where did the dark matter that causes flat rotation curves in gal

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
(Aladar) writes:
Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
(Aladar) writes:

Since then Craig Markwardt has independently processed
the raw data using IDL software and has confirmed both
the sense and magnitude of the anomaly:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208046

George

Yes, I know. He made a very nice job. However: my interpretation
is the correct one: the collected residual is the cumulative
Hubble redshift for the distance of signal travel. Also, it verifies
the value of independently calculated theoretical Hubble wavelength
doubling time constant at Hd=4.234 billion years.

Your statements are incorrect. None of my plots or conclusions are
based on accumulation of frequencies or times. In particular, Figure
3 of my paper shows the observed minus calculated frequency for a
*single* round trip for a transmission on a particular calendar date.
The residuals reflect that the received frequency is slightly higher
than expected (ie, a slight blue shift).

Therefore, your conclusions associating the Pioneer effect with the
Hubble recession are unsubstantiated and irrelevant.

CM

You are using data provided to you. We were talking about beat
frequencies as I recall. I really would like to get to the end of this
issue, but 'somehow' it does not seem possible without a new
experiment. Which is proposed by JPL...

You have not provided any substantial criticism of my analysis, only
innuendo. On the other hand, I can claim that my analysis included
all major effects including spacecraft motion, earth motion, earth
rotation, precession, nutation, polar motion, and (optionally)
tectonic drift. All of these effects are clearly detectable in the
Doppler signal, and thus verify that the analysis was performed
correctly.


I am the only person here who can do forensics on your highly flawed
analysis,you are all over the place with some effects and do not
mention the major one - i.e. the outward trajectory of the Pioneer
spacecraft against the annual orbital rotation of the Earth which
generates a net cyclical 'acceleration' effect due to the
observational limitation of finite light distance,the conclusion being
that the correct solution for Pioneer's motion is strictly
nonlocal.The correct solution is the cyclical variation in the
distance between Earth and Pioneer and the bi-annual 'accelerative'
drift due to the approach of the trajectory of the earth against the
outward trajectory of the spacecraft.

Claiming things is fine among poor opposition but including polar
motion and precession as two different things or your lack of
precision in defining earth motion (you should specify elliptical
rotation) and earth rotation that conditions all geocentric
observations and constitutes the constant day against the variable day
makes your impressive list an astronomical mess.Until you stop your
linguistic dithering your paper is worthless except for relativistic
thumbsucking purposes,otoh,if you wish to go through the motions of
the earth and work on what is valid and what is not,feel free to
discuss the matter.









I think so, you are not in position to define the validity of my
conclusions. Nobody is.

You are making unsubstantiated and incorrect claims about work that I
have done myself. The magnitude of the Pioneer anomaly is too large
by many orders of magnitude to be the Hubble effect, and it is
apparent as a slight *increase* in frequency compared to the expected
Doppler frequency. I leave no ambiguity in my paper, and further I
fully agree with the Anderson (2002) result, in terms of magnitude and
sign.

CM