Pioneer Acceleration Implies Light Speed Delay < 1 Second

Pioneer Acceleration Implies Light Speed Delay 1 Second

The Pioneer 10 anomalous acceleration is five orders of magnitude
larger than reported by Anderson et al. as revealed by archived data
for a one hour and a half time interval in 1987 when compared to the
NASA positions and velocities of the craft.
see http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/rangerate2.xls

These positions and velocities are based on Newtonian calculations
of craft velocity changes due to the known craft's mass to the
attraction of the sun and to previous velocities and positions of the
craft implied by previous radiometric data and data on earth site
motions during transmission and reception.
The procedure is to use the last best estimate of craft position
and velocity determined in this way and then to predict the position
and velocity a minute later using 1)this velocity and position and
mass and 2)the assumed earth site transmitter motion at the earlier
time implied by the two way light speed delay and the receiver earth
site motion and to compare this with the received Doppler shifted
frequency and to correct the position and velocity to make the
predicted received frequency equal the observed received frequency.
Dishman and Markwardt, mistakenly claimed that 1)the approximate
agreement of the results of this procedure with the NASA ephemeris,
and 2)the lack of agreement of these results with the assumption of
some other light speed delay assumption proved the validity of the
conventional light speed delay assumption, But this is a classic
"petitio principi" where the conclusion, here the craft trajectory,
is assumed in the premise.
(Dishman claims that his main argument was not this but that the
pattern of received frequencies at two successive sites clearly
reflected the relatively small daily variation of the motion toward
and away from the craft and that the difference in the patterns showed
the nearly instantaneous light speed delay model to be wrong. My
answer to this is that the much large effect of the earth orbital
motion projected through different angles onto the craft-earthsite
lines in different hemispheres accounts for the differences)
The "approximate" agreement of the results of the assumed
trajectory etc and the actual received frequencies is actually a
thousand times greater than the implied margin of error even allowing
for the fact that the later NASA ephemeris calculations do not take
the cumulative effect of the anomalous acceleration into account.
It must be then that the successive positions of the craft are
different from the results of the above procedure. Let us obtain the
direction and speed of the craft assuming tentatively that the
received frequencies here were produced by transmissions from the
same earth station a few seconds earlier while the earthsite
velocity,V1, wrt the sun was nearly the same.
This would be the case if light speed delay did not extrapolate
beyond one second approximately, no matter how much the distance of
the source from the receiver exceeded d=2.998(10^8)meters where
c=d/1second. Reasons for this model are given below.
Thus, if the craft was stationary and the total earth movement was
toward the craft, the Doppler shifted frequency received would be
(T)(1+2v1/c) where T = the transmitted frequency(here 2.291944138GHz),
v1= K1V1, the earthsite velocity wrt the craft at the reception time,
t1, and c = the speed of light and K1 is the cosine of the angle
between the craft to earthsite line and the earthsite velocity wrt
the sun at this time.
But the craft in this data is at these times moving away from the
sun at about 13.059km/sec according to 1)the conventional model and
2)its initial launch velocity etc. and the projection of this on the
earthsite to craft line is, through a nearly zero angle, 13.059.
Subtracting 13.059 from K1V1 etc., gives us a first tentative estimate
of the combined velocity of the earthsite to the craft without
assuming the conventional exact position of the craft.
(T)(1+2(K1V1-13.059)/c)=R1, so ((R1-T)c+2T(13.059))/2V1T=K1
The arccos of K1 is the angle eg 32 degrees between the velocity of
the earth site wrt the sun and the line to the craft from the receiver
site at this time. Suppose the site at this time is represented as
the origin of a 3 dimensional coordinate system where the horizontal
y axis into the page is the latitude and the vertical z axis is the
longitude and the horizontal x axis on the page is directed to the
zenith point in the sky.
As the craft rises above the easterly or northeasterly or
southeasterly horizon it soon becomes visible to the site antenna and
the elevation and azimuth of the strongest reception for which data
presumably exists but is not available to the public, would in
combination with calculated value of K1 determine the craft direction.
We can without assuming a specific trajectory fairly reasonably
assume that such reception strength data has indicated a region of the
sky,the constellation Taurus, where the craft could be located.
Thus in this example, if the earth motion was directly eastward
along the latitude at the time the angle was 32 degrees, the craft at
this time from this site could be 32 degrees to the south or 32
degrees above the eastern horizon or e degrees elevated and s degrees
to the south etc where cos(e)times cos(s)=cos(32). And only those
values of e and s that point toward Taurus would be indicated.
..
This value of K1 etc given above and the value given by the
conventional model for the craft sun distance, r1=6,295 116 208 gives
us an estimate of the craft position. We can change,13.059, K and r
as needed to produce a succession of craft positions consistent with
the observed received frequencies and Newtonian calculations of
successive velocities and positions of the craft. The craft
acceleration at a distance r toward the sun is a1 =
kM/r^2=6.67(10^-11)(2)(10^30)/r1, so that the velocity that must be
subtracted from each ‘previous' velocity to obtain the next velocity
and position and r value is, (a1)(t2-t1)/2 for the assumed r1.
If the craft minute by minute trajectory obtained in this way over
any randomly chosen hour or so time interval like this one, is more
accurate without requiring anomalous acceleration or constant
adjustments after the intial adjustements, then the conventional model
and light speed delay assumptions are disproven and the proposed light
speed delay model is indicated.

