Il giorno sabato 25 marzo 2017 09:44:58 UTC+1, ha scritto:
Il giorno venerdì 24 marzo 2017 15:12:10 UTC+1, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 8:59:04 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 12:08:57 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 7:00:43 AM UTC-4, wrote:
The comparisons shown here only apply in the realm of light.
The square root of all measurements are required for comparisons
in the realm of matter. ...

Nope, this is not sufficient. A few vague words about square
roots and ASCII line-art drawings won't solve anything.

You really don't know what I'm talking about do you!

That's because the detailed presentation of physics is missing.

Let's summarize.
1. You claimed the incorrect speed of light was used for the Pioneer analysis. I have actually analyzed Pioneer data - the original Doppler data - and changing the speed of light by even one part per million makes the solution worse, not better. There is no better speed of light to use for Pioneer than "c."

2. All radiometric data analysis is based on a detailed physics model, which accounts for spacecraft trajectories, orbital physics, and light propagation. The presented "zero origin theory" is missing that, so there is no way it could prove or disprove anything regarding the Pioneer results.

3. The "Pioneer curve," as you like to call it, is actually a chart of a fitted acceleration parameter. It is based on the assumption and question: IF all known physics is true, PLUS there is an additional unexplained "constant" (*) spacecraft acceleration, THEN what is the magnitude of the acceleration? Using this model one obtains good fits to the data, and thus it is possible to retrieve the acceleration parameter. If one proposes to change the physics model, for example change the speed of light, that destructively worsens the solution, by factors of 1000x, and then it is no longer possible to retrieve the acceleration parameter. It thus makes no sense to talk about the "Pioneer curve."

And finally, let's recall that a paper from several years ago by Turyshev et al, which I helped contribute to, did indeed find a more mundane explanation to the Pioneer effect. When the thermal effects were more carefully considered, it was then understood that thermal emissions (and their associated radiation pressures) could explain the Pioneer accelerations, to within the tolerances of the thermal design.

CM

(*) "constant" here means a single constant acceleration per batch. Each batch has a 2-month duration I believe.

... today , somebody speaks about the Stoke'lines ( Raman ) as Stoke ' scattering ...
... if you apply it to the Pioneer ' anomaly with the same amount of Hubble Constant ( cm to km , sec. to M.y. ) , you resolve each question ( also yearly and dayly changements )..
... if you apply it to the universe , the BigBang does't exists , all galaxies are where we look its and many other questions are easier ...

1) if you report the Hubble Constant 24 km*sec*M.y.l. to cm*sec*sec , we get just the Pioneer acceleration-deceleration , because in the formula (15) of the famous arxiv ..gr../ 0104064 .. , we have at the denominator c that takes away the l. in M.y.l. ...
2) we can discuss about acceleration-deceleration , but substantially the cloks in rakets is lowering its ticking , like a red -shifted 'galaxy....
3) a Raman scattering increases his efficiency in situations of very low pressure , very low temperature , very hight coherence 'wave , very small bodies ..... or not ?