Il giorno venerdì 31 marzo 2017 22:47:20 UTC+2, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 1:47:34 AM UTC-4, wrote:
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.

Nevertheless, changing the speed of light does not improve the Pioneer solution.


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.

I showed the level of technical detail which is required to perform the Pioneer analysis (see the Moyer reference). That level of detail is missing from the presented "theory."


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."

I note no response.


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.

Do you mean Turyshev et al's work? The answer is that the thermal modeling of Turyshev et al's paper was motivated by physics and was validated against the actual thermal data records of the entire Pioneer mission. Anderson 2002's work was a good starting point but was not sufficient for the level of detail required.


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.

The physics is more accurate in the sense that for the Turyshev paper, the spacecraft was modeled using well defined and validated modeling methods. These processes have been validated against many thermal scenarios in the lab and in spacecraft environments. Compare to the Anderson 2002 method, which did a back of the envelope type calculation.

More accurate input data?

Yes, more accurate input data.
* use of actual optical/thermal properties of materials used in Pioneer spacecraft series (Anderson et al ~2 surfaces)
* use of actual Pioneer mechanical structure (Anderson et al treated plate and sphere approximations)
* use of flight RTG properties (power output) (Anderson et al assumed azimuthal symmetry)
* use of flight temperatures to validate the model (Anderson et al did not use these)
Also, the consideration of tolerances on the above items in order to derive a tolerance on the output model predictions. (Anderson et al did not consider tolerances)

... Breaking everything down into tiny elements is the worst
solution because that generates many thousands of places where
tiny compounding errors can go unnoticed.

Regardless of your feelings, this is a standard approach for spacecraft (and other) thermal modeling, with a long and validated history. Breaking a spacecraft into many pieces is required to accurately model the complex curved geometries. THEN, when that is all done with a priori inputs, the modelers compare the predicted temperatures to the actual temperatures as measured by in-flight sensors. Some small adjustments were required to bring the modeled results in line with the actual results. Thus, the results were validated. We can have confidence that if the thermal model accurately reproduces the in-flight temperatures, it should also accurately reflect the thermal emission which could contribute an effective thrust.

John Anderson thoroughly analyzed every individual component of
the spacecraft separately.

False. And by the way, Turyshev was a co-author on the Anderson 2002 paper.

Do you really think he was so far off
the mark that some computer simulation which is potentially
seriously error prone is more realistic?

The question is what tolerance was required for the analysis. Anderson et al's analysis was quite back of the envelope. A few Watts makes a difference, so it was important to treat the analysis in more detail.

I don't think you will find that John Anderson disagrees with very much that was done in Turyshev et al's paper.

CM

Around the year 2000 , i exchanged some mails with Turishev ( shall he remember me?) ; in that moment he was thinking that the Pioneers were like attracted by an unknown strengh external to the solar sistem ; i understood also a kind of discussion between Anderson and him around the sign to give to that acceleration (+ or -) ; Anderson imposed the minus (towards the sun) , because the Pioneers had two sistems of distance'reliefment in conflict ( the Doppler shift and the times of go-and-back signals ) and the + or - depended of the choice of preferred sistem...
So the main point : the absolute de-acceleration is a quantity just like to the Hubble constant and the sign was in discussion ... but the Pioneers clocks showed a clear lowering (1.5 Hz in 8 years ) and that sign had also to respect the sign of solar radiation beam and the radio beam reaction force (page 73) ...
... a conclusion : the Pioneer acceleration is like the BigBang redshift .. but ,like the BB , is a virtual shift , probabely caused by the Raman scattering ..