The following data from Oct 7 1987 is from
http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/rangerate2.xls
:
GMT
Time DnCnFr R freq Hz V km/s r K
deg
21:27 810154 2292133984 30.03149 6295116208
0.848293063 32.86
21:28 810166 2292133972 30.03246 6295116975 0.848239147
…….
22:43 811249 2292132889 30.09136 629517453 0.844225255
22:44 811266 229213287 30.09194 629517529 0.844172955


Note: I have put the Horizons ephemeris recorded value of V at 22:44
in the GMT time slot above for 22:43etc., for the following reason:
The frequencies are recorded at times at the Greenwhich meridian
(GMT=UTC as used in the UK) and the earthsite positions and velocities
are recorded at Coordinate times, CT, where CT - UTC = Delta (thus CT=
Delta + UTC) Horizons can output the Delta for the above expressions
as
quantity #30 on the Observer tables; eg, For Oct 7,1987 at 21:23
(UTC),
it is 55.182341 seconds according to (Jon Giorgini,Senior Engineer
Solar System Dynamics Group Jet Propulsion Laboratory)




We note that the received frequencies,R, are decreasing but that they
are all greater than the transmitted frequency which suggests that the
earthsite motion wrt the sun(which includes the approx 353m/s earth
rotation at Madrid) has a component toward the craft but that the
motion toward the craft as the earth orbits and spins, is decreasing-
even though the total motion,V, of the earthsite wrt the sun is
increasing.
..
We note also that, (1+.33(10^-8))T = T+7.66Hz corresponds to 1m/s
when the transmitter frequency is at is here T=2.291944138GHz.

It is important to note that a limit to light speed delay
extrapolation (ct=d for d=ac eg for a=1 or some other, to be
determined, value) changes the interpretation but not the value of, c,
in the Doppler equation or of, c2, in the electromagnetic equation or
in Einstein's Relativity equations (E=mc^2,the frequency shift
equation and the light bending equation etc.)
It is important to note also that, contrary to public opinion, there
is no unambiguous evidence that light speed,c, extrapolates beyond a
second.

