Pioneer 10 Anomaly solved with expanding wavelength

[John C. Polasek]

I have finally have got to my final solution to the Pioneer Anomaly,
and it is on my website as the first item, in red, as a pdf.

There have been two congresses already last year in Bremen and this
year in Glasgow with no results, using, naturally, relativity.
The solution is fairly (no, very) subtle and should be a relief to
those physicists who worried about range errors in 100,000km range. I
show how to modify the model to silence the nuisance "blue note".

I also sent this file to a number of scientists who were at last
year's congress, because I could not convince the arxiver's to print
it without an endorser (an expert who has written at least 2 articles
in 5 years or 5 articles in 2 years, I forget which).

Please check it out.

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net

[John C. Polasek]

On 21 May 2006 04:59:04 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> wrote:

>
>John C. Polasek > writes:
>> I have finally have got to my final solution to the Pioneer Anomaly,
>> and it is on my website as the first item, in red, as a pdf.
>
>Note that there is a serious problem with this derivation, namely that
>Polasek assumes that the spacecraft is traveling at the speed of
>light, "c" (eqns. 4 & 5). The spacecraft is actually traveling at
>speed ~12 km/s w.r.t the solar system center.

You have misread it entirely. First, Eq. 4 is a simple tutorial on
conversion in general of a kinematic velocity to a perceived
acceleration and c is not involved; it could be Vcraft or any velocity
conugate to the distance D. (we have 2: c and Vcraft)..
>
>The Hubble expansion rate is H = 72 km/s per Mpc of distance.

H is by no means established as 72, it is between 50 & 100
(established by 'standard candle')
and for our purposes, the anomaly provides us a way to determine H
much more accurately as 90.07 = Ap/c.

>Since
>the spacecraft distance is increasing at rate 12 km/s, the apparent
>acceleration due to the Hubble flow is a_H = 72 km/s/Mpc * 12 km/s ~
>3x10^{-12} cm/s^2. I.e. far too small by a factor of ~10^4.

Again, you must have skimmed the paper because it's what I point out
in Eq. 7a, stating that A_pcraft is 3.49e-14 m/ss, exactly equal to
your reduced value 3e-12cm/ss, 25,000 times lower than Ap.
A_pcraft when integrated over 7.5 years is the same velocity as Ap
integrated over the 2.63 hour flight time.

>There is
>no way for any "Hubble effect" to account for the Pioneer anomaly.
>
>CM

In Eq. 5 I am stressing that the root phenomenon is that the wave, at
the moment of contact with the craft, is traveling at c, and lambda
is increasing at an as yet unestablished Hubble rate, which we derive
by setting
Ap = -Hc = -8.74e-10m/ss
in order to solve for H = 90.07km/smpc. This instant of contact with
expanding lambda is all the radar system knows about the phenomenon
and is the only information we have to work with. The team divided the
excess frequency by time of flight, don't forget.

Therefore, this event being the fundamental information kernel we
naturally integrate Ap over 2.63 hours Eq. 7c, to get the error
velocity. It is the exact same velocity as A_pcraft integrated over
7.5 years, namely -8.28e-6 m/s as per Eq. 7a.

Therefore, the velocity shown in the team's Fig. 1 is 25,000 times too
high because it is Ap mistakenly integrated over 7 years as in Eq. 7d.

I took considerable care to distinguish between the two velocities,
two accelerations and two periods of integration. The Pioneer
trepidation is overblown by a factor of c/V = 25,000 but I
show how to change the model by feeding back +HD to ward off the
annoying blue hum.

It is an easy mistake to interpret as per Fig. 1,, but at the same
time it was gratuitous to make the remark the "residuals...cannot be
removed without adding Ap", because as I have shown, it would have
been 25,000 times too high.

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net

[Craig Markwardt]

John C. Polasek > writes:
> On 21 May 2006 04:59:04 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >John C. Polasek > writes:
> >> I have finally have got to my final solution to the Pioneer Anomaly,
> >> and it is on my website as the first item, in red, as a pdf.
> >
> >Note that there is a serious problem with this derivation, namely that
> >Polasek assumes that the spacecraft is traveling at the speed of
> >light, "c" (eqns. 4 & 5). The spacecraft is actually traveling at
> >speed ~12 km/s w.r.t the solar system center.
>
> You have misread it entirely. First, Eq. 4 is a simple tutorial on
> conversion in general of a kinematic velocity to a perceived
> acceleration and c is not involved; it could be Vcraft or any velocity
> conugate to the distance D. (we have 2: c and Vcraft)..

Actually, the error occurs at equation 3. You define "velocity" as
dX/dt_e where t_e is apparently some arbitrary portion of the light
travel time. However, velocity is actually defined as the
derivative w.r.t. some *coordinate* time, hence one of your errors.

The Hubble law, v_H = H0 d, is valid for bodies at a distance d. If
the distance of the body is changing with time at speed v, then one
can perhaps take the derivative of both sides w.r.t. *coordinate*
time, d(v_H)/dt = H0 d(d)/dt, H0 being a constant. Defining the left
hand side as an apparent acceleration, a_H, one finds, a_H = H0 v.
Note v, *not* c.

> >The Hubble expansion rate is H = 72 km/s per Mpc of distance.
>
> H is by no means established as 72, it is between 50 & 100 ...

Apparently you haven't been aware of developments in cosmology over
the past decade (Freedman et al 2001; Spergel et al 2003). But
whether H0 is 50 or 100 or somewhere in between, the Hubble effect
still cannot explain the Pioneer anomaly since a factor of 2 is still
far too small.


> >Since
> >the spacecraft distance is increasing at rate 12 km/s, the apparent
> >acceleration due to the Hubble flow is a_H = 72 km/s/Mpc * 12 km/s ~
> >3x10^{-12} cm/s^2. I.e. far too small by a factor of ~10^4.
>
> Again, you must have skimmed the paper because it's what I point out
> in Eq. 7a, stating that A_pcraft is 3.49e-14 m/ss, exactly equal to
> your reduced value 3e-12cm/ss, 25,000 times lower than Ap.
> A_pcraft when integrated over 7.5 years is the same velocity as Ap
> integrated over the 2.63 hour flight time.

Irrelevant. Since you specially chose "2.63 hours" to be smaller than
7.5 years by the same factor that v is smaller than c, there is
nothing special about your subsequent results. It's just numerology.
Also note that 2.63 hours is not the one-way or round-trip light
travel time at any point during the analysis by either Anderson et al
or Markwardt.


> >There is
> >no way for any "Hubble effect" to account for the Pioneer anomaly.
> >
> >CM
>
> In Eq. 5 I am stressing that the root phenomenon is that the wave, at
> the moment of contact with the craft, is traveling at c, and lambda
> is increasing at an as yet unestablished Hubble rate, which we derive
> by setting
> Ap = -Hc = -8.74e-10m/ss
> in order to solve for H = 90.07km/smpc. This instant of contact with
> expanding lambda is all the radar system knows about the phenomenon
> and is the only information we have to work with. The team divided the
> excess frequency by time of flight, don't forget.

I won't forget that your claim is incorrect. Neither of the "teams"
divided the frequency by the light travel time.

> Therefore, this event being the fundamental information kernel we
> naturally integrate Ap over 2.63 hours Eq. 7c, to get the error
> velocity. It is the exact same velocity as A_pcraft integrated over
> 7.5 years, namely -8.28e-6 m/s as per Eq. 7a.

This is nonsense. The apparent anomaly is very simply v = a_p * t,
where a_p is the apparent anomalous acceleration, and t is the
*coordinate* time. There is no integration over "2.63 hours." One
could easily take one half or one third of the data and still get
nearly the same result. The only thing special about 2.63 hours is
that you cherry picked it.

Since your premises are erroneous, your conclusions are irrelevant,
and there is no sense in proceeding.

CM

References
Freedman, W. L. et al. 2001, ApJ, 553, 47
Spergel, D. N., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175

[John C. Polasek]

On 21 May 2006 16:01:56 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> wrote:

>
>John C. Polasek > writes:
>> On 21 May 2006 04:59:04 -0500, Craig Markwardt
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John C. Polasek > writes:
>> >> I have finally have got to my final solution to the Pioneer Anomaly,
>> >> and it is on my website as the first item, in red, as a pdf.
>> >
>> >Note that there is a serious problem with this derivation, namely that
>> >Polasek assumes that the spacecraft is traveling at the speed of
>> >light, "c" (eqns. 4 & 5). The spacecraft is actually traveling at
>> >speed ~12 km/s w.r.t the solar system center.

It later dawned on me that your first objection was that I did not
prove that Hubble could cause A_p and therefore failed. No, I showed
how you could obtain Ap from Hubble on a 2.6 hour scale, and then
showed that it was misapplied by being integrated over 7.5 years as is
manifest on the graph of Fig. 1.
>>
>> You have misread it entirely. First, Eq. 4 is a simple tutorial on
>> conversion in general of a kinematic velocity to a perceived
>> acceleration and c is not involved; it could be Vcraft or any velocity
>> conugate to the distance D. (we have 2: c and Vcraft)..

Let's get something straight first. I told you on page 1 that my
numerical examples would be bsed on Fig. 1where linear acceleration
integrated over linear time is plotted as velocity. This graph which
is repeated several places in the references covers a span of 7.5
years and so at 12km/s would span 19AU which is range D, for which the
signal time is 2.63 hours at velocity c. I took the trouble to
annotate the graph so there would be no mistaking it.
>
>Actually, the error occurs at equation 3. You define "velocity" as
>dX/dt_e where t_e is apparently some arbitrary portion of the light
>travel time. However, velocity is actually defined as the
>derivative w.r.t. some *coordinate* time, hence one of your errors.

How can you be so vapid? dX/dt_e is to distinguish time of emission-
from-the antenna at velocity c, from voyage time at velocity V_cr.
It's not "apparently some arbitrary blah blah blah", it's real time
the extent of which is limited to 2.63 hours because the time from
emission at the antenna to the target is 2.63 hours for 19AU.
The blatant error in the Pioneer experiment stems exactly from using
2.63 hour-data extrapolated over 7.5 years, giving a 25,000:1
magnification, that's why I affix "e" to the t in t_e.

>The Hubble law, v_H = H0 d, is valid for bodies at a distance d. If
>the distance of the body is changing with time at speed v, then one
>can perhaps take the derivative of both sides w.r.t. *coordinate*
>time, d(v_H)/dt = H0 d(d)/dt, H0 being a constant. Defining the left
>hand side as an apparent acceleration, a_H, one finds, a_H = H0 v.
>Note v, *not* c.
You really don't get it. I am saying that WL L = L0(1+Ht), and that
the lengthening WL, L, unbeknownst to the model, would simulate a
shortening range by lower wave count, but better said mathematically
in Eq.3b as
dV =-HD = -Hct_e,
with t_e being the time since emission, t_e, till it strikes the
craft.
>> >The Hubble expansion rate is H = 72 km/s per Mpc of distance.
>>
>> H is by no means established as 72, it is between 50 & 100 ...
>
>Apparently you haven't been aware of developments in cosmology over
>the past decade (Freedman et al 2001; Spergel et al 2003). But
>whether H0 is 50 or 100 or somewhere in between, the Hubble effect
>still cannot explain the Pioneer anomaly since a factor of 2 is still
>far too small.
I guess you still don't understand that I am not trying to show that
Pioneer accelerated at the rate Ap. Ap is synthetic and it is all too
easy to be careless and apply it over the 7.5 year voyage time, which
is the crux of the problem, glaringly depicted in Fig. 1.
The latest cosmological developments also argue that there was a
sudden acceleration in expansion, which will prove to be poppycock,
besides which the "standard model" doesn't even have a cause for
expansion except dark energy or quintessence (which will go the way of
phlogiston).
>
>> >Since
>> >the spacecraft distance is increasing at rate 12 km/s, the apparent
>> >acceleration due to the Hubble flow is a_H = 72 km/s/Mpc * 12 km/s ~
>> >3x10^{-12} cm/s^2. I.e. far too small by a factor of ~10^4.
>>
>> Again, you must have skimmed the paper because it's what I point out
>> in Eq. 7a, stating that A_pcraft is 3.49e-14 m/ss, exactly equal to
>> your reduced value 3e-12cm/ss, 25,000 times lower than Ap.
>> A_pcraft when integrated over 7.5 years is the same velocity as Ap
>> integrated over the 2.63 hour flight time.
>
>Irrelevant. Since you specially chose "2.63 hours" to be smaller than
>7.5 years by the same factor that v is smaller than c,

you are hallucinating.

> there is
>nothing special about your subsequent results. It's just numerology.
>Also note that 2.63 hours is not the one-way or round-trip light
>travel time at any point during the analysis by either Anderson et al
>or Markwardt.

I cannot believe the witless arguments. As I told you above, any
numerics refer to Fig. 1 which I annotated to forfend such talk. Look
at the x-axis and see if you can espy such as 2.63 hrs., 7.5 years,
19AU, 12 km/s. It is a fact that c/Vcraft = 25,000, which I call K.
>
>
>> >There is
>> >no way for any "Hubble effect" to account for the Pioneer anomaly.
>> >
>> >CM
>>
>> In Eq. 5 I am stressing that the root phenomenon is that the wave, at
>> the moment of contact with the craft, is traveling at c, and lambda
>> is increasing at an as yet unestablished Hubble rate, which we derive
>> by setting
>> Ap = -Hc = -8.74e-10m/ss
>> in order to solve for H = 90.07km/smpc. This instant of contact with
>> expanding lambda is all the radar system knows about the phenomenon
>> and is the only information we have to work with. The team divided the
>> excess frequency by time of flight, don't forget.
>
>I won't forget that your claim is incorrect. Neither of the "teams"
>divided the frequency by the light travel time.
Golly moses, do I have to look that up again? It's right out of one of
the standard papers on the topic. I started to include it as an image,
but forgot to do it. Oh, okay I found it, it's in refs. [14] and [9].
"The observed 2 way round trip anomalous effect....as
[fobs(t)-fmodel(t)]DSN=-2fP*t "
(or t_e would be suitable). To find fP is left as an exercise for the
student.
>
>> Therefore, this event being the fundamental information kernel we
>> naturally integrate Ap over 2.63 hours Eq. 7c, to get the error
>> velocity. It is the exact same velocity as A_pcraft integrated over
>> 7.5 years, namely -8.28e-6 m/s as per Eq. 7a.
>
>This is nonsense. The apparent anomaly is very simply v = a_p * t,
>where a_p is the apparent anomalous acceleration, and t is the
>*coordinate* time. There is no integration over "2.63 hours." One
>could easily take one half or one third of the data and still get
>nearly the same result. The only thing special about 2.63 hours is
>that you cherry picked it.

Think, man, think. And forget this coordinate time stuff, this is
straight Goldstein kinematics.

>Since your premises are erroneous, your conclusions are irrelevant,
>and there is no sense in proceeding.
>
>CM
>
>References
>Freedman, W. L. et al. 2001, ApJ, 553, 47
>Spergel, D. N., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net

[Richard Saam]

David A. Smith
Craig Markwardt
John C. Polasek


Hi All

Anybody heard of any progress on
the more refined re-evaluation of archived
Pioneer 10 & 11 trajectory data?
As you probably know,
this is an ongoing effort by NASA and ESA as indicated in:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603016

Richard

[Craig Markwardt]

[ noting version "2" of the file. ]

John C. Polasek > writes:

> On 21 May 2006 16:01:56 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >John C. Polasek > writes:
> >> On 21 May 2006 04:59:04 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >John C. Polasek > writes:
> >> >> I have finally have got to my final solution to the Pioneer Anomaly,
> >> >> and it is on my website as the first item, in red, as a pdf.
> >> >
> >> >Note that there is a serious problem with this derivation, namely that
> >> >Polasek assumes that the spacecraft is traveling at the speed of
> >> >light, "c" (eqns. 4 & 5). The spacecraft is actually traveling at
> >> >speed ~12 km/s w.r.t the solar system center.
>
> It later dawned on me that your first objection was that I did not
> prove that Hubble could cause A_p and therefore failed. No, I showed
> how you could obtain Ap from Hubble on a 2.6 hour scale, and then
> showed that it was misapplied by being integrated over 7.5 years as is
> manifest on the graph of Fig. 1.

However, the 2.6 hour time scale is still irrelevant. Fundamentally,
the Hubble effect is simply too small for a slow-moving spacecraft.

> >>
> >> You have misread it entirely. First, Eq. 4 is a simple tutorial on
> >> conversion in general of a kinematic velocity to a perceived
> >> acceleration and c is not involved; it could be Vcraft or any velocity
> >> conugate to the distance D. (we have 2: c and Vcraft)..
>
> Let's get something straight first. I told you on page 1 that my
> numerical examples would be bsed on Fig. 1where linear acceleration
> integrated over linear time is plotted as velocity. This graph which
> is repeated several places in the references covers a span of 7.5
> years and so at 12km/s would span 19AU which is range D, for which the
> signal time is 2.63 hours at velocity c. I took the trouble to
> annotate the graph so there would be no mistaking it.

Whether you think things are "straight" or not is irrelevant. At no
point during the analysis period in Fig. 1 was the distance to the
spacecraft 19 AU, nor was the round trip light travel time 2.63 hours.
[ The mean distance was ~65 AU. Your 19 AU figure is the approx. *excess*
distance traveled during the analysis period. ]

That plot shows the velocity residuals when setting the anomalous
acceleration equal to zero. THERE IS NO "INTEGRATION" over 7.5 years
or 2.63 hours. The residuals are simply the difference between the
observed and model frequency. You can argue with me about this if you
wish... but then again, I actually did the analysis, and I know that
you are incorrect.

I recommend that you "get something straight" by considering that the
anomaly and its magnitude exist independent of the interpretation.
There is no freedom to dial down the amplitude by a factor of 25000.


> >Actually, the error occurs at equation 3. You define "velocity" as
> >dX/dt_e where t_e is apparently some arbitrary portion of the light
> >travel time. However, velocity is actually defined as the
> >derivative w.r.t. some *coordinate* time, hence one of your errors.
>
> How can you be so vapid? dX/dt_e is to distinguish time of emission-
> from-the antenna at velocity c, from voyage time at velocity V_cr.
> It's not "apparently some arbitrary blah blah blah", it's real time
> the extent of which is limited to 2.63 hours because the time from
> emission at the antenna to the target is 2.63 hours for 19AU.
> The blatant error in the Pioneer experiment stems exactly from using
> 2.63 hour-data extrapolated over 7.5 years, giving a 25,000:1
> magnification, that's why I affix "e" to the t in t_e.

I withdraw my comment about equation 3.

> >The Hubble law, v_H = H0 d, is valid for bodies at a distance d. If
> >the distance of the body is changing with time at speed v, then one
> >can perhaps take the derivative of both sides w.r.t. *coordinate*
> >time, d(v_H)/dt = H0 d(d)/dt, H0 being a constant. Defining the left
> >hand side as an apparent acceleration, a_H, one finds, a_H = H0 v.
> >Note v, *not* c.
> You really don't get it. I am saying that WL L = L0(1+Ht), and that
> the lengthening WL, L, unbeknownst to the model, would simulate a
> shortening range by lower wave count, but better said mathematically
> in Eq.3b as
> dV =-HD = -Hct_e,
> with t_e being the time since emission, t_e, till it strikes the
> craft.

Equations 4 and 5 are still incorrect. You have erroneously confused
your "t_e" with "t". Velocity is a derivative with respect to
coordinate time = clock time = calendar time, *not* with respect to
light travel time, which results in your error of (v/c). As I show
above when the derivative is taken properly, a_H = H0 v.


> >> >The Hubble expansion rate is H = 72 km/s per Mpc of distance.
> >>
> >> H is by no means established as 72, it is between 50 & 100 ...
> >
> >Apparently you haven't been aware of developments in cosmology over
> >the past decade (Freedman et al 2001; Spergel et al 2003). But
> >whether H0 is 50 or 100 or somewhere in between, the Hubble effect
> >still cannot explain the Pioneer anomaly since a factor of 2 is still
> >far too small.
> I guess you still don't understand that I am not trying to show that
> Pioneer accelerated at the rate Ap. Ap is synthetic and it is all too
> easy to be careless and apply it over the 7.5 year voyage time, which
> is the crux of the problem, glaringly depicted in Fig. 1.
> The latest cosmological developments also argue that there was a
> sudden acceleration in expansion, which will prove to be poppycock,
> besides which the "standard model" doesn't even have a cause for
> expansion except dark energy or quintessence (which will go the way of
> phlogiston).

Whatever. I'll reiterate that the Hubble constant measurements are
~72 km/s/Mpc.


> >> >Since
> >> >the spacecraft distance is increasing at rate 12 km/s, the apparent
> >> >acceleration due to the Hubble flow is a_H = 72 km/s/Mpc * 12 km/s ~
> >> >3x10^{-12} cm/s^2. I.e. far too small by a factor of ~10^4.
> >>
> >> Again, you must have skimmed the paper because it's what I point out
> >> in Eq. 7a, stating that A_pcraft is 3.49e-14 m/ss, exactly equal to
> >> your reduced value 3e-12cm/ss, 25,000 times lower than Ap.
> >> A_pcraft when integrated over 7.5 years is the same velocity as Ap
> >> integrated over the 2.63 hour flight time.
> >
> >Irrelevant. Since you specially chose "2.63 hours" to be smaller than
> >7.5 years by the same factor that v is smaller than c,
>
> you are hallucinating.
>
> > there is
> >nothing special about your subsequent results. It's just numerology.
> >Also note that 2.63 hours is not the one-way or round-trip light
> >travel time at any point during the analysis by either Anderson et al
> >or Markwardt.
>
> I cannot believe the witless arguments. As I told you above, any
> numerics refer to Fig. 1 which I annotated to forfend such talk. Look
> at the x-axis and see if you can espy such as 2.63 hrs., 7.5 years,
> 19AU, 12 km/s. It is a fact that c/Vcraft = 25,000, which I call K.

However, let's look at the values you indicate.

T ~ 7.5 years is the analysis interval (Markwardt 2002).
v ~ 12 km/s is the mean spacecraft speed
19 AU is *derived* = v * T
2.63 hours is *derived* = (v * T) / c = T * (v/c)

I.e. the "2.63 hour" time is *exactly* v/c times the analysis
interval. There is nothing interesting about that value, and it
certainly does not represent any kind of light travel time (one-way or
round trip) during the analysis interval that was plotted.



