Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous

John C. Polasek writes:
....
You must know that I am talking about all real, maser-verfiied clocks
that accelerate compared to the artificial clock in the model which
for several reasons must have a constant value. The result is the ramp
function on the chart.
....

For the nth time, there is no "artificial clock" in the model. The
station clock at the time of the tracking session is used in the
model. If you continue with your fiction, I can only assume that you
are not interested in substantiated debate.

CM

John C. Polasek wrote:
On 27 Jun 2006 01:11:49 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

John C. Polasek wrote:

I tried to show you in my flowgraph paper on my website, that Doppler
isn't even in it. The round trip times are too small.

Even for a 20 hr. round trip the Doppler change in beat is a
fractional change df/f0 = 2e-13 or 4.8e-4Hz, and after 8 years (the
other end of the chart) you have the same values 2e-13 and 4.8e-4Hz.
There would be nothing to plot.

The chart shown would be the same if you used the station clock,
without the Doppler returned signal. The only thing that can
reasonably cause that is a continuously increasing station clock rate
or a mystery acceleration which we can rule out.

John, it isn't that simple. A linear increase in the
station maser clock rate would cause an increase in
the transmitted frequency in 1994 compared to 1987
and that would in turn cause an equal fractional
increase in the returned frequency. The measured
value is the difference between that and a reference
also generated from the maser (albeit at another
site[*]) but that difference is then measured using
a timebase derived from the same maser.

I think you are talking aboug deltaF on the graph,

No, I understand your graph to show the difference
between measured Doppler and the Doppler predicted
based on the modelled speed of the craft. I don't have
an issue with that, I think you have it right. What I am
talking about is the method used to make the
measurement and how it would be affecte by clock
drift.

and we both agree
it's negligible. My argument is that the station or returned (either)
frequency vs the synthetic frequency in the model that makes the
anomaly.

There is no "synthetic frequency" in the model. The
expected shift is calculated from the modelled craft
speed and the measured transmit frequency.

What that means is that a simple change of rate
cancels out. I don't think your flowchart illustrates
that point and it is very important in any consideration
of clock rate variation.

George
[*] The secular rates will be matched via synchronisation
to the international standard.

How can I say it again without being repetitious? Of course the return
frequency is bootstrapped off the station clock and their difference
essentially nulls out. I just pointed that out above, to the effect
that the return differences are just so much noise, in the big
picture.

You must know that I am talking about all real, maser-verfiied clocks
that accelerate compared to the artificial clock in the model which
for several reasons must have a constant value.

The point I am drawing your attention to is that there is
no "artificial clock" in the model, the speed is applied to
the transmit frequency which is measured/generated
against the maser at most 20 hours before reception.

The result is the ramp
function on the chart.

I went on at some length about how the fictional clock can only have
one proper book value. Even today it would be assigned the same
value, just as Cs33 would still have 9,192,731,770 to define one
second. What is there to check against?

In other words, as shown on the graph, the model's frequency is f0 and
the station clock's is f0 plus f0*H*t, leaving f0*H*t as the input to
the graph. .

If the station clock is [f0 plus f0*H*t] at the time of reception
then it is compared against [f0 plus f0*H*(t-tr)] where tr is the
round-trip time, not f0 as you seem to be suggesting.

George

Craig Markwardt wrote:
"GSS" writes:
...
DNu_mod/Nu_0 = 2 v_mod/c ..... (4)
And
2 v_obs/c = DNu_obs/Nu_0 ..... (5)
...

It has been mentioned in the above quoted reference that *all
relativistic corrections* have been incorporated in the model. In this
regard kindly give your opinion whether it is possible that the so
called relativistic corrections themselves could be the source of the
Anomalous effect??

No. Switching from relativistic to classical physics only worsens the
solution, not improves.

Has this been tried out? If so by whom and what is the quantitative
difference in the Anomalous effect?

From the above quoted reference [arXiv:gr-qc/0104064 v5] it appears
that the Relativity corrections have been used both for improving
accuracy of the model and to use such an improved model for testing the
Relativity Theories. Quoting from pages 12 and 14 of this reference -

"Responding to the increasing demand of the navigational accuracy, the
gravitational field in the solar system is modeled to include a number
of relativistic effects that are predicted by the different metric
theories of gravity. Thus, within the accuracy of modern experimental
techniques, the parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) approximation of
modern theories of gravity provides a useful starting point not only
for testing these predictions, but also for describing the motion of
selfgravitating bodies and test particles."

