"tom" napisal w wiadomosci
. net...
On 11/17/2011 2:15 PM, Jim Lux wrote:

snip nonsense from someone who has never produced anything but


Uh.. no.. you have a theory or question, but aren't willing or able to
do the work (or find someone else to do the work) to actual resolve the
issue.

Tons of data
Tons of analysis out there

You've got a question, you need to answer it.
(or, just wait until someone else happens to answer it for you...)

Nice. Succinct and to the point. Unfortunately wasted on him.

" Some people know the Doppler effects components: "the Doppler has several
components: one from the rotation of Earth, one from the rotation of Mars
(for a surface asset), and one from the relative motion of Mars and Earth"

I am looking for information about relative motion of "Mars and Earth" and
"Earth and Pioneer".
Have you such?
S*

"Jim Lux" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 11/17/2011 9:29 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
"Jim napisal w wiadomosci
I imagine so, although I don't know where one get the data off hand. But
they archive and publish pretty much everything that comes down along
with
all the radiometric data (doppler, phase, signal strength) in various
and
sundry mission data repositories. getting it in a convenient translated
form might take some work.

I am not able to do any work in the data.
I will be waiting as somebody do it.

Giant snip of places where you can find the data you asked about

The answer I am loking for is not important for me.
I have come accros an information that astronomers add the orbital speed
of
the Earth to the radial speed of stars measured with the spectrographic
method.
The radio method are the same like the spectrography. But it contradicts
MMX. So I am trying to clear it.


Uh.. no.. you have a theory or question, but aren't willing or able to do
the work (or find someone else to do the work) to actual resolve the
issue.

Yes. I am not able.
But here is nothing to do. Some people know the Doppler effects components:
"the Doppler has several components: one from the rotation of Earth, one
from the rotation of Mars (for a surface asset), and one from the relative
motion of Mars and Earth"

I am looking for information about relative motion of "Mars and Earth" and
"Earth and Pioneer".

Tons of data
Tons of analysis out there

You've got a question, you need to answer it.
(or, just wait until someone else happens to answer it for you...)

"wait until someone else happens to answer it for you..." is the only
possibility.

Sooner or later it will be in textbooks.

Now in textbooks no Michelson-Gale experiment.
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Uh.. no.. you have a theory or question, but aren't willing or able to do
the work (or find someone else to do the work) to actual resolve the
issue.

Yes. I am not able.
But here is nothing to do. Some people know the Doppler effects components:
"the Doppler has several components: one from the rotation of Earth, one
from the rotation of Mars (for a surface asset), and one from the relative
motion of Mars and Earth"

I am looking for information about relative motion of "Mars and Earth" and
"Earth and Pioneer".

You sound like the man in the street who claims that "the theory of
relativity is wrong".
But in your case you don't even refer to something as complex as
relativity but as simple as doppler shift.

There are existing formulas that allow you to calculate the doppler
shift when knowing the speed of the items, and the measured results
confirm what you calculate. So why do you keep questioning it?

When you have found an old article that does not agree with what is
measured today, why do you keep insisting that the old article is
correct and suggeest the theory is wrong, when you don't have the
capability to back that up with proofs that you present yourself?
Isn't it better to assume that the measurements in the old article were
not correct?

"Rob" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Uh.. no.. you have a theory or question, but aren't willing or able to
do
the work (or find someone else to do the work) to actual resolve the
issue.

Yes. I am not able.
But here is nothing to do. Some people know the Doppler effects
components:
"the Doppler has several components: one from the rotation of Earth, one
from the rotation of Mars (for a surface asset), and one from the
relative
motion of Mars and Earth"

I am looking for information about relative motion of "Mars and Earth"
and
"Earth and Pioneer".

You sound like the man in the street who claims that "the theory of
relativity is wrong".
But in your case you don't even refer to something as complex as
relativity but as simple as doppler shift.

There are existing formulas that allow you to calculate the doppler
shift when knowing the speed of the items, and the measured results
confirm what you calculate. So why do you keep questioning it?

It is true for the Earth rotating.
For the orbital movement of the Earth the result is null according to "the
theory of relativity".

When you have found an old article that does not agree with what is
measured today, why do you keep insisting that the old article is
correct and suggeest the theory is wrong, when you don't have the
capability to back that up with proofs that you present yourself?
Isn't it better to assume that the measurements in the old article were
not correct?

In physics textbooks the old article is correct.

Once mo "Today's spectrograph astronomers assume that the effect is not
null.

It seems to me that today's astronomers are wrong because in physics are
still null result.
So I am looking for the result from communication with the spacecraft."

I should wrote: "Some astronomers ASSUME..."

To be precise now are available the spectrograph with built-in the
corrections for the all movements of the Earth and Sun.
But user can switch off same of them.
It seems to me that at measurements of the radial speeds of stars the
correction for the orbital speed of the Earth should be switched-off.

What is your opinion?
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
What is your opinion?
S*

You don't want to hear that. It would hurt your ego.

"Rob" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
What is your opinion?
S*

You don't want to hear that. It would hurt your ego.

Not the case.

In 1905 Einstein wrote: "Examples of a similar kind, as well as the
unsuccessful attempts to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to
the "light-medium", ..."

It is still valid. One of the attempts was famous MM.

In 1925 Michelson-Gale "substantiate the motion of the earth ROTATION
relative to the "light-medium". It is in agreement with SR. (Like Sagnac).

But things are changing. May be that the attempts with using the radio waves
supply the opposite results. But I do not come across on such.
So I am asking the radio experts.
S*