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