires determining the time of zero
crossing by taking a first derivative (difference
column), eliminating bias by selecting a sample
period which is symetrical about the crossing
and then taking a second difference and doing a
least squares fit to find the result. You do all
that independently for each of the two receive
sites to get two times and then compare with the
site longitudes.
>> > But there may have been some standard delays before the transponder
>> > was used at the earthsite where two way communications were being used
>> > as opposed to where one way comunications were used.
>>
>> There is often a period at the start of a contact where
>> the system worked in one-way mode before changing to
>> three-way but these are easily distinguished as I said
>> but that isn't a delay of the signal. There is no way
>> to introduce a delay since the transponder is simply a
>> PLL used to lock the downlink frequency to a multiple
>> of the uplink. We are not talking about data here.
>
> I understand how it might have been used the question is how it was
> used.
It has two ways of being used, "On" and "Off". Either
you lock the downlink signal or you don't, but there
is no question of software delays because it is a
hardware PLL that works in real time.
The delays that do exist in terms of locking on can
be seen when you plot the data which is why it is
essential that you plot graphs as I said above.
That said, you still don't seem to grasp the fact
that the transponder is a way of ensuring an accurate
frequency for the downlink and there are no specific
timings being measured which could be delayed anyway.
>> > And such delays
>> > may have caused in part the time difference between the minimal Doppler
>> > at the two earthsites that you attribute to different positions of the
>> > craft.
>
>> > The point is that the changes in frequency and the changes in
>> > strength of signal were both methods used to determine the position
>> > and velocity ten years earlier
>>
>> No they weren't.
>
> Yes they were
>
>>The methods were integration of
>> the frequency and the dedicated ranging system.
>> Pointing is adjusted to maximise signal to noise
>> ratio.
>
> And used in the integration.
No, what is integrated is the measured speed (to get
the change in distance) and the speed is found from
the frequency, not the signal strength.
>> > and that when their false assumptions of
>> > the time delay led to false assumption of the position and velocity,
>> > these methods could be used to constantly correct the craft position
>> > and velocity.
>> > The basis for the correction was that the predicted velocity and
>> > positions were not the same as those implied by successive observed
>> > signal strength and doppler shifts.
>>
>> The basis was that there was a difference between
>> integrated Doppler and the ranging measurement.
>
> This is essentially what I said in a much clearer way. I am not
> trying to impress morons with jargon but to say what happened as
> clearly and simply as possible.
> I am not trying to bring up red herrings all the time.
Then listen to what I am saying because it is
not "essentially what I said", perhaps I still
wasn't clear. There are two methods supported
by the craft that they can use for navigation
and the JPL software normally makes use both
in fitting the most likely trajectory. The first
is the measured downlink frequency which gives
the speed through the Doppler effect. The second
is a direct measurement of the distance ('range')
where they modulate the carrier with a pseudo-
random pattern and measure the time delay for
that to be returned.
They do not use signal strength as a pimary
source of navigational information.
>> The
>> error was of the order of 12m IIRC (it's in the paper)
>> whereas your claimed error would be millions of km.
>>
>
> Not true. The error is increasing to twice this and my claim is just
> this.
Maybe my memory is playing tricks but I thought
you said it was tens of Hertz in a contact period.
Their figure of 3Hz in 8 years is equivalent to
about 25000km so the frequency error you claimed
would be an enormous distance. Maybe we are talking
at cross purposes somehow.
> The point is that false speed of light delay assumption required
> constant corrections and you are covering up this basic point why?
The corrections were comparable to the noise on
the signal so entirely expected.
>> > Ten years of such corrections could have been done but I gather some
>> > trial and error approach to fitting a trajectory was used instead ten
>> > years or twenty years later. Perhaps the former data and method were
>> > thrown out because the cumulative error was unbelievably great due to
>> > the false speed of light delay assumptions.
>>
>> The cumulative error was a few tens of metres,
>>tens of nanoseconds in a round trip of hours
>
> There is no round trip of hours and the error is every second.
No, that was the cumulative error.
>>> But you are saying that my analysis predicted frequencies that
>> > were further from the observed than the conventional prediction. True,
>> > > but
>> > this was because my analysis required the false initial positions and
>> > velocities based on the conventional light speed delay assumptions.
>>
>> Then the correct approach is to alter them by
>> trial and error until you eliminate the error.
>> Your solution is then no longer dependent on
>> those values, they would just be the seeds for
>> your iterative solution. That is what I meant
>> by saying _you_ needed to apply a correction
>> to _your_ solution.
>>
>
> That is what you need to do if you have nothing better to do and
> want to ignore all of the evidence that the anomaly no matter what is
> tried, is much larger than claimed.
For goodness sake Ralph, the published error is
the remainder after applying _conventional_ theory,
I am talking about _yours_ ! Try to get a grip on
this.
> In fact the correct approach is to
> go back and look at all of the corrections that were made from the day
> of launch and see that if the right speed of light delay assumptions
> were made there would have been no need for constant corrections.
No that isn't the correct approach. In fact it is
a completely unworkable method because all the
flight parameters would be changed by using your
suggestion. The only thing that can be done is to
start with the raw data files which you have and
fit a brand new trajectory to them.
> Of course this is not available although the records were obtained.
> Why?
> What is your explanation for this?
Because they don't apply specific corrections the
way you seem to think they do. The approach is to
produce a brand new fit each time gradually
discarding older data because they are aware that
various forces like the solar radiation, inter-
planetary dust and so on cause the craft to wander
from its previous course very slightly.
> The point is that no matter what nasa does with the data and the wrong
> speed of light delay assumptions they get errors which imply the
> planets should have fallen into the sun long ago(even though Anderson
> claims it is smaller than the data shows if you take into account the
> miniscule curvature of space time and throw out "bad" data)
> Since this is so obviously the case it is foolish of you to pretend
> otherwise and play little mind games.
No mind games, I am just trying to educate you
in the basics of navigation techniques and how a
transponder works. Once you learn these, you will
be in a better position to use the data. What that
gives with your theory is anybodies guess because
until you do it properly, even you don't know what
the result will be.
> You say the earth is not in orbit
> but is only rotating in the equatorial plane and that the rotation
> axis is perpendicular to the rotation axis and that the craft is also
> in the equatorial plane.
> Of course you are not literally saying this,
Thank goodness you added that, it's a load of crap!!!!
You have repeatedly accused me of not taking the
projection of the velocities into account but that
is what the projection does. We have to project
onto the plane in which the site is rotating and
of course that is perpendicular to the axis hence
parallel to the equatorial plane.
> but your claim that the
> craftsite lines from two different earthsites 60degrees apart to
> wherever the craft is are equivalent to a line from the equatorial
> plane at the longitude of the site to the same but unknown craft
> position at some unknown time during the period of exposure of each
> site to the craft.
> And that this equivalence is explained by the fact that Acos(0)=A.
> Such mind games
It is basic Geometry Ralph, project a circle and you
get an ellipse. Take the x component and it is a sine
wave whose amplitude depends on the angle used in the
projection but the phase of the resulting Doppler is
unaffected.
> do not disprove my contention that two way
> communication at one earth site produces the received frequencies at
> that earth site during the time of exposure of the craft at that
> earthsite. And that two way communication with another earth site when
> the craft rises in view of this other earthsite produces the received
> frequencies at this other earth site.
At each site what you say is correct, and the method
then tells you the celestial longitude of the craft.
You rproblem arises when you compare them because
the location of the craft necessary to explain the
Doppler at one site is 26 degrees away from the
location needed to explain the readings at the other
site. That combination is what disproves your theory.
> Also that the projection of the orbital and rotational earthsite
> motions onto the lines from these earthsites will be minimal when the
> vector sum of the orbital and rotational earthsite motions produce a
> vector perpendicular to one of these lines.
> Clearly we cannot substitute for these two lines and two
> projections,
The method includes those projections.
> these other lines and projections on them you want to use
> to make your cockamamie argument.
>
>
>
>> > You are again making up your own question and answering it. My
>> > question was how can I trust the confirmation of Anderson's claim by
>> > someone who lied saying that there was no possibility of one way
>> > communication from the craft when in fact there was.
>>
>> Mt reply is that I don't believe he lied because
>> in the posts I saw he was talking about some
>> contacts, not all,
>
> He said and you damn well know he said that there was no possibility
> of one way communication from the craft at specific times when
> frequencies were received, when in fact there was.
He said and I have said that there was no possibility
of simultaneous transmission from one site when receiving
at the other with a 12 hour round trip. He also said that
there were instances of reception without matching
communication from the receive site and that is true.
Beyond that if you want to asking people of lying, cite
the post Ralph, put up or shut up.
>> >> > The
>> >> > point is that Anderson's claim of an anomaly is correct but his
>> >> > claims
>> >> > as to the size of the anomaly are contradicted by the data which
>> >> > says
>> >> > the anomaly is much greater than claimed.
>> >>
>> >> No it isn't, his value is accurate acording to
>> >> conventional theory. You have never calculated
>> >> the anomaly using conventional theory, only
>> >> your own version.
>> >
>> > No I calculated it according to both.
>>
>
>>You have never done a GR analysis,
> .
>
> This is a red herring.
No, it is fundamental. There are significant
relativistic aspects that you have not taken
into account which will give errors larger
than the anomaly.
> The magnitude of the difference between gr and
> Newtonian analysis on the received frequencies is on the order of
> .0001Hz
No it isn't, I tried a comparison because you
used the wrong Doppler equation and it was
roughly 90Hz over a single contact.
> and the difference between the observed and predicted
> frequencies is on the order of tens of Hz..
Exactly.
The difference between the GR version and the
measured results is of the order of 0.004Hz
from Craig's paper but that is the width of
the gaussian spread due to noise, not a
systematic error. For that see Anderson et al.
The fact remains that you have not done a GR
calculation so saying "I calculated it according
to both." is simply untrue.
<snip fusion>
> Your insistent opposition to my theory with red herrings and vague
> illogical arguments that have been shown to be just that
Ralph, I can't help it if the geometry needed for
you to understand this is too complicated. The
only thing I can do is to ask you to treat it
like a homework exercise, I have outlined the
method but you have to repeat it yourself. If
you don't understand part, ask. The approach
fully takes into account both the orbital and
rotational motion as well as the motion of the
craft and applies all the projections you have
asked about. There is nothing more I can add
to it. It is completely robust and proves
conclusively that your theory is wrong. The fact
that, seven months ago, you were able to open
the files but couldn't see the code while this
time you cannot open the same file, and you claim
you are unable to see a plain text file tells me
you are deliberatly inventing an excuse to avoid
dealing with the facts. I can do no more.
> I thought that your knowledge of electronics might include knowledge
> of electrostatic and electromagnetic focusing methods of electrons in
> cathode ray tubes and someone as smart as you could scale this up to
> deuteron beams and storage rings.
I have no knowledge of that field whatsoever. I
have worked in the communications field for over
30 years so I do know about transponders and
Doppler shift though which is why Pioneer
interested me, and why its suitability as a test
of your theory was immediately obvious. I still
think you could cope with the geometry if you
tried, but it isn't in your interests so feigning
an inability to handle it is all I can expect
from you. So be it.
George
George Dishman
> One of the problems here ralphie IFS, is that this delay in the
> transpoinder
> actions is a constant and is added into the time involved in figuring out
> when the response should be getting back to the earth. It doesn't change,
> can't change and won't change just because yo don't understnd reality.
Bob, it is only the carrier that is measured. There
is no concept of a delay applicable to this method
of working, only the frequency matters. A delay in
the transponder would only change the carrier phase
and since it is a fixed offset it has no effect on
a frequency measurement.
Sorry but Ralph is confused enough without introducing
more red herrings.
George
Jonathan Silverlight
<geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>
>Then listen to what I am saying because it is
>not "essentially what I said", perhaps I still
>wasn't clear. There are two methods supported
>by the craft that they can use for navigation
>and the JPL software normally makes use both
>in fitting the most likely trajectory. The first
>is the measured downlink frequency which gives
>the speed through the Doppler effect. The second
>is a direct measurement of the distance ('range')
>where they modulate the carrier with a pseudo-
>random pattern and measure the time delay for
>that to be returned.
Did the Pioneers ever have range measurements? The classic Anderson et
al. paper says not, at least for the period of their study.
Of course Ralph wouldn't believe them anyway, as they don't work in his
theory (though they did work for Ulysses and Galileo, in the real
world).
I was interested to see that the code is repeated, so there's ambiguity
in the result - don't radar measurements of asteroids have a sequence
that is long enough so it doesn't repeat?
George Dishman
"Jonathan Silverlight" <jsilve...@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote
in message news:aIs2RgrE...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk...
> In message <ddsbf1$3g7$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>, George Dishman
> <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>
>>Then listen to what I am saying because it is
>>not "essentially what I said", perhaps I still
>>wasn't clear. There are two methods supported
>>by the craft that they can use for navigation
>>and the JPL software normally makes use both
>>in fitting the most likely trajectory. The first
>>is the measured downlink frequency which gives
>>the speed through the Doppler effect. The second
>>is a direct measurement of the distance ('range')
>>where they modulate the carrier with a pseudo-
>>random pattern and measure the time delay for
>>that to be returned.
>
> Did the Pioneers ever have range measurements?
No, they only had both for the other craft and
were able to confirm that the two techniques
gave consistent results. I had thought previously
that they had some measurements prior to Jupiter
but that's not the case, they only tried it near
Jupiter. This an excerpt is a mail I got from
Slava Turyshev (posted with his permission):
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Slava G. Turyshev [mailto:tury...@jpl.nasa.gov] Sent: 30 May 2001
> 02:17
> To: George Dishman
> Subject: Re: Range data relating to the Pioneer Anomalous Acceleration
>
> Dear George,
>
> > >Our main observable here is Doppler frequency shift. To obtain range
> > >with a comparable accuracy we need to have either a continuous Doppler
> > >tracking for at least several days, or a ramped Doppler signal. This
> > >will allow for an accurate correlation of Doppler signals sent and
> >
> > I based my analysis on the description of the range measurements
> > in Section 3.2.2 of the paper which describes a technique for
> > phase modulation of the carrier. Is that what you mean by
> > 'ramped Doppler' or is this another method?