Roemer supposedly measured the speed of light by the differences
in the times of the occultation and reappearance of some of the moons
of Jupiter when the Earth is on the same side of the Sun as Jupiter or
on the opposite side. But as Cassini, the expert on such observations
at the time said, the differences in times could be due to differences
in viewing angle and not to the difference in distances divided by
time. A similar argument applies to pulsars. Bradley's aberration
measurement of the position of polar stars when the Earth is moving
in opposite directions ‘under' these stars can also be ascribed to a
nanosecond difference in response time which would change the
direction to the star at opposite times of the year.
Variations in radar reflections from surfaces of Venus etc from
powerful radar emissions and received after the two way light delay
time are given as evidence of the conventional light speed delay. But
the variations in frequency intensity received have no unambiguous
time stamps or unambiguous indications of surface heights etc. These
radar reflections recorded at a specific time, if it could be
established that they were not noise or reflections from other
surfaces than Venus, could have been sent seconds before according to
the proposed model and not minutes before according to the
conventional light speed delay assumptions. And of course there is no
independent confirmation of any of these results.
The supposed 1.25 second delay in moon radar and lidar given
secondary reflections and given the precision of the measurements,
imply a 1 second delay is also possible.
Re spacecraft communications: Constant repetition of the same
spacecraft downlinks and time consuming codes for each bit of data
that increases the duration of transmission with distance are some of
the reasons the conventional light speed delay assumptions, if wrong,
are not observed. That is a signal sent to the craft at one time that
produces after the coding and decoding delay plus any delay associated
with the requested action and downlink coding and decoding, could
produce a result within this time at the receiver station on earth
that is overlooked, ie, the receiver at an earth site that could
receive the signal might be off or the reception is ignored. But
repetition of this same signal until the expected time of reception
continues and so seems to confirm the conventional light speed delay
assumption. The fact that the spacecraft clock is constantly
synchronized with the expected light speed delay in successive
communications between the spacecraft and earth explains that the
clock is consistent with the expected light time delay.
Many circumlocutions and problems in modern physics are avoided if
electromagnetic radiation is regarded not as moving photons or wave
fronts or probabilistic photons but rather as an instantaneous force
at a distance which involves a response delay that does not exceed a
second or so.
References
1)Electric Gravity and Instantaneous Light, Ralph Sansbury, 1998,
http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/book03.pdf
2)"Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11",
Anderson, J.D., Laing, P.A., Lau, E.L., Liu, A.S., Nieto, M.M., and
Turyshev, S.G., Physics Review D, v65, 082004, (2002))
3)http://pdsgeophys.wustl.edu/pds/mars...t/trk_2_25.txt
4) C++ compiler http://simtel.net/product.download.mirrors.php?id=17456
5)Doppler data in binary files and related documents with definitions
of some terms..
http://windsor.gsfc.nasa.gov/spacecr...tdf/atdf_data/
4) http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/dsndoc...tationdata.cfm
5) http://descanso.jpl.nasa.gov/Monogra...rce_external=0
6) "Doppler Tracking of Planetary Spacecraft, Peter Kinman ,IEEE trans
on microwave theory and techniques" vol 40,no.6,June 1992 p1199..
7) http://tda.jpl.nasa.gov/tmo/progress...2-120/120B.pdf
8) "Radio Science Performance Analysis Software" , Morabito and Asmar
,TDA Progress Report 42-120, February 15, 1995.
9) http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/rangerate2.xls

You idiots are leaking through to a newsgroup that doesn't care to see all
that Sandsbury nonsense. Please delete the SCI,OPTICS from the newsgroup
list.
It appears that r9hs is the stupid person today. Don't bother as nobody
over here is really interested in arguing with you nitwits.

--
Why isn't there an Ozone Hole at the NORTH Pole?

(r9ns) writes:

Pioneer Acceleration Implies Light Speed Delay 1 Second
....

Sansbury's post contains many errors and false presuppositions, as
already noted in this article:
(on 10 Oct 2004 in sci.astro).

CM

Sorry to all for this long post but I think it important to
set the record straight. I'll try to move it to a web page
and only summarise next time this crap appears.

George


"r9ns" wrote in message
om...
Pioneer Acceleration Implies Light Speed Delay 1 Second
....
Dishman and Markwardt, mistakenly claimed that 1)the approximate
agreement of the results of this procedure with the NASA ephemeris,
and 2)the lack of agreement of these results with the assumption of
some other light speed delay assumption proved the validity of the
conventional light speed delay assumption,

At no time have I ever made such a claim. Sansbury is aware
of this and is simply lying.

But this is a classic
"petitio principi" where the conclusion, here the craft trajectory,
is assumed in the premise.

Again, this is untrue. I have presented a number of proofs
that Sansbury's hypothesis of a limiting propagation time of
the order of 1s is flasified by the Pioneer 10 transponder
data.

The first is simple. In March 1988, the round trip time was
approximatelt 12 hours. This means that when the receiving
site was in contact, the transmitting site was hidden by the
bulk of the Earth. While often the receiving site would also
be transmitting the uplink for the next contact, Markwardt
has confirmed there are many documented instances where the
receiving site was not transmitting.

When Sansbury invented fictious, undocumented transmissions
from the receiving site to account for the failure of his
hypothesis, I pointed out that the longitude of the
originating site could be determined by subtracting the phase
of the diurnal at the receiving site from the total Doppler
shift to ascertain a combination of the propagation delay and
diurnal produce by the transmitting site. To test this, we
used JPL Horizons to calculate the predicted received frequency
under two hypotheses;

1) transmission from the site logged by JPL with the
conventional propagation time, and

2) transmission from the receive site with instantaneous
propagation.

