Anom Accel of Pioneer 10 for v>(GM/r)^1/2

Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
[...]

Maybe I'm the _only_ person who freely voices that the Pioneer effect
is
an excess red shift - and the only person who thinks [..] that the residual
represents an
accumulated value, corresponding to the 10 1/2 years of light travel
time!

And it equals to the theoretical Hubble wavelength doubling time
constant
of 4.2 billion years or in linear approximation, for small distances
corresponds to a 'conventional' Hubble constant of 162 km/s per Mpc...

And please, Johnathan, allow me to formulate my position!

Sorry, but we've been here far too many times before. You can't equate
light travel time to the "arc" during which Anderson et al. collected
data.

You pointed to the key of the problem! The bigbangology tends to
forget
the fact that the so called anomalous acceleration is the unexplained
portion of FREQUENCY SHIFT - (recalculated to Doppler velocity, hence
cm/s or m/s) - divided by the DISTANCE of photon travel - (measured in
light seconds)! We been here so many times, but somehow you tend to
forget - or intentionally misrepresent - the facts!

And even if you could, your figure for the Hubble constant is
ridiculous. How do you explain the fact that it is more than twice the
various independent measurements? It doesn't even bear any relationship
to the anomalous acceleration.

First of all, what you call 'measurements' - they are closer to
regilion
then to physics... Actually, there is only one factor which defines
the
alleged around H=70 km/s per Mpc value: the alleged similarity
of Supernovae. I would say it is ridiculous. Secondly: my Hd=4.1167
billion years (need this correction!) results in a very interesting
pictu the look-alike galaxies are the same sizes! I would say - it
is
an important proof of the correctness of my about H=160 km/s per Mpc -
equivalent theoretical value for the photon energy loss rate.

Indeed, the reported anomaly - frequency drift vs. distance - is the
Hubble redshift vs. distance law, and indeed it could be viewed as a
dedicated experiment to verify or falsify the tired light cause!
Sorry, but it put the last nails into the coffin of big bang hoax...

Cheers!
Aladar
http://www.stolmarphysics.com

In message , Aladar
writes
Jonathan Silverlight
wrote in message

Sorry, but we've been here far too many times before. You can't equate
light travel time to the "arc" during which Anderson et al. collected
data.

You pointed to the key of the problem! The bigbangology tends to
forget
the fact that the so called anomalous acceleration is the unexplained
portion of FREQUENCY SHIFT - (recalculated to Doppler velocity, hence
cm/s or m/s) - divided by the DISTANCE of photon travel - (measured in
light seconds)!

OK, can you repeat why you think 10 1/2 light years is the distance of
photon travel? I think I know the answer but I want to knock it down
again.


And even if you could, your figure for the Hubble constant is
ridiculous. How do you explain the fact that it is more than twice the
various independent measurements? It doesn't even bear any relationship
to the anomalous acceleration.

First of all, what you call 'measurements' - they are closer to
regilion
then to physics... Actually, there is only one factor which defines
the
alleged around H=70 km/s per Mpc value: the alleged similarity
of Supernovae. I would say it is ridiculous. Secondly: my Hd=4.1167
billion years (need this correction!) results in a very interesting
pictu the look-alike galaxies are the same sizes! I would say - it
is
an important proof of the correctness of my about H=160 km/s per Mpc -
equivalent theoretical value for the photon energy loss rate.

Indeed, the reported anomaly - frequency drift vs. distance - is the
Hubble redshift vs. distance law, and indeed it could be viewed as a
dedicated experiment to verify or falsify the tired light cause!
Sorry, but it put the last nails into the coffin of big bang hoax...

As you are presumably aware, Anderson et al. write that several people
have noted that the anomalous acceleration (8 x 10^-8 cm s^2) is
approximately equal to c * H, if H =82km/s/Mpc (a bit high by modern
standards). It's fairly obvious that doesn't work for your figure.
And grabbing a web page at random
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Fukugita/Fukugita2_1.html I find
that the Tully-Fisher relationship gives H=80, type 1 supernovae give
H=50-55, and HST observations of Cepheids in the Virgo cluster give
h=65.
Three independent methods, and there are others.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
In message , Aladar
writes
Jonathan Silverlight
wrote in message

Sorry, but we've been here far too many times before. You can't equate
light travel time to the "arc" during which Anderson et al. collected
data.