>
> Yes the ramped Doppler is the phase modulated up-link signal.
> To be able to use this technique successfully, one needs to be able use
> correlator (such a used for the VLBI purposes). This is in principle a
> possibility, but a very expensive one that was never used for the
> navigation purposes. To to this one need to sent and receive the signal,
> ideally, at the same station. Then correlation is possible.
>
> For the Pioneer 10 the majority of the data was three-way Doppler, that is
> when signal is sent by one station, transponded on the craft and received
> at a different DSN station. This is why one needs to perform a correlation
> of the signals to extract range. It is reasonable for the astrometric
> purposes, when the sources are "fixed" or experience a small proper
> motions. For the Pioneer it is not feasible - the proper motion is quite
> high to permit the range determination comparable in accuracy to the
> Doppler data. The ramped Doppler technique was attempted just once, after
> Jupiter flyby - by the spacecraft was not able to lock on the un-link
> signal for time necessary for the accurate range determination (~ 20
> hours --- in all data we have the longest radio track was no longer than 4
> hours).
>
> Only recently the Pioneer 10 round trip light time only now is about 22
> hours, thus permitting to use this technique, but the signal is extremely
> low. Therefore, we do not have an independent range determination to use
> in our study. No doubts, it would be really nice to have it.
>
> > >received on the ground in order to obtain accurate range to s/c.
> > >However, due to the weakness of the s/c signal, the Pioneer project
> > >kept
> > >the DSN communication with the s/c within a narrow bandwidth. The s/c
> > >transponder was also a narrow bandwidth. All our attempts to simulate a
> > >ramped Doppler signal failed, even at close distances - immediately
> > >Jupiter's flyby. The spacecraft was loosing lock with the Doppler
> > >signal.
>
> > I understand the problem. You seem to be saying there has been
> > no independent range data other than what can be derived from
> > the primary Doppler measurement since the Jupiter flyby. Is that
> > correct.
>
> Yes, this is correct. One of the major results we obtained with the use of
> Galileo and Ulysses spacecraft was the verification of our ability to
> model Doppler signal to the accuracy comparable with that offered by the
> range data. This was comforting result as it gave us confidence that we
> are not loosing accuracy by relying only on Doppler data. However, it
> would very helpful to have independent range data (even for the comparison
> purposes only).
I hope that makes things clearer.
> The classic Anderson et al. paper says not, at least for the period of
> their study.
> Of course Ralph wouldn't believe them anyway, as they don't work in his
> theory (though they did work for Ulysses and Galileo, in the real world).
Indeed. In the paper they state "NASA's Viking
mission provided radio-ranging measurements to
an accuracy of about 12m."
> I was interested to see that the code is repeated, so there's ambiguity in
> the result - don't radar measurements of asteroids have a sequence that is
> long enough so it doesn't repeat?
I'm not sure of the length but probably
not. It is easy to create long sequences
but unless you have a very good SNR you
have to correlate the return signal. There
are more efficient techniques for good
signals but in the worst case you may have
to resort to trial and error, shifting the
known transmit sequence bit by bit until
you get a match. Obviously the shorter the
sequence, the quicker this is. If ambiguity
is a problem, they could overlay a longer
sequence as a modulation though.
George
r9...@verizon.net
I did this and my computer said a corrupt file and could not read
this.
> Just press the button to run it or display the Debug
> toolbar and Excel includes the interpreter that lets
> you single step through the code looking at the sheet
> to see what it does as it goes.
>
> > etc. and the data file was corrupted or not in
> > readable format
>
> What data file? The second link is the VB code as a
> plain text file. Internet Explorer will display it
> just by following the link. Just looking at it will
> show there is no data in it, that was the point!
>
The point is that I cant read your files.
> >> > I gave you the web site of my c++ code and of the
> >> > c++ compiler it is to be used with. You have not done the same.
> >>
> >> See above.
> >
> > Its not the same and I cant access it.
> >
> >> > But
> >> > again it is strange that you have found no other set of data that shows
> >> > the same result as your one example. Perhaps you have tested what I
> >> > think is your oversimplified argument on other data and have found it
> >> > to give conflicting results.
> >>
> >> No, there are others but...
> >
> > No graphs are necessary.
>
> Yes they are.
No the raw data numbers show which number is the minimal doppler
shift in each case.
>First you have to look at the graph
> to identify the periods of one-way versus three-way
> operation, second you have to identify the rapid
> sweep periods and third you need to note the period
> of settling time for the transponder. That lets you
> identify the periods of valid data.
>
> > Just show the received frequencies at two
> > successive sites and their times and what the sites are.
>
> The method requires determining the time of zero
> crossing by taking a first derivative (difference
> column), eliminating bias by selecting a sample
> period which is symetrical about the crossing
> and then taking a second difference and doing a
> least squares fit to find the result. You do all
> that independently for each of the two receive
> sites to get two times and then compare with the
> site longitudes.
>
Maybe your unnecessary elaboration of details keeps you from seeing
the basic error in your approach. Maybe you are assuming that the craft
is in the equatorial plane or not far from it and that is an
unwarranted assumption.
> >> > But there may have been some standard delays before the transponder
> >> > was used at the earthsite where two way communications were being used
> >> > as opposed to where one way comunications were used.
> >>
> >> There is often a period at the start of a contact where
> >> the system worked in one-way mode before changing to
> >> three-way but these are easily distinguished as I said
> >> but that isn't a delay of the signal. There is no way
> >> to introduce a delay since the transponder is simply a
> >> PLL used to lock the downlink frequency to a multiple
> >> of the uplink. We are not talking about data here.
> >
> > I understand how it might have been used the question is how it was
> > used.
>
> It has two ways of being used, "On" and "Off". Either
> you lock the downlink signal or you don't, but there
> is no question of software delays because it is a hardware PLL that works in real time.
I am not absolutely sure there might not be a delay circuit and it is
possible also that when the coding is going on the craft is not
relaying the carrier but emitting its own carrier so that there is a
change in the frequency being emitted etc.that contributes to the data
that is observed.
>
> The delays that do exist in terms of locking on can
> be seen when you plot the data which is why it is
> essential that you plot graphs as I said above.
>
> That said, you still don't seem to grasp the fact
> that the transponder is a way of ensuring an accurate
> frequency for the downlink and there are no specific
> timings being measured which could be delayed anyway.
>
You don't seem to grasp the fact that the craft could turn off
the transponder when decoding is going on and so the next transponded
in phase relayed uplink to downlink occurs later,or that the craft one
way communication is substituted for the transponder relay of the
uplink to downlink or something else involving a delay circuit.
> >> > And such delays
> >> > may have caused in part the time difference between the minimal Doppler
> >> > at the two earthsites that you attribute to different positions of the
> >> > craft.
> >
> >> > The point is that the changes in frequency and the changes in
> >> > strength of signal were both methods used to determine the position
> >> > and velocity ten years earlier
> >>
> >> No they weren't.
> >
> > Yes they were
> >
> >>The methods were integration of
> >> the frequency and the dedicated ranging system.
> >> Pointing is adjusted to maximise signal to noise
> >> ratio.
> >
> > And used in the integration.
>
> No, what is integrated is the measured speed (to get
> the change in distance) and the speed is found from
> the frequency, not the signal strength.
I should have said used with the integration.
But they do use it and they need to use it to correct the mistakes
made by these other measurements which assume the wrong light speed
delay and to confirm what subsequent doppler and range show. I have
been told this by those working at the antenna sites.
> >> The
> >> error was of the order of 12m IIRC (it's in the paper)
> >> whereas your claimed error would be millions of km.
> >>
> >
> > Not true. The error is increasing to twice this and my claim is just
> > this.
>
> Maybe my memory is playing tricks but I thought
> you said it was tens of Hertz in a contact period.
> Their figure of 3Hz in 8 years is equivalent to
> about 25000km so the frequency error you claimed
> would be an enormous distance. Maybe we are talking
> at cross purposes somehow.
>
> > The point is that false speed of light delay assumption required
> > constant corrections and you are covering up this basic point why?
>
> The corrections were comparable to the noise on
> the signal so entirely expected.
>
The corrections I showed you and you acknowledged are much larger.
They may be due to gr effects but this is not clear at all especially
the 90 Hz you refer to or to the .004Hz you refer to. There is no time
delay so the curvature of spacetime does not apply and it is not clear
how changes in the infinitessimally faster reception of the carrier
frequency received on the craft minute by minute as the craft gets
further from the sun and jupiter will cause changes in the doppler each
minute so that increasing errors on the order of 10Hz are observed. And
maybe changes in the transponder phase matching compensates for this.
> >> > Ten years of such corrections could have been done but I gather some
> >> > trial and error approach to fitting a trajectory was used instead ten
> >> > years or twenty years later. Perhaps the former data and method were
> >> > thrown out because the cumulative error was unbelievably great due to
> >> > the false speed of light delay assumptions.
> >>
> >> The cumulative error was a few tens of metres,
> >>tens of nanoseconds in a round trip of hours
> >
> > There is no round trip of hours and the error is every second.
>
> No, that was the cumulative error.
derived from the error every second.
>
> >>> But you are saying that my analysis predicted frequencies that
> >> > were further from the observed than the conventional prediction. True,
> >> > > but
> >> > this was because my analysis required the false initial positions and
> >> > velocities based on the conventional light speed delay assumptions.
> >>
> >> Then the correct approach is to alter them by
> >> trial and error until you eliminate the error.
> >> Your solution is then no longer dependent on
> >> those values, they would just be the seeds for
> >> your iterative solution. That is what I meant
> >> by saying _you_ needed to apply a correction
> >> to _your_ solution.
> >>
> >
> > That is what you need to do if you have nothing better to do and
> > want to ignore all of the evidence that the anomaly no matter what is
> > tried, is much larger than claimed.
>
> For goodness sake Ralph, the published error is
> the remainder after applying _conventional_ theory,
> I am talking about _yours_ ! Try to get a grip on
> this.
>
You get a grip. I am talking about the conventional model and its
error. My model and the error difference between my model prediction
and the observed Doppler is a red herring because it assumes the wrong
initial position and velocity and so must be larger.
Your attempt to use this to show that the nearly instantaneous
hypothesis is disproven is disingenuous.
> > In fact the correct approach is to
> > go back and look at all of the corrections that were made from the day
> > of launch and see that if the right speed of light delay assumptions
> > were made there would have been no need for constant corrections.
>
> No that isn't the correct approach. In fact it is
> a completely unworkable method because all the
> flight parameters would be changed by using your
> suggestion.
You don't mean flight parameters, you mean position and velocity
estimates based on wrong speed of light delay assumptions and yes that
is the point they were constantly changed to correct for the errors due
to the false speed of light delay assumptions.
And what I am proposing is that if the correct speed of light dealy
assumptions were used with the same received carrier frequency doppler
shift data that there would be no need to make repeated corrections.
>The only thing that can be done is to
> start with the raw data files which you have and
> fit a brand new trajectory to them.
> > Of course this is not available although the records were obtained.
> > Why?
> > What is your explanation for this?
>
> Because they don't apply specific corrections the
> way you seem to think they do. The approach is to
> produce a brand new fit each time gradually
> discarding older data because they are aware that
> various forces like the solar radiation, inter-
> planetary dust and so on cause the craft to wander
> from its previous course very slightly.
>
So they do apply specific corrections the way I think
they do and the way you think they do.
The wandering is slight minute by minute but it is cumulatively
quite large. This wandering would not require unjustifiably large
estimates of solar radiation and planetary dust effects if the correct
assumptions about the speed of light were made
> > The point is that no matter what nasa does with the data and the wrong
> > speed of light delay assumptions they get errors which imply the
> > planets should have fallen into the sun long ago(even though Anderson
> > claims it is smaller than the data shows if you take into account the
> > miniscule curvature of space time and throw out "bad" data)
> > Since this is so obviously the case it is foolish of you to pretend
> > otherwise and play little mind games.
>
> No mind games, I am just trying to educate you
> in the basics of navigation techniques and how a transponder works
>
I understand how it works but you don't understand how it could be
used in this context or you are pretending that you don't..
> > You say the earth is not in orbit
> > but is only rotating in the equatorial plane and that the rotation
> > axis is perpendicular to the rotation axis and that the craft is also
> > in the equatorial plane.
> > Of course you are not literally saying this,
>
> Thank goodness you added that, it's a load of crap!!!!
>
> You have repeatedly accused me of not taking the
> projection of the velocities into account but that
> is what the projection does. We have to project
> onto the plane in which the site is rotating and
> of course that is perpendicular to the axis hence
> parallel to the equatorial plane.
>
But the line to the craft is not in the equatorial plane
or as near to it as you assume making the false speed
of light delay assumptions.
> > but your claim that the
> > craftsite lines from two different earthsites 60degrees apart to
> > wherever the craft is are equivalent to a line from the equatorial
> > plane at the longitude of the site to the same but unknown craft
> > position at some unknown time during the period of exposure of each
> > site to the craft.
> > And that this equivalence is explained by the fact that Acos(0)=A.
> > Such mind games
>
> It is basic Geometry Ralph, project a circle and you
> get an ellipse. Take the x component and it is a sine
> wave whose amplitude depends on the angle used in the
> projection but the phase of the resulting Doppler is
> unaffected.
>
But we are not projecting a circle so as to get an ellipse or a
straight line, we are projecting a line representing the orbital
velocity at a site and a line representing the spin velocity at
the same site. These lines are projected through unknown
angles onto the unknown craft to site lines at these sites.
As the earth spins, the spin velocity at each earth site will
at some time at each site be perpendicular to the unknown
earthsite to craft line at each of these sites but the total
velocity line at these times at these sites may not be
perpendicular.
>
> At each site what you say is correct, and the method
> then tells you the celestial longitude of the craft.
