P10 Acceleration: Light Speed Doesn't Extrapolate

Light speed delay is assumed to extrapolate to the most distant stars
and galaxies but for distances beyond the GPSS satellites at 11,000
miles etc, the evidence is not as clearcut. (See Appendix)
The recently observed anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10
provides the first clearcut evidence that light speed delay does not
extrapolate beyond one minute. That is, the predicted Doppler shifted
frequencies of a radar frequency sent to the spacecraft and returned
to earth two light times later were used to adjust successive
Newtonian calculated positions and velocities of Pioneer 10 as it
moved away from the Earth.
When the transmission and receptions earth site motions hours
apart, used to compute the Doppler shifted return frequency, are
replaced by earth site motions 1 minute apart, the anomalous
acceleration disappears
No longer do the observed frequencies increase slightly but
systematically with respect to the frequencies implied by the
relative motions of the earth and the spacecraft. Thus it is no
longer necessary to assume an anomalous acceleration of the craft to
the sun to keep the predicted frequencies equal to the observed.

The method is as follows:

First,referring to the NASA Horizons ephemeris, we project the
Madrid earthsite velocity wrt sun,V=(v1(t),v2(t),v3(t)),a vector
starting at Madrid at a specific time( eg t=21:24 Oct 7 1987) onto the
line between Madrid and the craft position assuming the nearly
instantantaneous light delay model, at this same time. The coordinates
of the craft positions however are based on the above estimation
procedure and earth site motions assuming the conventional light
delay model.
The velocity coordinates of the earth site wrt sun are
v1(t)=(x(t)-x(t-1))/60sec., etc.
(in this example the earthsite velocity is V=30.028km/sec and the
projected velocity on the line from the earth site to the ephemeris
craft position at this same time is W= 25.43728km per second toward
the craft.. The projected velocity of the craft onto this same line is
12.841164 (from 13.06)away from the earthsite. Thus the difference,
12.5801242 is the total uplink velocity and twice this is the total
total uplink plus downlink velocity which is 25.16022929.
The ratio of the projected earth site part of the total is
25/30=10/12 whereas the projected craft part of the total is 12/13
which is a smaller fraction. If we change the position of the craft by
changing these angles of projection implied by a change in the angle
of projection of the total total uplink plus downlink velocites and
assume tentatively a slight change in the velocity of the craft, we
can make the ephemeris position of the craft and its velocity give
results that match more closely the received radar tracking data-at
least for this minute.
After repeating this procedure a few times we find no further
changes are needed to sustain a close match minute by minute, and we
can have confirmation of the trajectory determined in this way.

1) We take as the the angle of projection arcos(25.16023/30.02854)The
angle of projection is arcos(0.837877)= 33.083 deg.

2) change the magnitude of the projected earthsite velocity at the
Madrid earthsite by trial and error in the spreadsheet to 24.8392593 (
arccos(24.8392593/30.02854)= 34.1890 deg; or 1.106 degrees more than
initially assumed)
This means that if the craft position is at a slightly larger angle
of projection,the motion of the earthsite to the craft would be
reduced enough so that when the craft velocity away from the earth
assumed to be the same as in the old position, is subtracted, the net
velocity of the earth to the craft is smaller and enough smaller to
make the predicted frequency match the observed frequency to within
..004Hz.
We have ignored the effect of the implied craft position change on
the craft velocity to Madrid but we can assume tentatively that the
craft velocity wrt the sun is slightly greater so as to compensate for
this effect. Of course we could also assume an even larger velocity
of the craft away from the earth and a smaller increase in the angle
of
projection of the earthsite velocity onto the line between the
earthsite and the new craft position. If this assumption produces a
trajectory that requires even less adjustment than our first
assumption we can change this later.

In this example the positions of the earth sites given by the
ephemeris(NASA Horizons Telnet, observer table) are 55 seconds later
than the times for the frequencies in the tracking data. Thus the
change in position of the Madrid earthsite wrt the Sun from 21:23 to
21:24 divided by 60 seconds and associated with the spreadsheet time,
21:24, represents the average velocity during this minute in the CT
time system but in the GMT time system this is the average velocity
from 21:22 to 21:23 which produces the received frequency in the
tracking data recorded at 21:23 etc. So we compare the spreadsheet
predicted frequency for 21:24 with the observed received frequency for
21:23 (or a linear interpolation of the value for 21:23:05)etc.