These are the results I published in February 2003:

http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Ralph/1988_actual.gif

The proof lies not in the fact that Sansbury's predictions do
not match the actual values because the JPL trajectory would be
inaccurate if he were right, but in the fact that that on the
evening of the 6th March (Julian date 2447227.3) his predicted
sequence occurs too early while on the morning of the 7th March
(Julian date 2447227.3) it is too late. This means he has to
correct the JPL position to the east on the 6th but to the west
on the 7th. It is this discrepancy which has always been the
proof since early in 2003.

Sansbury has consistently been unable to grasp this argument so
over the last few weeks so I recently added red arrows to
point out the problem to him:

http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Ralph/1988_phases.gif

However, this is still too complex so I have presented to him a
simplified version which eliminates the use of the JPL location
and finds the discrepancy in the locations directly from the
received frequencies. I won't repeat the details as I'm sure
eveyone is sick to death of this.

(Dishman claims that his main argument was not this but that the
pattern of received frequencies at two successive sites clearly
reflected the relatively small daily variation of the motion toward
and away from the craft and that the difference in the patterns showed
the nearly instantaneous light speed delay model to be wrong. My
answer to this is that the much large effect of the earth orbital
motion projected through different angles onto the craft-earthsite
lines in different hemispheres accounts for the differences)

However, I have already shown Sansbury how to calculate these
values for himself and shown that the resulting error is less
than 5s in determining the time at which the motion of the
site is perpendicular to the line from the site to the craft.
This is negligible compared to the 5 minute sample rate of
the available data. Further, this is an offset which would
apply to both days almost equally and virtually cancel (there
is a slight difference resulting from the difference in the
apparent altitude of craft from the sites).

The discrepancy between the craft locations obtained on the two
days is approximately 26 degrees and would require a difference
in the offset errors of approximately 100 minutes for Sansbury's
hypothesis to survive this test.

George Dishman

To see that the Anderson et al claim of anomalous accleration could
also be due to the fact that light speed does not extrapolate to
distances where the time is beyond a few seconds, do the following
simple calculation with your data from Madrid and Canberra:


1) Solve for K1 given V1=earthsite velocity wrt sun
(T)(1+2(K1V1-13.059)/c=R1, so ((R1-T)c+2T(13.059))/2V1T=K1
The arccos of K1 is the angle between, V1, the velocity of
the earth site wrt the sun and the line to the craft from the receiver
site at this time.

2)from Aldebaran RA=4h36min calculate unit vector from earthsite
toward Aldebaran in Taurus as indicative of the general direction of
the craft without assuming a specific tractory but based presumably on
previous angle of reception data not in the 1987, 88 etc archived
frequency data.

3)Determine from (2)which of the lines implied by K1 is the unique
direction to the craft.
email




"George Dishman" wrote in message ...

...
Dishman and Markwardt, mistakenly claimed that 1)the approximate
agreement of the results of this procedure with the NASA ephemeris,
and 2)the lack of agreement of these results with the assumption of
some other light speed delay assumption proved the validity of the
conventional light speed delay assumption,

At no time have I ever made such a claim. Sansbury is aware
of this and is simply lying.

Nonsense. On Feb 12 2003 you ran some tables from Horizon and said
"Note that the first has changed by 1kHz..." and your tables showed a
1171.3424Hz closer prediction according to the conventional model than
my nearly instantaneous model and then you concluded "They are
sufficiently far apart to distinguish the hypotheses"
Do you remember now and retract your accusation?





But this is a classic
"petitio principi" where the conclusion, here the craft trajectory,
is assumed in the premise.

In March 1988, the round trip time was
approximatelt 12 hours. This means that when the receiving
site was in contact, the transmitting site was hidden by the
bulk of the Earth. While often the receiving site would also
be transmitting the uplink for the next contact, Markwardt
has confirmed there are many documented instances where the
receiving site was not transmitting.

When Sansbury invented fictious, undocumented transmissions
from the receiving site to account for the failure of his
hypothesis, I pointed out

snip

I invented nothing of the sort. The Anderson paper and other
materials about P10 that you sent to me, say that the craft was always
transmitting and that 99percent of the receptions occurred while the
transmitter was on.
Thus the fact that in some very few instances where Markwardt
claims there was reception when the transmitter was off does not mean
that the receiver could not have been receiving signals sent directly
from the craft and not signals received by the craft and relayed back
to the earth site receiver.