> You rproblem arises when you compare them because
> the location of the craft necessary to explain the
> Doppler at one site is 26 degrees away from the
> location needed to explain the readings at the other
> site. That combination is what disproves your theory.
This 26 degrees is due to your assumption that the
the orbital velocity has no effect.
>
> > Also that the projection of the orbital and rotational earthsite
> > motions onto the lines from these earthsites will be minimal when the
> > vector sum of the orbital and rotational earthsite motions produce a
> > vector perpendicular to one of these lines.
> > Clearly we cannot substitute for these two lines and two
> > projections,
>
> > these other lines and projections on them you want to use
> > to make your cockamamie argument.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> He said and I have said that there was no possibility
> of simultaneous transmission from one site when receiving
> at the other with a 12 hour round trip. He also said that
> there were instances of reception without matching
> communication from the receive site and that is true.
>Beyond that
No need to go beyond that. He repeated exactly this as part of a
diatribe
saying nearly instantaneous communication with the craft was
therefore impossible and that the communication had to have been
relayed from another site at a much earlier time. As far as I am
concerned this was a lie repeated again and again.
>If you want to asking people of lying, cite
> the post Ralph, put up or shut up.
The posts were many and many repetitions of the same lie that you
describe and
anyone can see them all by looking at the archives.
This is all unclear. I suspect that the relativistic
effect is a red herring and that the changes minute
by minute in the Doppler caused by this are negligible.
> The fact remains that you have not done a GR
> calculation so saying "I calculated it according
> to both." is simply untrue.
Both may have referred to something else but my analysis
did assume it was negligible. But you are right. This is all unclear.
I suspect that the relativistic effect is a red herring and that the
changes minute
by minute in the Doppler caused by a more rapid reception of
the carrier by the craft, as the craft gets further from jupiter and
the sun,
is compensated for by the phase adjustment in the craft transponder.
The delay in carrier reception associated with light bending due to
the sun
only occurs when reception is during the day so does not explain the
systematically increasing effect shown by the data.
>
> <snip fusion>
> > Your insistent opposition to my theory with red herrings and vague
> > illogical arguments that have been shown to be just that
>
> Ralph, I can't help it if the geometry needed for
>you to understand this is too complicated.
>The only thing I can do is to ask you to treat it
>like a homework exercise,
Don't be so foolishly pretentious. I have explained
to you what is wrong with your assumptions and you
can only repeat such errors in the simple assumptions
and play with fecal details again
and again. You have done this twice before with the doppler shift
implying the speed of light interpretation of light reception delay
and re binary stars implying the speed of light interpretation.
I would have thought the lesson had been learned.
George Dishman
<r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1124471646....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I just downloaded it myself and it is fine.
I assume you unzipped the file. Your own web
pages include Word documents so I assume you
have Microsoft Office. What version?
>> Just press the button to run it or display the Debug
>> toolbar and Excel includes the interpreter that lets
>> you single step through the code looking at the sheet
>> to see what it does as it goes.
>>
>> > etc. and the data file was corrupted or not in
>> > readable format
>>
>> What data file? The second link is the VB code as a
>> plain text file. Internet Explorer will display it
>> just by following the link. Just looking at it will
>> show there is no data in it, that was the point!
>>
> The point is that I cant read your files.
You can't read a text file? It should be readable
in your browser without even downloading it.
Maybe ignoring important details is why you
keep getting errors. If you don't use some
method to isolate the one-way data from the
three-way and get rid of the settling effects
they will mess up your results.
> Maybe you are assuming that the craft
> is in the equatorial plane or not far from it and that is an
> unwarranted assumption.
It would be, but I don't.
>> >> > But there may have been some standard delays before the
>> >> > transponder
>> >> > was used at the earthsite where two way communications were being
>> >> > used
>> >> > as opposed to where one way comunications were used.
>> >>
>> >> There is often a period at the start of a contact where
>> >> the system worked in one-way mode before changing to
>> >> three-way but these are easily distinguished as I said
>> >> but that isn't a delay of the signal. There is no way
>> >> to introduce a delay since the transponder is simply a
>> >> PLL used to lock the downlink frequency to a multiple
>> >> of the uplink. We are not talking about data here.
>> >
>> > I understand how it might have been used the question is how it was
>> > used.
>>
>> It has two ways of being used, "On" and "Off". Either
>> you lock the downlink signal or you don't, but there
>> is no question of software delays because it is a hardware PLL that works
>> in real time.
>
> I am not absolutely sure there might not be a delay circuit
If you knew how it worked, you would not say that.
Any delay will destabilise the loop. The only delay
is in the low-pass filter and is the inverse of the
bandwidth, about a second. Since the frequency
readings are averaged over a minute, it is negligible.
> and it is
> possible also that when the coding is going on the craft is not
> relaying the carrier but emitting its own carrier so that there is a
> change in the frequency being emitted etc.that contributes to the data
> that is observed.
The switches between the two modes are obvious when
you plot the graph for each contact. I plotted them
for you before:
http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Ralph/1987.htm
>> The delays that do exist in terms of locking on can
>> be seen when you plot the data which is why it is
>> essential that you plot graphs as I said above.
>>
>> That said, you still don't seem to grasp the fact
>> that the transponder is a way of ensuring an accurate
>> frequency for the downlink and there are no specific
>> timings being measured which could be delayed anyway.
>>
> You don't seem to grasp the fact that the craft could turn off
> the transponder when decoding is going on
You don't seem to grasp (a) it can't, that is
commanded from the ground and (b) if it was
commanded off the rate of change of frequency
would halve. It is easily visible in the example
graphs
http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Ralph/1987.htm
The green line at the bottom indicates off then
on and back to off, one-way then three-way then
one-way again.
> and so the next transponded
> in phase relayed uplink to downlink occurs later,or that the craft one
> way communication is substituted for the transponder relay of the
> uplink to downlink or something else involving a delay circuit.
This is a real time effect so what happens is that
is has no alternative but to revert to the on-board
oscillator, one-way mode. You can see it happening.
>> >> > And such delays
>> >> > may have caused in part the time difference between the minimal
>> >> > Doppler
>> >> > at the two earthsites that you attribute to different positions of
>> >> > the
>> >> > craft.
>> >
>> >> > The point is that the changes in frequency and the changes in
>> >> > strength of signal were both methods used to determine the position
>> >> > and velocity ten years earlier
>> >>
>> >> No they weren't.
>> >
>> > Yes they were
>> >
>> >>The methods were integration of
>> >> the frequency and the dedicated ranging system.
>> >> Pointing is adjusted to maximise signal to noise
>> >> ratio.
>> >
>> > And used in the integration.
>>
>> No, what is integrated is the measured speed (to get
>> the change in distance) and the speed is found from
>> the frequency, not the signal strength.
>
> I should have said used with the integration.
You would still have been wrong, it is not used
at all.
The 'mistakes' are in range only, they _cannot_
use signal strength to correct range data. The
difference in signal strength caused by a few
metres error at tens of AU is ludircrously small.
> made by these other measurements which assume the wrong light speed
> delay and to confirm what subsequent doppler and range show. I have
> been told this by those working at the antenna sites.
They can use pointing data for near-Earth craft
where slight errors in altitude have a significant
impact on orbital period, and they adjust the
pointing to maximise the signal strength to account
for atmospheric refraction effects on the deep space
craft, but they cannot get range from the antenna.
>> >> The
>> >> error was of the order of 12m IIRC (it's in the paper)
>> >> whereas your claimed error would be millions of km.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Not true. The error is increasing to twice this and my claim is just
>> > this.
>>
>> Maybe my memory is playing tricks but I thought
>> you said it was tens of Hertz in a contact period.
>> Their figure of 3Hz in 8 years is equivalent to
>> about 25000km so the frequency error you claimed
>> would be an enormous distance. Maybe we are talking
>> at cross purposes somehow.
>>
>> > The point is that false speed of light delay assumption required
>> > constant corrections and you are covering up this basic point why?
>>
>> The corrections were comparable to the noise on
>> the signal so entirely expected.
>>
> The corrections I showed you and you acknowledged are much larger.
> They may be due to gr effects but this is not clear at all especially
> the 90 Hz you refer to or to the .004Hz you refer to.
Be careful, those are not comparable numbers. One is
an error in the amplitude of the diurnal sine wave
while the other is the rms of a gaussian spread.
> There is no time
> delay so the curvature of spacetime does not apply
That is nonsense, the 'curvature of spacetime' is
another name for gravity and has nothing to do with
any transponder delay.
> and it is not clear
> how changes in the infinitessimally faster reception of the carrier
> frequency received on the craft minute by minute as the craft gets
> further from the sun and jupiter will cause changes in the doppler each
> minute so that increasing errors on the order of 10Hz are observed. And
> maybe changes in the transponder phase matching compensates for this.
The transponder is phase locked, not phase matched.
Phase matching refers to selecting pairs of components.
Come on Ralph, we went over the concepts of PLL
operation by email for weeks some time ago.
>> >> > Ten years of such corrections could have been done but I gather
>> >> > some
>> >> > trial and error approach to fitting a trajectory was used instead
>> >> > ten
>> >> > years or twenty years later. Perhaps the former data and method were
>> >> > thrown out because the cumulative error was unbelievably great due
>> >> > to
>> >> > the false speed of light delay assumptions.
>> >>
>> >> The cumulative error was a few tens of metres,
>> >>tens of nanoseconds in a round trip of hours
>> >
>> > There is no round trip of hours and the error is every second.
>>
>> No, that was the cumulative error.
>
> derived from the error every second.
Per day on one craft, cumulative on another
IIRC. Bottom line is that they concluded the
two methods were consistent for those craft
that had both systems running.
>> >>> But you are saying that my analysis predicted frequencies that
>> >> > were further from the observed than the conventional prediction.
>> >> > True,
>> >> > > but
>> >> > this was because my analysis required the false initial positions
>> >> > and
>> >> > velocities based on the conventional light speed delay assumptions.
>> >>
>> >> Then the correct approach is to alter them by
>> >> trial and error until you eliminate the error.
>> >> Your solution is then no longer dependent on
>> >> those values, they would just be the seeds for
>> >> your iterative solution. That is what I meant
>> >> by saying _you_ needed to apply a correction
>> >> to _your_ solution.
>> >>
>> >
>> > That is what you need to do if you have nothing better to do and
>> > want to ignore all of the evidence that the anomaly no matter what is
>> > tried, is much larger than claimed.
>>
>> For goodness sake Ralph, the published error is
>> the remainder after applying _conventional_ theory,
>> I am talking about _yours_ ! Try to get a grip on
>> this.
>>
> You get a grip. I am talking about the conventional model
I know, but you are criticising comments I made
about _your_ model as if I had been talking about
the conventional model. That's why your criticisms
are irrelevant to what I said. Let's drop it, what
I said was many posts back and you're not going to
get out of this way of thinking now.
> and its
> error. My model and the error difference between my model prediction
> and the observed Doppler is a red herring because it assumes the wrong
> initial position and velocity and so must be larger.
> Your attempt to use this to show that the nearly instantaneous
> hypothesis is disproven is disingenuous.
>
>> > In fact the correct approach is to
>> > go back and look at all of the corrections that were made from the day
>> > of launch and see that if the right speed of light delay assumptions
>> > were made there would have been no need for constant corrections.
>>
>> No that isn't the correct approach. In fact it is
>> a completely unworkable method because all the
>> flight parameters would be changed by using your
>> suggestion.
>
>
>
> You don't mean flight parameters, you mean position and velocity
> estimates based on wrong speed of light delay assumptions ...
No, I mean the derived ephemeris parameters.
> And what I am proposing is that if the correct speed of light dealy
> assumptions were used with the same received carrier frequency doppler
> shift data that there would be no need to make repeated corrections.
And I am saying that if the JPL ephemeris was
derived using the wrong assumption, it is useless.
The only way to get rid of that error is to start
again using the raw data and derive a new ephemeris
using your assumptions about light time delay. That's
what I just told you:
>>The only thing that can be done is to
>> start with the raw data files which you have and
>> fit a brand new trajectory to them.
>
>
>> > Of course this is not available although the records were obtained.
>> > Why?
>> > What is your explanation for this?
>>
>> Because they don't apply specific corrections the
>> way you seem to think they do. The approach is to
>> produce a brand new fit each time gradually
>> discarding older data because they are aware that
>> various forces like the solar radiation, inter-
>> planetary dust and so on cause the craft to wander
>> from its previous course very slightly.
>>
> So they do apply specific corrections the way I think
> they do and the way you think they do.
No they substitute a new ephemeris which fits the
current arc best. If they applied a correction to
the previous values, it would have the effect of
trying to fit a single trajectory to the whole
arc but they know there are external influences
that would result in poorer performance if they
did that.
> The wandering is slight minute by minute but it is cumulatively
> quite large. This wandering would not require unjustifiably large
> estimates of solar radiation and planetary dust effects if the correct
> assumptions about the speed of light were made
Prove it, do the work. I know you can't because
the form of the difference cannot be nulled out
that way but that sort of negative can't be
proved so the ball is in your court.
>> > The point is that no matter what nasa does with the data and the wrong
>> > speed of light delay assumptions they get errors which imply the
>> > planets should have fallen into the sun long ago(even though Anderson
>> > claims it is smaller than the data shows if you take into account the
>> > miniscule curvature of space time and throw out "bad" data)
>> > Since this is so obviously the case it is foolish of you to pretend
>> > otherwise and play little mind games.
>>
>> No mind games, I am just trying to educate you
>> in the basics of navigation techniques and how a transponder works
>>
> I understand how it works but you don't understand how it could be
> used in this context or you are pretending that you don't..
I know how to see the effect of switching
it off in the graphs and I have shown you
on the web page. It could be used that
way be it is obvious that it wasn't.
>> > You say the earth is not in orbit
>> > but is only rotating in the equatorial plane and that the rotation
>> > axis is perpendicular to the rotation axis and that the craft is also
>> > in the equatorial plane.
>> > Of course you are not literally saying this,
>>
>> Thank goodness you added that, it's a load of crap!!!!