You pointed to the key of the problem! The bigbangology tends to
forget
the fact that the so called anomalous acceleration is the unexplained
portion of FREQUENCY SHIFT - (recalculated to Doppler velocity, hence
cm/s or m/s) - divided by the DISTANCE of photon travel - (measured in
light seconds)!

OK, can you repeat why you think 10 1/2 light years is the distance of
photon travel? I think I know the answer but I want to knock it down
again.

I remember you had a hard time to understand it: the records are processed
to detect the anomaly. As I understand the processing of records involves
adding the signal travel times and the corresponding residuals to get
signal travel times (light-seconds) equal to the calendar time difference
from the start of the records. I have repeated this process on a
sample, this is how I learned it... The total usable recorded light
travel time amounts to 10 1/2 light years for the Pioneer 10 and almost as
much for 11. (Adding the two we may produce up to 20 lightyears of
tired light caused photon energy loss...)



And even if you could, your figure for the Hubble constant is
ridiculous. How do you explain the fact that it is more than twice the
various independent measurements? It doesn't even bear any relationship
to the anomalous acceleration.

First of all, what you call 'measurements' - they are closer to
regilion
then to physics... Actually, there is only one factor which defines
the
alleged around H=70 km/s per Mpc value: the alleged similarity
of Supernovae. I would say it is ridiculous. Secondly: my Hd=4.1167
billion years (need this correction!) results in a very interesting
pictu the look-alike galaxies are the same sizes! I would say - it
is
an important proof of the correctness of my about H=160 km/s per Mpc -
equivalent theoretical value for the photon energy loss rate.

Indeed, the reported anomaly - frequency drift vs. distance - is the
Hubble redshift vs. distance law, and indeed it could be viewed as a
dedicated experiment to verify or falsify the tired light cause!
Sorry, but it put the last nails into the coffin of big bang hoax...

As you are presumably aware, Anderson et al. write that several people
have noted that the anomalous acceleration (8 x 10^-8 cm s^2) is
approximately equal to c * H, if H =82km/s/Mpc (a bit high by modern
standards). It's fairly obvious that doesn't work for your figure.

But there is a mistake in the interpretation: a_P=c*ln(2)/2/Hd is
the correct calculation, or for the conventional H a_P=H*c/2!

And grabbing a web page at random
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Fukugita/Fukugita2_1.html I find
that the Tully-Fisher relationship gives H=80, type 1 supernovae give
H=50-55, and HST observations of Cepheids in the Virgo cluster give
h=65.
Three independent methods, and there are others.

And do you call these "scientific"?
Try to recalculate the distances and sizes - luminosity(?) - of
galaxies using my values! You will be surprized!

Cheers!
Aladar
http://www.stolmarphysics.com

In message , Aladar
writes
Jonathan Silverlight
wrote in message ...

OK, can you repeat why you think 10 1/2 light years is the distance of
photon travel? I think I know the answer but I want to knock it down
again.

I remember you had a hard time to understand it: the records are processed
to detect the anomaly. As I understand the processing of records involves
adding the signal travel times and the corresponding residuals to get
signal travel times (light-seconds) equal to the calendar time difference
from the start of the records. I have repeated this process on a
sample, this is how I learned it... The total usable recorded light
travel time amounts to 10 1/2 light years for the Pioneer 10 and almost as
much for 11. (Adding the two we may produce up to 20 lightyears of
tired light caused photon energy loss...)

As I said, I knew what you were going to say and it doesn't work.
The X axis in Anderson et al. figures 8 and 13 isn't "equal" to calendar
time, it _is_ calendar time. Figure 13 uses 20,0055 data points, and
using an average distance of 50 AU the two-way travel time is about 32
years. (That's a guess. What _is_ the average distance for the span
1987-1999?)
But you know that the X axis of figure 13 is labelled "date, years",
that figure 8 (the small data set) is labelled "Days from 1 Jan 1987
09:00:00". Not "light time" or even distance. Turyshev has confirmed
that the axis of figure 8 is calendar time,
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
In message , Aladar
writes
Jonathan Silverlight
wrote in message ...

OK, can you repeat why you think 10 1/2 light years is the distance of
photon travel? I think I know the answer but I want to knock it down
again.

I remember you had a hard time to understand it: the records are processed
to detect the anomaly. As I understand the processing of records involves
adding the signal travel times and the corresponding residuals to get
signal travel times (light-seconds) equal to the calendar time difference
from the start of the records. I have repeated this process on a
sample, this is how I learned it... The total usable recorded light
travel time amounts to 10 1/2 light years for the Pioneer 10 and almost as
much for 11. (Adding the two we may produce up to 20 lightyears of
tired light caused photon energy loss...)