Well, r8ns is doing his stupidity again! :Leave this thread of nonsense in
Sci.Astro where it belongs.
The thread is pure stupid argument with a nitwit that insists that the speed
of light is sometimes instant and sometimes slower than that. That is pure
nonsense. Go away and stop bothering us with your idiocies.

--
Why isn't there an Ozone Hole at the NORTH Pole?

post and followups to sci.astro

Ralph, please don't send this to sci.optics, nobody there
is the least bit interested in using microwave telemetry
for space navigation.



"r9ns" wrote in message
om...
....

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

...
Dishman and Markwardt, mistakenly claimed that 1)the approximate
agreement of the results of this procedure with the NASA ephemeris,
and 2)the lack of agreement of these results with the assumption of
some other light speed delay assumption proved the validity of the
conventional light speed delay assumption,

At no time have I ever made such a claim. Sansbury is aware
of this and is simply lying.

Nonsense. On Feb 12 2003 you ran some tables from Horizon and said
"Note that the first has changed by 1kHz..." and your tables showed a
1171.3424Hz closer prediction according to the conventional model than
my nearly instantaneous model and then you concluded "They are
sufficiently far apart to distinguish the hypotheses"

You were arguing that it wasn't possible to tell the
two theories apart and I showed that the difference
was easily enough for us to use as a test. I make no
claims in that post about validity but if you look
little above the bit you quoted, I said:

"No, the stations are not 180 degrees apart! Madrid was
the transmitting station so check the longitude. This is
what I have been saying, there are only special occasions
when the difference in longitude and the time delay
conspire to match, in general they don't"

That's the point I was making earlier this week, the
effect of longitude of the sites in the sine wave
produced by the rotation of the Earth is key to
understanding these arguments and it not mentioned
in your summary.

Do you remember now and retract your accusation?

Snipping the details of 1) and 2) may make this clearer. Your
paragraph above says:

"Dishman ... mistakenly claimed that 1) ... and 2) ...
proved the validity of the conventional light speed delay
assumption,"

What I said it that the results are sufficiently far apart
to distinguish which site was transmitting. That is enough
to prove your theory false but it does not prove the
conventional theory correct as you imply. It is a subtle
but important point.

If you said "Dishman claimed that the lack of agreement of
the Pioneer results with the assumption of near-instantaneous
light propagation proved the invalidity of that assumption."
then that would be reasonable, just leave out the bit about
proving the conventional theory.

I am only asking you to correct the false impression you are
giving in the document at present.

But this is a classic
"petitio principi" where the conclusion, here the craft trajectory,
is assumed in the premise.

In March 1988, the round trip time was
approximatelt 12 hours. This means that when the receiving
site was in contact, the transmitting site was hidden by the
bulk of the Earth. While often the receiving site would also
be transmitting the uplink for the next contact, Markwardt
has confirmed there are many documented instances where the
receiving site was not transmitting.

When Sansbury invented fictious, undocumented transmissions
from the receiving site to account for the failure of his
hypothesis, I pointed out

snip

I invented nothing of the sort.

OK, I'll retract that then, sorry if I got the wrong
impression.

The Anderson paper and other
materials about P10 that you sent to me, say that the craft was always
transmitting

Yes, that is correct but navigational quality measurements
were only possible when the signal received from the craft
was transmitted at a time when it was simultaneously
receiving an uplink. In the latter years, they couldn't
even acquire the downlink signal unless there was an uplink.

and that 99percent of the receptions occurred while the
transmitter was on.

Well I think less than 99% but I haven't examined all the
data, just the few example days in March 1988, but that
doesn't matter, it is the 1% that proves you wrong.

Thus the fact that in some very few instances where Markwardt
claims there was reception when the transmitter was off does not mean
that the receiver could not have been receiving signals sent directly
from the craft and not signals received by the craft and relayed back
to the earth site receiver.

Yes it does, the papers clearly say they were unable
to lock on to the craft signal without the uplink.
Unless there was a signal from the receive site, it
must have come from one of the other sites and since
in general they were below the horizon at the time of
reception, this disproves your near-instantaneous
hypothesis.

Note I am _not_ saying this fact proves the conventional
theory correct, only that it proves your wrong.