>>
>> You have repeatedly accused me of not taking the
>> projection of the velocities into account but that
>> is what the projection does. We have to project
>> onto the plane in which the site is rotating and
>> of course that is perpendicular to the axis hence
>> parallel to the equatorial plane.
>>
> But the line to the craft is not in the equatorial plane
> or as near to it as you assume making the false speed
> of light delay assumptions.
I don't assume it is anywhere near the equatorial
plane. In fact I know it was close to the ecliptic
but even that is unnecessary because I use the
zero crossing method which eliminates the dependence.
I have told you that repeatedly.
>> > but your claim that the
>> > craftsite lines from two different earthsites 60degrees apart to
>> > wherever the craft is are equivalent to a line from the equatorial
>> > plane at the longitude of the site to the same but unknown craft
>> > position at some unknown time during the period of exposure of each
>> > site to the craft.
>> > And that this equivalence is explained by the fact that Acos(0)=A.
>> > Such mind games
>>
>> It is basic Geometry Ralph, project a circle and you
>> get an ellipse. Take the x component and it is a sine
>> wave whose amplitude depends on the angle used in the
>> projection but the phase of the resulting Doppler is
>> unaffected.
>>
> But we are not projecting a circle so as to get an ellipse
Yes you are, you are projecting the circular motion
of the sites around the axis of the Earth onto a
plane containing the craft (not the equatorial plane!)
> or a
> straight line, we are projecting a line representing the orbital
> velocity at a site and a line representing the spin velocity at
> the same site. These lines are projected through unknown
> angles onto the unknown craft to site lines at these sites.
> As the earth spins, the spin velocity at each earth site will
> at some time at each site be perpendicular to the unknown
> earthsite to craft line at each of these sites but the total
> velocity line at these times at these sites may not be
> perpendicular.
Right, that's why we extract only the radial
component by using the zero-crossing. It is
a crucial part of the method.
>> At each site what you say is correct, and the method
>> then tells you the celestial longitude of the craft.
>> You rproblem arises when you compare them because
>> the location of the craft necessary to explain the
>> Doppler at one site is 26 degrees away from the
>> location needed to explain the readings at the other
>> site. That combination is what disproves your theory.
>
> This 26 degrees is due to your assumption that the
> the orbital velocity has no effect.
Nope, the orbital velocity does have an effect
but we know it is less than 1 degree. That leaves
over 25 degrees unaccounted for.
>> > Also that the projection of the orbital and rotational earthsite
>> > motions onto the lines from these earthsites will be minimal when the
>> > vector sum of the orbital and rotational earthsite motions produce a
>> > vector perpendicular to one of these lines.
>> > Clearly we cannot substitute for these two lines and two
>> > projections,
>>
>> > these other lines and projections on them you want to use
>> > to make your cockamamie argument.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> He said and I have said that there was no possibility
>> of simultaneous transmission from one site when receiving
>> at the other with a 12 hour round trip. He also said that
>> there were instances of reception without matching
>> communication from the receive site and that is true.
>>Beyond that
>
> No need to go beyond that. He repeated exactly this as part of a
> diatribe
> saying nearly instantaneous communication with the craft was
> therefore impossible and that the communication had to have been
> relayed from another site at a much earlier time. As far as I am
> concerned this was a lie repeated again and again.
There is an example of that in the data we are
looking at so it is true, not a lie.
>>If you want to asking people of lying, cite
>> the post Ralph, put up or shut up.
>
> The posts were many and many repetitions of the same lie that you
> describe and
> anyone can see them all by looking at the archives.
What I said above is true, not always but sometimes.
What is clear is very simple, you have not done the
relativistic calculation so you are only guessing.
Both Anderson et al and Mrkwardt have done the
calculations in full and they get comparable results
so your suspicion is incorrect.
Relativistic effects are undoubtedly small but given
the sensitivity of this study (milliHertz on a
gigaHertz carrier) even these show up. Do a quick
back-of-envelope check Ralph, what is the difference
between the Newtonian moving source, moving observer
and the relativistic Doppler for 2.2GHz and a speed
of 42km/s ? It will only take you a few minutes but
you might then appreciate the significance.
> I suspect that the relativistic effect is a red herring and that the
> changes minute
> by minute in the Doppler caused by a more rapid reception of
> the carrier by the craft, as the craft gets further from jupiter and
> the sun,
> is compensated for by the phase adjustment in the craft transponder.
Please go back and read how a PLL works before saying
things like that Ralph.
> The delay in carrier reception associated with light bending due to
> the sun
> only occurs when reception is during the day so does not explain the
> systematically increasing effect shown by the data.
Nor would the _fixed_ phase difference produced
by a transponder. A fixed phase shift doesn't
change the frequency.
>> <snip fusion>
>> > Your insistent opposition to my theory with red herrings and vague
>> > illogical arguments that have been shown to be just that
>>
>> Ralph, I can't help it if the geometry needed for
>>you to understand this is too complicated.
>>The only thing I can do is to ask you to treat it
>>like a homework exercise,
>
> Don't be so foolishly pretentious. I have explained
> to you what is wrong with your assumptions ...
And I have explained how the use of zero-crossing
eliminates your spurious objections. I do not
make the assumptions you think I do, instead I
developed a method which removed the effect of the
craft being out of the equatorial plane. I have
done all I can to help you follow how it works.
George
Bob May
version or a later version of the software or you can't load the stuff up.
FWIW, the version of the software source code is in the first characters for
VB files.
George Dishman
> Ralphie IFS, that is called version crash! You need to have the right
> version or a later version of the software or you can't load the stuff up.
> FWIW, the version of the software source code is in the first characters
> for
> VB files.
Bob, would you do me a sanity check please, can
you see this code:
http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Ralph/Code_For_Ralph.txt
Don't worry, it's not runnable, just the source.
George
Jonathan Silverlight
>> that the transponder is a way of ensuring an accurate
>> frequency for the downlink and there are no specific
>> timings being measured which could be delayed anyway.
>>
> You don't seem to grasp the fact that the craft could turn off
>the transponder when decoding is going on and so the next transponded
>in phase relayed uplink to downlink occurs later,or that the craft one
>way communication is substituted for the transponder relay of the
>uplink to downlink or something else involving a delay circuit.
"Could", again :-) And yet again there is no "decoding" or "delay
circuit". You claim to be in touch with DSN personnel; don't they
explain this?
>>
>> They do not use signal strength as a pimary
>> source of navigational information.
>>
> But they do use it and they need to use it to correct the mistakes
>made by these other measurements which assume the wrong light speed
>delay and to confirm what subsequent doppler and range show. I have
>been told this by those working at the antenna sites.
Name names :-) (again) Oh, sorry, you can't. These are the people in the
biggest cover-up since the faked moon landings - instantaneous
communication.
>>
>> The corrections were comparable to the noise on
>> the signal so entirely expected.
>>
> The corrections I showed you and you acknowledged are much larger.
>They may be due to gr effects but this is not clear at all especially
>the 90 Hz you refer to or to the .004Hz you refer to. There is no time
>delay so the curvature of spacetime does not apply and it is not clear
>how changes in the infinitessimally faster reception of the carrier
>frequency received on the craft minute by minute as the craft gets
>further from the sun and jupiter will cause changes in the doppler each
>minute so that increasing errors on the order of 10Hz are observed. And
>maybe changes in the transponder phase matching compensates for this.
Infinitesimally (one "s") faster? I thought it was your contention that
the process became slower as the craft moved away. And yet another
"maybe" :-)
redbelly
Pardon my interruption, but ... you both seem like reasonable people.
Is there some reason why this discussion goes on with no end in sight?
Has ignoring him not worked in the past? Or perhaps deep down you
believe he is teachable?
Mark
p.s. Not trying to yank your chains here, it just seems (to me, anyway)
futile to continue explaining the same stuff over and over.
redbelly
George Dishman wrote:
> Bob, would you do me a sanity check please, can
> you see this code:
>
> http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Ralph/Code_For_Ralph.txt
>
> Don't worry, it's not runnable, just the source.
>
> George
I can see it. It's a text file, perfectly readable. Won't vouch for
if it would run when compiled, but it is easily viewable.
Mark
George Dishman
"redbelly" <redbe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124491543.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> George, Jonathan,
>
> Pardon my interruption, but ... you both seem like reasonable people.
> Is there some reason why this discussion goes on with no end in sight?
My initial reason for posting was that Ralph occasionally
posts comments about the Pioneer results which might sound
reasonable to any newcomers, such as his suggestion that
the anomaly is larger than Anderson and Markwardt found,
and I feel it useful to set the record straight. It also
helps to set the record straight about things like the way
the transponder works IMHO.
As for the interminable threads, I was analysing an aspect
of the Pioneer results anyway and also put in quite a few
days effort to design a test method that proved his
contention about light was incorrect. Ralph was initially
confused, thinking I had used the conventioanl theory to
disprove his (actually I only compared the two results) so
I redesigned the method to be clearly stand-alone. If he
leaves it at that, so will I. If he posts spurious
objections, I will remind him why they are wrong.
> Has ignoring him not worked in the past?
No, he just starts posting a long screed copied from his
word document about once a month.
> Or perhaps deep down you
> believe he is teachable?
Like many cranks, he will discuss and sometimes learn as
long as it doesn't impinge on his beliefs. After that,
there is a brick wall.
> p.s. Not trying to yank your chains here, it just seems (to me, anyway)
> futile to continue explaining the same stuff over and over.
Sadly, you are right, but it still seems more interesting
than threads with a thousand posts all containing nothing
but "non sequiter" that seem to be most of the remainder
these days.
best regards
George
George Dishman
Thanks Mark,
That eliminates Ralph's claim that my "files are
corrupt". Hopefully that will put an end to those
comments.
George
Jonathan Silverlight
redbelly <redbe...@yahoo.com> writes
It probably is. To be honest, part of my motivation is that I enjoy
teasing Ralph :-) Reprehensible, I know.
I sometimes wonder if Ralph is trolling.
OTOH, I've learned quite a lot, and almost anything to do with astronomy
and space exploration interests me.
It's like Eric Crew's posts. He hasn't said anything new in five years,
but I'm the one who has learned things.
redbelly
George Dishman wrote:
> ... it still seems more interesting
> than threads with a thousand posts all containing nothing
> but "non sequiter" that seem to be most of the remainder
> these days.
After looking at sci.physics, this makes more sense. I have
been viewing the discussion from another group, where there
is a lower volume of non sequiter posts. (There are some,
but not in overwhelming numbers.)
Thanks, George and Jonathan, for responding.
Regards,
Mark
Androcles
Have a sequiter post for a change.
On the court docket, Science v Einstein.
Judge:
"The defendant stands before this court accused of fraud. How does the
defendant plead?"
Defense counsel:
"Not guilty, your honour."
Prosecution opens:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, good morning.
Please reference: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The first transformation we are given is the Galilean,
x' = x-vt
y = y
z = z
t = t
You have to agree with that, Einstein states:
"If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k
must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time."
We have completed the transform from the stationary system, K, to the
moving system which I'm going to name k' because Einstein doesn't give
it a name.
"Objection! cries defence counsel.
"Yes?" asks the judge.
"Prosecuting counsel is making up names!" exclaims defence counsel,
"my client has already named the system k."
"Why have you changed the name from k to k'?", the judge asks
prosecuting counsel.
Your honour, the name kappa (k) refers to the system of values xi, eta,
zeta,tau which are dependent upon velocity according to the accused
and should not be confused with the system of values x',y,z,t. I merely
chose a suitable name. If the court directs me to use another, I shall
abide by the court's wishes.
"Overruled, it is clear that Einstein gave no name to the system of
values x', y, z and I see no reason why prosecuting counsel should not
do so, do not waste the court's time on trivialities or I shall hold you
in contempt", says the judge.
Prosecution continues.
Applying the galilean function g(),
For all x in K, x' in k', (x',y,z,t) = g(x,y,z,t).
It is clear, so ist klar, in agreement with experience, it being
immediately apparent and because Einstein says so,
a point at rest in system k' is independent of time.
We have now completed the transformation from K to k' with the function
g, and can place system K on the back burner.
Now we come to the defendant's transformation.
Not Lorentz's, not Galileo's, but Einstein's.
For all x in k', xi in kappa, (xi, eta, zeta, tau) = cuckoo(x',y,z,t)
We have a second transformation from the moving system k' to the
moving system kappa.
Einstein would have you believe that
tau = cuckoo_tau(g(x,y,z,t))
xi = cuckoo_xi(g(x,y,z,t))
is called the "Lorentz transformation".
I call it the cuckoo transformation, there is no relative motion between
k' and kappa, the time in k' has been found to be x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v),
admitted by the defendant in his statement: "But the ray moves
relatively
to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with
the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t."
"Objection!" cries the defense counsel, "it is universally known that
the velocity of light is c in all inertial frames of reference! It is a
postulate and the basis of my client's theory."
"How say you to that?, asks the judge of the prosecutor.
I can only ask the court's indulgence and request the defense counsel
produce the relevant passage in the evidence before the court, your
honour. The document referred to is "On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies", the author being the defendant, and that authorship has been
stipulated to.
"The court will recess for lunch", say the judge, "I shall conduct a
computerized search for the term "inertial" in the relevant document.
============Lunch break=============
The clerk cries "Be upstanding in court!" and the judge seats himself.
"I find no reference to defense counsel's claim, the objection is
overruled".
Thank you, your honour. As I was saying:
I call it the cuckoo transformation, there is no relative motion between
k' and kappa, the time in k' has been found to be x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v),
admitted by the defendant in his statement: "But the ray moves
relatively
to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with
the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t.",
the only purpose to the function cuckoo_tau is to satisfy Einstein's
fraudulent whim,
"we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A."
As Counsel for the Physicists, I rest my case.
As Counsel for the Mathematicians, we have yet to prove that cuckoo_tau
is not a linear function.