> >> >There is
> >> >no way for any "Hubble effect" to account for the Pioneer anomaly.
> >> >
> >> >CM
> >>
> >> In Eq. 5 I am stressing that the root phenomenon is that the wave, at
> >> the moment of contact with the craft, is traveling at c, and lambda
> >> is increasing at an as yet unestablished Hubble rate, which we derive
> >> by setting
> >> Ap = -Hc = -8.74e-10m/ss
> >> in order to solve for H = 90.07km/smpc. This instant of contact with
> >> expanding lambda is all the radar system knows about the phenomenon
> >> and is the only information we have to work with. The team divided the
> >> excess frequency by time of flight, don't forget.
> >
> >I won't forget that your claim is incorrect. Neither of the "teams"
> >divided the frequency by the light travel time.
> Golly moses, do I have to look that up again? It's right out of one of
> the standard papers on the topic. I started to include it as an image,
> but forgot to do it. Oh, okay I found it, it's in refs. [14] and [9].
> "The observed 2 way round trip anomalous effect....as
> [fobs(t)-fmodel(t)]DSN=-2fP*t "
> (or t_e would be suitable). To find fP is left as an exercise for the
> student.

Your quotation is correct, but "t_e" would *NOT* be suitable. The "t"
in the equation you cite is the coordinate time = clock time =
calendar time since the start of the analysis interval. You are
making the same error that Aladar Stolmar did, years ago.

At no time did anybody (except you and Stolmar) divide by the
frequency residuals by the "time of flight."

> >> Therefore, this event being the fundamental information kernel we
> >> naturally integrate Ap over 2.63 hours Eq. 7c, to get the error
> >> velocity. It is the exact same velocity as A_pcraft integrated over
> >> 7.5 years, namely -8.28e-6 m/s as per Eq. 7a.
> >
> >This is nonsense. The apparent anomaly is very simply v = a_p * t,
> >where a_p is the apparent anomalous acceleration, and t is the
> >*coordinate* time. There is no integration over "2.63 hours." One
> >could easily take one half or one third of the data and still get
> >nearly the same result. The only thing special about 2.63 hours is
> >that you cherry picked it.
>
> Think, man, think. And forget this coordinate time stuff, this is
> straight Goldstein kinematics.

Believe me, I've thought about it far more than you have. You need to
consider that not all "t"s are the same. The "t" in the equation
above is the standard clock time (time since the start of the analysis
interval in 1987). Call it coordinate time, calendar date, whatever,
but it is *not* the same as light travel time.

> >Since your premises are erroneous, your conclusions are irrelevant,
> >and there is no sense in proceeding.
> >
> >CM
> >
> >References
> >Freedman, W. L. et al. 2001, ApJ, 553, 47
> >Spergel, D. N., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175

CM

[John C. Polasek]

On 24 May 2006 03:06:12 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> wrote:

>
>[ noting version "2" of the file. ]
>
>John C. Polasek > writes:
>
>> On 21 May 2006 16:01:56 -0500, Craig Markwardt
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John C. Polasek > writes:
>> >> On 21 May 2006 04:59:04 -0500, Craig Markwardt
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >John C. Polasek > writes:
>> >> >> I have finally have got to my final solution to the Pioneer Anomaly,
>> >> >> and it is on my website as the first item, in red, as a pdf.
>> >> >
>> >> >Note that there is a serious problem with this derivation, namely that
>> >> >Polasek assumes that the spacecraft is traveling at the speed of
>> >> >light, "c" (eqns. 4 & 5). The spacecraft is actually traveling at
>> >> >speed ~12 km/s w.r.t the solar system center.
>>
>> It later dawned on me that your first objection was that I did not
>> prove that Hubble could cause A_p and therefore failed. No, I showed
>> how you could obtain Ap from Hubble on a 2.6 hour scale, and then
>> showed that it was misapplied by being integrated over 7.5 years as is
>> manifest on the graph of Fig. 1.
>
>However, the 2.6 hour time scale is still irrelevant. Fundamentally,
>the Hubble effect is simply too small for a slow-moving spacecraft.
>
>> >>
>> >> You have misread it entirely. First, Eq. 4 is a simple tutorial on
>> >> conversion in general of a kinematic velocity to a perceived
>> >> acceleration and c is not involved; it could be Vcraft or any velocity
>> >> conugate to the distance D. (we have 2: c and Vcraft)..
>>
>> Let's get something straight first. I told you on page 1 that my
>> numerical examples would be bsed on Fig. 1where linear acceleration
>> integrated over linear time is plotted as velocity. This graph which
>> is repeated several places in the references covers a span of 7.5
>> years and so at 12km/s would span 19AU which is range D, for which the
>> signal time is 2.63 hours at velocity c. I took the trouble to
>> annotate the graph so there would be no mistaking it.
>
>Whether you think things are "straight" or not is irrelevant. At no
>point during the analysis period in Fig. 1 was the distance to the
>spacecraft 19 AU, nor was the round trip light travel time 2.63 hours.
>[ The mean distance was ~65 AU. Your 19 AU figure is the approx. *excess*
>distance traveled during the analysis period. ]
This 19/65 AU business is easy to explain and this should clear up the
whole matter: (have you seen v2 of the explanation?)
As you see, the plot was drawn AS IF things started happening at x = 0
AU, which you say is really 55 AU at which point there is shown zero
velocity residual.
This is easily remedied by adding a 55 AU extension to the left end of
the plot, so now it would extend from 0 to 75 AU or so. Now use the
same velocity slope from 0 to 75 AU and so the terminal residual
velocity plotted will now become ~20 cm/s x 75/19 = 78.9 cm/s instead
of 20.
Applying the usual arithmetic, with time extended by K = 75/19, we
find that at 12km/s it now takes 29.6 years and the signal time would
be 10.38 hours.
All of my computations apply as first presented.
>That plot shows the velocity residuals when setting the anomalous
>acceleration equal to zero. THERE IS NO "INTEGRATION" over 7.5 years
>or 2.63 hours. The residuals are simply the difference between the
>observed and model frequency. You can argue with me about this if you
>wish... but then again, I actually did the analysis, and I know that
>you are incorrect.
>
>I recommend that you "get something straight" by considering that the
>anomaly and its magnitude exist independent of the interpretation.
>There is no freedom to dial down the amplitude by a factor of 25000.
>
>
>> >Actually, the error occurs at equation 3. You define "velocity" as
>> >dX/dt_e where t_e is apparently some arbitrary portion of the light
>> >travel time. However, velocity is actually defined as the
>> >derivative w.r.t. some *coordinate* time, hence one of your errors.
>>
>> How can you be so vapid? dX/dt_e is to distinguish time of emission-
>> from-the antenna at velocity c, from voyage time at velocity V_cr.
>> It's not "apparently some arbitrary blah blah blah", it's real time
>> the extent of which is limited to 2.63 hours because the time from
>> emission at the antenna to the target is 2.63 hours for 19AU.
>> The blatant error in the Pioneer experiment stems exactly from using
>> 2.63 hour-data extrapolated over 7.5 years, giving a 25,000:1
>> magnification, that's why I affix "e" to the t in t_e.
>
>I withdraw my comment about equation 3.
>
>> >The Hubble law, v_H = H0 d, is valid for bodies at a distance d. If
>> >the distance of the body is changing with time at speed v, then one
>> >can perhaps take the derivative of both sides w.r.t. *coordinate*
>> >time, d(v_H)/dt = H0 d(d)/dt, H0 being a constant. Defining the left
>> >hand side as an apparent acceleration, a_H, one finds, a_H = H0 v.
>> >Note v, *not* c.
There is another interpretation for H0 and that is fraction/time =
100%/10Byrs, where H0 acts as the derivative operator d/dt as in H*L =
Ldot with H0 affixed.
I did get H0*V as "A_pcraft" lower by a factor of v/c. Ap is conjugate
to Ddot = c, and A_pcarft is conjugate to Ddto = Vcraft.
JP

>> You really don't get it. I am saying that WL L = L0(1+Ht), and that
>> the lengthening WL, L, unbeknownst to the model, would simulate a
>> shortening range by lower wave count, but better said mathematically
>> in Eq.3b as
>> dV =-HD = -Hct_e,
>> with t_e being the time since emission, t_e, till it strikes the
>> craft.
>
>Equations 4 and 5 are still incorrect. You have erroneously confused
>your "t_e" with "t". Velocity is a derivative with respect to
>coordinate time = clock time = calendar time, *not* with respect to
>light travel time, which results in your error of (v/c). As I show
>above when the derivative is taken properly, a_H = H0 v.
>
>
>> >> >The Hubble expansion rate is H = 72 km/s per Mpc of distance.
>> >>
>> >> H is by no means established as 72, it is between 50 & 100 ...
>> >
>> >Apparently you haven't been aware of developments in cosmology over
>> >the past decade (Freedman et al 2001; Spergel et al 2003). But
>> >whether H0 is 50 or 100 or somewhere in between, the Hubble effect
>> >still cannot explain the Pioneer anomaly since a factor of 2 is still
>> >far too small.
>> I guess you still don't understand that I am not trying to show that
>> Pioneer accelerated at the rate Ap. Ap is synthetic and it is all too
>> easy to be careless and apply it over the 7.5 year voyage time, which
>> is the crux of the problem, glaringly depicted in Fig. 1.
>> The latest cosmological developments also argue that there was a
>> sudden acceleration in expansion, which will prove to be poppycock,
>> besides which the "standard model" doesn't even have a cause for
>> expansion except dark energy or quintessence (which will go the way of
>> phlogiston).
>
>Whatever. I'll reiterate that the Hubble constant measurements are
>~72 km/s/Mpc.
No you can't do that. Do you realize what a wobbly standard the
"standard candle" is? Some kind of Cepheids if I remember correctly
whose intensity is supposed to be constant.
JP
>
>> >> >Since
>> >> >the spacecraft distance is increasing at rate 12 km/s, the apparent
>> >> >acceleration due to the Hubble flow is a_H = 72 km/s/Mpc * 12 km/s ~
>> >> >3x10^{-12} cm/s^2. I.e. far too small by a factor of ~10^4.
>> >>
>> >> Again, you must have skimmed the paper because it's what I point out
>> >> in Eq. 7a, stating that A_pcraft is 3.49e-14 m/ss, exactly equal to
>> >> your reduced value 3e-12cm/ss, 25,000 times lower than Ap.
>> >> A_pcraft when integrated over 7.5 years is the same velocity as Ap
>> >> integrated over the 2.63 hour flight time.
>> >
>> >Irrelevant. Since you specially chose "2.63 hours" to be smaller than
>> >7.5 years by the same factor that v is smaller than c,
>>
>> you are hallucinating.
>>
>> > there is
>> >nothing special about your subsequent results. It's just numerology.
>> >Also note that 2.63 hours is not the one-way or round-trip light
>> >travel time at any point during the analysis by either Anderson et al
>> >or Markwardt.
>>
>> I cannot believe the witless arguments. As I told you above, any
>> numerics refer to Fig. 1 which I annotated to forfend such talk. Look
>> at the x-axis and see if you can espy such as 2.63 hrs., 7.5 years,
>> 19AU, 12 km/s. It is a fact that c/Vcraft = 25,000, which I call K.
>
>However, let's look at the values you indicate.
>
> T ~ 7.5 years is the analysis interval (Markwardt 2002).
> v ~ 12 km/s is the mean spacecraft speed
> 19 AU is *derived* = v * T
> 2.63 hours is *derived* = (v * T) / c = T * (v/c)
>
>I.e. the "2.63 hour" time is *exactly* v/c times the analysis
>interval. There is nothing interesting about that value, and it
>certainly does not represent any kind of light travel time (one-way or
>round trip) during the analysis interval that was plotted.
I think I answered that above, if you simply extend the graph. Don't
forget the plot begins at 55AU with zero velocity residual, which
could not be the case.
JP
>
>
>
>> >> >There is
>> >> >no way for any "Hubble effect" to account for the Pioneer anomaly.
Hubble only generates Ap/25,000. I said that.
But the Hubble effect does account for the frequency discrepancy
logged by the team, and it was simply a natural mistake to take dV/dt
and multiply it by 7.5 years, but one which caused a lot of trouble.
JP
>> >> >CM
>> >>
>> >> In Eq. 5 I am stressing that the root phenomenon is that the wave, at
>> >> the moment of contact with the craft, is traveling at c, and lambda
>> >> is increasing at an as yet unestablished Hubble rate, which we derive
>> >> by setting
>> >> Ap = -Hc = -8.74e-10m/ss
>> >> in order to solve for H = 90.07km/smpc. This instant of contact with
>> >> expanding lambda is all the radar system knows about the phenomenon
>> >> and is the only information we have to work with. The team divided the
>> >> excess frequency by time of flight, don't forget.
>> >
>> >I won't forget that your claim is incorrect. Neither of the "teams"
>> >divided the frequency by the light travel time.
>> Golly moses, do I have to look that up again? It's right out of one of
>> the standard papers on the topic. I started to include it as an image,
>> but forgot to do it. Oh, okay I found it, it's in refs. [14] and [9].
>> "The observed 2 way round trip anomalous effect....as
>> [fobs(t)-fmodel(t)]DSN=-2fP*t "
>> (or t_e would be suitable). To find fP is left as an exercise for the
>> student.
>
>Your quotation is correct, but "t_e" would *NOT* be suitable. The "t"
>in the equation you cite is the coordinate time = clock time =
>calendar time since the start of the analysis interval. You are
>making the same error that Aladar Stolmar did, years ago.
>
>At no time did anybody (except you and Stolmar) divide by the
>frequency residuals by the "time of flight."
>
>> >> Therefore, this event being the fundamental information kernel we
>> >> naturally integrate Ap over 2.63 hours Eq. 7c, to get the error
>> >> velocity. It is the exact same velocity as A_pcraft integrated over
>> >> 7.5 years, namely -8.28e-6 m/s as per Eq. 7a.
>> >
>> >This is nonsense. The apparent anomaly is very simply v = a_p * t,
>> >where a_p is the apparent anomalous acceleration, and t is the
>> >*coordinate* time. There is no integration over "2.63 hours." One
>> >could easily take one half or one third of the data and still get
>> >nearly the same result. The only thing special about 2.63 hours is
>> >that you cherry picked it.
>>
>> Think, man, think. And forget this coordinate time stuff, this is
>> straight Goldstein kinematics.
>
>Believe me, I've thought about it far more than you have. You need to
>consider that not all "t"s are the same. The "t" in the equation
>above is the standard clock time (time since the start of the analysis
>interval in 1987). Call it coordinate time, calendar date, whatever,
>but it is *not* the same as light travel time.

Again, when the Pioneer has traveled for N years and the team turns on
the radar and takes a reading from the first return M hours later,
they are both for the same distance V*Nyr or c*Mhrs. The one is a
proxy for the other. The correct Hubble analysis can only be done at
light speed and concentrating on that moment when the wave touches
the Pioneer and analyzing to see what the radar makes of this and it
turns out to be a false velocity equal to - H*D.
>> >Since your premises are erroneous, your conclusions are irrelevant,
>> >and there is no sense in proceeding.
>> >
>> >CM
>> >
>> >References
>> >Freedman, W. L. et al. 2001, ApJ, 553, 47
>> >Spergel, D. N., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175
>
>CM
It think you see that redrawn graph will make things clearer. The
Hubble distance-shrink requires a bit of simple math. I didn't need
that graph-originally I used 70Au and 27.7 years, but numbers are
auditors.

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net

[John C. Polasek]

On Wed, 24 May 2006 15:01:17 GMT, John C. Polasek
> wrote:

>On 24 May 2006 03:06:12 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> wrote:
>
SNIP for now
>>
>>CM
>It think you see that redrawn graph will make things clearer. The
>Hubble distance-shrink requires a bit of simple math. I didn't need
>that graph-originally I used 70Au and 27.7 years, but numbers are
>auditors.
>
>John Polasek
>http://www.dualspace.net

In line with suggestions from Craig Markwardt, I have modified the
paper into Ver. 3 that is I believe more accepable, besides also
citing a reference that derives the expansion of the wavelength from
GR. The URL is
http://burro.astr.case.edu/Academics/Astr328/Notes/Redshift/redshift.html
It's a job to convey what is at the least, subtle, and at worst,
unbelievable, but I think now I've got it.

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net

[George Dishman]

John C. Polasek wrote:
....
> Hubble only generates Ap/25,000. I said that.
> But the Hubble effect does account for the frequency discrepancy
> logged by the team, and it was simply a natural mistake to take dV/dt
> and multiply it by 7.5 years, but one which caused a lot of trouble.

John, I think you are working under a misaprehension,
the team didn't make measurements over individual
transmissions and then extrapolate by 7.5 years as
you seem to be suggesting. The graph you are showing
is actual frequency residuals. They take the actual
increase in the residual and divide by 7.5 years to
find A_p, not the other way round. Thefirst paragraph of
your paper sums that up where you say:

"The Pioneer team found that after dividing the excess
frequency df by the signal flight time, (Fig. 1), they got
a quite definite and constant frequency acceleration
equal to

df' = 5.99*10^-9 Hz/s leading to

A_p = -8.74 * 10^-10 m/s^2 +/- 1.33 * 10^-10 m/s^2"

It would be more accurate to say this instead:

"The Pioneer team found that the change in excess
frequency between 1987 and 1994 was linear with
time at a best fit rate of

df' = 5.99*10^-9 Hz/s

equivalent to what would be produced via the
Doppler effect by a constant acceleration of

A_exp = 7.84 * 10^-10 m/s^2 +/-0.01 * 10^-10 m/s^2"

Note also that 5.99Hz/s is 7.84, not 8.74. The difference
of 0.90 is the result of the biases listed in table 2,
principally the radio beam reaction. All of these (other
than 2g) affect the motion of the craft rather than the
frequency of the beam so you need to treat them
differently.

George

[Craig Markwardt]

"George Dishman" > writes:
> John C. Polasek wrote:
> ...
> > Hubble only generates Ap/25,000. I said that.
> > But the Hubble effect does account for the frequency discrepancy
> > logged by the team, and it was simply a natural mistake to take dV/dt
> > and multiply it by 7.5 years, but one which caused a lot of trouble.
>
> John, I think you are working under a misaprehension,
> the team didn't make measurements over individual
> transmissions and then extrapolate by 7.5 years as
> you seem to be suggesting. The graph you are showing
> is actual frequency residuals. They take the actual
> increase in the residual and divide by 7.5 years to
> find A_p, not the other way round. Thefirst paragraph of
> your paper sums that up where you say:

George, I tried explaining that to Polasek, but he ignored my comments
in that regard. Sigh.

Craig

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig B. Markwardt, Ph.D. EMAIL:
Astrophysics, IDL, Finance, Derivatives | Remove "net" for better response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[George Dishman]

Craig Markwardt wrote:
> "George Dishman" > writes:
> > John C. Polasek wrote:
> > ...
> > > Hubble only generates Ap/25,000. I said that.
> > > But the Hubble effect does account for the frequency discrepancy
> > > logged by the team, and it was simply a natural mistake to take dV/dt
> > > and multiply it by 7.5 years, but one which caused a lot of trouble.
> >
> > John, I think you are working under a misaprehension,
> > the team didn't make measurements over individual
> > transmissions and then extrapolate by 7.5 years as
> > you seem to be suggesting. The graph you are showing
> > is actual frequency residuals. They take the actual
> > increase in the residual and divide by 7.5 years to
> > find A_p, not the other way round. Thefirst paragraph of
> > your paper sums that up where you say:
>
> George, I tried explaining that to Polasek, but he ignored my comments
> in that regard. Sigh.

Hi Craig,

I can see where you pointed it out but from John's
reply, I don't think he appreciated what you were
saying. I've tried to avoid the other issues that have
come up as sidelines and just focus on that core
problem to see if that will help. Sometimes two
people saying the same thing in different ways
can emphasise the point.

best regards
George

[John C. Polasek]

On 25 May 2006 05:20:24 -0700, "George Dishman"
> wrote:

>
>Craig Markwardt wrote:
>> "George Dishman" > writes:
>> > John C. Polasek wrote:
>> > ...
>> > > Hubble only generates Ap/25,000. I said that.
>> > > But the Hubble effect does account for the frequency discrepancy
>> > > logged by the team, and it was simply a natural mistake to take dV/dt
>> > > and multiply it by 7.5 years, but one which caused a lot of trouble.
>> >
>> > John, I think you are working under a misaprehension,
>> > the team didn't make measurements over individual
>> > transmissions and then extrapolate by 7.5 years as
>> > you seem to be suggesting. The graph you are showing
>> > is actual frequency residuals. They take the actual
>> > increase in the residual and divide by 7.5 years to
>> > find A_p, not the other way round. Thefirst paragraph of
>> > your paper sums that up where you say:
>>
>> George, I tried explaining that to Polasek, but he ignored my comments
>> in that regard. Sigh.
>
>Hi Craig,
>
>I can see where you pointed it out but from John's
>reply, I don't think he appreciated what you were
>saying. I've tried to avoid the other issues that have
>come up as sidelines and just focus on that core
>problem to see if that will help. Sometimes two
>people saying the same thing in different ways
>can emphasise the point.
>
>best regards
>George
Take a look at http://www.dualspace.net/uploads/cosmoarxivnu3.pdf.
I have edited the paper to clarify what Craig objected to. Now I
include as Figure 1 a transcript of the team's calculation of fP as
frequency difference over the 2-way round trip
fobs - fmod = -2*fP*t (2)
which clearly implies the signal round trip time.
That is the same basis I used and my argument still stands.
Take a look at that and see if there is still a conflict. Otherwise we
still have the spectre of undocumented forces.

John

[George Dishman]

John C. Polasek wrote:
> On 25 May 2006 05:20:24 -0700, "George Dishman"
> > wrote:
>

> Take a look at http://www.dualspace.net/uploads/cosmoarxivnu3.pdf.
> I have edited the paper to clarify what Craig objected to. Now I
> include as Figure 1 a transcript of the team's calculation of fP as
> frequency difference over the 2-way round trip
> fobs - fmod = -2*fP*t (2)
> which clearly implies the signal round trip time.

The value [fobs(t) - fmodel(t)] is the error in the
frequency measured in two-way mode. The model
was initialised in 1987 so at that time fmodel was
set equal to fobs. The discrepancy between the
measured frequency and the model prediction
by the end of 1994 was about 3Hz (two way). If
you divide 3Hz by ~8 years you get the figure they
quote of f'p ~ 6*10^-9Hz/s. In your equation above
therefore, the variable t represents the calendar
time since the model was initialised. In other
words, t is simply the horizontal axis of the graph
which you reproduce in your paper.

> That is the same basis I used and my argument still stands.
> Take a look at that and see if there is still a conflict. Otherwise we
> still have the spectre of undocumented forces.

Yes, there is a conflict. I re-read your paper before
I posted because I was aware you were updating
it and might have corrected the description since I
last looked.

The point is that the value of a 3Hz discrepancy
by 1994 if the model is initialised in 1987 is a
direct measurement, not an integrated or
extrapolated number. All of the readings around
that time are about 3Hz higher than they should
be, and yes that does appear to require an as
yet undetermined force on the craft.