"Indeed, this dynamical model has been good enough to perform tests of
general relativity."

Doesn't it appear to be fundamentally illogical to first use Relativity
to perfect the model and then to use that model to test Relativity. If
the Relativity does need to be tested then why use it till its
clearance through authentic testing?

And is it also possible that some theoretical error in the Doppler
relations (4) and (5) could lead to the observed Anomalous effect?

Relations 4 and 5 are inexact representations of the Doppler shift.
The exact relativistic formulation improves the solution.

Craig

Kindly provide the ' exact relativistic formulation ' in place of
relations (4) and (5) or atleast provide a reference for the same.

GSS

On 27 Jun 2006 10:46:22 -0500, Craig Markwardt
wrote:


John C. Polasek writes:
...
You must know that I am talking about all real, maser-verfiied clocks
that accelerate compared to the artificial clock in the model which
for several reasons must have a constant value. The result is the ramp
function on the chart.
...

For the nth time, there is no "artificial clock" in the model. The
station clock at the time of the tracking session is used in the
model. If you continue with your fiction, I can only assume that you
are not interested in substantiated debate.

CM
I may be misinterpreting what is in the model, but what I have tried
to represent in the upper model leg is a digital differential analyzer
doing numerical integration on data taken from the ephemeris and
double integrating it for range that would then update the ephemeris.
In so doing only the constant G is involved, and it's all
mathematical.

Then to produce anything resembling frequency, for later comparison
with the real hardware, from the point V(t), one must introduce the
multiplier -f0/c. In this regard I would expect that the multiplier is
a mathematic constant being 1/WL.

If this is wrong, just say so and I can modify my model, but then tell
me how this coefficient -f0/c is brought up to date with the
transmitting clock. With an analog computer, yes, or using the station
clock to drive the DDA, but that looks like a nullity also.

It is clear there is substantial misunderstanding somewhere.

John P

On 27 Jun 2006 09:58:04 -0700, "GSS"
wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 26 Jun 2006 09:44:15 -0700, "GSS"
wrote:


Craig Markwardt wrote:
"GSS" writes:

May I request the learned readers to kindly explain (if possible) how
exactly did we come to the conclusion from the available Doppler data
that the Anomaly exists? More precisely, how do we compute the
Anomalous acceleration from the available Doppler data?


In short, there is a model of the forces on the spacecraft and the
physical effects on the radio waves in the solar system. After
solving for the trajectory of the spacecraft by adjusting the initial
conditions, there still remains a residual which cannot be accounted
for by known physics. Hence, the "anomaly."

Why not read more here?
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0104064 Anderson et al.
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0208046 Markwardt

Craig

Let me include a few relations from the above quoted reference for
subsequent discussion.

Let D represent delta, v_mod represent the outward velocity of the
spacecraft at the given instant t as used in the comprehensive
trajectory model and v_obs represent the corresponding velocity as
derived from the observed Doppler frequency Nu_obs.

Nu_mod = Nu_0 [1-(2.v_mod/c)] ..... (1)
DNu_mod = Nu_0 - Nu_mod ..... (2)
DNu_obs = Nu_0 - Nu_obs ..... (3)
From (1)
DNu_mod/Nu_0 = 2 v_mod/c ..... (4)
And
2 v_obs/c = DNu_obs/Nu_0 ..... (5)

It has been observed from the Pioneer-10 Doppler data that over a long
period of time the Doppler Residuals given by [DNu_obs-DNu_mod] or by
[v_obs-v_mod] showed a continuous decreasing trend. This has been found
to be an Anomalous effect. This anomalous effect has been modeled by an
anomalous acceleration term a_p directed towards sun/earth.

DNu_obs/Nu_0 - DNu_mod/Nu_0 = 2.a_p.t/c .... (6)

Tremendous efforts have been put in for finding some acceptable
satisfactory explanation for this anomaly and too many weird proposals
have been put forward for resolving it but without success. In the
process all aspects of the comprehensive trajectory model have been
thoroughly analyzed.