Here it is that proof:
稼tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
(given)
Doubling both sides:
tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Taking out the t for 3:00pm on a Friday afternoon:
tau(0,0,0,0)+tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v))
Synchronize clocks at t = 0, tau(0,0,0,0) = 0, we remove tau(0,0,0,0)+
tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v))
There is no relative motion between k' and kappa,the coordinate x' is
independent of time. We do not have xi = x'-ut or x' = x'+ut or any
other function xi = fuckup(x') for Lorentz's sake, there is no u, v, w
or velocity between system k'and system kappa.
The time at point zero is the same time at x', same at xi;
no translation between statioanry and movng frames, this is the moving
frame only, the stationary frame K is simmering on the back burner.
Hence:
tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v)) =
tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)) =
tau(a,b,c,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(a,b,c,x'/(c-v)),
the coordinate x' has no effect upon the time and is independent of
time,
the time is independent of the coordinate. Were it not so, the time at
the front of the moving train, an example the defendant uses in another
document, would differ from the back of th...."
"Objection!", interjects defense counsel, "that document is not in
evidence before the court".
"I can produce it if necessary", says the prosecutor, but I'll withdraw
the statement".
"Objection sustained, the reference to a train will be stricken from the
record", orders the judge. "Continue with the mathemetics, trains are
physical and you rested on that."
My apology to the court. Let me reiterate, time is independent of the
coordinate. I have NOT stated that time was independent of velocity,
that is for the jury to decide.
Removing the superfluous coordinates:
tau(x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x'/(c-v))
Setting the time a = x'/(c-v) and b =x'/(c+v) for clarity:
tau(a+b) = 2*tau(a)
Renaming tau as f,
f(a+b) = 2f(a) or
篆(a+b) = f(a)
Chosing a > b, we have an example
篆(1+0) = f(1)
"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear
on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to
space and time." -- Albert Phuckwit/Huckster Einstein.
In the second place tau is not a linear function. -- Androcles.
In the third place there are no coordinates to transform.
In the fourth place you've been had!
I ask the jury to convict Einstein on the charge of fraud.
Prosecution reserves the right to cross-examine the witnesses.
I now rest my case as a mathematician also.
Prosecution counsel whispers to his learned colleague, "I'd enter him an
insanity plea if I were you, he's going down".
Counsel for the defence has the floor.
Androcles.
Einstein read "Time Machine" by H.G. Wells as a teenager, it was a
current best seller.
He became a clerk in the Swiss Patent office, saw many patent
applications for cuckoo clocks, the main industry of Switzerland
at the time.
Not too many patents for chocolate or cheese were needed.
He got a hard-on for time.
George Dishman
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
news:TRGNe.6689$jr4....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "redbelly" <redbe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1124545436.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | George Dishman wrote:
> | > ... it still seems more interesting
> | > than threads with a thousand posts all containing nothing
> | > but "non sequiter" that seem to be most of the remainder
> | > these days.
> |
> | After looking at sci.physics, this makes more sense. I have
> | been viewing the discussion from another group, where there
> | is a lower volume of non sequiter posts. (There are some,
> | but not in overwhelming numbers.)
> |
> | Thanks, George and Jonathan, for responding.
> |
> | Regards,
> |
> | Mark
>
> Have a sequiter post for a change.
Try again.
> On the court docket, Science v Einstein.
Wrong court, the question in this case is:
"Light speed, finite or infinite."
George
Androcles
"George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:de7fkk$o3r$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
"we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of light
in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity. -- Albert Einstein.
Correct court, potential juror disqualified as a phuckwit, he doesn't
examine the evidence.
*plonk*
Androcles.
r9...@verizon.net
I can read this program file too. One of the files, perhaps the
compiler or data file that goes with it, was not readable. But the real
problem George is that you have not thought enough about your basic
assumption. It is simply wrong.
George Dishman
<r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1124551821....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> George Dishman wrote:
>> "redbelly" <redbe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1124491659.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > George Dishman wrote:
>> >
>> >> Bob, would you do me a sanity check please, can
>> >> you see this code:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Ralph/Code_For_Ralph.txt
>> >>
>> >> Don't worry, it's not runnable, just the source.
>> >>
>> >> George
>> >
>> > I can see it. It's a text file, perfectly readable. Won't vouch for
>> > if it would run when compiled, but it is easily viewable.
>>
>> Thanks Mark,
>>
>> That eliminates Ralph's claim that my "files are
>> corrupt". Hopefully that will put an end to those
>> comments.
>>
>
> I can read this program file too.
Good. In that case you should be able to compare
what I do with your C++ program and perhaps find
the bug that stops your program reading the file.
That code reads it fine.
> One of the files, perhaps the
> compiler or data file that goes with it, was not readable.
All the files are readable if you have the current
version of Excel, I checked. If you have an older
version let me know which one and I'll see if I
can export in that version.
> But the real
> problem George is that you have not thought enough about your basic
> assumption. It is simply wrong.
As I have pointed out repeatedly, all the so-called
assumptions you have suggested are not assumed, they
are all handled by the test method other than the
orbital velocity component. That produces a maximum
error of less than 1 degree while your theory fails
by 26 degrees so your theory is falsified.
Unless you can come up with some specific error in
my approach, I don't see any point in continuing
responding to your vague handwaving so I'll leave
the thread at that.
George
Bob May
text file in the Save As menu item. I get:
VERSION 2.00
Begin Form Form2
Caption = "About This Program."
ClientHeight = 2355
ClientLeft = 2385
ClientTop = 1410
ClientWidth = 5775
as a result for the start of the file.
Bob May
the facts, he eventually goes away for a while. I've been seeing him for
quite a few years now ahd he still believes that his experiment isn't flawed
that he did way back when with some Pickels cells where he chops up a light
beam with the cells and evaluates the results. He hasn't characterized his
time delays in the system yet so his results, by default, ar flawed,
especially since when he first got started with thie, I did the same basic
experiment with the same basic apparatus that happened to be present at the
company that I was working at. With my apparatus, I successfully measured
the speed of light to about 3% of the acknowledged value over a 10' length
of light path.
I then "improved the experiment by measuring different lengths and verifide
that I got a change of time of flight according to about the 1ns per foot
approximation (didn't measure as accurately but saw the difference occur as
the path length changed) by doing a retroreflection at the far end.
Changing poer levels (part of his experimental explaination) made no changes
in the TOF of the light.
Since then, the discussion has devolved into how long it takes for the
Pioneer signals to go out and back (Ralphie IFS claimed that the receiving
electronics saved up the signal and regurigated it at the expected time!!!)
even if the antenna hadn't been pointed at the Pioneer spacefraft when it
sent the data.
From there, it has devolved even further into sutpidity.
New people come onlne all the time and see the initial blurb and start
thinking that he's got some magical right reason until the other realists
come in and start with serious questions that he can't answer. I think that
we're pretty much at the end of this episode.
FWIW, I'm getting all of this via the SCI.OPTICS newsgroupe to which Ralphie
IFS occasionally attaches to the newsgroup list and the subject matter
really ins't applicable to the group as we don't discuss such sillyness. It
would be nice if everybody that is responding to the thread ot reach up and
delete the SCI.OPTICS newsgroup from the newsgroupps that are getting these
posts.
Jonathan Silverlight
<bob...@nethere.com> writes
>Mark, he is bacially unteachable. However, when you keep hitting him with
>the facts, he eventually goes away for a while. I've been seeing him for
>quite a few years now ahd he still believes that his experiment isn't flawed
>that he did way back when with some Pickels cells where he chops up a light
>beam with the cells and evaluates the results. He hasn't characterized his
>time delays in the system yet so his results, by default, ar flawed,
>especially since when he first got started with thie, I did the same basic
>experiment with the same basic apparatus that happened to be present at the
>company that I was working at. With my apparatus, I successfully measured
>the speed of light to about 3% of the acknowledged value over a 10' length
>of light path.
Has Ralph ever considered using a different experimental setup? :-)
For instance, some years ago the Open University TV programmes here
showed how you can measure the speed of light with the apparatus
sketched in the ASCII art below.
IIRC, they used a high speed oscilloscope to measure the delay between a
pulse of light leaving the source and reaching the detector without
deflection.
Then they added three mirrors so the light went along the V-shaped path
and BINGO the trace moves along the X axis. Just the sort of simple
demonstration you want for undergraduates or even school kids.
There's probably a cookbook recipe in the right book or on the web,
telling me exactly which apparatus I need to buy or borrow.
mirror mirror
source---------- . . . ------------- detector
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\/
-- mirror
But doesn't Ralph accept that the speed of light _does_ apply as far as
the Moon's distance (because Moonbounce and GPS satellites work as
advertised). You couldn't ask for a better example of doublethink.
Sci.optics trimmed. I'm still thinking about the penguins :-)
r9...@verizon.net
A) We agree 1) that a minimal Doppler shift occurs at the first site at
a specific time when the sum of the orbital velocity vector and the
rotational velocity vector form a vector that is a right angles to the
earthsite-craft line at this time at this earthsite.
And 2) as the earth rotates on its axis, another earthsite at the same
latitude will cross a line from this earthsite to the craft that is
perpendicular to the the earth's motion at this earthsite. And a line
from the craft to any earthsite on this longitude, such as the second
earthsite where Doppler data is received, will be perpendicular to the
earth's motion at that earthsite at this later time.
Also 3) that the orbital earthsite motion changes in this time by less
than one degree of its orbital motion around the sun.
But we disagree that the time when the second 'zero crossing'
occurs is the time difference between these two earthsites. My
reasoning is that the about 60 times greater magnitude of the orbital
motion compared to the rotational motions, (29km/sec/.465km/sec),
implies that it will take longer for the total earthsite motion at the
second earthsite to become perpendicular to the earthsite craft line eg
the earth will have to rotate 26deg/360deg more as shown in your data.
B)We agree that the gr effect is on the order of milliHz for the minute
by minute data.
But we disagree in that I think this small effect cannot explain the
error of about 10 Hz and increasing in the random sample of data over
several hours that I analysed assuming the gr effect to be negligible
or that this implied looking at all of the data that the planets should
have fallen into the sun long ago or that the speed of light delay
assumptions that led to this error between the predicted and observed
Doppler are wrong.
C) We disagree that Markwardt's confirmation of Anderson's data is
reliable since Markwardt at first did not disclose that transmissions
were always being sent from the craft and said that it was therefore
impossible for a site that was not transmitting to the craft to receive
after a minute delay a transponded carrier signal from the craft. When
I discovered that transmissions were always being sent from the craft,
you and he later said, but did not show, that these same frequencies
were less stable and therefore easily distinguishable from two way or
three way communications. That is, you did not show that a received
carrier frequency
at some site that was not also transmitting was clearly from a much
earlier transmission at another site and not transmitted a minute
earlier from the craft frequency generator.
r9...@verizon.net
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
>>I did the same basic
> >experiment with the same basic apparatus that happened to be present at the
> >company that I was working at. With my apparatus, I successfully measured
> >the speed of light to about 3% of the acknowledged value over a 10' length
> >of light path.
>
What company? What apparatus? You would have needed a 30 foot length
if you really used the same apparatus.
> Has Ralph ever considered using a different experimental setup? :-)
> For instance, some years ago the Open University TV programmes here
> showed how you can measure the speed of light with the apparatus
> sketched in the ASCII art below.
> IIRC, they used a high speed oscilloscope to measure the delay between a
> pulse of light leaving the source and reaching the detector without
> deflection.
> Then they added three mirrors so the light went along the V-shaped path
> and BINGO the trace moves along the X axis. Just the sort of simple
> demonstration you want for undergraduates or even school kids.
> There's probably a cookbook recipe in the right book or on the web,
> telling me exactly which apparatus I need to buy or borrow.
>
> mirror mirror
> source---------- . . . ------------- detector
> \ /
> \ /
> \ /
> \ /
> \/
> -- mirror
>
>
Jonathan, My apparatus and approach avoided mirrors or fiber optics
to avoid the delay associated with reception and retransmission in
mirrors or reflective surfaces in fiber optic devices . Also the
experiment blocked the detector at the time of emission but not at the
expected time of reception and then blocked the detector, not at the
time of emission but at the expected time of reception.
> But doesn't Ralph accept that the speed of light _does_ apply as far as
> the Moon's distance (because Moonbounce and GPS satellites work as
> advertised). You couldn't ask for a better example of doublethink.
Again,Jonathan, details of the lidar or radar moonbounce detection
show that the roundtrip time could equally well be twice 240/186
seconds or a little more than this or a little less than this eg 2
seconds. That is, the technique is not as accurate as you assume and
the results are in complete accord with the theory that light delay
does not exceed one second to the moon and one second from the moon to
the earth. Note there is always secondary scattering and returns in all
radar and lidar that becomes more significant when the received signal
is quite weak.
GPS satellites work because the time delays or less than a second in
accordance with the theory that light delay does not exceed a second
for the reasons given in mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/book03.htm/
Jonathan Silverlight
r9...@verizon.net writes
>
>Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
>
>>>I did the same basic
>> >experiment with the same basic apparatus that happened to be present at the
>> >company that I was working at. With my apparatus, I successfully measured
>> >the speed of light to about 3% of the acknowledged value over a 10' length
>> >of light path.
>>
> What company? What apparatus? You would have needed a 30 foot length
>if you really used the same apparatus.
>
That's Bob May's post, not mine, and I'm sure he'll be glad to supply
the details.
>> Has Ralph ever considered using a different experimental setup? :-)
>> For instance, some years ago the Open University TV programmes here
>> showed how you can measure the speed of light with the apparatus
>> sketched in the ASCII art below.
>> IIRC, they used a high speed oscilloscope to measure the delay between a
>> pulse of light leaving the source and reaching the detector without
>> deflection.
>> Then they added three mirrors so the light went along the V-shaped path
>> and BINGO the trace moves along the X axis. Just the sort of simple
>> demonstration you want for undergraduates or even school kids.
>> There's probably a cookbook recipe in the right book or on the web,
>> telling me exactly which apparatus I need to buy or borrow.