"Ralph Sansbury" wrote in message
om...
Light speed delay is assumed to extrapolate to the most distant stars
and galaxies but for distances beyond the GPSS satellites at 11,000
miles etc, the evidence is not as clearcut. (See Appendix)

WTF is the appendix?

"Ralph Sansbury" wrote in message
om...
Light speed delay is assumed to extrapolate to the most distant stars
and galaxies but for distances beyond the GPSS satellites at 11,000
miles etc, the evidence is not as clearcut. (See Appendix)

WTF is the appendix?

"OG" wrote in message ...

WTF is the appendix?

Here are some additions and corrections to the previous post.

Light speed delay is assumed to extrapolate to the most distant
stars and galaxies but for distances beyond the GPSS satellites at
11,000 miles etc, the evidence is not as clearcut.
(Roemer’s so called light speed measurement and Pulsar
phenomena could be due to changes in perspective of the appearance and
reappearance of Jupiter’s moons or binary stars at different
times of year while Bradley’s measurement could be ascribed
alternatively to nanosecond delay times in the response to light from
a polar star as the Earth, passing under the star, moved in opposite
directions at opposite times of the year. Etc..Radar reflections from
Venus etc could just as well be noise and spacecraft navigation to
Mars and Saturn etc can evidently be programmed ahead of time to take
into account various contingencies etc.. see
http:///www.bestweb.net/~sansbury)

The recently observed anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10
provides the first clear evidence that light speed delay does not
extrapolate beyond one minute. That is, the predicted Doppler shifted
frequencies of a radar frequency sent to the spacecraft and returned
to earth two light times later were used to adjust successive
Newtonian calculated positions and velocities of Pioneer 10 as it
moved away from the Earth.
When the transmission and receptions earth site motions hours
apart, used to compute the Doppler shifted return frequency, are
replaced by earth site motions 1 minute apart, the anomalous
acceleration disappears. (The planets can continue in their orbital
paths without gradually being pulled into the sun.)
No longer do the observed frequencies increase slightly but
systematically with respect to the frequencies implied by the
relative motions of the earth and the spacecraft. Thus it is no
longer necessary to assume an anomalous acceleration of the craft to
the sun to keep the predicted frequencies equal to the observed.
(Thankfully, the planets can continue in their orbital paths
without gradually being pulled into the sun.)


The method is as follows:

First,referring to the NASA Horizons ephemeris, we project the
Madrid earthsite velocity wrt sun,V=(v1(t),v2(t),v3(t)),a vector
starting at Madrid at a specific time( eg t=21:24 Oct 7 1987) onto the
line between Madrid and the craft position assuming the nearly
instantantaneous light delay model, at this same time. The coordinates
of the craft positions however are based on the above estimation
procedure and earth site motions assuming the conventional light
delay model.
The velocity coordinates of the earth site wrt sun are
v1(t)=(x(t)-x(t-1))/60sec., etc.
(in this example the earthsite velocity is V=30.028km/sec and the
projected velocity on the line from the earth site to the ephemeris
craft position at this same time is W= 25.43728km per second toward
the craft.. The projected velocity of the craft onto this same line is
12.841164 (from 13.06)away from the earthsite. Thus the difference,
12.5801242 is the total uplink velocity and twice this is the total
total uplink plus downlink velocity which is 25.16022929.
The ratio of the projected earth site part of the total is
25/30=10/12 whereas the projected craft part of the total is 12/13
which is a smaller fraction. If we change the position of the craft by
changing these angles of projection implied by a change in the angle
of projection of the total total uplink plus downlink velocites and
assume tentatively a slight change in the velocity of the craft, we
can make the ephemeris position of the craft and its velocity give
results that match more closely the received radar tracking data-at
least for this minute.
After repeating this procedure a few times we find no further
changes are needed to sustain a close match minute by minute, and we
can have confirmation of the trajectory determined in this way.

1) We take as the the angle of projection arcos(25.16023/30.02854)The
angle of projection is arcos(0.837877)= 33.083 deg.