George

[John C. Polasek]

On 25 May 2006 08:46:10 -0700, "George Dishman"
> wrote:

>
>John C. Polasek wrote:
>> On 25 May 2006 05:20:24 -0700, "George Dishman"
>> > wrote:
>>
>
>> Take a look at http://www.dualspace.net/uploads/cosmoarxivnu3.pdf.
>> I have edited the paper to clarify what Craig objected to. Now I
>> include as Figure 1 a transcript of the team's calculation of fP as
>> frequency difference over the 2-way round trip
>> fobs - fmod = -2*fP*t (2)
>> which clearly implies the signal round trip time.
>
>The value [fobs(t) - fmodel(t)] is the error in the
>frequency measured in two-way mode. The model
>was initialised in 1987 so at that time fmodel was
>set equal to fobs. The discrepancy between the
>measured frequency and the model prediction
>by the end of 1994 was about 3Hz (two way). If
>you divide 3Hz by ~8 years you get the figure they
>quote of f'p ~ 6*10^-9Hz/s. In your equation above
>therefore, the variable t represents the calendar
>time since the model was initialised. In other
>words, t is simply the horizontal axis of the graph
>which you reproduce in your paper.
>
>> That is the same basis I used and my argument still stands.
>> Take a look at that and see if there is still a conflict. Otherwise we
>> still have the spectre of undocumented forces.
>
>Yes, there is a conflict. I re-read your paper before
>I posted because I was aware you were updating
>it and might have corrected the description since I
>last looked.
>
>The point is that the value of a 3Hz discrepancy
>by 1994 if the model is initialised in 1987 is a
>direct measurement, not an integrated or
>extrapolated number. All of the readings around
>that time are about 3Hz higher than they should
>be, and yes that does appear to require an as
>yet undetermined force on the craft.
>
>George
I have a new interpretation for the Pioneer anomaly which I have
disstributed also to members of the Pioneer team. Your insistence that
the 7.5 year plot contained legitimate detected amplitudes and
George's remark about resetting the system in 1987 caused me to
rethink, as follows:

Gentlemen:

(I hope you appreciate the work I put into my Pioneer solution
"Pioneer 10 anomaly explained by Hubble expansion of wavelength" but I
have discarded it in favor of new findings below).

Previous theory was OK, but…
I finally have a new and hopefully final, solution for the Pioneer
anomaly problem. It is different from the one previously presented
that was based on wavelength expansion, which is still true, but is a
minor contributor to the extent of 1/25,000. l does expand at Hubble
rate after emission and contributes its snippet. The new solution
contains a major surprise.

Finding that the 7.5 year time plot could be true
At the insistence of Craig Markwardt and George Dishman I have
re-examined their statements that the plot in Fig. 2 was a plot of
real residuals, not algebraic extrapolations. But this meant that
Hubble had to be acting for the full 7.5 years, which seemingly would
be out of scale at the speed of light. For another thing, this in one
way seemed to imply the need to compare a clock’s rate with its own
rate 7.5 years ago, which seems an impossibility. Also, I was
convinced that one could only take frequency differences over
hours-long send-receive times (especially since Eq.(2) in Fig. 1
mentioned round trip times but did not specify that t was in calendar
years), to the exclusion of any 7.5 year comparison. (But I had also
misread fmodel = ftrans which was wrong).

Plot and frequency initialized in 1987
Then we discussed that Fig. 2 was a 25% slice of a 30-year voyage and
George made the useful remark that "The model was initialized in 1987
so that at that time fmodel was set equal to fobs".

The light dawns
That immediately struck a bell and I could see that the JPL model must
somehow contain within itself, evidence of a clock frozen in time with
a frequency that was true in 1987. But how could the digital program
hold the original clock rate? It cannot be done in the laboratory. We
know the program sets an increment Dt for use with its difference
equations to integrate Newtonian accelerations. At the same time, it
would later need a wavelength L with which to convert computed
velocities to actual frequency to be beat with the incoming fobs via:

f = -v/l where L = c/fobs

and f = F87 (constant)

In that way everything is locked together in the computer, including
F87 = fobs in 1987. It preserves the old clock frequency inside the
program enabling it to synthesize the original frequency. (I am only
quite sure that this train of logic is correct).

Hubble increase in clock f and c

Now we propose that all atomic clock rates increase at Hubble rate and
similarly that c increases at Hubble rate (H*c = Ap). These are
"proved" in my Dual Space text [12] (by proof I mean that there is a
convincing self-consistency in their derivation).

Therefore, using the previously derived value for Hubble:

H = -Ap/c = 2.9e-18 1/sec (= aP in Anderson, 1 Oct. 1998)

we call the fractional Hubble change over 7.5 years as eps:

eps = H*7.5 years = 6.9e-10

so that the increments in velocity and frequency over 7.5 years will
be:

Dv = eps*c = 20 cm/s

Df = eps*fdn = 1.5 Hz/s where fdn = 2.292 Ghz

thus matching the amplitudes in the plot of Fig. 2, by virtue of the
legacy value of frequency, F87. In short all the samplings can be
expressed as repeated comparisons with the original clock rate from
the computer:

Df_i = fobs_i - F87

linearly increasing in time since 1987.

The Big Surprise!
The above analysis also hides a big surprise. Since in any beat
calculation, we can use either of fobs or ftrans with little
difference (1 part in 25,000), we don’t need the Pioneer. This is not
a typographical error. All we are doing at the station is comparing
today’s station clock with its condition N years ago (as stored under
lock and key in the computer program)! All the peregrinations that
might occur on the 30-year voyage are therefore of no consequence.

Easy experiment to determine a fundamental cosmological constant:
Hubble H0
Here is an experiment that could be done with little expense, given
sufficient time, providing a wonderful opportunity to refine the value
of the Hubble constant. Only the exquisite statistics and longevity of
the Pioneer were able to bring about this finding.


I will be writing a formal paper to further cement the findings, and
while I am loath to abandon a quite ingenious train of thought, as
someone said (or will say) "Simplicity trumps ingenuity".


I thank you for your kind attention and especially George and Craig
for their persistence. I believe this solution is about as simple as
can possibly be.


John Polasek

http://www.dualspace.net


p.s. In justifying the H*f, H*c themes, you might want to visit my web
site and read paper #2, my explanation of gravity in which I affix a
new term to Newton’s equation:

cdc/dr = -g = MG/r^2 = c*H,

in which dc/dr is a kinematic coefficient (as explained in prior
Pioneer paper) combined with c, our (conjugate) velocity away from the
center of mass of the universe, the combination equating to cdc/dr =
-Ap. This says our universe has a slight acceleration away from the
center of mass, in a universe where time and space are separate. It is
an abstract from my book Dual Space, New Physics for a New Century. I
have not put it with Amazon since a perusal by several scholars has
elicited no comment. It is available at Principia Publishing Co., 1015
Maitland Center Commons, Suite 110, Maitland FL, 32751 or by email.

[Craig Markwardt]

John C. Polasek > writes:
....
> Hubble increase in clock f and c
>
> Now we propose that all atomic clock rates increase at Hubble rate and
> similarly that c increases at Hubble rate (H*c = Ap). These are
> "proved" in my Dual Space text [12] (by proof I mean that there is a
> convincing self-consistency in their derivation).
....

I do *not* subscribe to your "proof," as it's worth noting that
Anderson et al found that a "drifting clock" model was rejected after
considering all of the data (Pioneers + other spacecraft).


> The Big Surprise!
> The above analysis also hides a big surprise. Since in any beat
> calculation, we can use either of fobs or ftrans with little
> difference (1 part in 25,000), we don¢t need the Pioneer. This is not
> a typographical error. All we are doing at the station is comparing
> today¢s station clock with its condition N years ago (as stored under
> lock and key in the computer program)! All the peregrinations that
> might occur on the 30-year voyage are therefore of no consequence.

That is incorrect. The Pioneer effect is based on the carrier
frequency uplinked to the spacecraft, which is then retransmitted to
the ground with a fixed turnaround frequency multiplier. Aside from
the round-trip light travel time, the Pioneer effect at a given time
is compared with references frequencies sent at that time, not in 1987.

The Pioneer effect is a discrepancy between the doppler measurements
and a model of the spacecraft motions. The special thing that
happened in 1987 was that the *model* was initialized then. I could
just have easily initialized the model in 1991 (or 1994), and then the
zero-crossing of the residuals would have occurred at that time
instead of 1987.

CM

[Craig Markwardt]

Richard Saam > writes:
> David A. Smith
> Craig Markwardt
> John C. Polasek
>
>
> Hi All
>
> Anybody heard of any progress on
> the more refined re-evaluation of archived
> Pioneer 10 & 11 trajectory data?
> As you probably know,
> this is an ongoing effort by NASA and ESA as indicated in:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603016

I haven't been involved in that work for several months, but I think
there are groups interested in working on it.

Craig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig B. Markwardt, Ph.D. EMAIL:
Astrophysics, IDL, Finance, Derivatives | Remove "net" for better response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[John C. Polasek]

On 28 May 2006 14:42:37 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> wrote:

>
>John C. Polasek > writes:
>...
>> Hubble increase in clock f and c
>>
>> Now we propose that all atomic clock rates increase at Hubble rate and
>> similarly that c increases at Hubble rate (H*c = Ap). These are
>> "proved" in my Dual Space text [12] (by proof I mean that there is a
>> convincing self-consistency in their derivation).
>...
>
>I do *not* subscribe to your "proof," as it's worth noting that
>Anderson et al found that a "drifting clock" model was rejected after
>considering all of the data (Pioneers + other spacecraft).
>
>
>> The Big Surprise!
>> The above analysis also hides a big surprise. Since in any beat
>> calculation, we can use either of fobs or ftrans with little
>> difference (1 part in 25,000), we don¢t need the Pioneer. This is not
>> a typographical error. All we are doing at the station is comparing
>> today¢s station clock with its condition N years ago (as stored under
>> lock and key in the computer program)! All the peregrinations that
>> might occur on the 30-year voyage are therefore of no consequence.
>
>That is incorrect. The Pioneer effect is based on the carrier
>frequency uplinked to the spacecraft, which is then retransmitted to
>the ground with a fixed turnaround frequency multiplier. Aside from
>the round-trip light travel time, the Pioneer effect at a given time
>is compared with references frequencies sent at that time, not in 1987.
JP>
Your statement just above, "the Pioneer effect at a...................
frequencies sent at that time, not in 1987" is not clear. In all
references the only comparison mentioned is between return frequency
and MODEL frequency, and never with transmitted frequency. In
dicussions of Ap and fP, reference is always made to Fig. 2 which is
clearly bench-marked at 1987.
I have already calculated a reduced version of Ap based on round trip
time and it's low by v/c. A full-value of Ap via Hubble can only occur
with the fractional increment of H0 x 7.5 years = 6.9e-10.
And I also pointed out that it's immaterial whether we use the
transmitted frequency vs the model, (and so having nothing to do with
the Pioneer), or the return signal. The magic comes in the fact that
the computer is able to deal in 1987 frequency, having no reason to
think it would increase at the very low Hubble rate. (At 2.292GHz it
takes 4.7 years to increase by 1 Hz). JP
>
>The Pioneer effect is a discrepancy between the doppler measurements
>and a model of the spacecraft motions. The special thing that
>happened in 1987 was that the *model* was initialized then. I could
>just have easily initialized the model in 1991 (or 1994), and then the
>zero-crossing of the residuals would have occurred at that time
>instead of 1987.
>
>CM
JP>
It's sufficient if the computer model was initialized in 1987 and then
left alone, while all clock frequencies increased at Hubble rate. Then
the difference with the model will rise to 1.5 Hz in the 7,t years, if
Hubble is taken as -Ap/c = 90kms/smpc. JP

John Polasek

[John C. Polasek]

On 28 May 2006 14:42:37 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> wrote:

>
>John C. Polasek > writes:
>...
>> Hubble increase in clock f and c
>>
>> Now we propose that all atomic clock rates increase at Hubble rate and
>> similarly that c increases at Hubble rate (H*c = Ap). These are
>> "proved" in my Dual Space text [12] (by proof I mean that there is a
>> convincing self-consistency in their derivation).
>...
>
>I do *not* subscribe to your "proof," as it's worth noting that
>Anderson et al found that a "drifting clock" model was rejected after
>considering all of the data (Pioneers + other spacecraft).
>
Craig, you cited Turyshev 9 Mar 1999, saying they rejected the system
adjustment that "adds a constant frequency drift to the reference
frequency….fits Doppler well, but RANGE POORLY", in an attempt to
match the model.
The model assumed fixed f, L and c so f*L = c. Evidently the up-ramp
station frequency was nullified or ramped down by 1 - Kt, (to zero
ramp), easily matching the Doppler comparison with the model.

But the next stage is conversion of this "improved" f to V via V =
-fbeat x L. Since the model assumes constant c it is necessary to
commensurately increase L. If L was not so adjusted range errors will
result upon integrating a V that is too low. In short, augmenting f to
nullify the ramp is but one step, requiring in the next step, an
increase of L to match the model's constant-c principle. I would have
no way to find out if they adjusted L or not.

There is no excuse for improper range if the Doppler match is perfect;
L has to be right.

Incidentally, the model is in error by my theory, in that both f and c
increase secularly at Hf and Hc, but I merely point out how the range
errors could result in their drift model.

>>snip
>
>CM
John Polasek

[Craig Markwardt]

John C. Polasek > writes:


> On 28 May 2006 14:42:37 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> > wrote:
> >John C. Polasek > writes:
....
> >> lock and key in the computer program)! All the peregrinations that
> >> might occur on the 30-year voyage are therefore of no consequence.
> >
> >That is incorrect. The Pioneer effect is based on the carrier
> >frequency uplinked to the spacecraft, which is then retransmitted to
> >the ground with a fixed turnaround frequency multiplier. Aside from
> >the round-trip light travel time, the Pioneer effect at a given time
> >is compared with references frequencies sent at that time, not in 1987.
> JP>
> Your statement just above, "the Pioneer effect at a...................
> frequencies sent at that time, not in 1987" is not clear. In all
> references the only comparison mentioned is between return frequency
> and MODEL frequency, and never with transmitted frequency.

While this is correct, you neglect to mention that the downlink
frequency *is* the uplink frequency, modified by Doppler shifts and
the transponder turnaround mechanism. In that fashion, the downlink
frequency is directly dependent on the frequency uplinked just hours
earlier (not in 1987). I suggest you read about the techniques used
rather than speculating wildly.


> And I also pointed out that it's immaterial whether we use the
> transmitted frequency vs the model, (and so having nothing to do with
> the Pioneer), or the return signal. The magic comes in the fact that
> the computer is able to deal in 1987 frequency, having no reason to
> think it would increase at the very low Hubble rate. (At 2.292GHz it
> takes 4.7 years to increase by 1 Hz). JP

This is incorrect. The observed downlink frequency depends on the
earth and craft motions, and on the uplink frequency which is derived
from the station clocks at that time (not in 1987). There is no
frequency dependence on 1987.

> >The Pioneer effect is a discrepancy between the doppler measurements
> >and a model of the spacecraft motions. The special thing that
> >happened in 1987 was that the *model* was initialized then. I could
> >just have easily initialized the model in 1991 (or 1994), and then the
> >zero-crossing of the residuals would have occurred at that time
> >instead of 1987.
> >
> >CM
> JP>
> It's sufficient if the computer model was initialized in 1987 and then
> left alone, while all clock frequencies increased at Hubble rate. Then
> the difference with the model will rise to 1.5 Hz in the 7,t years, if
> Hubble is taken as -Ap/c = 90kms/smpc. JP

It is insufficient, since there were no frequencies "initialized" in
1987. It is the model of the spacecraft *trajectory* that was
initialized in 1987.

CM

[Craig Markwardt]

John C. Polasek > writes:

> On 28 May 2006 14:42:37 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >John C. Polasek > writes:
> >...
> >> Hubble increase in clock f and c
> >>
> >> Now we propose that all atomic clock rates increase at Hubble rate and
> >> similarly that c increases at Hubble rate (H*c = Ap). These are
> >> "proved" in my Dual Space text [12] (by proof I mean that there is a
> >> convincing self-consistency in their derivation).
> >...
> >
> >I do *not* subscribe to your "proof," as it's worth noting that
> >Anderson et al found that a "drifting clock" model was rejected after
> >considering all of the data (Pioneers + other spacecraft).
> >
> Craig, you cited Turyshev 9 Mar 1999, saying they rejected the system
> adjustment that "adds a constant frequency drift to the reference
> frequencyÉ.fits Doppler well, but RANGE POORLY", in an attempt to
> match the model.

I wasn't citing any Turyshev paper. I was quoting the Anderson et al
2002 paper, and they were not just talking about the Pioneers, but
Galileo and Ulysses, which have a combination of doppler and ranging
data.


> The model assumed fixed f, L and c so f*L = c.

Unclear what this means. However, your suppositions regarding
frequency in the other post were incorrect.

> Evidently the up-ramp
> station frequency was nullified or ramped down by 1 - Kt, (to zero
> ramp), easily matching the Doppler comparison with the model.

Incorrect. Frequency "ramping" was not used for the Pioneer doppler
tracking.

CM

References
J. D. Anderson, et al 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 082004

[John C. Polasek]

On 29 May 2006 02:02:25 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> wrote:

>John C. Polasek > writes:
>
>
>> On 28 May 2006 14:42:37 -0500, Craig Markwardt
>> > wrote:
>> >John C. Polasek > writes:
>...
>> >> lock and key in the computer program)! All the peregrinations that
>> >> might occur on the 30-year voyage are therefore of no consequence.
>> >
>> >That is incorrect. The Pioneer effect is based on the carrier
>> >frequency uplinked to the spacecraft, which is then retransmitted to
>> >the ground with a fixed turnaround frequency multiplier. Aside from
>> >the round-trip light travel time, the Pioneer effect at a given time
>> >is compared with references frequencies sent at that time, not in 1987.
>> JP>
>> Your statement just above, "the Pioneer effect at a...................
>> frequencies sent at that time, not in 1987" is not clear. In all
>> references the only comparison mentioned is between return frequency
>> and MODEL frequency, and never with transmitted frequency.
>
>While this is correct, you neglect to mention that the downlink
>frequency *is* the uplink frequency, modified by Doppler shifts and
>the transponder turnaround mechanism. In that fashion, the downlink
>frequency is directly dependent on the frequency uplinked just hours
>earlier (not in 1987). I suggest you read about the techniques used
>rather than speculating wildly.
You'll have to be more specific; I fail to see the speculation.
>
>> And I also pointed out that it's immaterial whether we use the
>> transmitted frequency vs the model, (and so having nothing to do with
>> the Pioneer), or the return signal. The magic comes in the fact that
>> the computer is able to deal in 1987 frequency, having no reason to
>> think it would increase at the very low Hubble rate. (At 2.292GHz it
>> takes 4.7 years to increase by 1 Hz). JP
>
>This is incorrect. The observed downlink frequency depends on the
>earth and craft motions, and on the uplink frequency which is derived
>from the station clocks at that time (not in 1987). There is no
>frequency dependence on 1987.
>
>> >The Pioneer effect is a discrepancy between the doppler measurements
>> >and a model of the spacecraft motions. The special thing that
>> >happened in 1987 was that the *model* was initialized then. I could
>> >just have easily initialized the model in 1991 (or 1994), and then the
>> >zero-crossing of the residuals would have occurred at that time
>> >instead of 1987.
>> >
>> >CM
>> JP>
>> It's sufficient if the computer model was initialized in 1987 and then
>> left alone, while all clock frequencies increased at Hubble rate. Then
>> the difference with the model will rise to 1.5 Hz in the 7,t years, if
>> Hubble is taken as -Ap/c = 90kms/smpc. JP
>
>It is insufficient, since there were no frequencies "initialized" in
>1987. It is the model of the spacecraft *trajectory* that was
>initialized in 1987.
>
>CM

There are no secret forces pushing the Pioneer. It's a matter of
Hubble expansion.
Your time plot of frequency over 7.5 years obviously obeys
Df = H*T75*f0 = 1.5 Hz
It takes Hubble 7.5 years to advance by 1.5 Hz but the signal flight
time is only 2.63 hours. You say everything that happens is in that
flight period between ftran and frec and with that same arithmetic we
get
Dfquick = H*2.63hr*f0 = 5x10^-5Hz
I see place in the literature where they detected such a minute
increment. As you see it's a direct scaling between mission time and
flight time. And this extreme accuracy is necessary if , to quote you:
"The observed downlink frequency depends on the earth and craft
motions, and on the uplink frequency which is derived from the station
clocks at that time (not in 1987)".

It is clear that the round trip frequency difference is principally a
94,000 Hz note for the 12km/s velocity, making it very difficult
indeed to filter out 5x10^-5Hz, 1 part in .5 billion.It is not
possible to detect the value of Ap in a turnaround of 2.63 hours.

As George said in his note above,
"The model was initialised in 1987 so at that time fmodel was set
equal to fobs."
The computer model clearly was so initialized as to time and
frequency. You can see there would be no motivationto readjust these.
It only had to preserve the 1987 value of L to convert model velocity
to frequency, therefore the model would fall behind. So if all clocks
advanced at Hubble rate with or without the Pioneer vehicle, then
clearly the difference between current station frequency and the 1987
model would be 1.5 Hz.

John Polasek

[John C. Polasek]

On 30 May 2006 14:34:28 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> wrote:

>
>John C. Polasek > writes:
>
>> On 29 May 2006 02:02:25 -0500, Craig Markwardt
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >John C. Polasek > writes:
>> >
>> >
>> >> On 28 May 2006 14:42:37 -0500, Craig Markwardt
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >John C. Polasek > writes:
>> >...
>> >> >> lock and key in the computer program)! All the peregrinations that
>> >> >> might occur on the 30-year voyage are therefore of no consequence.
>> >> >
>> >> >That is incorrect. The Pioneer effect is based on the carrier
>> >> >frequency uplinked to the spacecraft, which is then retransmitted to
>> >> >the ground with a fixed turnaround frequency multiplier. Aside from
>> >> >the round-trip light travel time, the Pioneer effect at a given time
>> >> >is compared with references frequencies sent at that time, not in 1987.
>> >> JP>
>> >> Your statement just above, "the Pioneer effect at a...................
>> >> frequencies sent at that time, not in 1987" is not clear. In all
>> >> references the only comparison mentioned is between return frequency
>> >> and MODEL frequency, and never with transmitted frequency.
>> >
>> >While this is correct, you neglect to mention that the downlink
>> >frequency *is* the uplink frequency, modified by Doppler shifts and
>> >the transponder turnaround mechanism. In that fashion, the downlink
>> >frequency is directly dependent on the frequency uplinked just hours
>> >earlier (not in 1987). I suggest you read about the techniques used
>> >rather than speculating wildly.
>> You'll have to be more specific; I fail to see the speculation.
>
>Your erroneous speculation was that because only the downlink
>frequency and the model frequency were compared, that the uplink
>frequency was inconsequential. In fact, the uplink frequency
>generated at the time of the track (not in 1987) is crucial to the
>analysis. In essence, the observed downlink carrier *is* the uplink
>carrier, plus the mentioned modifications.
>
>> >
>> >> And I also pointed out that it's immaterial whether we use the
>> >> transmitted frequency vs the model, (and so having nothing to do with
>> >> the Pioneer), or the return signal. The magic comes in the fact that
>> >> the computer is able to deal in 1987 frequency, having no reason to
>> >> think it would increase at the very low Hubble rate. (At 2.292GHz it
>> >> takes 4.7 years to increase by 1 Hz). JP
>> >
>> >This is incorrect. The observed downlink frequency depends on the
>> >earth and craft motions, and on the uplink frequency which is derived
>> >from the station clocks at that time (not in 1987). There is no
>> >frequency dependence on 1987.

