"Aleksandr Timofeev" writes:

Craig Markwardt wrote:
John C. Polasek writes:
On 27 Jun 2006 10:46:22 -0500, Craig Markwardt
wrote:


John C. Polasek writes:
...
You must know that I am talking about all real, maser-verfiied clocks
that accelerate compared to the artificial clock in the model which
for several reasons must have a constant value. The result is the ramp
function on the chart.
...

For the nth time, there is no "artificial clock" in the model. The
station clock at the time of the tracking session is used in the
model. If you continue with your fiction, I can only assume that you
are not interested in substantiated debate.

CM
I may be misinterpreting what is in the model, but what I have tried
to represent in the upper model leg is a digital differential analyzer
doing numerical integration on data taken from the ephemeris and
double integrating it for range that would then update the ephemeris.
In so doing only the constant G is involved, and it's all
mathematical.

Then to produce anything resembling frequency, for later comparison
with the real hardware, from the point V(t), one must introduce the
multiplier -f0/c. In this regard I would expect that the multiplier is
a mathematic constant being 1/WL.

If this is wrong, just say so and I can modify my model, but then tell
me how this coefficient -f0/c is brought up to date with the
transmitting clock. With an analog computer, yes, or using the station
clock to drive the DDA, but that looks like a nullity also.

It is clear there is substantial misunderstanding somewhere.

Yes, you have a problem. Why don't you start to fix it by reading the
referred-to papers, or George or my previous posts, which you seem to
be conveniently ignoring?

CM

Dear Craig Markwardt, please, look at:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e=source&hl=en

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

The principle of equivalence has been tested quite narrow tolerances
in the solar system already (Williams et al 1996), so your supposition
will probably not be fruitful.

CM

References
Williams, Newhall & Dickey 1996, Phys Rev D, 53, 6730