It has been mentioned in the above quoted reference that *all
relativistic corrections* have been incorporated in the model. In this
regard kindly give your opinion whether it is possible that the so
called relativistic corrections themselves could be the source of the
Anomalous effect??

And is it also possible that some theoretical error in the Doppler
relations (4) and (5) could lead to the observed Anomalous effect?

GSS

I tried to show you in my flowgraph paper on my website, that Doppler
isn't even in it. The round trip times are too small.

Even for a 20 hr. round trip the Doppler change in beat is a
fractional change df/f0 = 2e-13 or 4.8e-4Hz, and after 8 years (the
other end of the chart) you have the same values 2e-13 and 4.8e-4Hz.
There would be nothing to plot.

The chart shown would be the same if you used the station clock,
without the Doppler returned signal. The only thing that can
reasonably cause that is a continuously increasing station clock rate
or a mystery acceleration which we can rule out.

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net

I appreciate your efforts for putting up a new proposal under the
'banner' of 'New Physics'. Exploring all possibilities is the normal
scientific approach.

However, I am sorry, I cannot agree to your proposal.
Trouble is that I cannot agree to your fundamental assumption of an
expanding space. Hence your argument of 'continuously increasing
station clock rate' is not convincing even if you believe that it can
explain the anomaly.

GSS
How far can we get if you equate expanding clock rate with expanding
space? Dual Space is a large theory replacing relativity and the BB
and it explains why clock rates are changing.

Look at my Gravity paper (#2) on my website and see Eq. 1, the Navier
Stokes equation that explains gravity as being the consequence of the
removal of that which was created out of the pair-space substance.

Eq. 1c has the development cdc/dr = MG/r^2, where it turns out dc/dr
is the Hubble constant, which equals Ap for proper M and r, the mass
of the universe and its radius.

The chapter is about showing how the results of GR are achieved in
cartesian space after separating space and time. The GPS example is a
nice test case.

It is quite plain that relativity and space-time have nothing useful
to say in regard to the Pioneer 10 nor even the Michelson Morley null
which is explained in Fig. 7.

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net

The NEWSGROUP POST sci.astro
"HUBBLE REVEALS TWO DUST DISKS AROUND NEARBY STAR (STScI-PR06-25)"

prompted a look at this site:

http://www.solstation.com/stars2/beta-pic.htm

and thought it appropriate to the discussion.

It identifies a star 'Beta Pictoris'
'only 20 to 200 million years old at most'
with two dust discs as observed by the Hubble telescope.

*******************
Beta Pictoris is a bluish white main sequence dwarf star of spectral and
luminosity type A5 V, but has been previously classified as A3. It is also
classified as a "shell star" because it is surrounded by a shell of mostly
hydrogen gas. The star may have about 1.75 times Sol's mass, 1.4 times its
diameter, and 8.7 times its luminosity. The star may be as enriched than Sol
with elements heavier than hydrogen ("metallicity"), based on its abundance of
iron (Heap et al, 1995). It appears to be only 20 to 200 million years old at most.
*******************

Much older stars such as our own do not have this dust disc character.

Could it be that the dust particles
(with their large area to mass ratios as compared to planetary objects)
experience the anomalous deceleration in a more pronounced manner than
the Pioneer spacecraft and consequently spin into the star or orbiting planets.
Our solar system is essentially dust free.
Perhaps, it did not have to be that way
but for the anomalous deceleration effect.

No doppler effects are noted from the spinning 'Beta Pictoris' dust disc.
I wonder if such data is obtainable.
Could the dust anomalous deceleration be observed directly
as observed by doppler shift of reflected light
as compared to calculated gravitational trajectory?

Richard

"GSS" writes:
Craig Markwardt wrote:
"GSS" writes:
...
DNu_mod/Nu_0 = 2 v_mod/c ..... (4)
And
2 v_obs/c = DNu_obs/Nu_0 ..... (5)
...

It has been mentioned in the above quoted reference that *all
relativistic corrections* have been incorporated in the model. In this
regard kindly give your opinion whether it is possible that the so
called relativistic corrections themselves could be the source of the
Anomalous effect??

No. Switching from relativistic to classical physics only worsens the
solution, not improves.

Has this been tried out? If so by whom and what is the quantitative
difference in the Anomalous effect?