I already computed for you "little Ap" in the previous paper that
showed retrograde motion due to stretching of WL. Now I am explaining
to you "big Ap" = 8.74e-10m/ss that is purely due to speedup of the
clocks. It swamps "little Ap" by 25,000 to 1 which is why I said it
makes no difference which of ftran or frec is used, they both
represent closely enough the current clock rates. Furthermore it is no
function of the action of the Pioneer.
>Note, no response.
>
>> >
>> >> >The Pioneer effect is a discrepancy between the doppler measurements
>> >> >and a model of the spacecraft motions. The special thing that
>> >> >happened in 1987 was that the *model* was initialized then. I could
>> >> >just have easily initialized the model in 1991 (or 1994), and then the
>> >> >zero-crossing of the residuals would have occurred at that time
>> >> >instead of 1987.
>> >> >
>> >> >CM
>> >> JP>
>> >> It's sufficient if the computer model was initialized in 1987 and then
>> >> left alone, while all clock frequencies increased at Hubble rate. Then
>> >> the difference with the model will rise to 1.5 Hz in the 7,t years, if
>> >> Hubble is taken as -Ap/c = 90kms/smpc. JP
>> >
>> >It is insufficient, since there were no frequencies "initialized" in
>> >1987. It is the model of the spacecraft *trajectory* that was
>> >initialized in 1987.
>> >
>> >CM
I see you saw fit to cut out my entire message, which I reattach in
part here:

"Your time plot of frequency over 7.5 years obviously obeys
Df = H*T75*f0 = 1.5 Hz
It takes Hubble 7.5 years to advance by 1.5 Hz but the signal flight
time is only 2.63 hours. You say everything that happens is in that
flight period between ftran and frec and with that same arithmetic we
get
Dfquick = H*2.63hr*f0 = 5x10^-5Hz
I see NO place in the literature where they detected such a minute
increment".

Just scale the 7,5 year graph down to the corresponding flight time of
2.63 hours and you get Dfquick above, an impossible quantity to detect
especially when it's riding on " a 94,000 Hz note for the 12km/s
velocity, making it very difficult indeed to filter out 5x10^-5Hz, 1
part in .5 billion.It is not possible to detect the value of Ap in a
turnaround of 2.63 hours".


>>
>> As George said in his note above,
>> "The model was initialised in 1987 so at that time fmodel was set
>> equal to fobs."
>> The computer model clearly was so initialized as to time and
>> frequency. You can see there would be no motivationto readjust these.
>> ...
>
>You are incorrect. What was initialized in 1987 was the *trajectory*
>model. Each tracking uplink provides a self contained coherent
>frequency reference at the time of the session (not 1987). There are
>no variables in the solution program which store the frequency as it
>was in 1987.
If by trajectory you mean the orbital elements were determined in 1987
then, fine, but to produce actual ranges and velocities the
mathematical model has to include a good value of G to convert planet
distance into accelerations, to be integrated into real velocity. Then
to convert the velocity to frequency for comparison of Doppler phase
slippage, the program had to contain the multiplier f0/c as given in
Eq. 1 of Anderson, 10 Mar. 2005:
delta f(t) = f0*(1/c)*dr/dt
The conversion of dr/dt to delta f uses f0/c. Are you trying to tell
me that on initiation of each 5-day batch, they caused a re-setting of
f0 to match the current clock? It does not seem likely. It is far more
logical that f0 and c are known quantities left alone at 1987 values
to do their work. This would surely be the case if it was thought that
f0 did not change with time, as must have been the case. Only later
was that idea questioned.

What I am positing is a clock that speeds up at Hubble rate over the
7.5 year period, and being tested against the program clock that is
represented by the set of constants installed in the program in 1987
and assumed constant in rate.. And clearly some adjustment was made in
1987 to bring about zero residual.
JP

John Polasek

[Craig Markwardt]

John C. Polasek > writes:


> On 30 May 2006 14:34:28 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> > wrote:
> >John C. Polasek > writes:
....
> >> As George said in his note above,
> >> "The model was initialised in 1987 so at that time fmodel was set
> >> equal to fobs."
> >> The computer model clearly was so initialized as to time and
> >> frequency. You can see there would be no motivationto readjust these.
> >> ...
> >
> >You are incorrect. What was initialized in 1987 was the *trajectory*
> >model. Each tracking uplink provides a self contained coherent
> >frequency reference at the time of the session (not 1987). There are
> >no variables in the solution program which store the frequency as it
> >was in 1987.
> If by trajectory you mean the orbital elements were determined in 1987
> then, fine, but to produce actual ranges and velocities the
> mathematical model has to include a good value of G to convert planet
> distance into accelerations, to be integrated into real velocity. Then
> to convert the velocity to frequency for comparison of Doppler phase
> slippage, the program had to contain the multiplier f0/c as given in
> Eq. 1 of Anderson, 10 Mar. 2005:
[ note incorrect citation ]
> delta f(t) = f0*(1/c)*dr/dt
> The conversion of dr/dt to delta f uses f0/c. Are you trying to tell
> me that on initiation of each 5-day batch, they caused a re-setting of
> f0 to match the current clock? It does not seem likely. ...

The equation you are citing is one that describes how DSN tracking
works in generic terms, and does not contain all of the technical
details. Still, if you had read the attached footnote (#38), you
would have found that "nu_0" is the "reference frequency." In fact,
the reference frequency is recorded at the moment of the tracking
session (it is the frequency standard of the station), and *NOT* in
1987. (see also eqn 13). It is not reset in "each 5-day batch,"
because it is recorded in each and every downlink record! [ and
several times per uplink. ] When will you get it into your head that
there are no variables in the program that store the "frequency" as of
1987?

CM

[John C. Polasek]

On 30 May 2006 18:39:23 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> wrote:

>John C. Polasek > writes:
>
>
>> On 30 May 2006 14:34:28 -0500, Craig Markwardt
>> > wrote:
>> >John C. Polasek > writes:
>...
>> >> As George said in his note above,
>> >> "The model was initialised in 1987 so at that time fmodel was set
>> >> equal to fobs."
>> >> The computer model clearly was so initialized as to time and
>> >> frequency. You can see there would be no motivationto readjust these.
>> >> ...
>> >
>> >You are incorrect. What was initialized in 1987 was the *trajectory*
>> >model. Each tracking uplink provides a self contained coherent
>> >frequency reference at the time of the session (not 1987). There are
>> >no variables in the solution program which store the frequency as it
>> >was in 1987.
>> If by trajectory you mean the orbital elements were determined in 1987
>> then, fine, but to produce actual ranges and velocities the
>> mathematical model has to include a good value of G to convert planet
>> distance into accelerations, to be integrated into real velocity. Then
>> to convert the velocity to frequency for comparison of Doppler phase
>> slippage, the program had to contain the multiplier f0/c as given in
>> Eq. 1 of Anderson, 10 Mar. 2005:
>[ note incorrect citation ]
>> delta f(t) = f0*(1/c)*dr/dt
>> The conversion of dr/dt to delta f uses f0/c. Are you trying to tell
>> me that on initiation of each 5-day batch, they caused a re-setting of
>> f0 to match the current clock? It does not seem likely. ...
>
>The equation you are citing is one that describes how DSN tracking
>works in generic terms, and does not contain all of the technical
>details. Still, if you had read the attached footnote (#38), you
>would have found that "nu_0" is the "reference frequency." In fact,
>the reference frequency is recorded at the moment of the tracking
>session (it is the frequency standard of the station), and *NOT* in
>1987. (see also eqn 13). It is not reset in "each 5-day batch,"
>because it is recorded in each and every downlink record! [ and
>several times per uplink. ] When will you get it into your head that
>there are no variables in the program that store the "frequency" as of
>1987?
>
>CM
Firstly, #38 explains once again, only that "our frequency/velocity
convention is backwards", a receding craft getting a blue shift that
takes a bit of getting used to, but OK. No information is transmitted
there.

How is the reference frequency transcribed into the coefficients of
the mathematical computer program? As I pointed out there needs to be
a reliable G and a dependable f0, and of the latter, there was no
motivation in 1987 to assert that f0 is anything but constant.

What I have berought to your attention that is new is f0 increasing
with time as f = f0(1+Ht), and when compared to the static value in
the model, a linearly increasing disprepancy reveals itself.

The values f0 and c have to be in the program with no impetus to
change f0. Of course the ref frequency "is recorded at the moment of
the tracking session". Please clarify: is there a laboratory event
that causes one to change the equation constants?

I am talking about the construction of the model, against which all
these readings are taken. Is f0 a custom value for each shot?

John Polasek

[John C. Polasek]

On 30 May 2006 18:39:23 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> wrote:

>John C. Polasek > writes:
>
>
>> On 30 May 2006 14:34:28 -0500, Craig Markwardt
>> > wrote:
>> >John C. Polasek > writes:
>...
>> >> As George said in his note above,
>> >> "The model was initialised in 1987 so at that time fmodel was set
>> >> equal to fobs."
>> >> The computer model clearly was so initialized as to time and
>> >> frequency. You can see there would be no motivationto readjust these.
>> >> ...
>> >
>> >You are incorrect. What was initialized in 1987 was the *trajectory*
>> >model. Each tracking uplink provides a self contained coherent
>> >frequency reference at the time of the session (not 1987). There are
>> >no variables in the solution program which store the frequency as it
>> >was in 1987.
>> If by trajectory you mean the orbital elements were determined in 1987
>> then, fine, but to produce actual ranges and velocities the
>> mathematical model has to include a good value of G to convert planet
>> distance into accelerations, to be integrated into real velocity. Then
>> to convert the velocity to frequency for comparison of Doppler phase
>> slippage, the program had to contain the multiplier f0/c as given in
>> Eq. 1 of Anderson, 10 Mar. 2005:
>[ note incorrect citation ]
>> delta f(t) = f0*(1/c)*dr/dt
>> The conversion of dr/dt to delta f uses f0/c. Are you trying to tell
>> me that on initiation of each 5-day batch, they caused a re-setting of
>> f0 to match the current clock? It does not seem likely. ...
>
>The equation you are citing is one that describes how DSN tracking
>works in generic terms, and does not contain all of the technical
>details. Still, if you had read the attached footnote (#38), you
>would have found that "nu_0" is the "reference frequency." In fact,
>the reference frequency is recorded at the moment of the tracking
>session (it is the frequency standard of the station), and *NOT* in
>1987. (see also eqn 13). It is not reset in "each 5-day batch,"
>because it is recorded in each and every downlink record! [ and
>several times per uplink. ] When will you get it into your head that
>there are no variables in the program that store the "frequency" as of
>1987?
>
>CM

I just outlined the three physical coefficients that change
mathematics into physics by generating realtime quantities one of
which is frequency, which is odious to repeat, except to say G, f0 and
c were constant in the model, but to our dismay we find the real
frequency increased via
f = f0(1 + Ht)
yielding your graph that represents
delta f = h*f0*delta t.
What you hope to find cannot be measured in the turn-around flight
time. I already showed that at little Ap.

John Polasek

[Jeff Root]

Craig Markwardt wrote:

> In essence, the observed downlink carrier *is* the uplink
> carrier, plus the mentioned modifications.

It seems most accurate to say that the model frequency is
the uplink carrier frequency plus the modifications, and
the anomaly is the difference between the model frequency
and the observed downlink carrier frequency, when averaged
over a sufficiently long span of time. (About a year?)

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Craig Markwardt]

"Jeff Root" > writes:
> Craig Markwardt wrote:
>
> > In essence, the observed downlink carrier *is* the uplink
> > carrier, plus the mentioned modifications.
>
> It seems most accurate to say that the model frequency is
> the uplink carrier frequency plus the modifications, and

Jeff, consider that the spacecraft coherently re-transmits the uplink
carrier on the downlink carrier. That means that the spacecraft is
transmitting a peak-for-peak replica of the uplink . One might say
that the downlink carrier received at earth is in essence the uplink
carrier, plus transformations due to dynamics, plasma, etc. If the
uplink carrier frequency were diddled by 1 kHz (say), then that same
diddle would show up on the downlink, one round trip light travel time
later.

[ So if, as Polasek erroneously presupposes, all frequencies change
with time at a certain rate, then the uplink at the time of the
tracking session would change by the same rate and we would not be
able to detect the effect. ]

The "model" is a theoretical description of all the same processes
that the uplink signal undergoes as it propagates through the solar
system.

> the anomaly is the difference between the model frequency
> and the observed downlink carrier frequency, when averaged
> over a sufficiently long span of time. (About a year?)

No, the residuals are not averaged.

Craig

with a 240 to 221 ratio actually.

[Craig Markwardt]

John C. Polasek > writes:


> On 30 May 2006 18:39:23 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> > wrote:
>
> >John C. Polasek > writes:
> >
> >
> >> On 30 May 2006 14:34:28 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> >> > wrote:
> >> >John C. Polasek > writes:
> >...
> >> >> As George said in his note above,
> >> >> "The model was initialised in 1987 so at that time fmodel was set
> >> >> equal to fobs."
> >> >> The computer model clearly was so initialized as to time and
> >> >> frequency. You can see there would be no motivationto readjust these.
> >> >> ...
> >> >
> >> >You are incorrect. What was initialized in 1987 was the *trajectory*
> >> >model. Each tracking uplink provides a self contained coherent
> >> >frequency reference at the time of the session (not 1987). There are
> >> >no variables in the solution program which store the frequency as it
> >> >was in 1987.
> >> If by trajectory you mean the orbital elements were determined in 1987
> >> then, fine, but to produce actual ranges and velocities the
> >> mathematical model has to include a good value of G to convert planet
> >> distance into accelerations, to be integrated into real velocity. Then
> >> to convert the velocity to frequency for comparison of Doppler phase
> >> slippage, the program had to contain the multiplier f0/c as given in
> >> Eq. 1 of Anderson, 10 Mar. 2005:
> >[ note incorrect citation ]
> >> delta f(t) = f0*(1/c)*dr/dt
> >> The conversion of dr/dt to delta f uses f0/c. Are you trying to tell
> >> me that on initiation of each 5-day batch, they caused a re-setting of
> >> f0 to match the current clock? It does not seem likely. ...
> >
> >The equation you are citing is one that describes how DSN tracking
> >works in generic terms, and does not contain all of the technical
> >details. Still, if you had read the attached footnote (#38), you
> >would have found that "nu_0" is the "reference frequency." In fact,
> >the reference frequency is recorded at the moment of the tracking
> >session (it is the frequency standard of the station), and *NOT* in
> >1987. (see also eqn 13). It is not reset in "each 5-day batch,"
> >because it is recorded in each and every downlink record! [ and
> >several times per uplink. ] When will you get it into your head that
> >there are no variables in the program that store the "frequency" as of
> >1987?
> >
> >CM
> Firstly, #38 explains once again, only that "our frequency/velocity
> convention is backwards", a receding craft getting a blue shift that
> takes a bit of getting used to, but OK. No information is transmitted
> there.

Incorrect. As noted above, it defines nu_0.

> How is the reference frequency transcribed into the coefficients of
> the mathematical computer program? As I pointed out there needs to be
> a reliable G and a dependable f0, and of the latter, there was no
> motivation in 1987 to assert that f0 is anything but constant.

Incorrect. As noted above, the reference frequency is measured during
each tracking session.

> What I have berought to your attention that is new is f0 increasing
> with time as f = f0(1+Ht), and when compared to the static value in
> the model, a linearly increasing disprepancy reveals itself.

Irrelevant, since there is no "static value in the model."

> The values f0 and c have to be in the program with no impetus to
> change f0. Of course the ref frequency "is recorded at the moment of
> the tracking session". Please clarify: is there a laboratory event
> that causes one to change the equation constants?

Improper question, since the reference frequency is not a constant.

> I am talking about the construction of the model, against which all
> these readings are taken. Is f0 a custom value for each shot?

Now you seem to be getting it. The uplink, downlink and reference
frequencies are all recorded separately (and continuously for the
latter two) during each tracking session, and used for analysis.
There are *no* frequency "constants" stored from 1987.

And, as I pointed out so many messages ago, your "drifting clock"
model was attempted by Anderson et al (2002), but was simply not a
good match to the combined set of Pioneers, Voyager, Ulysses, and
Galileo.

If you persist in your erroneous "constant frequency from 1987"
supposition any further, then it's not really worth continuing the
thread.

CM

[Jeff Root]

Craig Markwardt replied to Jeff Root:

>> > In essence, the observed downlink carrier *is* the uplink
>> > carrier, plus the mentioned modifications.
>>
>> It seems most accurate to say that the model frequency is
>> the uplink carrier frequency plus the modifications, and
>
> Jeff, consider that the spacecraft coherently re-transmits the
> uplink carrier on the downlink carrier. That means that the
> spacecraft is transmitting a peak-for-peak replica of the uplink
> (with a 240 to 221 ratio actually). One might say that the
> downlink carrier received at earth is in essence the uplink
> carrier, plus transformations due to dynamics, plasma, etc.
> If the uplink carrier frequency were diddled by 1 kHz (say),
> then that same diddle would show up on the downlink, one round
> trip light travel time later.

I'm writing this paragraph after having written everything
below. Okay, now I see nothing wrong with what you said
to begin with. Up until a minute ago it seemed slightly
off-kilter. I don't know what just changed in my thinking.
What I wrote a few minutes ago (all still true):

If that disagrees with what I said, I don't see it.
I certainly agree with what you said.

> The "model" is a theoretical description of all the same
> processes that the uplink signal undergoes as it propagates
> through the solar system.
>
>> the anomaly is the difference between the model frequency
>> and the observed downlink carrier frequency, when averaged
>> over a sufficiently long span of time. (About a year?)
>
> No, the residuals are not averaged.

As I understand it, the anomalous frequency drift from the
modelled frequency is so small that in a single downlink
integration period, there was usually no residual at all.
Are the residuals just added, rather than averaged?

By "averaged", I mean that downlink sessions might result
in residuals from the modelled values something like:

0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 2, 0, 1, -1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1

Where "1" or "-1" is the minimum deviation that can be
detected. So you'd have an average deviation of 0.368 per
integration period.

Have I got it all wrong, even after all the times George
explained it?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Craig Markwardt]

"Jeff Root" > writes:
> As I understand it, the anomalous frequency drift from the
> modelled frequency is so small that in a single downlink
> integration period, there was usually no residual at all.
> Are the residuals just added, rather than averaged?

Actually, in an semi-ideal world where the initial conditions of the
spacecraft trajectory were known perfectly, I believe it would be
possible to determine the anomaly by two tracking sessions separated
by several years, and then simply do (delta V)/(delta t). The gotcha
is that the same data are used to *estimate* the trajectory (and there
are other imperfections like maneuvers).

There is really far more data than is needed to solve for the anomaly.
I discarded 90% of the data just to make the orbit determination
problem computationally tractable. [ But of course I checked that the
entire data set was self-consistent. ]

Craig

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig B. Markwardt, Ph.D. EMAIL:
Astrophysics, IDL, Finance, Derivatives | Remove "net" for better response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[George Dishman]

Jeff Root wrote:
> Craig Markwardt replied to Jeff Root:
>
> >> > In essence, the observed downlink carrier *is* the uplink
> >> > carrier, plus the mentioned modifications.
> >>
> >> It seems most accurate to say that the model frequency is
> >> the uplink carrier frequency plus the modifications, and
> >
> > Jeff, consider that the spacecraft coherently re-transmits the
> > uplink carrier on the downlink carrier. That means that the
> > spacecraft is transmitting a peak-for-peak replica of the uplink
> > (with a 240 to 221 ratio actually). One might say that the
> > downlink carrier received at earth is in essence the uplink
> > carrier, plus transformations due to dynamics, plasma, etc.
> > If the uplink carrier frequency were diddled by 1 kHz (say),
> > then that same diddle would show up on the downlink, one round
> > trip light travel time later.
>
> I'm writing this paragraph after having written everything
> below. Okay, now I see nothing wrong with what you said
> to begin with. Up until a minute ago it seemed slightly
> off-kilter. I don't know what just changed in my thinking.
> What I wrote a few minutes ago (all still true):
>
> If that disagrees with what I said, I don't see it.
> I certainly agree with what you said.
>
> > The "model" is a theoretical description of all the same
> > processes that the uplink signal undergoes as it propagates
> > through the solar system.
> >
> >> the anomaly is the difference between the model frequency
> >> and the observed downlink carrier frequency, when averaged
> >> over a sufficiently long span of time. (About a year?)
> >
> > No, the residuals are not averaged.
>
> As I understand it, the anomalous frequency drift from the
> modelled frequency is so small that in a single downlink
> integration period, there was usually no residual at all.
> Are the residuals just added, rather than averaged?
>
> By "averaged", I mean that downlink sessions might result
> in residuals from the modelled values something like:
>
> 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 2, 0, 1, -1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1
>
> Where "1" or "-1" is the minimum deviation that can be
> detected. So you'd have an average deviation of 0.368 per
> integration period.
>
> Have I got it all wrong, even after all the times George
> explained it?

Partly, I think there was some averaging, from memory
over a few days depending on which software was used
but by 1994 there was a measurable error in every
reading compared to what was expected. That was
around 3Hz so your toy readings should look more like:

3.002, 2.997, 2.999 3.001, 3.003, 3.005, 2.998

The mean was about 3Hz and Craig's value for standard
deviation (again IIRC) was 4.2mHz.

The value of the anomaly is the rate at which that
discrepancy developed, i.e. a linear change of
3Hz in 8 years. So a set from 1990 might have been

1.502, 1.497, 1.499, 1.501, 1.503, 1.505, 1.498

Does that help?

George

[George Dishman]

Craig Markwardt wrote:
> John C. Polasek > writes:
>
>
> > On 30 May 2006 18:39:23 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> > > wrote:
> >
> > The values f0 and c have to be in the program with no impetus to
> > change f0. Of course the ref frequency "is recorded at the moment of
> > the tracking session". Please clarify: is there a laboratory event
> > that causes one to change the equation constants?

f0 is not a constant, it represents the frequency of the uplink
in any particular three-way contact as Craig says.