2) change the magnitude of the projected earthsite velocity at the
Madrid earthsite by trial and error in the spreadsheet to 24.8392593 (
arccos(24.8392593/30.02854)= 34.1890 deg; or 1.106 degrees more than
initially assumed)
This means that if the craft position is at a slightly larger angle
of projection,the motion of the earthsite to the craft would be
reduced enough so that when the craft velocity away from the earth
assumed to be the same as in the old position, is subtracted, the net
velocity of the earth to the craft is smaller and enough smaller to
make the predicted frequency match the observed frequency to within
..001Hz.
We have ignored the effect of the implied craft position change on
the craft velocity to Madrid but we can assume tentatively that the
craft velocity wrt the sun is slightly greater so as to compensate for
this effect. Of course we could also assume an even larger velocity
of the craft away from the earth and a smaller increase in the angle
of
projection of the earthsite velocity onto the line between the
earthsite and the new craft position. If this assumption produces a
trajectory that requires even less adjustment than our first
assumption we can change this later.

In this example the positions of the earth sites given by the
ephemeris(NASA Horizons Telnet, observer table) are 55 seconds later
than the times for the frequencies in the tracking data. Thus the
change in position of the Madrid earthsite wrt the Sun from 21:23 to
21:24 divided by 60 seconds and associated with the spreadsheet time,
21:24, represents the average velocity during this minute in the CT
time system but in the GMT time system this is the average velocity
from 21:22 to 21:23 which produces the received frequency in the
tracking data recorded at 21:23 etc. So we compare the spreadsheet
predicted frequency for 21:24 with the observed received frequency for
21:23 (or a linear interpolation of the value for 21:23:05)etc.

"OG" wrote in message ...

WTF is the appendix?

Here are some additions and corrections to the previous post.

Light speed delay is assumed to extrapolate to the most distant
stars and galaxies but for distances beyond the GPSS satellites at
11,000 miles etc, the evidence is not as clearcut.
(Roemer’s so called light speed measurement and Pulsar
phenomena could be due to changes in perspective of the appearance and
reappearance of Jupiter’s moons or binary stars at different
times of year while Bradley’s measurement could be ascribed
alternatively to nanosecond delay times in the response to light from
a polar star as the Earth, passing under the star, moved in opposite
directions at opposite times of the year. Etc..Radar reflections from
Venus etc could just as well be noise and spacecraft navigation to
Mars and Saturn etc can evidently be programmed ahead of time to take
into account various contingencies etc.. see
http:///www.bestweb.net/~sansbury)

The recently observed anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10
provides the first clear evidence that light speed delay does not
extrapolate beyond one minute. That is, the predicted Doppler shifted
frequencies of a radar frequency sent to the spacecraft and returned
to earth two light times later were used to adjust successive
Newtonian calculated positions and velocities of Pioneer 10 as it
moved away from the Earth.
When the transmission and receptions earth site motions hours
apart, used to compute the Doppler shifted return frequency, are
replaced by earth site motions 1 minute apart, the anomalous
acceleration disappears. (The planets can continue in their orbital
paths without gradually being pulled into the sun.)
No longer do the observed frequencies increase slightly but
systematically with respect to the frequencies implied by the
relative motions of the earth and the spacecraft. Thus it is no
longer necessary to assume an anomalous acceleration of the craft to
the sun to keep the predicted frequencies equal to the observed.
(Thankfully, the planets can continue in their orbital paths
without gradually being pulled into the sun.)


The method is as follows:

First,referring to the NASA Horizons ephemeris, we project the
Madrid earthsite velocity wrt sun,V=(v1(t),v2(t),v3(t)),a vector
starting at Madrid at a specific time( eg t=21:24 Oct 7 1987) onto the
line between Madrid and the craft position assuming the nearly
instantantaneous light delay model, at this same time. The coordinates
of the craft positions however are based on the above estimation
procedure and earth site motions assuming the conventional light
delay model.
The velocity coordinates of the earth site wrt sun are
v1(t)=(x(t)-x(t-1))/60sec., etc.
(in this example the earthsite velocity is V=30.028km/sec and the
projected velocity on the line from the earth site to the ephemeris
craft position at this same time is W= 25.43728km per second toward
the craft.. The projected velocity of the craft onto this same line is
12.841164 (from 13.06)away from the earthsite. Thus the difference,
12.5801242 is the total uplink velocity and twice this is the total
total uplink plus downlink velocity which is 25.16022929.
The ratio of the projected earth site part of the total is
25/30=10/12 whereas the projected craft part of the total is 12/13
which is a smaller fraction. If we change the position of the craft by
changing these angles of projection implied by a change in the angle
of projection of the total total uplink plus downlink velocites and
assume tentatively a slight change in the velocity of the craft, we
can make the ephemeris position of the craft and its velocity give
results that match more closely the received radar tracking data-at
least for this minute.
After repeating this procedure a few times we find no further
changes are needed to sustain a close match minute by minute, and we
can have confirmation of the trajectory determined in this way.