However, the proof we have developed in the last few
weeks removes all these aspects. Since it only uses
the recorded frequencies, some basic information about
the Earth's orbit and a single assumption that the
craft is more than 10AU from Earth, I don't think you
can find a flaw in it (other than by claiming not to
understand the method I use).

George

This fact supports an optics experiment which showed that 15 ns laser
pulses were not received by a photodiode 30 feet away if the pulses
were blocked from the photodiode during transmission but were received
if the pulses were only blocked at the expected time of reception.
That is, both the optics experiment and anlysis of the Pioneer
radiometric data show that the effects of radiation are due to the
cumulative effect of instantaneous forces at a distance and not to
waves in a massless ether or massless particles,photons or massless,
probabalistic particles,photons.


"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
post and followups to sci.astro

"r9ns" wrote in message
om...
...

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

...

Nonsense. On Feb 12 2003 you ran some tables from Horizon and said
"Note that the first has changed by 1kHz..." and your tables showed a
1171.3424Hz closer prediction according to the conventional model than
my nearly instantaneous model and then you concluded "They are
sufficiently far apart to distinguish the hypotheses"

You were arguing that it wasn't possible to tell the
two theories apart and I showed that the difference
was easily enough for us to use as a test. I make no
claims in that post about validity

I think it was pretty clear in context. It was your idea that this
data could be used to prove my opposition to the conventional model
was wrong.

That's the point I was making earlier this week, the
Snipping the details of 1) and 2) may make this clearer. Your
paragraph above says:

"Dishman ... mistakenly claimed that 1) ... and 2) ...
proved the validity of the conventional light speed delay
assumption,"

What I said it that the results are sufficiently far apart
to distinguish which site was transmitting. That is enough
to prove your theory false but it does not prove the
conventional theory correct as you imply. It is a subtle
but important point.

Ok. But the most important point is not so subtle, that the argument
is a circular argument that you were not aware of at first.

If you said "Dishman claimed that the lack of agreement of
the Pioneer results with the assumption of near-instantaneous
light propagation proved the invalidity of that assumption."
then that would be reasonable, just leave out the bit about
proving the conventional theory.

I am only asking you to correct the false impression you are
giving in the document at present.


An I am pressing you to say that you were not aware at first that
the argument was circular.

But this is a classic
"petitio principi" where the conclusion, here the craft trajectory,
is assumed in the premise.

In March 1988, the round trip time was
approximatelt 12 hours. This means that when the receiving
site was in contact, the transmitting site was hidden by the
bulk of the Earth. While often the receiving site would also
be transmitting the uplink for the next contact, Markwardt
has confirmed there are many documented instances where the
receiving site was not transmitting.

When Sansbury invented fictious, undocumented transmissions
from the receiving site to account for the failure of his
hypothesis, I pointed out

snip

I invented nothing of the sort.

OK, I'll retract that then, sorry if I got the wrong
impression.

The Anderson paper and other
materials about P10 that you sent to me, say that the craft was always
transmitting

Yes, that is correct but navigational quality measurements
were only possible when the signal received from the craft
was transmitted at a time when it was simultaneously
receiving an uplink. In the latter years, they couldn't
even acquire the downlink signal unless there was an uplink.

and that 99percent of the receptions occurred while the
transmitter was on.

Well I think less than 99% but I haven't examined all the
data, just the few example days in March 1988, but that
doesn't matter, it is the 1% that proves you wrong.




Thus the fact that in some very few instances where Markwardt
claims there was reception when the transmitter was off does not mean
that the receiver could not have been receiving signals sent directly
from the craft and not signals received by the craft and relayed back
to the earth site receiver.

Yes it does, the papers clearly say they were unable
to lock on to the craft signal without the uplink.
Unless there was a signal from the receive site, it
must have come from one of the other sites and since
in general they were below the horizon at the time of
reception, this disproves your near-instantaneous
hypothesis.


No examples have been shown where the received frequencies were
good and the transmitter was not on at the receiver site. qed.





However, the proof we have developed in the last few
weeks removes all these aspects. Since it only uses
the recorded frequencies, some basic information about
the Earth's orbit and a single assumption that the
craft is more than 10AU from Earth, I don't think you
can find a flaw in it (other than by claiming not toe
understand the method I use).