Yes, by me. Changing from relativistic to classical Doppler shifts
essentially adds noise to the solution, which is of order a few Hz.
This is appropriate since the difference between the two kinds of
Doppler shifts occurs at second order in (v/c). It's also
understandable since the dominant Doppler shifts are the earth's
motion and rotation (factor of 2-3 times larger than the spacecraft
speed w.r.t. the sun). The anomaly itself is still present with both
methods, just noisier with classical Doppler shifts.

From the above quoted reference [arXiv:gr-qc/0104064 v5] it appears
that the Relativity corrections have been used both for improving
accuracy of the model and to use such an improved model for testing the
Relativity Theories. Quoting from pages 12 and 14 of this reference -

"Responding to the increasing demand of the navigational accuracy, the
gravitational field in the solar system is modeled to include a number
of relativistic effects that are predicted by the different metric
theories of gravity. Thus, within the accuracy of modern experimental
techniques, the parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) approximation of
modern theories of gravity provides a useful starting point not only
for testing these predictions, but also for describing the motion of
selfgravitating bodies and test particles."

"Indeed, this dynamical model has been good enough to perform tests of
general relativity."

Or, from the above quoted reference [arxiv.org/gr-qc/0208046],

"The equations of motion I used [... included ... ] aN ... due to
Newtonian gravity"

and

"[Anderson et al 2002] considers additional terms for the
acceleration which allow for alternate theories of gravity (their
equation 3). I find that over the span of the data, these terms are
always smaller than 3x10^{-12} cm/s^2 and thus I neglect them for
the purposes of Doppler tracking analysis.

So, despite using Newtonian gravity, the anomaly was the same. Adding
the relativistic terms to the equation of motion did not change the
solution appreciably.

Doesn't it appear to be fundamentally illogical to first use Relativity
to perfect the model and then to use that model to test Relativity. If
the Relativity does need to be tested then why use it till its
clearance through authentic testing?

Ignoring for the moment that your question is moot -- given the above
description -- the first "P" in the PPN theory of gravity is
"parameterized." The PPN theory is parameterized family of gravity
models, *not* just GR.


And is it also possible that some theoretical error in the Doppler
relations (4) and (5) could lead to the observed Anomalous effect?

Relations 4 and 5 are inexact representations of the Doppler shift.
The exact relativistic formulation improves the solution.

Craig

Kindly provide the ' exact relativistic formulation ' in place of
relations (4) and (5) or atleast provide a reference for the same.

Kindly consult the referred-to papers, for example, gr-qc/0208046 eq 2.

CM

"Richard Saam" wrote in message
...
| The NEWSGROUP POST sci.astro
| "HUBBLE REVEALS TWO DUST DISKS AROUND NEARBY STAR (STScI-PR06-25)"
|
| prompted a look at this site:
|
| http://www.solstation.com/stars2/beta-pic.htm
|
| and thought it appropriate to the discussion.
|
| It identifies a star 'Beta Pictoris'
| 'only 20 to 200 million years old at most'
| with two dust discs as observed by the Hubble telescope.
|
| *******************
| Beta Pictoris is a bluish white main sequence dwarf star of spectral and
| luminosity type A5 V, but has been previously classified as A3. It is also
| classified as a "shell star" because it is surrounded by a shell of mostly
| hydrogen gas. The star may have about 1.75 times Sol's mass, 1.4 times its
| diameter, and 8.7 times its luminosity. The star may be as enriched than
Sol
| with elements heavier than hydrogen ("metallicity"), based on its
abundance of
| iron (Heap et al, 1995). It appears to be only 20 to 200 million years old
at most.
| *******************
|
| Much older stars such as our own do not have this dust disc character.
|
| Could it be that the dust particles
| (with their large area to mass ratios as compared to planetary objects)
| experience the anomalous deceleration in a more pronounced manner than
| the Pioneer spacecraft and consequently spin into the star or orbiting
planets.
| Our solar system is essentially dust free.
| Perhaps, it did not have to be that way
| but for the anomalous deceleration effect.
|
| No doppler effects are noted from the spinning 'Beta Pictoris' dust disc.