1) We take as the the angle of projection arcos(25.16023/30.02854)The
angle of projection is arcos(0.837877)= 33.083 deg.

2) change the magnitude of the projected earthsite velocity at the
Madrid earthsite by trial and error in the spreadsheet to 24.8392593 (
arccos(24.8392593/30.02854)= 34.1890 deg; or 1.106 degrees more than
initially assumed)
This means that if the craft position is at a slightly larger angle
of projection,the motion of the earthsite to the craft would be
reduced enough so that when the craft velocity away from the earth
assumed to be the same as in the old position, is subtracted, the net
velocity of the earth to the craft is smaller and enough smaller to
make the predicted frequency match the observed frequency to within
..001Hz.
We have ignored the effect of the implied craft position change on
the craft velocity to Madrid but we can assume tentatively that the
craft velocity wrt the sun is slightly greater so as to compensate for
this effect. Of course we could also assume an even larger velocity
of the craft away from the earth and a smaller increase in the angle
of
projection of the earthsite velocity onto the line between the
earthsite and the new craft position. If this assumption produces a
trajectory that requires even less adjustment than our first
assumption we can change this later.

In this example the positions of the earth sites given by the
ephemeris(NASA Horizons Telnet, observer table) are 55 seconds later
than the times for the frequencies in the tracking data. Thus the
change in position of the Madrid earthsite wrt the Sun from 21:23 to
21:24 divided by 60 seconds and associated with the spreadsheet time,
21:24, represents the average velocity during this minute in the CT
time system but in the GMT time system this is the average velocity
from 21:22 to 21:23 which produces the received frequency in the
tracking data recorded at 21:23 etc. So we compare the spreadsheet
predicted frequency for 21:24 with the observed received frequency for
21:23 (or a linear interpolation of the value for 21:23:05)etc.

In message , Ralph
Sansbury writes
"OG" wrote in message
...

WTF is the appendix?

Here are some additions and corrections to the previous post.

Light speed delay is assumed to extrapolate to the most distant
stars and galaxies but for distances beyond the GPSS satellites at
11,000 miles etc, the evidence is not as clearcut.
(Roemer’s so called light speed measurement and Pulsar
phenomena could be due to changes in perspective of the appearance and
reappearance of Jupiter’s moons or binary stars at different
times of year while Bradley’s measurement could be ascribed
alternatively to nanosecond delay times in the response to light from
a polar star as the Earth, passing under the star, moved in opposite
directions at opposite times of the year. Etc..Radar reflections from
Venus etc could just as well be noise and spacecraft navigation to
Mars and Saturn etc can evidently be programmed ahead of time to take
into account various contingencies etc.. see
http:///www.bestweb.net/~sansbury)


Don't you get bored posting this BS?
You have never constructively replied to my posts noting that the
Russian radar maps of Venus, two different US mapping satellites, and
the ground-based maps going back to the 1960s all agree.
You haven't replied to my posts noting that the Galileo observations of
the impact of Shoemaker-Levy 9 on Jupiter could only have been done if
you allow for the speed of light.
You haven't answered Craig Markwardt, and he's given up on you.
Your idea that some space probes have been lost because of failure to
allow for light speed delay makes no sense at all. Other probes, at the
same distance, have worked.
To use your favourite phrase, pigs _could_ fly, and Ralph Sansbury
_could_ be right, while everyone else is wrong, but I wouldn't bet on
it.
You can't even set up a link correctly. It's
http://users.bestweb.net/~sansbury/ (//, not ///), and when you get
there there's just a list of files because there's no index.html file.
--
What have they got to hide? Release the full Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

In message , Ralph
Sansbury writes
"OG" wrote in message
...

WTF is the appendix?

Here are some additions and corrections to the previous post.