The flaw is not in my understanding but as I have said before the
changing projections of the orbital motion on the spin motion vector
in the two different hemispheres and different elevations causing
different starting times when the incoming frequencies are received
etc could account for the different patterns of the received
frequencies in the two sites.
Your unwillingness to acknowledge these possibilities is similar to
the delays in your acknowledging
1)that the wave theory of light implies the Doppler shift does not
imply the doppler shift implies the wave theory of light
2)that the closeness of the NASA ephemeris P10 trajectory based on the
conventional model is a circular argument.

To see that the position of the craft assuming that the received
frequencies are transmitted from the receiving site at Madrid is
consistent with the position of the craft later at Canberra and
To see that the Anderson et al claim of anomalous acceleration could
also be due to the fact that light speed does not extrapolate to
distances where the time is beyond a few seconds, do the following
simple calculation with your data from Madrid and Canberra:


1) Solve for K1 given V1=earthsite velocity wrt sun in a coordinate
system where the z axis is perpendicular to the plane of the celestial
equator and the x axis is a line in this plane to the vernal equinox
etc.
(T)(1+2(K1V1-13.059)/c=R1, so ((R1-T)c+2T(13.059))/2V1T=K1
The arccos of K1 is the angle between, V1, the velocity of
the earth site wrt the sun and the line to the craft from the receiver
site at this time. 13.059 is an initial estimate of craft velocity wrt
the sun and the earth, T and R1 are the transmission and reception
frequencies at this time.

2)from Aldebaran RA=4h36min = 360*4.6/23.9344=69.19deg.and
DEC=16.51deg
calculate unit vector from earthsite toward Aldebaran in Taurus as
indicative of the general direction of the craft without assuming a
specific tractory but based presumably on previous data showing angle
of strongest reception, data not in later eg 1987, 88 etc archived
frequency records.
Converting from spherical to Cartesian coord we obtain,
rsin(90-DEC)cos(RA),rsin(90-DEC)sin(RA),rcos(RA) where r=1
An lo and behold the dot product of this unit vector and the unit
vector of the Madrid velocity wrt sun at this time is about .81 versus
K1=.84 see data from Oct 7 1987
,http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/rangerate2.xls
3)Determine from (2)which of the lines implied by angle arccos(K1)
pass within the constellation Taurus. Then by producing a trajectory,
based on our initial or modified estimate of craft velocity and
distance and on Newtonian calculations of successive positions of the
craft given the gravitational force of the sun and the previous
position and velocity, that gives the received frequency again and
again to within 1Hz, then we have shown that the anomalous
acceleration is not needed and that the light speed delay does not
exceed a few seconds no matter what the source-receiver distance.
When we compare the variation in the predictive accuracy of the NASA
ephemeris over a randomly chosen period of time with that of this
nearly instantaneous model we can see that the nearly instantaneous
model is more accurate. And we have no reason to expect a change in
this difference between the accuracies of the two sets of predicted
frequencies.
So it would be interesting to see what you get with your data and
the Horizons data on the positions of Madrid wrt the sun and Canberra
wrt sun at the same times.

"r9ns" wrote in message
om...
This fact supports an optics experiment ...

Regardless, this thread isn't about optics so is
inappropriate in that group.

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
post and followups to sci.astro

"r9ns" wrote in message
om...
...

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

...

Nonsense. On Feb 12 2003 you ran some tables from Horizon and said
"Note that the first has changed by 1kHz..." and your tables showed a
1171.3424Hz closer prediction according to the conventional model than
my nearly instantaneous model and then you concluded "They are
sufficiently far apart to distinguish the hypotheses"

You were arguing that it wasn't possible to tell the
two theories apart and I showed that the difference
was easily enough for us to use as a test. I make no
claims in that post about validity

I think it was pretty clear in context. It was your idea that this
data could be used to prove my opposition to the conventional model
was wrong.

No, it's the other way round. It was my suggestion
that the Pioneer data would provide a method to
test _your_ hypothesis.

That's the point I was making earlier this week, the
Snipping the details of 1) and 2) may make this clearer. Your
paragraph above says:

"Dishman ... mistakenly claimed that 1) ... and 2) ...
proved the validity of the conventional light speed delay
assumption,"

What I said it that the results are sufficiently far apart
to distinguish which site was transmitting. That is enough
to prove your theory false but it does not prove the
conventional theory correct as you imply. It is a subtle
but important point.

Ok. But the most important point is not so subtle, that the argument
is a circular argument that you were not aware of at first.