>>
>> mirror mirror
>> source---------- . . . ------------- detector
>> \ /
>> \ /
>> \ /
>> \ /
>> \/
>> -- mirror
>>
>>
> Jonathan, My apparatus and approach avoided mirrors or fiber optics
>to avoid the delay associated with reception and retransmission in
>mirrors or reflective surfaces in fiber optic devices .
Why should (and how could) there be any delay in "reception and
retransmission"? And even if there is, it's simple to use "my" apparatus
to show that the delay is due entirely to the distance between the
mirrors.
>
>> But doesn't Ralph accept that the speed of light _does_ apply as far as
>> the Moon's distance (because Moonbounce and GPS satellites work as
>> advertised). You couldn't ask for a better example of doublethink.
>
> Again,Jonathan, details of the lidar or radar moonbounce detection
>show that the roundtrip time could equally well be twice 240/186
>seconds or a little more than this or a little less than this eg 2
>seconds. That is, the technique is not as accurate as you assume and
>the results are in complete accord with the theory that light delay
>does not exceed one second to the moon and one second from the moon to
>the earth. Note there is always secondary scattering and returns in all
>radar and lidar that becomes more significant when the received signal
>is quite weak.
Yeah, yeah. I thought you accepted the facts, at least as far as
Moonbounce goes. Seems I was wrong. Don't forget that laser ranging of
the Moon has been done to an accuracy of centimeters
<http://solid_earth.ou.edu/readings/apollo_laser_ranging.html> - just
one of thousands of examples - and that it's been peer reviewed
repeatedly over the last 35 years. Your peers have similarly reviewed
you, on this group and elsewhere.
> GPS satellites work because the time delays or less than a second in
>accordance with the theory that light delay does not exceed a second
>for the reasons given in mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/book03.htm/
"404 Not Found".
Typing GPS and "speed of light" into Google gets 42,000 hits, and even
Tom van Flandern (the first hit) says that the speed of light is
absolutely crucial to the working of GPS. Conversely, you can apparently
use GPS to find the speed of light.
r9...@verizon.net
but not to the time it takes something to move between the mirror as
my apparatus proved.
>
> >
> >> But doesn't Ralph accept that the speed of light _does_ apply as far as
> >> the Moon's distance (because Moonbounce and GPS satellites work as
> >> advertised). You couldn't ask for a better example of doublethink.
> >
> > Again,Jonathan, details of the lidar or radar moonbounce detection
> >show that the roundtrip time could equally well be twice 240/186
> >seconds or a little more than this or a little less than this eg 2
> >seconds. That is, the technique is not as accurate as you assume and
> >the results are in complete accord with the theory that light delay
> >does not exceed one second to the moon and one second from the moon to
> >the earth. Note there is always secondary scattering and returns in all
> >radar and lidar that becomes more significant when the received signal
> >is quite weak.
>
> Yeah, yeah. I thought you accepted the facts, at least as far as
> Moonbounce goes. Seems I was wrong. Don't forget that laser ranging of
> the Moon has been done to an accuracy of centimeters
> <http://solid_earth.ou.edu/readings/apollo_laser_ranging.html>
Yes I see the figure 3 centimeters but I also see that the faintness
of the return signal is only 1 photon every few seconds. This implies
they dont know if the photon they receive at some time was sent from
the earth 2.5 seconds earlier or 2 seconds earlier. This contradicts
the 3 centimeter accuracy claimed.
>
> > GPS satellites work because the time delays or less than a second in
> >accordance with the theory that light delay does not exceed a second
> >for the reasons given in mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/book03.htm/
> "404 Not Found".
>
> Typing GPS and "speed of light" into Google gets 42,000 hits, and even
> Tom van Flandern (the first hit) says that the speed of light is
> absolutely crucial to the working of GPS.
Of course but the millisecond delays do not imply that light
extrapolates indefinitely.
Conversely, you can apparently
> use GPS to find the speed of light.
How?
Jonathan Silverlight
>
>Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
>>
>> Why should (and how could) there be any delay in "reception and
>> retransmission"? And even if there is, it's simple to use "my" apparatus
>> to show that the delay is due entirely to the distance between the
>> mirrors.
>
> but not to the time it takes something to move between the mirror as
>my apparatus proved.
You just don't get it, do you? If your apparatus gives an odd result
(and the reasons why it does so have been repeated many, many times) you
don't assume the problem is with the universe, you check your apparatus
and consider using a different system.
The delay _is_ "the time it takes for something to move between the
mirrors" [plural] and nothing else.
>>
>> >
>> >> But doesn't Ralph accept that the speed of light _does_ apply as far as
>> >> the Moon's distance (because Moonbounce and GPS satellites work as
>> >> advertised). You couldn't ask for a better example of doublethink.
>> >
>> > Again,Jonathan, details of the lidar or radar moonbounce detection
>> >show that the roundtrip time could equally well be twice 240/186
>> >seconds or a little more than this or a little less than this eg 2
>> >seconds. That is, the technique is not as accurate as you assume and
>> >the results are in complete accord with the theory that light delay
>> >does not exceed one second to the moon and one second from the moon to
>> >the earth. Note there is always secondary scattering and returns in all
>> >radar and lidar that becomes more significant when the received signal
>> >is quite weak.
>>
>> Yeah, yeah. I thought you accepted the facts, at least as far as
>> Moonbounce goes. Seems I was wrong. Don't forget that laser ranging of
>> the Moon has been done to an accuracy of centimeters
>> <http://solid_earth.ou.edu/readings/apollo_laser_ranging.html>
>
> Yes I see the figure 3 centimeters but I also see that the faintness
>of the return signal is only 1 photon every few seconds. This implies
>they dont know if the photon they receive at some time was sent from
>the earth 2.5 seconds earlier or 2 seconds earlier. This contradicts
>the 3 centimeter accuracy claimed.
Only in your fantasy, as I've noted several times before. This site
explains how they schedule the detector with nanosecond accuracy
<http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html> - again, it's just
an example.
>>
>> > GPS satellites work because the time delays or less than a second in
>> >accordance with the theory that light delay does not exceed a second
>> >for the reasons given in mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/book03.htm/
>> "404 Not Found".
>>
>> Typing GPS and "speed of light" into Google gets 42,000 hits, and even
>> Tom van Flandern (the first hit) says that the speed of light is
>> absolutely crucial to the working of GPS.
> Of course but the millisecond delays do not imply that light
>extrapolates indefinitely.
It's actually about a tenth of a second, as you are well aware. And
radio moonbounce has been done for about sixty years. Here's an
amateur's report.
"The ERP and the receiver sensitivity was sufficient to frequently copy
the own echoes from the Moon (with 2.5 s delay)."
<http://www.qsl.net/la0by/eme.htm>
Odd that the delay is independent of signal strength or wavelength, if
it's not a simple propagation delay.
>
> Conversely, you can apparently
>> use GPS to find the speed of light.
>
> How?
>
I was tempted to say "find out for yourself" but to give you no excuse
here's <http://www.njsas.org/projects/speed_of_light/02/exp3.htm>
Tell Geoff Hitchcox what he's doing wrong - and print his reply here if
it doesn't breach your ISP's TOS :-)
r9...@verizon.net
r9...@verizon.net
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
> In message <1124918514....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> r9...@verizon.net writes
> >
> >Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
> >>
> >> Why should (and how could) there be any delay in "reception and
> >> retransmission"? And even if there is, it's simple to use "my" apparatus
> >> to show that the delay is due entirely to the distance between the
> >> mirrors.
> >
> > but not to the time it takes something to move between the mirror as
> >my apparatus proved.
>
> You just don't get it, do you? If your apparatus gives an odd result
> (and the reasons why it does so have been repeated many, many times) you
> don't assume the problem is with the universe, you check your apparatus
> and consider using a different system.
You just dont get it because you dont know any physics. You dont
appreciate the pervasiveness of the problems associated with the
conventional model. Read at least the standard text book references eg
on my site and not half baked links that you dont have the critical
powers to analyse. You just accept the pablum fed to you.
None of the observations supporting the indefinite extrapolation of
the speed of light like the communications data with Pioneer 10 are
free of other interpretations. In fact, the Pioneer 10 anomaly implies
the conventional theory is wrong and if you look closer at the data you
see that the anomaly is much greater making the implication is
undeniable.
The accuracy of the apparatus and its reliability is shown on the web
site mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/
It is better than the first link but it contradicts again the first
link I think on the point of 3 or 4 photons received on earth per
second versus 1200 per minute. Who to believe. My own hunch is that
they have to make the statistical analysis consistent with what is
known from Newtonian calculations of the position of the moon with
respect to the earth.
>
> >>
> >> > GPS satellites work because the time delays or less than a second in
> >> >accordance with the theory that light delay does not exceed a second
> >> >for the reasons given in mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/book03.htm/
> >> "404 Not Found".
> >>
> >> Typing GPS and "speed of light" into Google gets 42,000 hits, and even
> >> Tom van Flandern (the first hit) says that the speed of light is
> >> absolutely crucial to the working of GPS.
> > Of course but the millisecond delays do not imply that light
> >extrapolates indefinitely.
>
> It's actually about a tenth of a second, as you are well aware.
and the differences are on the order of milliseconds as you are
well aware.
And
> radio moonbounce has been done for about sixty years. Here's an
> amateur's report.
> "The ERP and the receiver sensitivity was sufficient to frequently copy
> the own echoes from the Moon (with 2.5 s delay)."
> <http://www.qsl.net/la0by/eme.htm>
> Odd that the delay is independent of signal strength or wavelength, if
> it's not a simple propagation delay.
The greater the signal strength, the greater the inhibiting effects
during the increase of oscillation of charge inside the nuclei and
electrons of the receiver before this oscillation produces the
observable oscillations of free or less tightly bound electrons with
respect to positive ions.
Hence the delay is r/c for r less than c. see
mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/booko3.htm
>
> >
> > Conversely, you can apparently
> >> use GPS to find the speed of light.
> >
> > How?
> >
>
> I was tempted to say "find out for yourself" but to give you no excuse
> here's <http://www.njsas.org/projects/speed_of_light/02/exp3.htm>
> Tell Geoff Hitchcox what he's doing wrong - and print his reply here if
> it doesn't breach your ISP's TOS :-)
I'm tempted to say explain it in your own words. Will look at it when
I have a chance.
Greg Hennessy
>> Only in your fantasy, as I've noted several times before. This site
>> explains how they schedule the detector with nanosecond accuracy
>> <http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html> - again, it's just
>> an example.
>
> It is better than the first link but it contradicts again the first
> link I think on the point of 3 or 4 photons received on earth per
> second versus 1200 per minute. Who to believe.
There is no contradiction. The first link was to an old experiment,
the second link to a brand new experiment.
Jonathan Silverlight
r9...@verizon.net writes
>
>Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
>> You just don't get it, do you? If your apparatus gives an odd result
>> (and the reasons why it does so have been repeated many, many times) you
>> don't assume the problem is with the universe, you check your apparatus
>> and consider using a different system.
>
> The accuracy of the apparatus and its reliability is shown on the web
>site mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/
>>
>> Odd that the delay is independent of signal strength or wavelength, if
>> it's not a simple propagation delay.
>
>
> The greater the signal strength, the greater the inhibiting effects
>during the increase of oscillation of charge inside the nuclei and
>electrons of the receiver before this oscillation produces the
>observable oscillations of free or less tightly bound electrons with
>respect to positive ions.
> Hence the delay is r/c for r less than c. see
>mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/booko3.htm
>
"404 Not Found" - again. Why should I take you seriously when you can't
even get the link to your own web site right?
Do the "inhibiting effects" produce your one second delay? (a bit like
Bob Shaw's "slow glass")
Because if so, the delay should _increase_ as the mirror is moved closer
to the source and signal strength increases (assuming the beam isn't
collimated) in "my" experiment, which is the opposite of what is seen.
And radio moonbounce gives the same answer if you're using 1kW at 144Mhz
as in the amateur example I quoted, or 3kW at 110Mhz as in Project
Diana, almost exactly 60 years ago <http://www.eagle.ca/~harry/ba/eme/>
George Dishman
<r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1124982842.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> George Dishman wrote:
>> <r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:1124551821....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > George Dishman wrote:
>> > But the real
>> > problem George is that you have not thought enough about your basic
>> > assumption. It is simply wrong.
>>
>> As I have pointed out repeatedly, all the so-called
>> assumptions you have suggested are not assumed, they
>> are all handled by the test method other than the
>> orbital velocity component. That produces a maximum
>> error of less than 1 degree while your theory fails
>> by 26 degrees so your theory is falsified.
>>
>> Unless you can come up with some specific error in
>> my approach, I don't see any point in continuing
>> responding to your vague handwaving so I'll leave
>> the thread at that.
Ralph, this is an excellent response, you have identified
a specifc area of concern and your approach to analysing
it is fine. Thanks.
> r9...@verizon.net wrote:
> George,
> A) We agree 1) that a minimal Doppler shift occurs at the first site at
> a specific time when the sum of the orbital velocity vector and the
> rotational velocity vector form a vector that is a right angles to the
> earthsite-craft line at this time at this earthsite.
Right.
> And 2) as the earth rotates on its axis, another earthsite at the same
> latitude will cross a line from this earthsite to the craft that is
> perpendicular to the the earth's motion at this earthsite.
Right, at a different time which should be later than the
first by roughly 1 hour per 15 degrees of longitude.
> And a line
> from the craft to any earthsite on this longitude, such as the second
> earthsite where Doppler data is received, will be perpendicular to the
> earth's motion at that earthsite at this later time.
Yes, only the amplitude varies and that doesn't affect
the time of zero crossing.
> Also 3) that the orbital earthsite motion changes in this time by less
> than one degree of its orbital motion around the sun.
Right again. For two sites roughly on opposite sides of
the globe, it is about half a degree.
> But we disagree that the time when the second 'zero crossing'
> occurs is the time difference between these two earthsites.
We agree I think that it will be the time equivalent to
the difference in longitude plus an error due to the
orbital motion which is another way of saying what you
say next:
> My
> reasoning is that the about 60 times greater magnitude of the orbital
> motion compared to the rotational motions, (29km/sec/.465km/sec),
> implies that it will take longer for the total earthsite motion at the
> second earthsite to become perpendicular to the earthsite craft line eg
> the earth will have to rotate 26deg/360deg more as shown in your data.