> Improper question, since the reference frequency is not a constant.
>
> > I am talking about the construction of the model, against which all
> > these readings are taken. Is f0 a custom value for each shot?
>
> Now you seem to be getting it. The uplink, downlink and reference
> frequencies are all recorded separately (and continuously for the
> latter two) during each tracking session, and used for analysis.
> There are *no* frequency "constants" stored from 1987.

It might help John if to add a little to that. Each contact lasted
a few hours when the craft was above the horizon from the
receiving site. Some of that time, hopefully most, the downlink
signal was a returned version of an uplink signal sent from another
site several hours earlier. To maximise the chance of the craft
locking on to that uplink, the transmit frequency was chosen to
compensate for the large Doppler caused by the 30km/s speed
of the Earth around the Sun. Generally though it was held
constant for the duration of the transmission. What that means
is that f0 was different for every contact.

The Hubble effect would apply over the entire time of flight in
both directions which varied from around 11 hours to about 19.
Over those periods, the wavelength change would be too small
to detect because it is less than the uncertainty in some of
the systematic errors. The anomaly is several thousand times
larger as you know.

As Craig has pointed out, and I wasn't clear in my earlier reply
so I guess I may have caused the confusion, the model was
initialised by setting the craft _velocity_ such that the modelled
frequency matched the observation at that time. It is that initial
velocity which is effectively a constant, the subsequent speed
being derived by modeling gravitational and other accelerations.

> And, as I pointed out so many messages ago, your "drifting clock"
> model was attempted by Anderson et al (2002), but was simply not a
> good match to the combined set of Pioneers, Voyager, Ulysses, and
> Galileo.

John, if you cannot find Craig's previous reference, look at the
original paper gr-qc/0104064 and read about the "Quadratic
in time model" in paragraph 11.5 which is where they consider
the most credible clock drift model. This appears to be what you
are re-inventing.

George

[John C. Polasek]

On 31 May 2006 03:15:44 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> wrote:

>
>John C. Polasek > writes:
>
>
>> On 30 May 2006 18:39:23 -0500, Craig Markwardt
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >John C. Polasek > writes:
>> >
>> >
>> >> On 30 May 2006 14:34:28 -0500, Craig Markwardt
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >John C. Polasek > writes:
>> >...
>> >> >> As George said in his note above,
>> >> >> "The model was initialised in 1987 so at that time fmodel was set
>> >> >> equal to fobs."
>> >> >> The computer model clearly was so initialized as to time and
>> >> >> frequency. You can see there would be no motivationto readjust these.
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> >You are incorrect. What was initialized in 1987 was the *trajectory*
>> >> >model. Each tracking uplink provides a self contained coherent
>> >> >frequency reference at the time of the session (not 1987). There are
>> >> >no variables in the solution program which store the frequency as it
>> >> >was in 1987.
>> >> If by trajectory you mean the orbital elements were determined in 1987
>> >> then, fine, but to produce actual ranges and velocities the
>> >> mathematical model has to include a good value of G to convert planet
>> >> distance into accelerations, to be integrated into real velocity. Then
>> >> to convert the velocity to frequency for comparison of Doppler phase
>> >> slippage, the program had to contain the multiplier f0/c as given in
>> >> Eq. 1 of Anderson, 10 Mar. 2005:
>> >[ note incorrect citation ]
>> >> delta f(t) = f0*(1/c)*dr/dt
>> >> The conversion of dr/dt to delta f uses f0/c. Are you trying to tell
>> >> me that on initiation of each 5-day batch, they caused a re-setting of
>> >> f0 to match the current clock? It does not seem likely. ...
>> >
>> >The equation you are citing is one that describes how DSN tracking
>> >works in generic terms, and does not contain all of the technical
>> >details. Still, if you had read the attached footnote (#38), you
>> >would have found that "nu_0" is the "reference frequency." In fact,
>> >the reference frequency is recorded at the moment of the tracking
>> >session (it is the frequency standard of the station), and *NOT* in
>> >1987. (see also eqn 13). It is not reset in "each 5-day batch,"
>> >because it is recorded in each and every downlink record! [ and
>> >several times per uplink. ] When will you get it into your head that
>> >there are no variables in the program that store the "frequency" as of
>> >1987?
>> >
>> >CM
>> Firstly, #38 explains once again, only that "our frequency/velocity
>> convention is backwards", a receding craft getting a blue shift that
>> takes a bit of getting used to, but OK. No information is transmitted
>> there.
>
>Incorrect. As noted above, it defines nu_0.

How tautologically droll. Note #38 says in effect, "let's call the the
transmitted frequency nu0, OK? and let's call the received frequency
nu, OK?, and now, pay attention, we will evaluate their difference
backwards, so don't get mixed up".
Notice that since Pioneer was a nearly constant 12km/s that nu - nu0
is approximately 94,000 hz but this delta nu is never discussed in the
literature. It is in fact converted to craft velocity via V = -lambda
x delta nu.
(References to Fig. 1 & 2 are in my paper at
http://www.dualspace.net/uploads/cosmoarxivnu3.pdf
Fig. 1 is a reproduction of the principle equation regarding Ap and
Fig. 2 is a plot of the frequency excess over a 7.5 year period
beginning in Jan. 1987. The span is ~19 AU and the signal time 2.63
hours. The paper derives "little Ap" as a valid metrical anomaly).

If you take the slope in Fig. 2, 1.5 Hz over 7.5 years, and scale it
to signal time (= 1/25000) then you would get a frequency increment
that would make the received frequency become 94,000.00006 Hz so the
beat frequency would be 0.00006Hz. How extract Ap from that? It takes
the years to make things observable. JP
>> How is the reference frequency transcribed into the coefficients of
>> the mathematical computer program? As I pointed out there needs to be
>> a reliable G and a dependable f0, and of the latter, there was no
>> motivation in 1987 to assert that f0 is anything but constant.
>
>Incorrect. As noted above, the reference frequency is measured during
>each tracking session.

You have to be specific, reference frequency of what? Of the radar
transmission? We all know that. It's nu0.

But we are neglecting another reference frequency, nu_87 that is built
into the model. Notice that all computation of Ap has to do with
nu_observ - nu_model or in other words nu_obs - nu87. The program
contains a "canned frequency" that is used throughout Fig. 2 to
determine delta f. JP

>> What I have berought to your attention that is new is f0 increasing
>> with time as f = f0(1+Ht), and when compared to the static value in
>> the model, a linearly increasing disprepancy reveals itself.
>
>Irrelevant, since there is no "static value in the model."
>
>> The values f0 and c have to be in the program with no impetus to
>> change f0. Of course the ref frequency "is recorded at the moment of
>> the tracking session". Please clarify: is there a laboratory event
>> that causes one to change the equation constants?
>
>Improper question, since the reference frequency is not a constant.
>
>> I am talking about the construction of the model, against which all
>> these readings are taken. Is f0 a custom value for each shot?
>
>Now you seem to be getting it. The uplink, downlink and reference
>frequencies are all recorded separately (and continuously for the
>latter two) during each tracking session, and used for analysis.
>There are *no* frequency "constants" stored from 1987.
The uplink is ftran, your precious reference frequency is a clock used
to stabilize ftran, they are the same and the downlink is frec. Of
course these are recorded with each shot.
But all Ap computations are with respect to another frequency, f87,
that has got to be in the computer model in order to convert the
derived velocities into frequencies, the factor f87/c. JP
>And, as I pointed out so many messages ago, your "drifting clock"
>model was attempted by Anderson et al (2002), but was simply not a
>good match to the combined set of Pioneers, Voyager, Ulysses, and
>Galileo.
As I pointed out if they adjusted the frequency to get agreement but
did not adjust the wavelength then the Doppler would be good, but the
range would be bad. Range is one more step from frequency.
The other vehicles firstly were subject to important jet dynamics as
well as being at very short ranges where solar radiation pressure was
as they say .888 correlated. Pioneer got going after 20 AU. JP
>>If you persist in your erroneous "constant frequency from 1987"
>supposition any further, then it's not really worth continuing the
>thread.
>
>CM
>
>

[Craig Markwardt]

John C. Polasek > writes:
> But we are neglecting another reference frequency, nu_87 that is built
> into the model. ...

No. Despite multiple corrections, and extensive discussions of the
actual procedures, you persist with this delusion. As the thread is
purely based on speculation, I no longer care to be involved.

CM

[Craig Markwardt]

"George Dishman" > writes:
> As Craig has pointed out, and I wasn't clear in my earlier reply
> so I guess I may have caused the confusion, the model was
> initialised by setting the craft _velocity_ such that the modelled
> frequency matched the observation at that time.

George, just to clarify, the spacecraft position and velocity in 1987
are initial conditions to the trajectory problem. During the analysis
we did not *intend* for the frequency residual to be zero in 1987, as
one might infer from your statement above. And indeed, the residual
would not need to be zero in 1987 (if the model would have been a poor
description of the data; or if the spacecraft initial conditions were
specified at a different epoch).

> ... It is that initial
> velocity which is effectively a constant, the subsequent speed
> being derived by modeling gravitational and other accelerations.

Also to clarify: the initial conditions (position & velocity) are
*varied* (not fixed) during the orbit determination process. Also of
course, the subsequent spacecraft velocity is permitted to change.

> > And, as I pointed out so many messages ago, your "drifting clock"
> > model was attempted by Anderson et al (2002), but was simply not a
> > good match to the combined set of Pioneers, Voyager, Ulysses, and
> > Galileo.
>
> John, if you cannot find Craig's previous reference, look at the
> original paper gr-qc/0104064 and read about the "Quadratic
> in time model" in paragraph 11.5 which is where they consider
> the most credible clock drift model. This appears to be what you
> are re-inventing.

George, John persists in believing that some "special" frequency from
1987 is stored in the analysis process. I've grown weary of his
continued unsubstantiated suppositions. I wish you luck.

Craig

[Richard Saam]

Craig Markwardt wrote:
> Richard Saam > writes:
>
>>David A. Smith
>>Craig Markwardt
>>John C. Polasek
>>
>>
>>Hi All
>>
>>Anybody heard of any progress on
>>the more refined re-evaluation of archived
>>Pioneer 10 & 11 trajectory data?
>>As you probably know,
>>this is an ongoing effort by NASA and ESA as indicated in:
>>
>>http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603016
>
>
> I haven't been involved in that work for several months, but I think
> there are groups interested in working on it.
>
> Craig

Craig:

Reference:
General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology, abstract
gr-qc/0603016
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 20:41:38 GMT (507kb)
The Pioneer Anomaly: Seeking an explanation in newly recovered data
Authors: Viktor T Toth, Slava G Turyshev
Comments: 22 pages, 21 figures, 2 tables

Page 17

quote"
Therefore, we expect that our analysis of the early data, from a period of time
when the spacecraft were much closer to the Earth and the Sun, may help us to
unambiguously determine whether the direction of the acceleration is
• sunward-pointing, indicating a force originating from the Sun;
• Earth-pointing that would be due to an anomaly in the frequency standards;
• Along the direction of the velocity vector, indicating an inertial or drag
force; or
• Along the spin axis direction that would indicate an on-board systematic force.
"unquote
________________

I sent the following message To paper authors:
________________

I would suggest that you be open minded
in the analysis of the Pioneer 10 & 11 data
for the possibility that a spin axis deceleration
or deceleration in spin axis direction
is not an indicator of "on-board systematic force"
but an indicator of the basic underlying physics
which contribute to both
translational and rotational deceleration
of the Pioneer 10 & 11 space craft.

or in general

Deceleration is independent of reference frame
________________


No feed back
I assume many capabable people are energetically pursuing this very important
archival data evaluation enterprise?

Richard

[Craig Markwardt]

Richard Saam > writes:
....
> I would suggest that you be open minded
> in the analysis of the Pioneer 10 & 11 data
> for the possibility that a spin axis deceleration
> or deceleration in spin axis direction
> is not an indicator of "on-board systematic force"
....

However, the spacecraft spin rate affects the observed doppler carrier
frequency, and thus is an effect that must be accounted for in the
processing. That is what is being discussed.

CM

[John C. Polasek]

On 31 May 2006 10:52:02 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> wrote:

>
>John C. Polasek > writes:
>> But we are neglecting another reference frequency, nu_87 that is built
>> into the model. ...
>
>No. Despite multiple corrections, and extensive discussions of the
>actual procedures, you persist with this delusion. As the thread is
>purely based on speculation, I no longer care to be involved.
>
>CM
It would be helpfulif you would illuminate us on what steps were
followed to generate nu_model is so it could be subtracted from
nu_observed to get
(f_observ - f_model)DSN = -2fP*t (2)
Is this all mathematical or is the computer model made to operate a
charge pump to create real frequency f_model to beat against
f_observed?
Or is f_observ reduced to a numeric for comparison with a numeric
value from f_model?
This subtraction operation is at the crux of the Pioneer observation,
but as an outsider I can't be sure how it was done, just that it must
have been done, but how?

But don't patronize me about definition of nu_0 etc. I know the signal
went up as 2.11 Ghz, was transformed down by 240/211, and that ftran
was likewise subjected to 240/211 so as to match frequencies, and that
the whole thing was heterodyned down to 1 Mhz and that they were able
with a phase lock loop to interpolate 256 Mhz into the 1 Mhz for fine
readings.
By what means was Eq. (2) mechanized? When this matter is clarified
maybe we can make some progress.

John Polasek

[Craig Markwardt]

John C. Polasek > writes:

> On 31 May 2006 10:52:02 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >John C. Polasek > writes:
> >> But we are neglecting another reference frequency, nu_87 that is built
> >> into the model. ...
> >
> >No. Despite multiple corrections, and extensive discussions of the
> >actual procedures, you persist with this delusion. As the thread is
> >purely based on speculation, I no longer care to be involved.
> >
> >CM
> It would be helpfulif you would illuminate us on what steps were
> followed to generate nu_model is so it could be subtracted from
> nu_observed to get
> (f_observ - f_model)DSN = -2fP*t (2)

It's not clear where you got this equation.

Equation 15 of Anderson et al (2002) is quite different. The text
around equation (15) describes generically how "nu_model" is found.
Note that as the sentence containing equation (15) states, the
"anomalous effect *can be expressed*" as that equation (emph added),
not that it *was* expressed that way in the analysis. In reality, the
anomalous term was absorbed into "nu_model".

Both Anderson et al (2002) and Markwardt (2002) describe how
"nu_model" was computed numerically, and how the orbit determination
was done.

> But don't patronize me about definition of nu_0 etc. ...

Then don't make unsubstantiated and erroneous suppositions about how
the analysis was done.

CM

References
Anderson et al (2002, Phys Rev D, 65, 082004)
Markwardt 2002, gr-qc/0208046

[George Dishman]

John C. Polasek wrote:
> On 31 May 2006 03:15:44 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >John C. Polasek > writes:
> >
> >
> >> On 30 May 2006 18:39:23 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >John C. Polasek > writes:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> On 30 May 2006 14:34:28 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >John C. Polasek > writes:
> >> >...
> >> >> >> As George said in his note above,
> >> >> >> "The model was initialised in 1987 so at that time fmodel was set
> >> >> >> equal to fobs."
> >> >> >> The computer model clearly was so initialized as to time and
> >> >> >> frequency. You can see there would be no motivationto readjust these.
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You are incorrect. What was initialized in 1987 was the *trajectory*
> >> >> >model. Each tracking uplink provides a self contained coherent
> >> >> >frequency reference at the time of the session (not 1987). There are
> >> >> >no variables in the solution program which store the frequency as it
> >> >> >was in 1987.
> >> >> If by trajectory you mean the orbital elements were determined in 1987
> >> >> then, fine, but to produce actual ranges and velocities the
> >> >> mathematical model has to include a good value of G to convert planet
> >> >> distance into accelerations, to be integrated into real velocity. Then
> >> >> to convert the velocity to frequency for comparison of Doppler phase
> >> >> slippage, the program had to contain the multiplier f0/c as given in
> >> >> Eq. 1 of Anderson, 10 Mar. 2005:
> >> >[ note incorrect citation ]
> >> >> delta f(t) = f0*(1/c)*dr/dt
> >> >> The conversion of dr/dt to delta f uses f0/c. Are you trying to tell
> >> >> me that on initiation of each 5-day batch, they caused a re-setting of
> >> >> f0 to match the current clock? It does not seem likely. ...
> >> >
> >> >The equation you are citing is one that describes how DSN tracking
> >> >works in generic terms, and does not contain all of the technical
> >> >details. Still, if you had read the attached footnote (#38), you
> >> >would have found that "nu_0" is the "reference frequency." In fact,
> >> >the reference frequency is recorded at the moment of the tracking
> >> >session (it is the frequency standard of the station), and *NOT* in
> >> >1987. (see also eqn 13). It is not reset in "each 5-day batch,"
> >> >because it is recorded in each and every downlink record! [ and
> >> >several times per uplink. ] When will you get it into your head that
> >> >there are no variables in the program that store the "frequency" as of
> >> >1987?
> >> >
> >> >CM
> >> Firstly, #38 explains once again, only that "our frequency/velocity
> >> convention is backwards", a receding craft getting a blue shift that
> >> takes a bit of getting used to, but OK. No information is transmitted
> >> there.
> >
> >Incorrect. As noted above, it defines nu_0.
>
> How tautologically droll. Note #38 says in effect, "let's call the the
> transmitted frequency nu0, OK? and let's call the received frequency
> nu, OK?, and now, pay attention, we will evaluate their difference
> backwards, so don't get mixed up".
> Notice that since Pioneer was a nearly constant 12km/s that nu - nu0
> is approximately 94,000 hz but this delta nu is never discussed in the
> literature.

That's because the signal is received here on Earth and
the speed of our planet round the Sun is about 30km/s
so when we are approaching the craft there is a blue
shift corresponding to 18km/s while six months later
there is an overall redshift corresponding to 42km/s.
Even the ~0.4 km/s speed due to the rotation of the
earth is significant.

> It is in fact converted to craft velocity via V = -lambda
> x delta nu.
> (References to Fig. 1 & 2 are in my paper at
> http://www.dualspace.net/uploads/cosmoarxivnu3.pdf
> Fig. 1 is a reproduction of the principle equation regarding Ap and
> Fig. 2 is a plot of the frequency excess over a 7.5 year period
> beginning in Jan. 1987. The span is ~19 AU and the signal time 2.63
> hours.

John, the signal time was never 2.63 hours, the range
varied from about 40 to about 60 (19 AU span) or even
to 70AU for some of the later data, so the signal time
varied from 80 to 120 times 500s.

> The paper derives "little Ap" as a valid metrical anomaly).
>
> If you take the slope in Fig. 2, 1.5 Hz over 7.5 years, and scale it
> to signal time (= 1/25000) then you would get a frequency increment
> that would make the received frequency become 94,000.00006 Hz so the
> beat frequency would be 0.00006Hz. How extract Ap from that?

They can't, that's one reason why we know the anomaly
is far larger than anything cosmological redshift could
produce.

> It takes
> the years to make things observable. JP
>
> >> How is the reference frequency transcribed into the coefficients of
> >> the mathematical computer program? As I pointed out there needs to be
> >> a reliable G and a dependable f0, and of the latter, there was no
> >> motivation in 1987 to assert that f0 is anything but constant.
> >
> >Incorrect. As noted above, the reference frequency is measured during
> >each tracking session.
>
> You have to be specific, reference frequency of what? Of the radar
> transmission? We all know that. It's nu0.
>
> But we are neglecting another reference frequency, nu_87 that is built
> into the model.

As Craig says, there is no such frequency.

> Notice that all computation of Ap has to do with
> nu_observ - nu_model or in other words nu_obs - nu87.

Nope, nu_observed is tha actual observed received frequency
while nu_model is the predicted value of that received frequency
based on nu_0, the actual uplink signal sent pehaps 12 hours
earlier and the modelled speed of the transmitting site, craft and
receiving site in barycentric coordinates.

> The program
> contains a "canned frequency" that is used throughout Fig. 2 to
> determine delta f. JP

No it doesn't.

> >> What I have berought to your attention that is new is f0 increasing
> >> with time as f = f0(1+Ht), and when compared to the static value in
> >> the model, a linearly increasing disprepancy reveals itself.
> >
> >Irrelevant, since there is no "static value in the model."
> >
> >> The values f0 and c have to be in the program with no impetus to
> >> change f0. Of course the ref frequency "is recorded at the moment of
> >> the tracking session". Please clarify: is there a laboratory event
> >> that causes one to change the equation constants?
> >
> >Improper question, since the reference frequency is not a constant.
> >
> >> I am talking about the construction of the model, against which all
> >> these readings are taken. Is f0 a custom value for each shot?
> >
> >Now you seem to be getting it. The uplink, downlink and reference
> >frequencies are all recorded separately (and continuously for the
> >latter two) during each tracking session, and used for analysis.
> >There are *no* frequency "constants" stored from 1987.
>
> The uplink is ftran, your precious reference frequency is a clock used
> to stabilize ftran, they are the same and the downlink is frec. Of
> course these are recorded with each shot.
> But all Ap computations are with respect to another frequency, f87,

No, as Craig says, the calculations were based on the trend
of the quantity (ftran-frec) for each individual measurement.
Bear in mind ftran is at a DSN station on Earth and Earth is
rotating so you have to include the effect of that rotation on
the uplink frequency and that varies minute by minute.

> that has got to be in the computer model in order to convert the
> derived velocities into frequencies, the factor f87/c. JP

George

[George Dishman]

Craig Markwardt wrote:
> "George Dishman" > writes:
> > As Craig has pointed out, and I wasn't clear in my earlier reply
> > so I guess I may have caused the confusion, the model was
> > initialised by setting the craft _velocity_ such that the modelled
> > frequency matched the observation at that time.
>
> George, just to clarify, the spacecraft position and velocity in 1987
> are initial conditions to the trajectory problem. During the analysis
> we did not *intend* for the frequency residual to be zero in 1987, as
> one might infer from your statement above. And indeed, the residual
> would not need to be zero in 1987 (if the model would have been a poor
> description of the data; or if the spacecraft initial conditions were
> specified at a different epoch).

That's a useful clarification Craig, thanks. Looking at your
graph which John reproduces, it goes from zero anomaly
to about +18cm/s. It would be equally valid to have an
anomaly going from -18cm/s to zero but with a base model
that had an initial speed higher by 18cm/s. As I understand
the situation, up to the start of the study, the craft motion
was predicted using a shorter term model (50 days?) which
makes sense where effects like the planetary passes could
not be perfectly modelled. That suggests that if there had
been any anomalous force prior to 1987, its effect would have
been rolled up into the then current trajectory. Is my
understanding valid or am I missing something?