What is most important is that your text implies
I said we could prove a theory right (it doesn't
actually matter which theory) and that makes it
look as though I am unaware of the nature and
limitations of the scientific method. At worst,
that can be construed as libellous. Whether the
test is circular or not is merely a disagreement.

If you said "Dishman claimed that the lack of agreement of
the Pioneer results with the assumption of near-instantaneous
light propagation proved the invalidity of that assumption."
then that would be reasonable, just leave out the bit about
proving the conventional theory.

I am only asking you to correct the false impression you are
giving in the document at present.


An I am pressing you to say that you were not aware at first that
the argument was circular.

It isn't. Ignoring ConScan manouvres, there are
essentially only six variables to define the craft
trajectory, three to define a location and three
for the velocity at that point. The subsequent
motion is determined by gravitational forces. When
you have many thousands of readings, it is highly
unlikely that an incorrect model would be able to
fit the data when there are only six adjustable
values so that provides the test. There is nothing
circular about that.

snip

Thus the fact that in some very few instances where Markwardt
claims there was reception when the transmitter was off does not mean
that the receiver could not have been receiving signals sent directly
from the craft and not signals received by the craft and relayed back
to the earth site receiver.

Yes it does, the papers clearly say they were unable
to lock on to the craft signal without the uplink.
Unless there was a signal from the receive site, it
must have come from one of the other sites and since
in general they were below the horizon at the time of
reception, this disproves your near-instantaneous
hypothesis.

No examples have been shown where the received frequencies were
good and the transmitter was not on at the receiver site. qed.

I thought Craig told you of some, and certainly he
confirmed there were many such instances. I didn't
search myself since he had a better database.

However, the proof we have developed in the last few
weeks removes all these aspects. Since it only uses
the recorded frequencies, some basic information about
the Earth's orbit and a single assumption that the
craft is more than 10AU from Earth, I don't think you
can find a flaw in it (other than by claiming not toe
understand the method I use).


The flaw is not in my understanding but as I have said before the
changing projections of the orbital motion on the spin motion vector

That is the exactly where you go wrong. The orbital
motion has to be projected onto a line from the
craft to the site, not onto the rotational velocity.
This is a simple diagram which illustrates that:

http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Ralph/o...projection.gif

I hope I don't need to explain it any more.

in the two different hemispheres and different elevations causing
different starting times when the incoming frequencies are received
etc could account for the different patterns of the received
frequencies in the two sites.

Again that illustrates your lack of understanding,
the starting times are irrelevant. Since the method
finds the minimum in the rate of change, as long as
we have at least two samples before and two samples
after that time, we get the result. (Of course a
larger group reduces noise.)

Your unwillingness to acknowledge these possibilities is similar to
the delays in your acknowledging
1)that the wave theory of light implies the Doppler shift does not
imply the doppler shift implies the wave theory of light

I have never disputed that, in using your method I
have always assumed the speed component along the
joining line directly causes the shift regardless
of range, just as you claimed. That's why this is
how to do the projection of the orbital velocity

http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Ralph/o...projection.gif

2)that the closeness of the NASA ephemeris P10 trajectory based on the
conventional model is a circular argument.

This was never my argument and it is this lie that
I want you to remove from the page. My argument
was that the _inability_ of your_ model to match
the data with _any_ choice of initial conditions
proves that _your_ theory is wrong.

To see that the position of the craft assuming that the received
frequencies are transmitted from the receiving site at Madrid is
consistent with the position of the craft later at Canberra and
To see that the Anderson et al claim of anomalous acceleration could
also be due to the fact that light speed does not extrapolate to
distances where the time is beyond a few seconds, do the following
simple calculation with your data from Madrid and Canberra:


1) Solve for K1 given V1=earthsite velocity wrt sun in a coordinate
system where the z axis is perpendicular to the plane of the celestial
equator and the x axis is a line in this plane to the vernal equinox
etc.
(T)(1+2(K1V1-13.059)/c=R1, ...

If K1 is an angle and V1 is the velocity then K1*V1
would also be a speed and could be added to 13.059
which I think is the radial speed of the craft but
why you add 1km/s is beyond me. Anyway, the term
(1+2(K1V1-13.059) is a speed. Assuming c is the speed
of light, (1+2(K1V1-13.059)/c is dimensionless so,
assuming R1 is the range to the craft, your equation
ends up as:

time * (speed / speed) = distance

so it equates time to distance. It doesn't make any
sense at all, unless of course R is a time or (T) is
a distance.

George