Light speed delay is assumed to extrapolate to the most distant
stars and galaxies but for distances beyond the GPSS satellites at
11,000 miles etc, the evidence is not as clearcut.
(Roemer’s so called light speed measurement and Pulsar
phenomena could be due to changes in perspective of the appearance and
reappearance of Jupiter’s moons or binary stars at different
times of year while Bradley’s measurement could be ascribed
alternatively to nanosecond delay times in the response to light from
a polar star as the Earth, passing under the star, moved in opposite
directions at opposite times of the year. Etc..Radar reflections from
Venus etc could just as well be noise and spacecraft navigation to
Mars and Saturn etc can evidently be programmed ahead of time to take
into account various contingencies etc.. see
http:///www.bestweb.net/~sansbury)


Don't you get bored posting this BS?
You have never constructively replied to my posts noting that the
Russian radar maps of Venus, two different US mapping satellites, and
the ground-based maps going back to the 1960s all agree.
You haven't replied to my posts noting that the Galileo observations of
the impact of Shoemaker-Levy 9 on Jupiter could only have been done if
you allow for the speed of light.
You haven't answered Craig Markwardt, and he's given up on you.
Your idea that some space probes have been lost because of failure to
allow for light speed delay makes no sense at all. Other probes, at the
same distance, have worked.
To use your favourite phrase, pigs _could_ fly, and Ralph Sansbury
_could_ be right, while everyone else is wrong, but I wouldn't bet on
it.
You can't even set up a link correctly. It's
http://users.bestweb.net/~sansbury/ (//, not ///), and when you get
there there's just a list of files because there's no index.html file.
--
What have they got to hide? Release the full Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote
in :

Snipola
Don't you get bored posting this BS?
You have never constructively replied to my posts noting that the
Russian radar maps of Venus, two different US mapping satellites, and
Snipola

Here's more supporting evidence against Ralphie...

http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2001/gbtfirstsci/

Radar images of Venus from Earth using Arecibo and Green Bank.

BTW, the closest possible that Earth and Venus can get to each
other is about 127 light seconds. So EM waves work as predicted
at least two light minutes, twice as far as you claim.

And then there's the radar images of Titan. According to
http://www.naic.edu/~nolan/radar/AUSAC.html

"Weak detections have been obtained by Muhleman (1990) using
the Goldstone 70-m antenna to transmit, and the VLA to receive."

And there are continuing plans for more and better.

The closest Earth and Saturn can get to each other is more
than 1 light hour.

But I'm sure Ralphie will have an excuse. Whether it makes sense
or not....

Brian
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~skywise71...ics/laser.html
"Great heavens! That's a laser!"
"Yes, Dr. Scott. A laser capable of emitting a beam of pure antimatter."

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Jonathan Silverlight wrote
in :

Snipola
Don't you get bored posting this BS?
You have never constructively replied to my posts noting that the
Russian radar maps of Venus, two different US mapping satellites, and
Snipola

Here's more supporting evidence against Ralphie...

http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2001/gbtfirstsci/

Radar images of Venus from Earth using Arecibo and Green Bank.

BTW, the closest possible that Earth and Venus can get to each
other is about 127 light seconds. So EM waves work as predicted
at least two light minutes, twice as far as you claim.

And then there's the radar images of Titan. According to
http://www.naic.edu/~nolan/radar/AUSAC.html

"Weak detections have been obtained by Muhleman (1990) using
the Goldstone 70-m antenna to transmit, and the VLA to receive."

And there are continuing plans for more and better.

The closest Earth and Saturn can get to each other is more
than 1 light hour.

But I'm sure Ralphie will have an excuse. Whether it makes sense
or not....

Brian
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~skywise71...ics/laser.html
"Great heavens! That's a laser!"
"Yes, Dr. Scott. A laser capable of emitting a beam of pure antimatter."

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Jonathan Silverlight writes:

snip

You haven't replied to my posts noting that the Galileo observations
of the impact of Shoemaker-Levy 9 on Jupiter could only have been done
if you allow for the speed of light.
You haven't answered Craig Markwardt, and he's given up on you.
Your idea that some space probes have been lost because of failure to
allow for light speed delay makes no sense at all. Other probes, at
the same distance, have worked.

Not to mention the guy from the Pioneer team who knows the details of
how they communicate. But Ralph knew better. Never took him up on the
offer to visit JPL and have access to source code and raw data.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.