> > ... It is that initial
> > velocity which is effectively a constant, the subsequent speed
> > being derived by modeling gravitational and other accelerations.
>
> Also to clarify: the initial conditions (position & velocity) are
> *varied* (not fixed) during the orbit determination process.

That I don't follow since I can't see how a uniform origin shift
of the anomaly can be distinguished from a change in initial
radial velocity.

> Also of
> course, the subsequent spacecraft velocity is permitted to change.

Sure.

> > > And, as I pointed out so many messages ago, your "drifting clock"
> > > model was attempted by Anderson et al (2002), but was simply not a
> > > good match to the combined set of Pioneers, Voyager, Ulysses, and
> > > Galileo.
> >
> > John, if you cannot find Craig's previous reference, look at the
> > original paper gr-qc/0104064 and read about the "Quadratic
> > in time model" in paragraph 11.5 which is where they consider
> > the most credible clock drift model. This appears to be what you
> > are re-inventing.
>
> George, John persists in believing that some "special" frequency from
> 1987 is stored in the analysis process. I've grown weary of his
> continued unsubstantiated suppositions. I wish you luck.

John has in the past improved his understanding with some
discussion but it takes some effort. I am severely restricted
for time these days but I'll add a little more if he gives my
posts any attention.

George

[George Dishman]

John C. Polasek wrote:
> On 31 May 2006 10:52:02 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >John C. Polasek > writes:
> >> But we are neglecting another reference frequency, nu_87 that is built
> >> into the model. ...
> >
> >No. Despite multiple corrections, and extensive discussions of the
> >actual procedures, you persist with this delusion. As the thread is
> >purely based on speculation, I no longer care to be involved.
> >
> >CM
> It would be helpfulif you would illuminate us on what steps were
> followed to generate nu_model ...

The process is slightly iterative however the end
result is as follows:

For any measurement of the received frequency,
the time of receipt is recorded in the data files.
Having an estimate of the trajectory of the craft,
the time at which the signal was transmitted can
be deduced together with the location of the craft
at that time. That also corresponds to the receipt
of the uplink by the craft. From those and the
known rotation and orbital parameters of the Earth,
the time of transmission of the uplink from the
DSN site can be calculated. The frequency which
was transmitted during that period is also recorded
in the data files. nu_model is then calculated by
taking the recorded uplink transmit frequency,
applying Doppler to deal with the motion of the
planet relative to the solar system barycentre.
That signal travels to the craft and is changed by
the Doppler effect due to the motion of the craft
relative to the barycentre. The frequency is
increased by 240/221 and retransmitted from the
craft. Allowance is then made for the Doppler
effect on the path to the receiving site in a similar
fashion to the uplink.

> ... is so it could be subtracted from
> nu_observed to get
> (f_observ - f_model)DSN = -2fP*t (2)
> Is this all mathematical or is the computer model made to operate a
> charge pump to create real frequency f_model to beat against
> f_observed?

The data files were recorded thirty years ago! It
is all mathematical and if you get a copy of
the files you can do it yourself.

> Or is f_observ reduced to a numeric for comparison with a numeric
> value from f_model?
> This subtraction operation is at the crux of the Pioneer observation,
> but as an outsider I can't be sure how it was done, just that it must
> have been done, but how?

Craig used IDL. The details are on his web site.

> But don't patronize me about definition of nu_0 etc. I know the signal
> went up as 2.11 Ghz, ...

Yes, you are calling that "ftran".

> ... was transformed down by 240/211,

Right.

> and that ftran
> was likewise subjected to 240/211 so as to match frequencies,

Pardon, ftran was the uplink frequency wasn't it?

> and that
> the whole thing was heterodyned down to 1 Mhz and that they were able
> with a phase lock loop to interpolate 256 Mhz into the 1 Mhz for fine
> readings.

Not quite, the system made measurements in steps
of 1/256 of a cycle so for a 60s sample, they could
measure with a resolution of 65 micro Hz.

> By what means was Eq. (2) mechanized? When this matter is clarified
> maybe we can make some progress.

If you know f_model then an Excel spreadsheet is
adequate to do the simple subtraction. That's not
really what you are asking though.

George

[John C. Polasek]

On 01 Jun 2006 03:38:28 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> wrote:

>
>John C. Polasek > writes:
>
>> On 31 May 2006 10:52:02 -0500, Craig Markwardt
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John C. Polasek > writes:
>> >> But we are neglecting another reference frequency, nu_87 that is built
>> >> into the model. ...
>> >
>> >No. Despite multiple corrections, and extensive discussions of the
>> >actual procedures, you persist with this delusion. As the thread is
>> >purely based on speculation, I no longer care to be involved.
>> >
>> >CM
>> It would be helpfulif you would illuminate us on what steps were
>> followed to generate nu_model is so it could be subtracted from
>> nu_observed to get
>> (f_observ - f_model)DSN = -2fP*t (2)
>
>It's not clear where you got this equation.

(2) is an image I copied and pasted to my paper as Fig.1 and it's the
same as Eq. 15 in Anderson 10 Mar 2005. (A10)

But A10 Eq. 15b has a useful definition of nu_model as a function of
velocities:
nu_model = nu0(1 - 2*V_model(t)/c) (15b

Now, assuming that the model velocity(t) perfectly tracked real
velocity and if, according to my assumption, nu increased at Hubble
rate according to
nu = nu_0(1 + H*t) that would make the fractional
change over 7.5 years as
K = H*T75 = 6.9x10^-10
Then the frequency difference after 7.5 years would be
K*nu_0 = 1.58 Hz matching Fig. 2
where H = 2.916x10^-18 s^-1, T75 = 2.367x10^8 s and nu_0 = 2.292
GHz.

The observed discrepancy is attained even with perfect tracking and no
unmodeled acceleration but simply due to Hubble increase in nu(t).
The accumulation of evidence after 7.5 years is very clear, but as I
pointed out previously, it is not reasonable to extract a 2+ hour
signal time sample and use it against beat frequency. (It would plot
as 0.00024" instead of 6").

>
>Equation 15 of Anderson et al (2002) is quite different. The text
>around equation (15) describes generically how "nu_model" is found.
>Note that as the sentence containing equation (15) states, the
>"anomalous effect *can be expressed*" as that equation (emph added),
>not that it *was* expressed that way in the analysis. In reality, the
>anomalous term was absorbed into "nu_model".
>
>Both Anderson et al (2002) and Markwardt (2002) describe how
>"nu_model" was computed numerically, and how the orbit determination
>was done.
>
>> But don't patronize me about definition of nu_0 etc. ...
>
>Then don't make unsubstantiated and erroneous suppositions about how
>the analysis was done.
>
>CM
>
>References
>Anderson et al (2002, Phys Rev D, 65, 082004)
>Markwardt 2002, gr-qc/0208046

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net

[John C. Polasek]

On 1 Jun 2006 06:16:57 -0700, "George Dishman"
> wrote:

>
>John C. Polasek wrote:
>> On 31 May 2006 10:52:02 -0500, Craig Markwardt
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John C. Polasek > writes:
>> >> But we are neglecting another reference frequency, nu_87 that is built
>> >> into the model. ...
>> >
>> >No. Despite multiple corrections, and extensive discussions of the
>> >actual procedures, you persist with this delusion. As the thread is
>> >purely based on speculation, I no longer care to be involved.
>> >
>> >CM
>> It would be helpfulif you would illuminate us on what steps were
>> followed to generate nu_model ...
>
>The process is slightly iterative however the end
>result is as follows:
>
>For any measurement of the received frequency,
>the time of receipt is recorded in the data files.
>Having an estimate of the trajectory of the craft,
>the time at which the signal was transmitted can
>be deduced together with the location of the craft
>at that time. That also corresponds to the receipt
>of the uplink by the craft. From those and the
>known rotation and orbital parameters of the Earth,
>the time of transmission of the uplink from the
>DSN site can be calculated. The frequency which
>was transmitted during that period is also recorded
>in the data files. nu_model is then calculated by
>taking the recorded uplink transmit frequency,
>applying Doppler to deal with the motion of the
>planet relative to the solar system barycentre.
>That signal travels to the craft and is changed by
>the Doppler effect due to the motion of the craft
>relative to the barycentre. The frequency is
>increased by 240/221 and retransmitted from the
>craft. Allowance is then made for the Doppler
>effect on the path to the receiving site in a similar
>fashion to the uplink.
>
>> ... is so it could be subtracted from
>> nu_observed to get
>> (f_observ - f_model)DSN = -2fP*t (2)
>> Is this all mathematical or is the computer model made to operate a
>> charge pump to create real frequency f_model to beat against
>> f_observed?
>
>The data files were recorded thirty years ago! It
>is all mathematical and if you get a copy of
>the files you can do it yourself.
>
>> Or is f_observ reduced to a numeric for comparison with a numeric
>> value from f_model?
>> This subtraction operation is at the crux of the Pioneer observation,
>> but as an outsider I can't be sure how it was done, just that it must
>> have been done, but how?
>
>Craig used IDL. The details are on his web site.
>
>> But don't patronize me about definition of nu_0 etc. I know the signal
>> went up as 2.11 Ghz, ...
>
>Yes, you are calling that "ftran".
>
>> ... was transformed down by 240/211,
>
>Right.
>
>> and that ftran
>> was likewise subjected to 240/211 so as to match frequencies,
>
>Pardon, ftran was the uplink frequency wasn't it?
No George, what I meant was that in order to subtract frequencies or
make a Lissajous on a scope, ftran was likewise boosted by the 240/211
before a comparison could be made. But you knew that.
>> and that
>> the whole thing was heterodyned down to 1 Mhz and that they were able
>> with a phase lock loop to interpolate 256 Mhz into the 1 Mhz for fine
>> readings.
>
>Not quite, the system made measurements in steps
>of 1/256 of a cycle so for a 60s sample, they could
>measure with a resolution of 65 micro Hz.
>
>> By what means was Eq. (2) mechanized? When this matter is clarified
>> maybe we can make some progress.
>
>If you know f_model then an Excel spreadsheet is
>adequate to do the simple subtraction. That's not
>really what you are asking though.
>
>George

[George Dishman]

John C. Polasek wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2006 06:16:57 -0700, "George Dishman"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >John C. Polasek wrote:
> >> On 31 May 2006 10:52:02 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >John C. Polasek > writes:
> >> >> But we are neglecting another reference frequency, nu_87 that is built
> >> >> into the model. ...
> >> >
> >> >No. Despite multiple corrections, and extensive discussions of the
> >> >actual procedures, you persist with this delusion. As the thread is
> >> >purely based on speculation, I no longer care to be involved.
> >> >
> >> >CM
> >> It would be helpfulif you would illuminate us on what steps were
> >> followed to generate nu_model ...
> >
> >The process is slightly iterative however the end
> >result is as follows:
> >
> >For any measurement of the received frequency,
> >the time of receipt is recorded in the data files.
> >Having an estimate of the trajectory of the craft,
> >the time at which the signal was transmitted can
> >be deduced together with the location of the craft
> >at that time. That also corresponds to the receipt
> >of the uplink by the craft. From those and the
> >known rotation and orbital parameters of the Earth,
> >the time of transmission of the uplink from the
> >DSN site can be calculated. The frequency which
> >was transmitted during that period is also recorded
> >in the data files. nu_model is then calculated by
> >taking the recorded uplink transmit frequency,
> >applying Doppler to deal with the motion of the
> >planet relative to the solar system barycentre.
> >That signal travels to the craft and is changed by
> >the Doppler effect due to the motion of the craft
> >relative to the barycentre. The frequency is
> >increased by 240/221 and retransmitted from the
> >craft. Allowance is then made for the Doppler
> >effect on the path to the receiving site in a similar
> >fashion to the uplink.
> >
> >> ... is so it could be subtracted from
> >> nu_observed to get
> >> (f_observ - f_model)DSN = -2fP*t (2)
> >> Is this all mathematical or is the computer model made to operate a
> >> charge pump to create real frequency f_model to beat against
> >> f_observed?
> >
> >The data files were recorded thirty years ago! It
> >is all mathematical and if you get a copy of
> >the files you can do it yourself.
> >
> >> Or is f_observ reduced to a numeric for comparison with a numeric
> >> value from f_model?
> >> This subtraction operation is at the crux of the Pioneer observation,
> >> but as an outsider I can't be sure how it was done, just that it must
> >> have been done, but how?
> >
> >Craig used IDL. The details are on his web site.
> >
> >> But don't patronize me about definition of nu_0 etc. I know the signal
> >> went up as 2.11 Ghz, ...
> >
> >Yes, you are calling that "ftran".
> >
> >> ... was transformed down by 240/211,
> >
> >Right.
> >
> >> and that ftran
> >> was likewise subjected to 240/211 so as to match frequencies,
> >
> >Pardon, ftran was the uplink frequency wasn't it?
>
> No George, what I meant was that in order to subtract frequencies or
> make a Lissajous on a scope, ftran was likewise boosted by the 240/211
> before a comparison could be made.

No, you said below "the whole thing was heterodyned
down to 1 Mhz" which is correct. The returned frequency
is predicted based on the modelled velocity at that time
and the heterodyne reference chosen to be about 1MHz
away from the expected receive frequency.

> But you knew that.

I have no idea what you are talking about John. There is
a signal sent to the craft at a frequency near 2.11 GHz
which we call the "uplink". If that isn't what you mean
when you say "ftran", to which frequency are you referring?

I spent some considerable effort writing a long paragraph
to explain how it works above from which you should have
been able to understand the process so it would help if you
could refer your answer to that but if you are describin
something you think I missed, please explain where you
think it fits in

> >> and that
> >> the whole thing was heterodyned down to 1 Mhz and that they were able
> >> with a phase lock loop to interpolate 256 Mhz into the 1 Mhz for fine
> >> readings.
> >
> >Not quite, the system made measurements in steps
> >of 1/256 of a cycle so for a 60s sample, they could
> >measure with a resolution of 65 micro Hz.
> >
> >> By what means was Eq. (2) mechanized? When this matter is clarified
> >> maybe we can make some progress.
> >
> >If you know f_model then an Excel spreadsheet is
> >adequate to do the simple subtraction. That's not
> >really what you are asking though.
> >
> >George

[John C. Polasek]

On 1 Jun 2006 08:20:37 -0700, "George Dishman"
> wrote:

>
>John C. Polasek wrote:
>> On 1 Jun 2006 06:16:57 -0700, "George Dishman"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John C. Polasek wrote:
>> >> On 31 May 2006 10:52:02 -0500, Craig Markwardt
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >John C. Polasek > writes:
>> >> >> But we are neglecting another reference frequency, nu_87 that is built
>> >> >> into the model. ...
>> >> >
>> >> >No. Despite multiple corrections, and extensive discussions of the
>> >> >actual procedures, you persist with this delusion. As the thread is
>> >> >purely based on speculation, I no longer care to be involved.
>> >> >
>> >> >CM
>> >> It would be helpfulif you would illuminate us on what steps were
>> >> followed to generate nu_model ...
>> >
>> >The process is slightly iterative however the end
>> >result is as follows:
>> >
>> >For any measurement of the received frequency,
>> >the time of receipt is recorded in the data files.
>> >Having an estimate of the trajectory of the craft,
>> >the time at which the signal was transmitted can
>> >be deduced together with the location of the craft
>> >at that time. That also corresponds to the receipt
>> >of the uplink by the craft. From those and the
>> >known rotation and orbital parameters of the Earth,
>> >the time of transmission of the uplink from the
>> >DSN site can be calculated. The frequency which
>> >was transmitted during that period is also recorded
>> >in the data files. nu_model is then calculated by
>> >taking the recorded uplink transmit frequency,
Wait right here. How do you record the transmitted frequency? You mean
that the clock that was always regarded as 2.11 Ghz is assigned a new
and improved frequency with each shot? How do you measure the
frequency, by comparison to a similar clock or a maser? If all clocks
advance secularly, then your comparison is moot, and so after a few of
these antiseptic efforts, finding it's still 2.11Ghz, then it seems
acceptable to just take the book value and work from there. I cannot
conceive of a mechanism to check the clock for a new rate, unless the
clock becomes defective for example.


>> >applying Doppler to deal with the motion of the
>> >planet relative to the solar system barycentre.
>> >That signal travels to the craft and is changed by
>> >the Doppler effect due to the motion of the craft
>> >relative to the barycentre. The frequency is
>> >increased by 240/221 and retransmitted from the
>> >craft. Allowance is then made for the Doppler
>> >effect on the path to the receiving site in a similar
>> >fashion to the uplink.
>> >
>> >> ... is so it could be subtracted from
>> >> nu_observed to get
>> >> (f_observ - f_model)DSN = -2fP*t (2)
>> >> Is this all mathematical or is the computer model made to operate a
>> >> charge pump to create real frequency f_model to beat against
>> >> f_observed?
>> >
>> >The data files were recorded thirty years ago! It
>> >is all mathematical and if you get a copy of
>> >the files you can do it yourself.
>> >
>> >> Or is f_observ reduced to a numeric for comparison with a numeric
>> >> value from f_model?
>> >> This subtraction operation is at the crux of the Pioneer observation,
>> >> but as an outsider I can't be sure how it was done, just that it must
>> >> have been done, but how?
>> >
>> >Craig used IDL. The details are on his web site.
>> >
>> >> But don't patronize me about definition of nu_0 etc. I know the signal
>> >> went up as 2.11 Ghz, ...
>> >
>> >Yes, you are calling that "ftran".
>> >
>> >> ... was transformed down by 240/211,
>> >
>> >Right.
>> >
>> >> and that ftran
>> >> was likewise subjected to 240/211 so as to match frequencies,
>> >
>> >Pardon, ftran was the uplink frequency wasn't it?

George, George, when fdown was modified by 240/221 from 2.11GHz, it
seems only logical to take the reference ftran at 2.11 and similarly
multiply it by 240/221 so the modified ftran and fdown would match.
The diagram shows this

2.11----up------>x 240/21-----down------------------>
2.11as ref x 240/221--in lab to match down----->

There's nothing here to talk about except to express a measure of
dismay at your thinking I don't know 1 frequency from another. The
Lissajous remark below still applies; the diagram shows the separate X
and Y inputs to the scope.

>> No George, what I meant was that in order to subtract frequencies or
>> make a Lissajous on a scope, ftran was likewise boosted by the 240/211
>> before a comparison could be made.
>
>No, you said below "the whole thing was heterodyned
>down to 1 Mhz" which is correct. The returned frequency
>is predicted based on the modelled velocity at that time
>and the heterodyne reference chosen to be about 1MHz
>away from the expected receive frequency.
>
>> But you knew that.
>
>I have no idea what you are talking about John. There is
>a signal sent to the craft at a frequency near 2.11 GHz
>which we call the "uplink". If that isn't what you mean
>when you say "ftran", to which frequency are you referring?

This is tedious. Let's get on with the world's work.

>I spent some considerable effort writing a long paragraph
>to explain how it works above from which you should have
>been able to understand the process so it would help if you
>could refer your answer to that but if you are describin
>something you think I missed, please explain where you
>think it fits in
>
>> >> and that
>> >> the whole thing was heterodyned down to 1 Mhz and that they were able
>> >> with a phase lock loop to interpolate 256 Mhz into the 1 Mhz for fine
>> >> readings.
>> >
>> >Not quite, the system made measurements in steps
>> >of 1/256 of a cycle so for a 60s sample, they could
>> >measure with a resolution of 65 micro Hz.
>> >
>> >> By what means was Eq. (2) mechanized? When this matter is clarified
>> >> maybe we can make some progress.
>> >
>> >If you know f_model then an Excel spreadsheet is
>> >adequate to do the simple subtraction. That's not
>> >really what you are asking though.
>> >
>> >George

John Polasek

[Richard Saam]

Craig Markwardt wrote:
> Richard Saam > writes:
> ...
>
>>I would suggest that you be open minded
>>in the analysis of the Pioneer 10 & 11 data
>>for the possibility that a spin axis deceleration
>>or deceleration in spin axis direction
>>is not an indicator of "on-board systematic force"
>
> ...
>
> However, the spacecraft spin rate affects the observed doppler carrier
> frequency, and thus is an effect that must be accounted for in the
> processing. That is what is being discussed.
>
> CM

Craig

"spin rate affects the observed doppler carrier
frequency" is of course a worthy endeavor
but figure 12 in:

arXiv:gr-qc/0104064 v4 11 Apr 2002

indicates that the spin deceleration
warrants analysis as an anomaly in its own right.

Why is Pioneer "spin deceleration anomaly" not being pursued
in analysis of archived data?

Richard

[srp]

Richard Saam a écrit :
> Craig Markwardt wrote:
>> Richard Saam > writes:
>> ...
>>
>>> I would suggest that you be open minded
>>> in the analysis of the Pioneer 10 & 11 data
>>> for the possibility that a spin axis deceleration
>>> or deceleration in spin axis direction
>>> is not an indicator of "on-board systematic force"
>>
>> ...
>>
>> However, the spacecraft spin rate affects the observed doppler carrier
>> frequency, and thus is an effect that must be accounted for in the
>> processing. That is what is being discussed.
>>
>> CM
>
> Craig
>
> "spin rate affects the observed doppler carrier
> frequency" is of course a worthy endeavor
> but figure 12 in:
>
> arXiv:gr-qc/0104064 v4 11 Apr 2002
>
> indicates that the spin deceleration
> warrants analysis as an anomaly in its own right.
>
> Why is Pioneer "spin deceleration anomaly" not being pursued
> in analysis of archived data?
>
> Richard

I never became aware that there was a spin deceleration "anomaly"
involved.

Would someone care to explain what the issue is, or at least
point me to a paper explaining it ?

André Michaud

[George Dishman]

"John C. Polasek" > wrote in message
...
> On 1 Jun 2006 08:20:37 -0700, "George Dishman"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>John C. Polasek wrote:
>>> On 1 Jun 2006 06:16:57 -0700, "George Dishman"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >John C. Polasek wrote:
>>> >> On 31 May 2006 10:52:02 -0500, Craig Markwardt
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >John C. Polasek > writes:
>>> >> >> But we are neglecting another reference frequency, nu_87 that is
>>> >> >> built
>>> >> >> into the model. ...
>>> >> >
>>> >> >No. Despite multiple corrections, and extensive discussions of the
>>> >> >actual procedures, you persist with this delusion. As the thread is
>>> >> >purely based on speculation, I no longer care to be involved.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >CM
>>> >> It would be helpfulif you would illuminate us on what steps were
>>> >> followed to generate nu_model ...
>>> >
>>> >The process is slightly iterative however the end
>>> >result is as follows:
>>> >
>>> >For any measurement of the received frequency,
>>> >the time of receipt is recorded in the data files.
>>> >Having an estimate of the trajectory of the craft,
>>> >the time at which the signal was transmitted can
>>> >be deduced together with the location of the craft
>>> >at that time. That also corresponds to the receipt
>>> >of the uplink by the craft. From those and the
>>> >known rotation and orbital parameters of the Earth,
>>> >the time of transmission of the uplink from the
>>> >DSN site can be calculated. The frequency which
>>> >was transmitted during that period is also recorded
>>> >in the data files. nu_model is then calculated by
>>> >taking the recorded uplink transmit frequency,
>
> Wait right here. How do you record the transmitted frequency?