As I said, I knew what you were going to say and it doesn't work.
The X axis in Anderson et al. figures 8 and 13 isn't "equal" to calendar
time, it _is_ calendar time. Figure 13 uses 20,0055 data points, and
using an average distance of 50 AU the two-way travel time is about 32
years. (That's a guess. What _is_ the average distance for the span
1987-1999?)
But you know that the X axis of figure 13 is labelled "date, years",
that figure 8 (the small data set) is labelled "Days from 1 Jan 1987
09:00:00". Not "light time" or even distance. Turyshev has confirmed
that the axis of figure 8 is calendar time,

A single Doppler record is made for every 1800 seconds, half-hours.
Each measurement equals to an average of 20 hours light time. So the
about 20,000 data points represent the different added parts of a total
of 10 1/2 light years of photon travel time. There is a clue: the
one way vs. two way...

Initially the X axis was named light-time (which is distance) and the
Y-axis was frequency drift (negative, for the excess redshift. Only
when the possibility that the effect shows -proves(!)- that the Hubble
redshift is tired light caused, it became EQUAL to calendar times
and turned into negative velocities... And the convention appeared...

But please, go on! What is your point?

Do you think you can convince me that the record is not the Hubble
redshift, caused by the photon energy loss? You see, I got a part of
the records and I could repreduce the reported results only by adding
the light times and the corresponding residuals!

Cheers!
Aladar
http://www.stolmarphysics.com

In message , Aladar
writes
Jonathan Silverlight
wrote in message ...
In message , Aladar
writes
Jonathan Silverlight
wrote in message ...

OK, can you repeat why you think 10 1/2 light years is the distance of
photon travel? I think I know the answer but I want to knock it down
again.

I remember you had a hard time to understand it: the records are processed
to detect the anomaly. As I understand the processing of records involves
adding the signal travel times and the corresponding residuals to get
signal travel times (light-seconds) equal to the calendar time difference
from the start of the records. I have repeated this process on a
sample, this is how I learned it... The total usable recorded light
travel time amounts to 10 1/2 light years for the Pioneer 10 and almost as
much for 11. (Adding the two we may produce up to 20 lightyears of
tired light caused photon energy loss...)

As I said, I knew what you were going to say and it doesn't work.
The X axis in Anderson et al. figures 8 and 13 isn't "equal" to calendar
time, it _is_ calendar time. Figure 13 uses 20,0055 data points, and
using an average distance of 50 AU the two-way travel time is about 32
years. (That's a guess. What _is_ the average distance for the span
1987-1999?)
But you know that the X axis of figure 13 is labelled "date, years",
that figure 8 (the small data set) is labelled "Days from 1 Jan 1987
09:00:00". Not "light time" or even distance. Turyshev has confirmed
that the axis of figure 8 is calendar time,

A single Doppler record is made for every 1800 seconds, half-hours.
Each measurement equals to an average of 20 hours light time. So the
about 20,000 data points represent the different added parts of a total
of 10 1/2 light years of photon travel time. There is a clue: the
one way vs. two way...

You presumably have this information from correspondence with the
authors, because there isn't a hint of it in the papers.
I have no idea what you mean by one way vs. two way; there are no
one-way measurements (there can't be, because they need a ground-based
hydrogen maser) They are either two-way or what Anderson et al. call
three-way, where the transmitter and receiver are different.
I have no idea where you get the idea that a measurement is made every
half hour, though it would be easy to check this as the data has time
tags. They don't explicitly say how long a pass takes, except that
integration is 10s, 60s, 00s, or 1980s.
BTW, adding 20,000 two-way light times of 20 hours gives about 45 years
total, not 10 1/2 - ISTR this came up last time we went round this.
10000 (20000 half hour measurements) adds up to a bit over a year, so
that doesn't work either, but obviously they weren't in constant
contact. The 20000 contacts are spread over the 10 1/2 years calendar
time of the long arc.
And what's your figure for the average distance? 50 AU gives a two-way
light time of just under 14 hours, not 20.

Initially the X axis was named light-time (which is distance) and the
Y-axis was frequency drift (negative, for the excess redshift.