That's about right again, the factor of 60 is comparable
to the discrepancy compared to the orbital change,
26 degrees / 0.5 degrees. If that was all there was to it,
you would have a good argument, everything you have done
so far is correct and quite insightful.
However, you have to also consider the effect of taking the
difference as I do twice in the method. Forming a difference
column is the discrete equivalent of differentiation in the
analog world. If you differentiate
y = sin(wt)
you get
dy/dt = w * cos(wt)
The frequency of the orbital motion is once per year or
31.7 nHz while the diurnal variation is 11.6 uHz, a ratio
of course of 365.25. That means that in the difference
column the effect of the orbital motion becomes that much
smaller in comparison to the rotational component. The
zero crossing is found after a second difference column
is formed so that reduces the error by (365.25)^2 or
over 133,000.
> B)We agree that the gr effect is on the order of milliHz for the minute
> by minute data.
No, that's not what I said. The difference betwee the GR
analysis and a Newtonian analysis is of the order of
tens of Hz which I think explains your error. The form
of the error is also proportional to the diurnal variation
or to say it another way, it can be an amplitude error
which might be a slight error in craft declination.
The millihertz error is betwen GR and the observed results
after allowing a fixed acceleration for the anomaly.
> But we disagree in that I think this small effect cannot explain the
> error of about 10 Hz and increasing in the random sample of data over
> several hours that I analysed assuming the gr effect to be negligible
> or that this implied looking at all of the data that the planets should
> have fallen into the sun long ago or that the speed of light delay
> assumptions that led to this error between the predicted and observed
> Doppler are wrong.
No, there are at least two mechanisms that can explain
the error you say which are just mundane effects. That
fact is that when the GR analysis is done properly, that
error is not present.
> C) We disagree that Markwardt's confirmation of Anderson's data is
> reliable since Markwardt at first did not disclose that transmissions
> were always being sent from the craft and said that it was therefore
> impossible for a site that was not transmitting to the craft to receive
> after a minute delay a transponded carrier signal from the craft.
Whether that is true or not (and I don't agree but let's
lay that aside), whether there is a local transmission or
not is irrelevant to his conventional analysis which uses
the other site. Anderson and Markwardt get comparable
results hence it is likely they both applied the conventional
analysis correctly, whether that matches the observations or
not.
> When
> I discovered that transmissions were always being sent from the craft,
> you and he later said, but did not show, that these same frequencies
> were less stable and therefore easily distinguishable from two way or
> three way communications.
Not quite. The signals are less stable but that is not
what distinguishes them, it is the extra Doppler from the
uplink that makes them different. It is very obvious when
you plot the graphs. Look at this and it is clear there is
a section of three-way with one-way either side:
http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Ralph/1987.htm
> That is, you did not show that a received carrier frequency
> at some site that was not also transmitting was clearly from a much
> earlier transmission at another site and not transmitted a minute
> earlier from the craft frequency generator.
Correct, I only say it is easy to distinguish from the
graphs whether a signal has come only from the craft or
if it has been transponded from the uplink.
The evidence for lack of transmission comes from seeing
there is no corresponding data in the "ramp" files. While
I can see there are such instances, I doubted you would
accept the absence of a record as proof of no transmission
so I didn't suggest that to you. The Doppler analysis
related to the longitude of the uplink source is a much
clearer measure IMO.
Good post Ralph,
George
Bob May
Please also remove SCI.OPTICS from the newsgroup list for posting as this
subject is off-topic for this list. It is not about optical work but rather
the basic nature of light which is a physics question rather than how to
design, build and use optics in the engineering aspect rather than any
"theory" that a nut thinks may be the way things work.
We already know how light works and use those formulas and ideas in the
engineering of optical things.
r9...@verizon.net
George, Thank you for your nice words. I wish I could disabuse you of
your remaining reservations. Also, I wish nasa was as willing as you to
admit error or at least admit to the possibility that light speed might
not extrapolate indefinitely and taking this into account might prevent
further losses of dsn spacecraft. Also that the Pioneer 10 anomaly is
worse than orginally claimed..(I know you think that a complete gr
analysis of the data would explain this 10Hz increasing error in one
small sample. I think you are wrong on this also but I would like to
spend time on other matters)
You seem to think, as shown by your nice graphs of specific period of
reception, for which there was both one way and two way, that if there
were instances of reception at a site that was not transmitting, the
reception pattern would be clearly two way. But we don't find such
instances . Indeed, most instances of reception were instances of
transmission also for obvious reasons of efficiency. (And the two way
that your graph shows was due to transmission from the receiving site a
few seconds earlier)
Would like now to pursue an implication of my theory that charged
particles orbit, at superluminal velocities, inside electrons and
atomic nuclei. Perhaps a compressed beam of deuterons using voltages
and voltage pulses intermediate between a tokamak or iter and a 12V
cold fusion electrolysis, could be made to fuse, often enough, and give
off more energy in the form of gamma rays than are used in the vacuum
pump and voltages and voltage pulses needed to produce the fusion. Such
a small scale fusion device would be a safe and economical source of
energy for every house and apartment building.
Hope I can find someone as knowledgable about charged particle optics
for help on this as you were about radar electronics.
Ralph
George Dishman
<r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1125176544.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> George, Thank you for your nice words. I wish I could disabuse you of
> your remaining reservations. Also, I wish nasa was as willing as you to
> admit error or at least admit to the possibility that light speed might
> not extrapolate indefinitely and taking this into account might prevent
> further losses of dsn spacecraft. Also that the Pioneer 10 anomaly is
> worse than orginally claimed..(I know you think that a complete gr
> analysis of the data would explain this 10Hz increasing error in one
> small sample.
Not quite, I know the GR analysis _does_ eliminate it
entirely because both Anderson et al and Markwardt have
done that and get almost identical results with millihertz
residuals.
> You seem to think, as shown by your nice graphs of specific period of
> reception, for which there was both one way and two way, that if there
> were instances of reception at a site that was not transmitting, the
> reception pattern would be clearly two way.
No, not at all. All I said was that you could discern
whether a reception was one-way or two/three-way by
looking at the slope. There is roughly twice the rate
of change of Doppler shift when the craft is transponding
an uplink.
Remember my view is that the signal was transmitted 12h
earlier from another site. What I could say is that you
will not find any instances of three-way reception if
there was no corresponding transmission 12h earlier but
we haven't discussed that.
> But we don't find such
> instances . Indeed, most instances of reception were instances of
> transmission also for obvious reasons of efficiency. (And the two way
> that your graph shows was due to transmission from the receiving site a
> few seconds earlier)
I understand that is your view. My argument rests on a
very simple premise, for any assumed craft location, the
downlink Doppler can be determined because we know the
receive site. Subtract that from the total Doppler and
you get the uplink Doppler. The uplink Doppler identifies
the transmission site by the phase of the diurnal component
which is related to the longitude.
The test I proposed makes use of that in a way that
eliminates the effect of the (theoretically) unknown
craft location by comparing two receptions and as I
explained the technique of taking differences
eliminates the error you were concerned about.
I'm dissapointed you snipped the primary content of my
reply without even mentioning it. It shows why the
technique is valid and the result shows your theory
is incorrect beyond any doubt. Still, that's your
choice. I'll copy it below for reference in case you
change your mind.
> Would like now to pursue an implication of my theory that charged
> particles orbit, at superluminal velocities, inside electrons and
> atomic nuclei. ...
> Hope I can find someone as knowledgable about charged particle optics
> for help on this as you were about radar electronics.
OK, I can't help there but please limit that topic to
the particle groups, it's not relevant to sci.astro.
George
"George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:denb6v$tmi$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> <r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:1124982842.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
Craig Markwardt
"George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> writes:
...
> No, that's not what I said. The difference betwee the GR
> analysis and a Newtonian analysis is of the order of
> tens of Hz which I think explains your error. The form
> of the error is also proportional to the diurnal variation
> or to say it another way, it can be an amplitude error
> which might be a slight error in craft declination.
George, Sansbury's largest error is quite likely to be his use of the
Horizons system, which provides 1 minute samples at the finest
setting. One minute quantization in the light travel time estimate
immediately leads to a (earth rotation) phase error in the transmitter
site position, which leads to a Doppler error of order 2*Pi*(1 min)/(1
day)*0.5 km/s =~ 2.2 m/s = 16 Hz. This is exactly the kind of "error"
he sees... of course it is an error of his own manufacture.
This kind of error will also show short term "trends" with time, since
the true light travel time minus the light travel time rounded to the
nearest minute is a nearly linear function with step discontinuities.
This could easily explain any number of the "effects" that Sansbury
claims.
Sansbury has been well aware of this problem [ref. 1], he acknowledges
the problem [ref. 2], and even understands how it could be solved (by
say, interpolation) [ref. 2]. However, he declines to investigate the
problem or actually solve it. Meanwhile, he continues to make wildly
speculative and irrelevant claims. In my book that makes him a lazy
and manipulative, but not a scientist.
Craig
References
1. sci.astro Post 26 Feb 2005, <onwtsuh...@cow.physics.wisc.edu>
2. sci.astro Post 17 Feb 2005, <1108665119.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig B. Markwardt, Ph.D. EMAIL: crai...@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu
Astrophysics, IDL, Finance, Derivatives | Remove "net" for better response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Dishman
"Craig Markwardt" <crai...@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:onwtm6u...@cow.physics.wisc.edu...
>
> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> writes:
> ...
>> No, that's not what I said. The difference betwee the GR
>> analysis and a Newtonian analysis is of the order of
>> tens of Hz which I think explains your error. The form
>> of the error is also proportional to the diurnal variation
>> or to say it another way, it can be an amplitude error
>> which might be a slight error in craft declination.
> ...
>
> George, Sansbury's largest error is quite likely to be his use of the
> Horizons system, which provides 1 minute samples at the finest
> setting. One minute quantization in the light travel time estimate
> immediately leads to a (earth rotation) phase error in the transmitter
> site position, which leads to a Doppler error of order 2*Pi*(1 min)/(1
> day)*0.5 km/s =~ 2.2 m/s = 16 Hz. This is exactly the kind of "error"
> he sees... of course it is an error of his own manufacture.
Indeed, that is certainly present. However, the first
time I looked at his Excel sheets, the was using either
f'/f = v/c+v) or f'/f = (c-v)/c (I can't remember which,
it was a long time ago) for both uplink and downlink!
That gave an error of 90Hz. I reproduced his calculations
and got that error, then fixed the problem and reduced it
to about 30Hz. He may have fixed that one since though.
Craig, do you know if Horizons has a separate ephemeris
for each section between the ConScan manoeuvres or just
a single 'best average' for the whole extended mission?
> This kind of error will also show short term "trends" with time, since
> the true light travel time minus the light travel time rounded to the
> nearest minute is a nearly linear function with step discontinuities.
> This could easily explain any number of the "effects" that Sansbury
> claims.
Also he only calculated three data points near the
zero crossing so a magnitude error on the sine
curve looked like a trend via the approximation
sin(x) ~ x
> Sansbury has been well aware of this problem [ref. 1], he acknowledges
> the problem [ref. 2], and even understands how it could be solved (by
> say, interpolation) [ref. 2]. However, he declines to investigate the
> problem or actually solve it. Meanwhile, he continues to make wildly
> speculative and irrelevant claims. In my book that makes him a lazy
> and manipulative, but not a scientist.
Definitely. For the same reason I refuse to do the
whole exercise all over again for different dates
just because he is too lazy to debug his software
even after I sent him working code.
best regards
George
r9...@verizon.net
I used to think there was some chance you would like to know what is
really going on with the Pioneer10 data. I am sure that if all of the
radar data was available from the time of launch, it would show that
the constant reassessments of the craft position could have been due to
the mistaken assumption that light speed extrapolates indefinitely when
there is no such proof that this is the case. That is, it would provide
a test of this untested assumption and imply that the assumption was
unwarranted.
You say gr explains the large errors and larger anomaly than
Anderson claimed, I found in one randomly chosen period of time and M
says that this is due to some phase error of some kind-which is it?
I cant really help you with your reservations about your method
because your data is for all I know made up. It is also ludicrous that
1) you did not tell me initially when you proposed your test of the
possibility of one way transmission from the craft, or 2) the
differences in horizons time and dsn time or 3)not told how to obtain
the data that you claim substantiates your objections because you give
me the program but not the compiler, just the results of the program.
I would recommend to you that you study some particle physics and
broaden your perspective so that you would realize that the proposed
alternative theory of light as instantaneous forces at a distance that
after a brief time interval whose maximum is one second about, produce
the effect of received light, that this theory makes more sense not
only regarding astronomy but regarding particle physics as well. (see
mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/)
I have learned a lot of radar astronomy from you and I would hope
you have learned from me that your test might be wrong and that binary
stars and Doppler data due not necessarily imply the indefinite
extrapolation of the speed of light.
George Dishman
<r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1125608808.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> George,
> I used to think there was some chance you would like to know what is
> really going on with the Pioneer10 data. I am sure that if all of the
> radar data was available from the time of launch, it would show that
> the constant reassessments of the craft position could have been due to
> the mistaken assumption that light speed extrapolates indefinitely when
> there is no such proof that this is the case. That is, it would provide
> a test of this untested assumption and imply that the assumption was
> unwarranted.
> You say gr explains the large errors and larger anomaly than
> Anderson claimed, I found in one randomly chosen period of time and M
> says that this is due to some phase error of some kind-which is it?
> I cant really help you with your reservations about your method
> because your data is for all I know made up.
That's a lie Ralph, at least tell the truth. You have
access to the data direct from the NSSDC and I have given
you code which reads it. You have the source you you
can check for yourself that there is nothing underhand in
the processing.
> It is also ludicrous that
> 1) you did not tell me initially when you proposed your test of the
> possibility of one way transmission from the craft, or 2) the
> differences in horizons time and dsn time or 3)not told how to obtain
> the data that you claim substantiates your objections because you give
> me the program but not the compiler, just the results of the program.
