Since Scheffer,( E- Print arXiv:gr-qc/0107092; gr-qc/0108054), and Katz and Murphy, ( Phys. Rev. Letters 83) long ago ...
Why bother with what was done "long ago" when what I presented was based on newly discovered data?
Perhaps because you have a canned answer to what was said long ago, but not to what was just recently proved?
Scheffer's Model predicted that the thrust from these thermal sources should have declined by 11.8% from "Period I" (10/1988) through "Period III" (7/1995) due to a decline in available spacecraft power and changes in the types of experiments being carried out. instead a much smaller rate of decrease in "acceleration" is seen.
Did you write that correctly? You seem to be saying that the explanation is
more than enough to explain the phenomena. In which case you'll have to reverse the nature of the supposed anomaly.
So you see even if they now are saying they've accounted for it, their behavior makes me doubt it.
Their behavior, eh? Rather than their data and their calculations?
Let me know how that works out for you.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.