Are you referring to the JPL convention for frequency shift, which is
negative for a spacecraft approaching the station (blue shift)? Figure 8
shows a negative frequency shift, and of course light time would be a
perfectly good scale for the X axis. It's just that they don't use it.
Presumably "days from 1 Jan 1987" is more informative - it's obvious
that something happened at about 1700 days, for instance.

Only
when the possibility that the effect shows -proves(!)- that the Hubble
redshift is tired light caused, it became EQUAL to calendar times
and turned into negative velocities... And the convention appeared...

Do you have the original figure?
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
[...]

As I said, I knew what you were going to say and it doesn't work.
The X axis in Anderson et al. figures 8 and 13 isn't "equal" to calendar
time, it _is_ calendar time. Figure 13 uses 20,0055 data points, and
using an average distance of 50 AU the two-way travel time is about 32
years. (That's a guess. What _is_ the average distance for the span
1987-1999?)
But you know that the X axis of figure 13 is labelled "date, years",
that figure 8 (the small data set) is labelled "Days from 1 Jan 1987
09:00:00". Not "light time" or even distance. Turyshev has confirmed
that the axis of figure 8 is calendar time,

A single Doppler record is made for every 1800 seconds, half-hours.
Each measurement equals to an average of 20 hours light time. So the
about 20,000 data points represent the different added parts of a total
of 10 1/2 light years of photon travel time. There is a clue: the
one way vs. two way...

You presumably have this information from correspondence with the
authors, because there isn't a hint of it in the papers.

This last one got well sanitized...

I have no idea what you mean by one way vs. two way; there are no
one-way measurements (there can't be, because they need a ground-based
hydrogen maser) They are either two-way or what Anderson et al. call
three-way, where the transmitter and receiver are different.

In some instances the acceleration is related to "one way only". In
the
report. It means that the association is with the light travel time,
and not with the calendar time.

I have no idea where you get the idea that a measurement is made every
half hour, though it would be easy to check this as the data has time
tags. They don't explicitly say how long a pass takes, except that
integration is 10s, 60s, 00s, or 1980s.

From here... The integration time - my memory tells me 1800, but it
could be 1980 s, which is close to half hours. This is when a record
of Doppler shift
is produced, having a light time duration of two way travel and with
the
developed for that time tireing of light...

BTW, adding 20,000 two-way light times of 20 hours gives about 45 years
total, not 10 1/2 - ISTR this came up last time we went round this.
10000 (20000 half hour measurements) adds up to a bit over a year, so
that doesn't work either, but obviously they weren't in constant
contact. The 20000 contacts are spread over the 10 1/2 years calendar
time of the long arc.

So you now understand that even limiting the measurements only to the
'excellent' could result an accumulated light travel time of 10 1/2
years! And the time - in calendar time - spent to collect this data is
a very small portion of the available! (Earlier as I recall you had
a problem understanding this...)

The processing of the records - as I have repeated the same - was done
by adding the good light time records. As long as they were
continuous,
they show the last of the record at the calendar dates, but
the adding was performed by the light time, so the difference of
calendar
dates gives ALSO the light time the photon traveled and suffered the
anomaly. It is convenient to represent multiple information in one
pass of processing.

And what's your figure for the average distance? 50 AU gives a two-way
light time of just under 14 hours, not 20.

The last records were made around 20 hours...


Initially the X axis was named light-time (which is distance) and the
Y-axis was frequency drift (negative, for the excess redshift.

Are you referring to the JPL convention for frequency shift, which is
negative for a spacecraft approaching the station (blue shift)? Figure 8
shows a negative frequency shift, and of course light time would be a
perfectly good scale for the X axis. It's just that they don't use it.
Presumably "days from 1 Jan 1987" is more informative - it's obvious
that something happened at about 1700 days, for instance.

If you check the records, i vehemently oppose this issue of direction
changing convention... It showed-up first when some started to point
to
Hubble redshift. Yes, I believe in this case in an intentional
cover-up!

I'm referring to the fact that the initial of the fig. 8 was in fact
scaled in light time seconds - X-axis - and frequency deficit,
negative
Doppler frequency - without any referrence to the alleged JPL
convention!


Only
when the possibility that the effect shows -proves(!)- that the Hubble
redshift is tired light caused, it became EQUAL to calendar times
and turned into negative velocities... And the convention appeared...

Do you have the original figure?

I must have a pointer somwhere, and I'm sure I saved it...

Cheers!
Aladar
http://www.stolmarphysics.com