On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 1:12:10 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
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."

No. I claimed that the speed of light and distance between the
sun and Pioneer spacecraft are not as you or I would observe
from our fixed observation point on earth. Both the speed of
light and linear measurements do alter because the depth of
dimension increases in a gravity well, beyond what we assume to
be the base of dimension. I have already demonstrated how this
works. But I know it's not easy to comprehend.

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.

The theory misses nothing. You are basing all of your
measurements on what you assume is reality with a "seeing is
believing" approach. That will never work in the zero origin
universe. And that's why the anomaly exists.

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.

I know your involvement wasn't intensive, but perhaps you could
enlighten me here.

This is a comment from one of your earlier posts:
-Anderson et al's work from 2002 and before did not reckon
-properly that amount and direction of the force, to the point
-of hand-waving.

Does that comment apply for Anderson's work as well? I hope not.

Followed by this:
-Later work like Turyshev et al (2012) had a "better" theoretical
-model which more closely matched the reality (more accurate
-physics more accurate input data).

More accurate physics? What can I say.
More accurate input data? If you consider breaking the spacecraft
up into, 3300 surface elements, 3700 nodes and 8700 linear
conductors as being more accurate, you are kidding yourself.
Breaking everything down into tiny elements is the worst
solution because that generates many thousands of places where
tiny compounding errors can go unnoticed.

Why on earth did they do that?

John Anderson thoroughly analyzed every individual component of
the spacecraft separately. Do you really think he was so far off
the mark that some computer simulation which is potentially
seriously error prone is more realistic?

Why has this potentially inaccurate analysis been so readily
accepted over Anderson's? I think it's ridiculous.

-----

Max Keon