The value is written into the data files along
with the receive frequency. There are what are
known as "ramp records" that give you the exact
values. Those are the nu_0 that they describe.

For example on October 10th 1987, the uplink
frequency was set to 2198432000 Hz for the
majority of the contact. The following day it
was 2198434000 Hz.

> You mean
> that the clock that was always regarded as 2.11 Ghz is assigned a new
> and improved frequency with each shot?

Yes, the nominal value was about 2.1GHz but the
exact value was varied by a few hundred kHz over
a year. In all the cases I have seen, they kept
the Tx frequency constant over a contact period
other than some sweeps to acquire lock at the
start.

> How do you measure the
> frequency, by comparison to a similar clock or a maser?

Yes. I believe they used a local maser whose secular
rate was known (locked) against the international
standard.

> If all clocks
> advance secularly, then your comparison is moot,

Not at all, that's the analysis they did because
they showed that a universal quadratic drift would
match the anomaly.

> and so after a few of
> these antiseptic efforts, finding it's still 2.11Ghz, then it seems
> acceptable to just take the book value and work from there. I cannot
> conceive of a mechanism to check the clock for a new rate, unless the
> clock becomes defective for example.

Defective clocks would easily be noticed since
they usually use a group of devices and average
them. What they consider AIUI is a quadratic
drift of the common standard.

>>> >applying Doppler to deal with the motion of the
>>> >planet relative to the solar system barycentre.
>>> >That signal travels to the craft and is changed by
>>> >the Doppler effect due to the motion of the craft
>>> >relative to the barycentre. The frequency is
>>> >increased by 240/221 and retransmitted from the
>>> >craft. Allowance is then made for the Doppler
>>> >effect on the path to the receiving site in a similar
>>> >fashion to the uplink.
>>> >
>>> >> ... is so it could be subtracted from
>>> >> nu_observed to get
>>> >> (f_observ - f_model)DSN = -2fP*t (2)
>>> >> Is this all mathematical or is the computer model made to operate a
>>> >> charge pump to create real frequency f_model to beat against
>>> >> f_observed?
>>> >
>>> >The data files were recorded thirty years ago! It
>>> >is all mathematical and if you get a copy of
>>> >the files you can do it yourself.
>>> >
>>> >> Or is f_observ reduced to a numeric for comparison with a numeric
>>> >> value from f_model?
>>> >> This subtraction operation is at the crux of the Pioneer observation,
>>> >> but as an outsider I can't be sure how it was done, just that it must
>>> >> have been done, but how?
>>> >
>>> >Craig used IDL. The details are on his web site.
>>> >
>>> >> But don't patronize me about definition of nu_0 etc. I know the
>>> >> signal
>>> >> went up as 2.11 Ghz, ...
>>> >
>>> >Yes, you are calling that "ftran".
>>> >
>>> >> ... was transformed down by 240/211,
>>> >
>>> >Right.
>>> >
>>> >> and that ftran
>>> >> was likewise subjected to 240/211 so as to match frequencies,
>>> >
>>> >Pardon, ftran was the uplink frequency wasn't it?
>
> George, George, when fdown was modified by 240/221 from 2.11GHz, it
> seems only logical to take the reference ftran at 2.11 and similarly
> multiply it by 240/221 so the modified ftran and fdown would match.

I think this is just terminology. The reference maser
was probably at 10MHz and was used to generate the
uplink which I thought you were calling "ftran". The
downlink could be several hundred kHz away and was
being received 12 hours later at a different site.
They would also have a 10MHz maser reference which
was used to produced a "local oscillator" (LO) signal
as in any heterodyne system, and the resulting beat
was then measured. The measured value added to the LO
gives the received frequency which again is available
in the data files.

> The diagram shows this
>
> 2.11----up------>x 240/21-----down------------------>
> 2.11as ref x 240/221--in lab to match down----->
>
> There's nothing here to talk about except to express a measure of
> dismay at your thinking I don't know 1 frequency from another.

As I say, it may be just terminology. To me "ftran"
meant the transmitted frequency but you said the
uplink was multiplied by 240/221 as was "ftran" so
I failed to understand your distinction, there is
only one frequency being sent.

> The
> Lissajous remark below still applies; the diagram shows the separate X
> and Y inputs to the scope.
>
>>> No George, what I meant was that in order to subtract frequencies or
>>> make a Lissajous on a scope, ftran was likewise boosted by the 240/211
>>> before a comparison could be made.
>>
>>No, you said below "the whole thing was heterodyned
>>down to 1 Mhz" which is correct. The returned frequency
>>is predicted based on the modelled velocity at that time
>>and the heterodyne reference chosen to be about 1MHz
>>away from the expected receive frequency.
>>
>>> But you knew that.
>>
>>I have no idea what you are talking about John. There is
>>a signal sent to the craft at a frequency near 2.11 GHz
>>which we call the "uplink". If that isn't what you mean
>>when you say "ftran", to which frequency are you referring?
>
> This is tedious.

I agree. You have worked out correctly that the
Hubble redshift is far too small to account for
the anomaly (and in the wrong sense). A drift
of the reference clock as you suggest is a
possibility but it isn't a new idea, Anderson
et al already considered it and wrote a section
about it. It doesn't appear to be a credible
explanation at this stage.

George

[Jeff Root]

George Dishman replied to John C. Polasek:

> Wait right here. How do you record the transmitted frequency?

> The value is written into the data files along
> with the receive frequency. There are what are
> known as "ramp records" that give you the exact
> values. Those are the nu_0 that they describe.

I've forgotten these details, myself. What you say here
is unclear and possibly misleading. I know transmission
and reception usually take place simultaneously, but are
"ramp records" made at the the time of transmission, or
reception, or both? When is the transmitted frequency
correlated with the received signal? At the time of
reception? Or at the time of data reduction, which might
be years later? Does the navigation model determine which
transmitted signal is correleated with which received
signal? So a different navigation model could correlate
a received signal with a different transmitted signal?
You start with a record of the received signal, apply the
navigation model to determine when the signal must have
been transmitted, then find the ramp record for that
time to look up the recorded transmission frequency?

And why are they called "ramp records"?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Richard Saam]

srp wrote:
> Richard Saam a écrit :
>
>> Craig Markwardt wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Saam > writes:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> I would suggest that you be open minded
>>>> in the analysis of the Pioneer 10 & 11 data
>>>> for the possibility that a spin axis deceleration
>>>> or deceleration in spin axis direction
>>>> is not an indicator of "on-board systematic force"
>>>
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> However, the spacecraft spin rate affects the observed doppler carrier
>>> frequency, and thus is an effect that must be accounted for in the
>>> processing. That is what is being discussed.
>>>
>>> CM
>>
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> "spin rate affects the observed doppler carrier
>> frequency" is of course a worthy endeavor
>> but figure 12 in:
>>
>> arXiv:gr-qc/0104064 v4 11 Apr 2002
>>
>> indicates that the spin deceleration
>> warrants analysis as an anomaly in its own right.
>>
>> Why is Pioneer "spin deceleration anomaly" not being pursued
>> in analysis of archived data?
>>
>> Richard
>
>
> I never became aware that there was a spin deceleration "anomaly"
> involved.
>
> Would someone care to explain what the issue is, or at least
> point me to a paper explaining it ?
>
> André Michaud

Craig's statement

"However, the spacecraft spin rate affects the observed doppler carrier
frequency, and thus is an effect that must be accounted for in the
processing. That is what is being discussed."

A logical implication of this statement is that:

"spacecraft spin rate affects" of a certain order
would account for or model anomalous spacecraft translational deceleration.

This is worthy of study
but logically it would appear that
both spin rate (rotational) and translational deceleration
could be anomalous.

spin rate (rotational) deceleration is attributed to gas leaks.
and this spin rate (rotational) deceleration is linear.
arXiv:gr-qc/0104064 v4 11 Apr 2002 fig 12
This deceleration linearity would be inconsistent with F = dp/dt analysis
of a gas leaking from a pressurized finite volume through an orifice (leak).

Also, a gas leak would have a random nature as to direction
making rotational acceleration an equal possibility as rotational deceleration.
Both spacecraft experience rotational linear rate deceleration
making the anomalous spin rate deceleration hypothesis worthy of investigation.

Also, there is a possibility of no gas leak at all yet
the existence of spin rate (rotational) deceleration.

Richard

[George Dishman]

Jeff Root wrote:
> George Dishman replied to John C. Polasek:
>
> > Wait right here. How do you record the transmitted frequency?
>
> > The value is written into the data files along
> > with the receive frequency. There are what are
> > known as "ramp records" that give you the exact
> > values. Those are the nu_0 that they describe.
>
> I've forgotten these details, myself. What you say here
> is unclear and possibly misleading. I know transmission
> and reception usually take place simultaneously, but are
> "ramp records" made at the the time of transmission, or
> reception, or both?

Tx and Rx are on occassion both taking place
but they can be treated independently because
of the many hours that it took the signal to get
to the craft and back.

Ramp records were recorded at the Tx site at
the time of transmission.

> When is the transmitted frequency
> correlated with the received signal? At the time of
> reception? Or at the time of data reduction, which might
> be years later?

Initially it was at data reducton which was possibly
hours or days later. The information was used for
the craft navigation so had to be reasonably up to
date. At that time they gave greatest weight to
more recent data so the anomaly wasn't apparent.

Years later, Anderson et al got the whole data set
and did their analysis of the entire dataset as you
know.

> Does the navigation model determine which
> transmitted signal is correleated with which received
> signal?

Yes.

> So a different navigation model could correlate
> a received signal with a different transmitted signal?

Yes. As they say it is an iterative process.
However may help to understand why. The
actual frequency radiated from the DSN was
mostly constant in ground terms, but the
Earth is rotating so there is a sinusoidal
Doppler shift added. A slight difference in
trajectory therefore causes a slight change
in the Tx time corresponding to any given Rx
measurement and hence the Doppler shift
due to rotation.

> You start with a record of the received signal, apply the
> navigation model to determine when the signal must have
> been transmitted, then find the ramp record for that
> time to look up the recorded transmission frequency?

Yes, though that ws fairly straightforward since the
Tx frequency was usually held constant for each
contact, but more importantly the Tx time also
determines the Doppler due to the Earth's rotation
and orbital velocity.

> And why are they called "ramp records"?

Because the give both a starting value and a rate
of change. When trying to establish contact, the
frequency would be "ramped" so it varied linearly
with time over a small range. The usable part is
after the ramp has completed and any resulting
transient had decayed. I have some graphs
somewhere but I can't find them at the moment.

George

[George Dishman]

Richard Saam wrote:
> srp wrote:
> > Richard Saam a écrit :
> >
> >> Craig Markwardt wrote:
> >>
> >>> Richard Saam > writes:
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>>> I would suggest that you be open minded
> >>>> in the analysis of the Pioneer 10 & 11 data
> >>>> for the possibility that a spin axis deceleration
> >>>> or deceleration in spin axis direction
> >>>> is not an indicator of "on-board systematic force"
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> However, the spacecraft spin rate affects the observed doppler carrier
> >>> frequency, and thus is an effect that must be accounted for in the
> >>> processing. That is what is being discussed.
> >>
> >> "spin rate affects the observed doppler carrier
> >> frequency" is of course a worthy endeavor
> >> but figure 12 in:
> >>
> >> arXiv:gr-qc/0104064 v4 11 Apr 2002
> >>
> >> indicates that the spin deceleration
> >> warrants analysis as an anomaly in its own right.
> >>
> >> Why is Pioneer "spin deceleration anomaly" not being pursued
> >> in analysis of archived data?
> >
> > I never became aware that there was a spin deceleration "anomaly"
> > involved.
> >
> > Would someone care to explain what the issue is, or at least
> > point me to a paper explaining it ?

The spin slowly decreases.

> Craig's statement
>
> "However, the spacecraft spin rate affects the observed doppler carrier
> frequency, and thus is an effect that must be accounted for in the
> processing. That is what is being discussed."
>
> A logical implication of this statement is that:
>
> "spacecraft spin rate affects" of a certain order
> would account for or model anomalous spacecraft translational deceleration.

"of a certain order" are the key words. The communications
used circular polarisation. If you imagine pulling a spring
over your finger nail at constant speed, the coils will click at
a rate given by the pitch and speed. Then consider moving
the spring at the same linear speed but also rotating it as it
moves. The clicks will be at a different rate even though the
pitch is unchanged. Hence the spin rate affects the measured
frequency. If the rate of change of spin was sufficiently high
then it would explain the anomaly, but since they included the
spin effect in their calculation, the anomaly is the excess over
what could be attributed to spin change. I think if you calculate
the effect, you will find the craft would have to have stopped
rotating one way and started spinning back the other to explain
A_p, assuming it was in the right sense to start with.

The radio beam imparts a linear thrust to the craft because
photons carry momentum and the circularly polarised
transmitted beam will also impart angular momentum to the
craft but is that enough to explain the rate of change of spin?

George

[Richard Saam]

George Dishman wrote:
> Richard Saam wrote:
>
>>srp wrote:
>>
>>>Richard Saam a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>>Craig Markwardt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Richard Saam > writes:
>>>>>...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I would suggest that you be open minded
>>>>>>in the analysis of the Pioneer 10 & 11 data
>>>>>>for the possibility that a spin axis deceleration
>>>>>>or deceleration in spin axis direction
>>>>>>is not an indicator of "on-board systematic force"
>>>>>
>>>>>...
>>>>>
>>>>>However, the spacecraft spin rate affects the observed doppler carrier
>>>>>frequency, and thus is an effect that must be accounted for in the
>>>>>processing. That is what is being discussed.
>>>>
>>>>"spin rate affects the observed doppler carrier
>>>>frequency" is of course a worthy endeavor
>>>>but figure 12 in:
>>>>
>>>>arXiv:gr-qc/0104064 v4 11 Apr 2002
>>>>
>>>>indicates that the spin deceleration
>>>>warrants analysis as an anomaly in its own right.
>>>>
>>>>Why is Pioneer "spin deceleration anomaly" not being pursued
>>>>in analysis of archived data?
>>>
>>>I never became aware that there was a spin deceleration "anomaly"
>>>involved.
>>>
>>>Would someone care to explain what the issue is, or at least
>>>point me to a paper explaining it ?
>
>
> The spin slowly decreases.
>
>
>>Craig's statement
>>
>>"However, the spacecraft spin rate affects the observed doppler carrier
>>frequency, and thus is an effect that must be accounted for in the
>>processing. That is what is being discussed."
>>
>>A logical implication of this statement is that:
>>
>>"spacecraft spin rate affects" of a certain order
>>would account for or model anomalous spacecraft translational deceleration.
>
>
> "of a certain order" are the key words. The communications
> used circular polarisation. If you imagine pulling a spring
> over your finger nail at constant speed, the coils will click at
> a rate given by the pitch and speed. Then consider moving
> the spring at the same linear speed but also rotating it as it
> moves. The clicks will be at a different rate even though the
> pitch is unchanged. Hence the spin rate affects the measured
> frequency. If the rate of change of spin was sufficiently high
> then it would explain the anomaly, but since they included the
> spin effect in their calculation, the anomaly is the excess over
> what could be attributed to spin change. I think if you calculate
> the effect, you will find the craft would have to have stopped
> rotating one way and started spinning back the other to explain
> A_p, assuming it was in the right sense to start with.
>
> The radio beam imparts a linear thrust to the craft because
> photons carry momentum and the circularly polarised
> transmitted beam will also impart angular momentum to the
> craft but is that enough to explain the rate of change of spin?
>
> George
>
Nominal craft RF power is 8 watt (8E7 erg/sec)

This is equates to a RF force of 8E7/c = 8/3 E-3 dyne = 2.7E-3 dyne.
craft weighs 241,000 g
This could impart deceleration of:
2.7E-3 dyne /241,000 g = 1.12E-8 cm/sec^2

Study of the Pioneer Anomaly: A Problem Set
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0502123
page 10

indicates a force needed at 1.37 meter craft antenna radius
to torque spacecraft at .0067 rpm/yr
is .95 E-3 dyne

So how much of the 8 watts RF
can be allocated to the circularly polarized beam
imparting angular momentum to the craft?

Would it be less than the fraction: .95*3/8
or
a designated circularly polarized beam wattage (.95*3/8) 8 watt = 2.8 watt?

Richard

[srp]

Richard Saam a écrit :
> srp wrote:
>> Richard Saam a écrit :
>>
>>> Craig Markwardt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Richard Saam > writes:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> I would suggest that you be open minded
>>>>> in the analysis of the Pioneer 10 & 11 data
>>>>> for the possibility that a spin axis deceleration
>>>>> or deceleration in spin axis direction
>>>>> is not an indicator of "on-board systematic force"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> However, the spacecraft spin rate affects the observed doppler carrier
>>>> frequency, and thus is an effect that must be accounted for in the
>>>> processing. That is what is being discussed.
>>>>
>>>> CM
>>>
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> "spin rate affects the observed doppler carrier
>>> frequency" is of course a worthy endeavor
>>> but figure 12 in:
>>>
>>> arXiv:gr-qc/0104064 v4 11 Apr 2002
>>>
>>> indicates that the spin deceleration
>>> warrants analysis as an anomaly in its own right.
>>>
>>> Why is Pioneer "spin deceleration anomaly" not being pursued
>>> in analysis of archived data?
>>>
>>> Richard
>>
>>
>> I never became aware that there was a spin deceleration "anomaly"
>> involved.
>>
>> Would someone care to explain what the issue is, or at least
>> point me to a paper explaining it ?
>>
>> André Michaud
>
> Craig's statement
>
> "However, the spacecraft spin rate affects the observed doppler carrier
> frequency, and thus is an effect that must be accounted for in the
> processing. That is what is being discussed."
>
> A logical implication of this statement is that:
>
> "spacecraft spin rate affects" of a certain order
> would account for or model anomalous spacecraft translational deceleration.
>
> This is worthy of study
> but logically it would appear that
> both spin rate (rotational) and translational deceleration
> could be anomalous.
>
> spin rate (rotational) deceleration is attributed to gas leaks.
> and this spin rate (rotational) deceleration is linear.
> arXiv:gr-qc/0104064 v4 11 Apr 2002 fig 12
> This deceleration linearity would be inconsistent with F = dp/dt analysis
> of a gas leaking from a pressurized finite volume through an orifice
> (leak).
>
> Also, a gas leak would have a random nature as to direction
> making rotational acceleration an equal possibility as rotational
> deceleration.
> Both spacecraft experience rotational linear rate deceleration
> making the anomalous spin rate deceleration hypothesis worthy of
> investigation.
>
> Also, there is a possibility of no gas leak at all yet
> the existence of spin rate (rotational) deceleration.
>
> Richard

Thanks Richard for the explanation and link to Anderson et al. paper.

Fascinating.

Fred, are you reading this?

Don't you think this would completely justify the little
experiment (page 125) that I talked to you about lately
in some other thread ?

André Michaud

[Richard Saam]

Richard Saam wrote:

> George Dishman wrote:
>
>> Richard Saam wrote:
>>
>>> srp wrote:
>>>
>>>> Richard Saam a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Craig Markwardt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard Saam > writes:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would suggest that you be open minded
>>>>>>> in the analysis of the Pioneer 10 & 11 data
>>>>>>> for the possibility that a spin axis deceleration
>>>>>>> or deceleration in spin axis direction
>>>>>>> is not an indicator of "on-board systematic force"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, the spacecraft spin rate affects the observed doppler
>>>>>> carrier
>>>>>> frequency, and thus is an effect that must be accounted for in the
>>>>>> processing. That is what is being discussed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "spin rate affects the observed doppler carrier
>>>>> frequency" is of course a worthy endeavor
>>>>> but figure 12 in:
>>>>>
>>>>> arXiv:gr-qc/0104064 v4 11 Apr 2002
>>>>>
>>>>> indicates that the spin deceleration
>>>>> warrants analysis as an anomaly in its own right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is Pioneer "spin deceleration anomaly" not being pursued
>>>>> in analysis of archived data?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I never became aware that there was a spin deceleration "anomaly"
>>>> involved.
>>>>
>>>> Would someone care to explain what the issue is, or at least
>>>> point me to a paper explaining it ?
>>
>>
>>
>> The spin slowly decreases.
>>
>>
>>> Craig's statement
>>>
>>> "However, the spacecraft spin rate affects the observed doppler carrier
>>> frequency, and thus is an effect that must be accounted for in the
>>> processing. That is what is being discussed."
>>>
>>> A logical implication of this statement is that:
>>>
>>> "spacecraft spin rate affects" of a certain order
>>> would account for or model anomalous spacecraft translational
>>> deceleration.
>>
>>
>>
>> "of a certain order" are the key words. The communications
>> used circular polarisation. If you imagine pulling a spring
>> over your finger nail at constant speed, the coils will click at
>> a rate given by the pitch and speed. Then consider moving
>> the spring at the same linear speed but also rotating it as it
>> moves. The clicks will be at a different rate even though the
>> pitch is unchanged. Hence the spin rate affects the measured
>> frequency. If the rate of change of spin was sufficiently high
>> then it would explain the anomaly, but since they included the
>> spin effect in their calculation, the anomaly is the excess over
>> what could be attributed to spin change. I think if you calculate
>> the effect, you will find the craft would have to have stopped
>> rotating one way and started spinning back the other to explain
>> A_p, assuming it was in the right sense to start with.
>>
>> The radio beam imparts a linear thrust to the craft because
>> photons carry momentum and the circularly polarised
>> transmitted beam will also impart angular momentum to the
>> craft but is that enough to explain the rate of change of spin?
>>
>> George
>>
> Nominal craft RF power is 8 watt (8E7 erg/sec)
>
> This is equates to a RF force of 8E7/c = 8/3 E-3 dyne = 2.7E-3 dyne.
> craft weighs 241,000 g
> This could impart deceleration of:
> 2.7E-3 dyne /241,000 g = 1.12E-8 cm/sec^2
>
> Study of the Pioneer Anomaly: A Problem Set
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0502123
> page 10
>
> indicates a force needed at 1.37 meter craft antenna radius
> to torque spacecraft at .0067 rpm/yr
> is .95 E-3 dyne
>
> So how much of the 8 watts RF
> can be allocated to the circularly polarized beam
> imparting angular momentum to the craft?
>
> Would it be less than the fraction: .95*3/8
> or
> a designated circularly polarized beam wattage (.95*3/8) 8 watt = 2.8 watt?
>
> Richard


I am going to add to the above.