It is ludicrous that you complain about not being given
the data when you already have the files. It is ludicrous
that you complain about not being given a compiler when
(a) it is VB script which doesn't have a compiler and
(b) I only gave you it as an aid to debugging your own
code. Don't blame me for your incompetence.
> I have learned a lot of radar astronomy from you and I would hope
> you have learned from me that your test might be wrong and that binary
> stars and Doppler data due not necessarily imply the indefinite
> extrapolation of the speed of light.
A few posts ago, you thought you had found a problem in
the method. That gave you an "out" so you then agreed
that my method worked other than one factor. I knew I
had done enough to prove that to you and you listed
three points on which we agree that are the basis of
the method. There was only one aspect left, the effect
of orbital motion, and you highlighted that. Below I
have copied what you said and my response. It is based
on very simple maths, the derivative of a sine wave, and
it removes your only objection. If you were a reasonable
person at all, you should have realised this means the
method is entirely valid. Instead, as you always do
when you cannot refute an argument, you snip the text
and pretend the conversation never happened. Talk to
me again when you can discuss this rationally.
George
[Ralph wrote:]
r9...@verizon.net
George Dishman wrote:
> <r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:1125608808.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > George,
> > I used to think there was some chance you would like to know what is
> > really going on with the Pioneer10 data. I am sure that if all of the
> > radar data was available from the time of launch, it would show that
> > the constant reassessments of the craft position could have been due to
> > the mistaken assumption that light speed extrapolates indefinitely when
> > there is no such proof that this is the case. That is, it would provide
> > a test of this untested assumption and imply that the assumption was
> > unwarranted.
> > You say gr explains the large errors and larger anomaly than
> > Anderson claimed, I found in one randomly chosen period of time and M
> > says that this is due to some phase error of some kind-which is it?
> > I cant really help you with your reservations about your method
> > because your data is for all I know made up.
>
> That's a lie Ralph, at least tell the truth.
If Gen Rel accounts for the 10Hz larger and increasing error and the
phase problems of Horizon based on minute by minute calculations also
accounts for the error then there is still a 10Hz and larger error.
>You have
> access to the data direct from the NSSDC and I have given
> you code which reads it. You have the source you you
> can check for yourself that there is nothing underhand in
> the processing.
You provided a program code but no compiler and you say that this
produces the data you use.My program cannot read this file but it can
read others. Why dont you provide data from the other files???
>
> > It is also ludicrous that
> > 1) you did not tell me initially when you proposed your test of the
> > possibility of one way transmission from the craft, or 2) the
> > differences in horizons time and dsn time or 3)not told how to obtain
> > the data that you claim substantiates your objections because you give
> > me the program but not the compiler, just the results of the program.
>
> It is ludicrous that you complain about not being given
> the data when you already have the files. It is ludicrous
> that you complain about not being given a compiler when
> (a) it is VB script which doesn't have a compiler
My c++ program has a compiler. You have to supply the same.
and
> (b) I only gave you it as an aid to debugging your own
> code. Don't blame me for your incompetence.
I blame you for suggesting you had a program and a compiler like I
provided for you that works on all of the other files. For all I know
the error is in the files. And if with your prior interest and
familiartiy with nasa materials, you know what this is just tell me.
I'm willing to play along so long as you dont put up arbitrary road
blocks.
>
> > I have learned a lot of radar astronomy from you and I would hope
> > you have learned from me that your test might be wrong and that binary
> > stars and Doppler data due not necessarily imply the indefinite
> > extrapolation of the speed of light.
>
> A few posts ago, you thought you had found a problem in
> the method.
Your problem, your error was pointed out. You acknowledged it but
hedged in an incoherent way that you had somehow compensated for this
error by taking differences.
This is nonsense and clearly does not give the amount of
compensation. The error is your saying that there is less than a
degree difference in the orbital movement and a 28 degree or somesuch
in the time when the radar data shows a change between increasing and
decreasing doppler. This is due as I pointed out, to the sixty times
larger changes in orbital motion values than changes in rotational
motion values.
It is the sum total of these motion vectors that gives at each site
about eight or more hours apart a motion vector which in each case is
perpendicular to the craft site vector.
Taking differences and drawing graphs is not going to change this fact.
You seem implicitly to revert to the position that the rotational
motion is all important and that if the second site is eight hours away
from the first that the earth motion vector will be perpendicular then
as it was eight hours before. This ignores the role of the change in
the orbital vector direction which is small in degrees but not in
magnitude being sixty times larger in general than the changes in the
rotational vector.
Thus your so called method is ridiculous and typical of your other
methods for showing that the doppler shift and that binary stars each
implied the indefinite extrapolatability of the speed of light.
George Dishman
<r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1125721428.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> George Dishman wrote:
>> <r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:1125608808.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> > George,
>> > I cant really help you with your reservations about your method
>> > because your data is for all I know made up.
>>
>> That's a lie Ralph, at least tell the truth.
>>You have
>> access to the data direct from the NSSDC and I have given
>> you code which reads it. You have the source you you
>> can check for yourself that there is nothing underhand in
>> the processing.
>
> You provided a program code but no compiler
Ralph, I have told you over and over again, it is VB script.
There is no compiler to give you, it is _interpreted_ by
Microsoft applications, in this case by Excel which I believe
you already have. I'm certainly not going to buy you a copy
of Microsoft Office!
> and you say that this
> produces the data you use.My program cannot read this file but it can
> read others. Why dont you provide data from the other files???
I'm not going to do your work for you just because
you are too lazy to fix your errors. Why don't you
debug your C code? I gave you my code so you could
look at the logic and see where yours goes wrong
and that should be adequate assistance.
>> > It is also ludicrous that
>> > 1) you did not tell me initially when you proposed your test of the
>> > possibility of one way transmission from the craft, or 2) the
>> > differences in horizons time and dsn time or 3)not told how to obtain
>> > the data that you claim substantiates your objections because you give
>> > me the program but not the compiler, just the results of the program.
>>
>> It is ludicrous that you complain about not being given
>> the data when you already have the files. It is ludicrous
>> that you complain about not being given a compiler when
>> (a) it is VB script which doesn't have a compiler
> My c++ program has a compiler. You have to supply the same.
I have to do nothing pal, your code is wrong, you
fix it, or use the results I supplied. If you don't
have microsoft office, either buy it yourself or
see what alternatives they provide (hint: there are
utilities if you look).
> and
>> (b) I only gave you it as an aid to debugging your own
>> code. Don't blame me for your incompetence.
>
> I blame you for suggesting you had a program and a compiler
I told you from day one that it was an Excel
spreadsheet.
> like I
> provided for you that works on all of the other files. For all I know
> the error is in the files. And if with your prior interest and
> familiartiy with nasa materials, you know what this is just tell me.
> I'm willing to play along so long as you dont put up arbitrary road
> blocks.
I have supplied the Excel spreadsheet together with
the data and full instructions on how to use it and
how to acces and run the code. You have never said
you didn't have Office and your web pages are written
in Word format so AFAIK you have Excel which is what
plays the role of a 'compiler' in this case. I have
given you everything you need, it is up to you to
spend some time to make use of it.
Ralph, the bottom line here is that the way science
works, if you want to promote a new theory, you have
to publish the model (which you have done), _you_ are
supposed to find the toughest tests (which I have done
for you) and _you_ are then required to demonstrate
that you get the right answers. I have even done the
work for you and showed it fails but that should
really be your job. I'm not going to do your work for
you any more.
>> > I have learned a lot of radar astronomy from you and I would hope
>> > you have learned from me that your test might be wrong and that binary
>> > stars and Doppler data due not necessarily imply the indefinite
>> > extrapolation of the speed of light.
>>
>> A few posts ago, you thought you had found a problem in
>> the method.
>
> Your problem, your error was pointed out. You acknowledged it but
> hedged in an incoherent way that you had somehow compensated for this
> error by taking differences.
> This is nonsense and clearly does not give the amount of
> compensation. The error is your saying that there is less than a
> degree difference in the orbital movement ..
which you also said
> .. and a 28 degree or somesuch
> in the time when the radar data shows a change between increasing and
> decreasing doppler.
a 26 degree discrepancy to be explained, indeed.
> This is due as I pointed out, to the sixty times
> larger changes in orbital motion values than changes in rotational
> motion values.
You did, and your criticism would be correct except that
the method differentiates twice which reduces the error
by five orders of magnitude. It is the same as putting
music through a high pass filter, bass and treble
frequencies that are of equal magnitude going in come
out with the treble much louder in comparison. The daily
sine wave is boosted by 365 compared to the annual sine
wave and the orbital error becomes negligible. Although
the _speed_ is sixty lrgaer, the resulting contribution
due to the orbital motion is two thousand times smaller.
As a result the method works perfectly. Here's the maths,
you can find it in any intrduction to simple calculus:
>> > However, you have to also consider the effect of taking the
>> > difference as I do twice in the method. Forming a difference
>> > column is the discrete equivalent of differentiation in the
>> > analog world. If you differentiate
>> >
>> > y = sin(wt)
>> >
>> > you get
>> >
>> > dy/dt = w * cos(wt)
>> >
>> > The frequency of the orbital motion is once per year or
>> > 31.7 nHz while the diurnal variation is 11.6 uHz, a ratio
>> > of course of 365.25. That means that in the difference
>> > column the effect of the orbital motion becomes that much
>> > smaller in comparison to the rotational component. The
>> > zero crossing is found after a second difference column
>> > is formed so that reduces the error by (365.25)^2 or
>> > over 133,000.
George
r9...@verizon.net
larger orbital components. No differences are involved except when you
compare the earthsite motions before and after the motion that is
perpendicular to the craft-site line.Once you have established the time
of the perpendicular line you need only consider it.
We are only considering the motion that is perpendicular to the
craft site line. The earth motion at a specific time at a specific
site is perpendicular to the craft-site line. The orbital components of
this vector are sixty times larger than the corresponding rotational
components. Thus if the total orbital and rotational components are
perpendicular to the craft site line at the first site and the earth
rotates so that eight hours later-if the earth were not also orbiting-
the earth motion would be perpendicular to the craft site line at this
later site. But the earth is orbiting and the orbital motion is at a
slightly different angle and the components of the orbital vector are
60 times larger than those of the rotational vector. Hence the earth in
some cases will have to rotate further to compensate for this before
the total earth motion vector is perpendicular to the craft site line.
This explains your data if it is in fact legitimate data and why it
does not show what you think it shows. This and the fact that you could
find no other instance should convince you of the error of your method.
George Dishman
<r9...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1125757827....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> George, You talk about differences
"difference columns" or differentiation
> compensating
reducing, not compensating (I mean it divides the number
rather than subtracting)
> for the sixty times
> larger orbital components. No differences are involved except when you
> compare the earthsite motions before and after the motion that is
> perpendicular to the craft-site line.
That's not what I am talking about. In the method
you first produce a table of frequency versus time.
If you plot those values, it looks like this:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
It is hard to draw but it is the falling part of a
sine wave near theta = pi.
The next step is to produce a "difference column"
which is the change of frequency from one sample
to the next. That gives values like this:
*
* ______ cutoff
* *
* *
* *
*
The difference column is the derivative so is part
of a cosine curve again near pi. It shows a clear
minimum.
Then you make the shape symmetrical by discarding
those results above the cutoff line and make another
difference column. Plot that and you get something
that looks like this
| *
| *
*
------ * -------
*
* |
* |
Again the difference gives a sine curve and because
it is symmetrical from the previous step you can
easily put a least-squares fit or whatever method
you prefer through the results and get the time of
zero crossing. Because the DC components are
eliminated by differentiation, it is a true zero.
> Once you have established the time
> of the perpendicular line you need only consider it.
That's right, the two differentiations are part of
finding that time. They
a) reduce the orbital motion to a negligible level
b) allow symmetry to be enforced removing a possible
bias at the next stage if a linear interpolation
method is used
c) remove the constant velocity parts and any receiver
frequency shifts to give a true zero crossing point
There's more to analysing data than just putting one
or two values through a formula out of a textbook.
> We are only considering the motion that is perpendicular to the
> craft site line. The earth motion at a specific time at a specific
> site is perpendicular to the craft-site line. The orbital components of
> this vector are sixty times larger than the corresponding rotational
> components.
They are in the first curve above. They are reduced
by a factor of about 365 (sidereal days per orbit)
in each step where you form the difference column.
> Thus if the total orbital and rotational components are
> perpendicular to the craft site line at the first site and the earth
> rotates so that eight hours later-if the earth were not also orbiting-
> the earth motion would be perpendicular to the craft site line at this
> later site. But the earth is orbiting and the orbital motion is at a
> slightly different angle and the components of the orbital vector are
> 60 times larger than those of the rotational vector. Hence the earth in
> some cases will have to rotate further to compensate for this before
> the total earth motion vector is perpendicular to the craft site line.
> This explains your data if it is in fact legitimate data and why it
> does not show what you think it shows. This and the fact that you could
> find no other instance should convince you of the error of your method.
There are other instances which I have found, however,
if your theory were correct, the minimum of the second
curve should be at the midpoint of the contact since
the up-link and down-link shifts should be the same.
In fact it is offset so you lose quite a bit of data in
some cases because in reality the up-link is from a
different site. Lose too much data and the noise becomes
significant. That prevents me using some days but only
because of yet another proof that you are wrong, however
it's not one I have discussed with you before so I'll
not dwell on that.
Because I compare two site results, you also have to
find periods when they used three-way from two sites
within a few days, preferably within 24 hours. There
are many other examples, in fact judging just from the
graphs, I haven't found a single day that your theory
gets right in looking through a year of data, but the
days I worked through in detail and did the full
analysis on are those we selected for the earlier
tests.
Actually there should be some contacts where your theory
gives the right result simply because the conventional
propagation time is equal to the difference in longitudes,
but those will be exceptions and as I said I haven't come
across any yet.
Bottom line - the method is valid, your theory is wrong.
George