Pioneer 10 test of light speed delay

wrote in message
ps.com...

George Dishman wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

George Dishman wrote:
wrote in message

I answered this post before but maybe sent the reply to you.

The last mail I got from you was on the 7th Feb
and the post was on the 17th so I haven't seen a
reply. Perhaps it is still in your drafts folder,
I know I have done that a few times.

In any case my main point was that the onus is on you to show why
several hours of data minute by minute show 20 to 10Hz disparity
in the form of a trend suggesting much larger disparities between the
predicted and the observed received frequencies when the conventional
model is used to determine the transmission time earthsite motions.

Ah, now I know what you are seeing. That's the same
error we had last year when we used Horizons. If you
compare the error to the diurnal, you will find they
are proportional so there isn't a long-term trend as
there would be if this was like the reported anomaly.
Instead it goes to zero at the time in each contact
when the motion of the site is perpendicular to the
plane I used in my test.

A little thought give you the pattern, it is as if
the latitude of the site or the declination of the
craft was slightly in error which might be explained
by not having the right model for the ionospheric
refraction. Hoewever, there are several other
simplifications we made that might cause that.
What equation are you using for the Doppler shift
when doing the conventional version? ISTR you had
a non-standard equation for your theory.

snip

My explanation for the larger disparity is that the transmission
earthsite motions are
those some seconds before the reception earthsite motions allowing for
the unspecified turnaround time of the carrier received at the craft
an in phase change in frequency and amplified and relayed back to
Earth.

The error doesn't have the characteristic of a phase
shift, it is a magnitude error, so that doesn't work.

snip hypothesis based on phase shift

I have shown your idea for a test of this hypothesis is not
adequately thought out.

Your previous reply never appeared in the group.

That is you do not consider the combined effect of the earth spin and
orbital motions
at eg LA and then t minutes later at Canberra on lines from these earth
sites to the
craft. And so you cannot simply say that the minimal Doppler shift
observed at LA
should be observed t minutes later at Canberra and that the data of t +
100 minutes
shows the hypothesis to be wrong.

The post to which you are replying explains why
all of those points other than orbital motion are
wrong. We have discussed orbital motion several
times and it produces an error two orders of
magnitude too small to explain the discrepancy.

You have below quoted my reply which explained all
that so if you can't find your earlier reply, try
addressing these points. I'll trim out the side
issues, you can refer back to the previous post if
you want to deal with those, the ID is above.

George


But lets get to your argument again. You say that the effects I
mention taken individually are each small but ignore their
interaction which is large. Lets imagine first that the earth is not
tilted to the solar plane and is spinning only but not orbiting.

Right. That is equivalent to the Earth's equatorial plane
and is the correct orientation for considering the test.
We can come back to the orbital part.

I imagine the craft is say at 30 degrees above the solar plane and that
the earthsites in the two cases are on the equator.

OK.

Then it would make sense that given one earthsite doppler shift is
minimal at a certain time when the earthsites are facing away from the
sun and toward the celestial sphere

No. First think of a plane containing three point,
the North pole, the South pole and the craft. The
Doppler is exactly zero when the motion of the site
carries it through that plane.

Note that is independent of the (example) 30 degree
elevation of the craft and depends only on the fact
that the site is moving perpendicular to the plane.

that a subsequent earthsite at the
same latitude eight hours away should be minimal eight hours later and
you say this is 100 minutes later or earlier.

Treating the second site in the same way, the same
analysis applies and yes, there is a 100 minute
discrepancy. To explain this, your aim is to show
that any errors add up to exactly that time.

Now if this is made more realistic and the tilt and orbital motion
and the difference in latitudes and the time of day,etc it is not at
all clear even from your numerical estimates of these effects taken
individually on the projections of the orbital and spin motions on the
earthsite-craft lines at the different times and positions that the
combined effects here are as you claim.

OK, let's do them one at a time.

Time of day is trivial, the data in the file is all in
the same time system, not local time, so no conversion
is required and there is no error.

In addition I confirmed the final calculation
(converting time difference to angular error) used the
sidereal day so there is no error here either.

The effect of latitude (and altitude incidentally) is
simple. If the distance from the centre of the earth
is R, then the radius of the circle produced by the
rotation of the Earth is r = R * cos(L) where L is the
latitude, and the magnitude of the Doppler is
proportional to r. My method finds the time of the zero
crossing of this contribution hence the magnitude has
no effect whatsoever. Again there is no error here.

Orbital motion is easier to deal with by taking a
different viewpoint. Imagine now we are still using
inertial (non-rotating) coordinates and the x-y plane
is still the equatorial plane of the Earth but the
origin is the barycentre of the solar system. Now
the Earth is moving in a large ellipse and the orbit
is tilted by 23.5 degrees.

That motion has to be projected onto the Earth-craft
line and that projection produces a small error which
depends on the cosine of the angle of projection and
the cosine of the tilt. My previous calculation is for
the worst case where both cosines are 1 (though
obviously that for tilt will actually be less than 1).

So there you go, there is only one source of error and
as I calculated before it is two orders of magnitude
less than the discrepancy in the results.

You talk also of combining the effects which is a
reasonable comment, but the effects of tilt and
projection onto the Earth-craft line both produce
cosine terms so can only _reduce_ the error below
the value I calculated.

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
In article om,
wrote:
I answered this post before but maybe sent the reply to you.
In any case my main point was that the onus is on you to show why
several hours of data minute by minute show 20 to 10Hz disparity
in the form of a trend suggesting much larger disparities between the
predicted and the observed received frequencies when the conventional
model is used to determine the transmission time earthsite motions.

I mostly ignore this thread, but no, the onus isn't on someone to
prove you are wrong, the onus is on you to prove your calculations are
correct.

Markwardt has published a calculation showing milliHertz
residuals. Your calculation is showing 10 to 20 Hz residuals. You need
to prove your calculations are correct.

Thanks Greg. I hope it helps Ralph realise it's
not just me being lazy but standard scientific
behaviour.

George