Assume the Pioneer antenna emits a circularly polarized EM wave

EM Frequency (w)
2.29 gigahertz 2.29E+09 hertz

EM wavelength (lambda)
13.09 cm

EM power
8.0 watt or 8.00E+07 erg/sec

EM photons/sec
power/(hw)
5.27E+24 photons/sec

EM momentum/photon
h/lambda
5.0614E-28 g cm/sec / photon

EM force on antenna from angular momentum / time
(momentum/photon)*(photons/sec)
2.67E-03 dyne

Now for discussion:

The EM force is related to EM Power
and not dependent on the particular EM w or lambda.

It would appear that there would have to be a dimensional match
between Lambda and the Pioneer space craft
so that force could be imparted to spacecraft.

For example, if wave length lambda were say 10 nm
the calculated force would be the same for 8 watt power
but the force would probably dissipate as heat
and not affect large scale mechanical movement.

Richard

[George Dishman]

"Richard Saam" > wrote in message
...
> George Dishman wrote:
....
>> "of a certain order" are the key words. ...
>>
>> The radio beam imparts a linear thrust to the craft because
>> photons carry momentum and the circularly polarised
>> transmitted beam will also impart angular momentum to the
>> craft but is that enough to explain the rate of change of spin?
>
> Nominal craft RF power is 8 watt (8E7 erg/sec)
>
> This is equates to a RF force of 8E7/c = 8/3 E-3 dyne = 2.7E-3 dyne.
> craft weighs 241,000 g
> This could impart deceleration of:
> 2.7E-3 dyne /241,000 g = 1.12E-8 cm/sec^2

Mass and linear acceleration are not important
here. The same page gives the moment of inertia
about the spin axis as 588.3 kg m^2 which is
what matters.

> Study of the Pioneer Anomaly: A Problem Set
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0502123
> page 10
>
> indicates a force needed at 1.37 meter craft antenna radius
> to torque spacecraft at .0067 rpm/yr
> is .95 E-3 dyne
>
> So how much of the 8 watts RF
> can be allocated to the circularly polarized beam
> imparting angular momentum to the craft?
>
> Would it be less than the fraction: .95*3/8
> or a designated circularly polarized beam wattage (.95*3/8) 8 watt = 2.8
> watt?

The whole 8 watts is circularly polarised but what you
need to consider is the angular momentum of the photons
to calculate the torque from the beam. The beam is
radiated close to the axis and the beam direction is
parallel to the spin axis. Your figures are probably
correct (I haven't checked) but would apply to a beam
radiated tangentially to the circumference of the
antenna. That's where the thrusters are that are being
discussed in that part of the paper. This what I worked
out:

Frequency 2.95 GHz
Energy per photon 1.95E-24 J
Power 8.00 W
Photons/sec 4.09E+24
Angular momentum per photon 1.05E-34 J s (h-bar)
Torque 4.32E-10 N m
Moment of inertia 588.3 kg m^2
Angular acceleration 7.34E-13 rad / s^2
0.00022 rpm / yr

Observed 0.00670 rpm / yr

So it looks like it is too small but only by about a
factor of 30 (unless I've slipped up in the arithmetic
somewhere).

Note also that the spin of Pioneer 10 slowed while that
of Pioneer 11 increased between manoeuvres. Have a look
at the graphs on page 23 of:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064

The torque from the circularly polarised radiation would
of course be in the same direction for both craft.

However, differentially radiated heat from the electronics
and instruments could explain the spin down. Assuming the
tangential radation is at an effective radius of 0.75 m
from the spin axis, the required differential power is
about 5.25W which seems quite feasible. A study of the
thermal model would be needed to see if the idea works in
practice but slight construction differences might explain
the differences between the craft.

George

[Richard Saam]

George Dishman wrote:
> "Richard Saam" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>George Dishman wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>"of a certain order" are the key words. ...
>>>
>>>The radio beam imparts a linear thrust to the craft because
>>>photons carry momentum and the circularly polarised
>>>transmitted beam will also impart angular momentum to the
>>>craft but is that enough to explain the rate of change of spin?
>>
>>Nominal craft RF power is 8 watt (8E7 erg/sec)
>>
>>This is equates to a RF force of 8E7/c = 8/3 E-3 dyne = 2.7E-3 dyne.
>>craft weighs 241,000 g
>>This could impart deceleration of:
>>2.7E-3 dyne /241,000 g = 1.12E-8 cm/sec^2
>
>
> Mass and linear acceleration are not important
> here. The same page gives the moment of inertia
> about the spin axis as 588.3 kg m^2 which is
> what matters.
>
>
>>Study of the Pioneer Anomaly: A Problem Set
>>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0502123
>>page 10
>>
>>indicates a force needed at 1.37 meter craft antenna radius
>>to torque spacecraft at .0067 rpm/yr
>>is .95 E-3 dyne
>>
>>So how much of the 8 watts RF
>>can be allocated to the circularly polarized beam
>>imparting angular momentum to the craft?
>>
>>Would it be less than the fraction: .95*3/8
>>or a designated circularly polarized beam wattage (.95*3/8) 8 watt = 2.8
>>watt?
>
>
> The whole 8 watts is circularly polarised but what you
> need to consider is the angular momentum of the photons
> to calculate the torque from the beam. The beam is
> radiated close to the axis and the beam direction is
> parallel to the spin axis. Your figures are probably
> correct (I haven't checked) but would apply to a beam
> radiated tangentially to the circumference of the
> antenna. That's where the thrusters are that are being
> discussed in that part of the paper. This what I worked
> out:
>
> Frequency 2.95 GHz
> Energy per photon 1.95E-24 J
> Power 8.00 W
> Photons/sec 4.09E+24
> Angular momentum per photon 1.05E-34 J s (h-bar)
> Torque 4.32E-10 N m
> Moment of inertia 588.3 kg m^2
> Angular acceleration 7.34E-13 rad / s^2
> 0.00022 rpm / yr
>
> Observed 0.00670 rpm / yr
>
> So it looks like it is too small but only by about a
> factor of 30 (unless I've slipped up in the arithmetic
> somewhere).
>
> Note also that the spin of Pioneer 10 slowed while that
> of Pioneer 11 increased between manoeuvres. Have a look
> at the graphs on page 23 of:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064

between the maneuvers
but linear rates over long periods with multiple maneuvers
were -.0234 rpm/yr.
>
> The torque from the circularly polarised radiation would
> of course be in the same direction for both craft.
>
> However, differentially radiated heat from the electronics
> and instruments could explain the spin down. Assuming the
> tangential radation is at an effective radius of 0.75 m
> from the spin axis, the required differential power is
> about 5.25W which seems quite feasible. A study of the
> thermal model would be needed to see if the idea works in
> practice but slight construction differences might explain
> the differences between the craft.
>

George

Newly compiled Archival data
http://planetary.org/programs/projects/pioneer_anomaly/update_20060601.html
apparently has extensive craft internal heat data
not analyzed before
which may go a long way in resolving
some of these points.

I confirm your point about negligible angular acceleration
by circularly polarized radiation.
Linear forces are also provided for completeness.

antenna frequency 2.95 gigahertz 2.95E+09 hertz
energy per photon 1.95E-17 erg
RF temperature 0.14 degree K
RF wavelength 10.16 cm
RF power 8.0 watt 8.00E+07 erg/sec
RF photons/sec 4.09E+24 photons/sec
RF momentum/photon (linear) 6.52E-28 g cm/sec / photon
RF force (linear) 2.67E-03 dyne
mass 2.41E+05 g
moment of Inertia 5.88E+09 g cm^2
deceleration (linear ) 1.11E-08 cm/sec^2
lever radial point where force is applied 137 cm
angular acceleration with radial force contact 6.21E-11 rad / sec^2
angular acceleration with radial force contact 1.87E-02 rpm/yr
RF momentum per photon (h-bar) angular 1.05E-27 erg sec
RF momentum (angular) 4.32E-03 dyne cm
angular acceleration 7.34E-13 rad / sec^2
angular acceleration 2.21E-04 rpm/yr

To definitively resolve these issues
a fleet of space craft each
with zero internal heat or radiation sources
and with a range of masses, area cross-sections and moments of inertia
and a range of spin axis
would be launched at various angles to the celestial sphere.

Their rotational and translational motion properties
would be monitored remotely by wing man craft
with low power radar, minimizing radiation pressure effects.

Richard

[Craig Markwardt]

John C. Polasek > writes:
> On 01 Jun 2006 03:38:28 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >John C. Polasek > writes:
> >
> >> On 31 May 2006 10:52:02 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >John C. Polasek > writes:
> >> >> But we are neglecting another reference frequency, nu_87 that is built
> >> >> into the model. ...
> >> >
> >> >No. Despite multiple corrections, and extensive discussions of the
> >> >actual procedures, you persist with this delusion. As the thread is
> >> >purely based on speculation, I no longer care to be involved.
> >> >
> >> >CM
> >> It would be helpfulif you would illuminate us on what steps were
> >> followed to generate nu_model is so it could be subtracted from
> >> nu_observed to get
> >> (f_observ - f_model)DSN = -2fP*t (2)
> >
> >It's not clear where you got this equation.
>
> (2) is an image I copied and pasted to my paper as Fig.1 and it's the
> same as Eq. 15 in Anderson 10 Mar 2005. (A10)

Actually, equation 15 of Anderson et al is quite different, at least
on the right hand side.

> But A10 Eq. 15b has a useful definition of nu_model as a function of
> velocities:
> nu_model = nu0(1 - 2*V_model(t)/c) (15b
>
> Now, assuming that the model velocity(t) perfectly tracked real
> velocity and if, according to my assumption, nu increased at Hubble
> rate according to
> nu = nu_0(1 + H*t) that would make the fractional
....

However, what you are not grasping is that *both* the "model" and
"observed" frequencies also depend on the *transmitted* frequency at
the time of the tracking session. Even if all frequencies drifted as
you suppose, so would the transmitted uplink frequency. Any drift
would appear in both "model" and "observed," and therefore subtract
away to zero. Once again, there is no special frequency of 1987
stored in the analysis program.

....

CM

[Craig Markwardt]

Hi George,

"George Dishman" > writes:

> Craig Markwardt wrote:
> > "George Dishman" > writes:
> > > As Craig has pointed out, and I wasn't clear in my earlier reply
> > > so I guess I may have caused the confusion, the model was
> > > initialised by setting the craft _velocity_ such that the modelled
> > > frequency matched the observation at that time.
> >
> > George, just to clarify, the spacecraft position and velocity in 1987
> > are initial conditions to the trajectory problem. During the analysis
> > we did not *intend* for the frequency residual to be zero in 1987, as
> > one might infer from your statement above. And indeed, the residual
> > would not need to be zero in 1987 (if the model would have been a poor
> > description of the data; or if the spacecraft initial conditions were
> > specified at a different epoch).
>
> That's a useful clarification Craig, thanks. Looking at your
> graph which John reproduces, it goes from zero anomaly
> to about +18cm/s. It would be equally valid to have an
> anomaly going from -18cm/s to zero but with a base model
> that had an initial speed higher by 18cm/s. As I understand
> the situation, up to the start of the study, the craft motion
> was predicted using a shorter term model (50 days?) which
> makes sense where effects like the planetary passes could
> not be perfectly modelled. That suggests that if there had
> been any anomalous force prior to 1987, its effect would have
> been rolled up into the then current trajectory. Is my
> understanding valid or am I missing something?
>
> > > ... It is that initial
> > > velocity which is effectively a constant, the subsequent speed
> > > being derived by modeling gravitational and other accelerations.
> >
> > Also to clarify: the initial conditions (position & velocity) are
> > *varied* (not fixed) during the orbit determination process.
>
> That I don't follow since I can't see how a uniform origin shift
> of the anomaly can be distinguished from a change in initial
> radial velocity.

What I was describing was the orbit determination procedure. It is
what it is. The origin of the "anomaly" was essentially held fixed at
the position origin of the solar system, for all but some diagnostic
analysis, and it is not well constrained. One can easily translate
the origin of the anomaly by a fraction of an AU without altering the
solution.

Craig

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig B. Markwardt, Ph.D. EMAIL:
Astrophysics, IDL, Finance, Derivatives | Remove "net" for better response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[George Dishman]

"Craig Markwardt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hi George,
>
> "George Dishman" > writes:
>
>> Craig Markwardt wrote:
>> > "George Dishman" > writes:
>> > > As Craig has pointed out, and I wasn't clear in my earlier reply
>> > > so I guess I may have caused the confusion, the model was
>> > > initialised by setting the craft _velocity_ such that the modelled
>> > > frequency matched the observation at that time.
>> >
>> > George, just to clarify, the spacecraft position and velocity in 1987
>> > are initial conditions to the trajectory problem. During the analysis
>> > we did not *intend* for the frequency residual to be zero in 1987, as
>> > one might infer from your statement above. And indeed, the residual
>> > would not need to be zero in 1987 (if the model would have been a poor
>> > description of the data; or if the spacecraft initial conditions were
>> > specified at a different epoch).
>>
>> That's a useful clarification Craig, thanks. Looking at your
>> graph which John reproduces, it goes from zero anomaly
>> to about +18cm/s. It would be equally valid to have an
>> anomaly going from -18cm/s to zero but with a base model
>> that had an initial speed higher by 18cm/s. As I understand
>> the situation, up to the start of the study, the craft motion
>> was predicted using a shorter term model (50 days?) which
>> makes sense where effects like the planetary passes could
>> not be perfectly modelled. That suggests that if there had
>> been any anomalous force prior to 1987, its effect would have
>> been rolled up into the then current trajectory. Is my
>> understanding valid or am I missing something?
>>
>> > > ... It is that initial
>> > > velocity which is effectively a constant, the subsequent speed
>> > > being derived by modeling gravitational and other accelerations.
>> >
>> > Also to clarify: the initial conditions (position & velocity) are
>> > *varied* (not fixed) during the orbit determination process.
>>
>> That I don't follow since I can't see how a uniform origin shift
>> of the anomaly can be distinguished from a change in initial
>> radial velocity.
>
> What I was describing was the orbit determination procedure. It is
> what it is. The origin of the "anomaly" was essentially held fixed at
> the position origin of the solar system, for all but some diagnostic
> analysis, and it is not well constrained. One can easily translate
> the origin of the anomaly by a fraction of an AU without altering the
> solution.

Sorry Craig, I guess I wasn't clear, by 'origin' I meant
the origin of the Y axis in the graph. What I was thinking
(using toy values) is that you could start on day one with
say a best fit of 12km/s and treat that equally as a craft
speed of 12000.00 m/s and zero anomaly or a craft speed of
12000.18 m/s and an anomaly of -0.18 m/s. So you could set
the anomaly at zero and fit the craft speed or set the
craft speed at the last known value and fit the anomaly
but you can't do a fit in which both are allowed to vary.
Am I missing something?

George

[Craig Markwardt]

"George Dishman" > writes:

> "Craig Markwardt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Hi George,
> >
> > "George Dishman" > writes:
> >
> >> Craig Markwardt wrote:
> >> > "George Dishman" > writes:
> >> > > As Craig has pointed out, and I wasn't clear in my earlier reply
> >> > > so I guess I may have caused the confusion, the model was
> >> > > initialised by setting the craft _velocity_ such that the modelled
> >> > > frequency matched the observation at that time.
> >> >
> >> > George, just to clarify, the spacecraft position and velocity in 1987
> >> > are initial conditions to the trajectory problem. During the analysis
> >> > we did not *intend* for the frequency residual to be zero in 1987, as
> >> > one might infer from your statement above. And indeed, the residual
> >> > would not need to be zero in 1987 (if the model would have been a poor
> >> > description of the data; or if the spacecraft initial conditions were
> >> > specified at a different epoch).
> >>
> >> That's a useful clarification Craig, thanks. Looking at your
> >> graph which John reproduces, it goes from zero anomaly
> >> to about +18cm/s. It would be equally valid to have an
> >> anomaly going from -18cm/s to zero but with a base model
> >> that had an initial speed higher by 18cm/s. As I understand
> >> the situation, up to the start of the study, the craft motion
> >> was predicted using a shorter term model (50 days?) which
> >> makes sense where effects like the planetary passes could
> >> not be perfectly modelled. That suggests that if there had
> >> been any anomalous force prior to 1987, its effect would have
> >> been rolled up into the then current trajectory. Is my
> >> understanding valid or am I missing something?
> >>
> >> > > ... It is that initial
> >> > > velocity which is effectively a constant, the subsequent speed
> >> > > being derived by modeling gravitational and other accelerations.
> >> >
> >> > Also to clarify: the initial conditions (position & velocity) are
> >> > *varied* (not fixed) during the orbit determination process.
> >>
> >> That I don't follow since I can't see how a uniform origin shift
> >> of the anomaly can be distinguished from a change in initial
> >> radial velocity.
> >
> > What I was describing was the orbit determination procedure. It is
> > what it is. The origin of the "anomaly" was essentially held fixed at
> > the position origin of the solar system, for all but some diagnostic
> > analysis, and it is not well constrained. One can easily translate
> > the origin of the anomaly by a fraction of an AU without altering the
> > solution.
>
> Sorry Craig, I guess I wasn't clear, by 'origin' I meant
> the origin of the Y axis in the graph. What I was thinking
> (using toy values) is that you could start on day one with
> say a best fit of 12km/s and treat that equally as a craft
> speed of 12000.00 m/s and zero anomaly or a craft speed of
> 12000.18 m/s and an anomaly of -0.18 m/s. So you could set
> the anomaly at zero and fit the craft speed or set the
> craft speed at the last known value and fit the anomaly
> but you can't do a fit in which both are allowed to vary.
> Am I missing something?

No. The anomaly is zero at T0=1987 because the initial conditions of
the trajectory were determined at that time. If T0 were set to 1994,
then the anomaly would be zero then, by construction. My original
point was that the initial conditions must be varied to find the best
fit trajectory.

Craig

[Aleksandr Timofeev]

Craig Markwardt wrote:
> John C. Polasek > writes:
>
> > On 31 May 2006 10:52:02 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >John C. Polasek > writes:
> > >> But we are neglecting another reference frequency, nu_87 that is built
> > >> into the model. ...
> > >
> > >No. Despite multiple corrections, and extensive discussions of the
> > >actual procedures, you persist with this delusion. As the thread is
> > >purely based on speculation, I no longer care to be involved.
> > >
> > >CM
> > It would be helpfulif you would illuminate us on what steps were
> > followed to generate nu_model is so it could be subtracted from
> > nu_observed to get
> > (f_observ - f_model)DSN = -2fP*t (2)
>
> It's not clear where you got this equation.
>
> Equation 15 of Anderson et al (2002) is quite different. The text
> around equation (15) describes generically how "nu_model" is found.
> Note that as the sentence containing equation (15) states, the
> "anomalous effect *can be expressed*" as that equation (emph added),
> not that it *was* expressed that way in the analysis. In reality, the
> anomalous term was absorbed into "nu_model".
>
> Both Anderson et al (2002) and Markwardt (2002) describe how
> "nu_model" was computed numerically, and how the orbit determination
> was done.
>
> > But don't patronize me about definition of nu_0 etc. ...
>
> Then don't make unsubstantiated and erroneous suppositions about how
> the analysis was done.
>
> CM
>
> References
> Anderson et al (2002, Phys Rev D, 65, 082004)
> Markwardt 2002, gr-qc/0208046

Dear Craig Markwardt, please, look at:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/9a96b538d2852019?dmode=source&hl=en

My arguments and interpretation of anomaly of "Pioneers" can change
your approach to interpretation of the problem.

[Areader]

John C. Polasek wrote:
> On 30 May 2006 18:39:23 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> > wrote:
>
> >John C. Polasek > writes:
> >
> >
> >> On 30 May 2006 14:34:28 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> >> > wrote:
> >> >John C. Polasek > writes:
> >...
> >> >> As George said in his note above,
> >> >> "The model was initialised in 1987 so at that time fmodel was set
> >> >> equal to fobs."
> >> >> The computer model clearly was so initialized as to time and
> >> >> frequency. You can see there would be no motivationto readjust these.
> >> >> ...
> >> >
> >> >You are incorrect. What was initialized in 1987 was the *trajectory*
> >> >model. Each tracking uplink provides a self contained coherent
> >> >frequency reference at the time of the session (not 1987). There are
> >> >no variables in the solution program which store the frequency as it
> >> >was in 1987.
> >> If by trajectory you mean the orbital elements were determined in 1987
> >> then, fine, but to produce actual ranges and velocities the
> >> mathematical model has to include a good value of G to convert planet
> >> distance into accelerations, to be integrated into real velocity. Then
> >> to convert the velocity to frequency for comparison of Doppler phase
> >> slippage, the program had to contain the multiplier f0/c as given in
> >> Eq. 1 of Anderson, 10 Mar. 2005:
> >[ note incorrect citation ]
> >> delta f(t) = f0*(1/c)*dr/dt
> >> The conversion of dr/dt to delta f uses f0/c. Are you trying to tell
> >> me that on initiation of each 5-day batch, they caused a re-setting of
> >> f0 to match the current clock? It does not seem likely. ...
> >
> >The equation you are citing is one that describes how DSN tracking
> >works in generic terms, and does not contain all of the technical
> >details. Still, if you had read the attached footnote (#38), you
> >would have found that "nu_0" is the "reference frequency." In fact,
> >the reference frequency is recorded at the moment of the tracking
> >session (it is the frequency standard of the station), and *NOT* in
> >1987. (see also eqn 13). It is not reset in "each 5-day batch,"
> >because it is recorded in each and every downlink record! [ and
> >several times per uplink. ] When will you get it into your head that
> >there are no variables in the program that store the "frequency" as of
> >1987?
> >
> >CM
> Firstly, #38 explains once again, only that "our frequency/velocity
> convention is backwards", a receding craft getting a blue shift that
> takes a bit of getting used to, but OK. No information is transmitted
> there.
>
> How is the reference frequency transcribed into the coefficients of
> the mathematical computer program? As I pointed out there needs to be
> a reliable G and a dependable f0, and of the latter, there was no
> motivation in 1987 to assert that f0 is anything but constant.
>
> What I have berought to your attention that is new is f0 increasing
> with time as f = f0(1+Ht), and when compared to the static value in
> the model, a linearly increasing disprepancy reveals itself.
>
> The values f0 and c have to be in the program with no impetus to
> change f0. Of course the ref frequency "is recorded at the moment of
> the tracking session". Please clarify: is there a laboratory event
> that causes one to change the equation constants?
>
> I am talking about the construction of the model, against which all
> these readings are taken. Is f0 a custom value for each shot?
>
> John Polasek

Unfortunately you are wrong. It has nothing to do with the Hubble
expansion at all.

I have the answer.