I wonder why?
ROFLMAO!

| I wonder if such data is obtainable.
| Could the dust anomalous deceleration be observed directly
| as observed by doppler shift of reflected light
| as compared to calculated gravitational trajectory?
|
| Richard

You may catch on someday, Richard, but it will take a lot of research
and an old, long forgotten paradigm.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

This is the story of a scientific crime. I mean a crime committed by a
scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics
and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of
fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.
Einstein developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it
is a crime against science and scholarship.


Androcles

Sorcerer wrote:

"Richard Saam" wrote in message
...
| The NEWSGROUP POST sci.astro
| "HUBBLE REVEALS TWO DUST DISKS AROUND NEARBY STAR (STScI-PR06-25)"
|
| prompted a look at this site:
|
| http://www.solstation.com/stars2/beta-pic.htm
|
| and thought it appropriate to the discussion.
|
| It identifies a star 'Beta Pictoris'
| 'only 20 to 200 million years old at most'
| with two dust discs as observed by the Hubble telescope.
|
| *******************
| Beta Pictoris is a bluish white main sequence dwarf star of spectral and
| luminosity type A5 V, but has been previously classified as A3. It is also
| classified as a "shell star" because it is surrounded by a shell of mostly
| hydrogen gas. The star may have about 1.75 times Sol's mass, 1.4 times its
| diameter, and 8.7 times its luminosity. The star may be as enriched than
Sol
| with elements heavier than hydrogen ("metallicity"), based on its
abundance of
| iron (Heap et al, 1995). It appears to be only 20 to 200 million years old
at most.
| *******************
|
| Much older stars such as our own do not have this dust disc character.
|
| Could it be that the dust particles
| (with their large area to mass ratios as compared to planetary objects)
| experience the anomalous deceleration in a more pronounced manner than
| the Pioneer spacecraft and consequently spin into the star or orbiting
planets.
| Our solar system is essentially dust free.
| Perhaps, it did not have to be that way
| but for the anomalous deceleration effect.
|
| No doppler effects are noted from the spinning 'Beta Pictoris' dust disc.

I wonder why?
ROFLMAO!

One would need a time (or frequency) standard
related to a particular atomic quantum transition in 'Beta Pictoris' dust disc
compared to a duplicate atomic quantum transition here on earth.

Is there anything in reflected light to do this?

Richard

"Richard Saam" wrote in message
...
| Sorcerer wrote:
|
| "Richard Saam" wrote in message
| ...
| | The NEWSGROUP POST sci.astro
| | "HUBBLE REVEALS TWO DUST DISKS AROUND NEARBY STAR (STScI-PR06-25)"
| |
| | prompted a look at this site:
| |
| | http://www.solstation.com/stars2/beta-pic.htm
| |
| | and thought it appropriate to the discussion.
| |
| | It identifies a star 'Beta Pictoris'
| | 'only 20 to 200 million years old at most'
| | with two dust discs as observed by the Hubble telescope.
| |
| | *******************
| | Beta Pictoris is a bluish white main sequence dwarf star of spectral
and
| | luminosity type A5 V, but has been previously classified as A3. It is
also
| | classified as a "shell star" because it is surrounded by a shell of
mostly
| | hydrogen gas. The star may have about 1.75 times Sol's mass, 1.4 times
its
| | diameter, and 8.7 times its luminosity. The star may be as enriched
than
| Sol
| | with elements heavier than hydrogen ("metallicity"), based on its
| abundance of
| | iron (Heap et al, 1995). It appears to be only 20 to 200 million years
old
| at most.
| | *******************
| |
| | Much older stars such as our own do not have this dust disc character.
| |
| | Could it be that the dust particles
| | (with their large area to mass ratios as compared to planetary
objects)
| | experience the anomalous deceleration in a more pronounced manner than
| | the Pioneer spacecraft and consequently spin into the star or orbiting
| planets.
| | Our solar system is essentially dust free.
| | Perhaps, it did not have to be that way
| | but for the anomalous deceleration effect.
| |
| | No doppler effects are noted from the spinning 'Beta Pictoris' dust
disc.
|
| I wonder why?
| ROFLMAO!
|

Oh look, you want the play the game of [snip]. Ok, I'll play... SNAP!

You may catch on someday, Richard, but it will take a lot of research
and an old, long forgotten paradigm.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

This is the story of a scientific crime. I mean a crime committed by a
scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics
and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of
fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.
Einstein developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it
is a crime against science and scholarship.


Androcles