|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Spacecraft Doppler&Light Speed Extrapolation
George Dishman suggested to me that Doppler signals sent to
a spacecraft and relayed back to earth would provide a good test of the instantaneous speed of light hypothesis. That hypothesis states that the r/c delay in light does not extrapolate beyond c but at great distances does not increase beyond a maximal value. Thus a light source, 30 time 10^8 meters away, like a source 3 times 10^8 meters away still produces an effect in a second (due to instantaneous forces that produce a cumulative effect rising above threshold after such a one second at most delay) The problem with this proposed test is that Doppler data that is inconsistent with the speed of light assumptions is partially or entirely filtered out by NASA. According to Morabito-Asmar(see Google) paper "The closed-loop NASA tracking system produces Doppler counts, Doppler "pseudoresiduals"( residual based on predicted frequencies used to tune the receivers),signal strengths(AGCs) and Doppler reference frequencies either in the form of a constant frequency or uplink ramps." All this is output on a so called ATDF tape , so frequencies that are too far from the predicted shifted frequency may be filtered out. ( I am assuming that in this process the carrier frequency is modulated so that when a resonant increase of a specific incoming frequency is produced it is not Johnson noise or whatever but the code modulated carrier from the spacecraft. I am also assuming that tuning around the predicted shift will occur so that even if the incoming frequency is not too far from the predicted frequency it can still be obtained) Craig Marquardt has further filtered some of these files to exclude the daily modulations due to the earth's spin, plus or minus.5km/sec(plus or minus10kHz he claims although I dont think this takes into account the enormous changes in the projection angle between the velocity of the earth and the line to the spacecraft) The result is another "data" file attempting to be consistent with the speed of light delay . The assumptions of the speed of light delay are so built into all of the data coming from NASA that it may be impossible to actually test the hypothesis that light is nearly instantaneous. But lets see. I am told that at 7:38 Mar 7 1988, rx=2.291710886.9109Hz. From the telnet ephemeris I find that Pioneer 10 had the following heliocentric,xyz, coordinates in AU units: 2447227.817361111, A.D. 1988-Mar-07 07:37:00.0000, 1.436437796483437E+01, 4.078001848489932E+01, 2.333352522486281E+00, 2447227.818055556, A.D. 1988-Mar-07 07:38:00.0000, 1.436438157235370E+01, 4.078003529995198E+01, 2.333352811320062E+00, 2447227.818750000, A.D. 1988-Mar-07 07:39:00.0000, 1.436438517997504E+01, 4.078005211560639E+01, 2.333353099907363E+00, and that the Sun at the same time had : 2447227.817361111, A.D. 1988-Mar-07 07:37:00.0000, 9.674871050446867E-01, -2.212064445087720E-01, 3.105791038669308E-05, 2447227.818055556, A.D. 1988-Mar-07 07:38:00.0000, 9.674901060953275E-01, -2.211948077051214E-01, 3.108019085814273E-05, 2447227.818750000, A.D. 1988-Mar-07 07:39:00.0000, 9.674931072480047E-01, -2.211831702995969E-01, 3.110222484770500E-05, and so Canberra in solar coordinates would have an x coordinate which is the negative of the sun's x coordinate here etc. From this data one gets the craft-site difference vector at 7:38 that represents the craft-site line "d" and the two time difference vectors (7:38 and 7:37 etc) divided by 60 seconds gives the speed of the site,'vs', and the speed of the craft,'vc'. The dot products of each velocity and the line "d" divided by the sum of squares of coordinates of "d" gives the projections of these velocities on the line, "d" and the difference in these projected velocities gives the craft site relative velocity v which plugged into the formula above gives the predicted Doppler. If the predicted Doppler here is close to the observed rx then the instantaneous hypothesis is indicated. The problem is to obtain from NASA the correct tx values?????? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Spacecraft Doppler&Light Speed Extrapolation
ralph sansbury wrote: George Dishman suggested to me that Doppler signals sent to a spacecraft and relayed back to earth would provide a good test of the instantaneous speed of light hypothesis. What folly--It's hard to understand why some folks (that appear to be interested in physics) don't take the lime to learn any physics. There are many wonderful physics books available in libraries and bookstores at various levels. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._booklist.html |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Spacecraft Doppler&Light Speed Extrapolation
"ralph sansbury" wrote in message ...
George Dishman suggested to me that Doppler signals sent to a spacecraft and relayed back to earth would provide a good test of the instantaneous speed of light hypothesis. That hypothesis states that the r/c delay in light does not extrapolate beyond c but at great distances does not increase beyond a maximal value. Thus a light source, 30 time 10^8 meters away, like a source 3 times 10^8 meters away still produces an effect in a second (due to instantaneous forces that produce a cumulative effect rising above threshold after such a one second at most delay) Both the conventional theory and Ralph's have been used to produce predictions of the receive frequency for days in March 1988. http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Ralph/1988_pred.gif The blue lines are Ralph's while orange and magenta are conventional. There are clear differences most notably in the phase of the diurnal variation, hence my recommendation. The problem with this proposed test is that Doppler data that is inconsistent with the speed of light assumptions is partially or entirely filtered out by NASA. That is not true. The data available from the NSSDC includes _all_ results and it is up to the user to perform the filtering. According to Morabito-Asmar(see Google) paper "The closed-loop NASA tracking system produces Doppler counts, Doppler "pseudoresiduals"( residual based on predicted frequencies used to tune the receivers),signal strengths(AGCs) and Doppler reference frequencies either in the form of a constant frequency or uplink ramps." All this is output on a so called ATDF tape , Note in particular this quote says that the signal strength is obtained from the "AGC" meaning "Automatic Gain Control". Looking at http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Sp...er/PNStat.html "DSS 63 acquired the downlink on time at -183 dbm. After peaking the signal to -178.5 dbm, they locked the telemetry at 16 bps with SNR of -0.5 db." Clearly, they first locked on to the RF signal before attempting to detect the sub-carrier and the processes are quite separate. so frequencies that are too far from the predicted shifted frequency may be filtered out. Inspection of the data shows large tails on the distribution so this is not the case. ( I am assuming that in this process the carrier frequency is modulated so that when a resonant increase of a specific incoming frequency is produced it is not Johnson noise or whatever but the code modulated carrier from the spacecraft. The microwave carrier is modulated by a 16kHz sub-carrier which is further modulated by the science data. Neither modulation plays any part in the RF acquisition however, as Ralph quoted above the RF signal level is measured from the AGC circuit. I am also assuming that tuning around the predicted shift will occur so that even if the incoming frequency is not too far from the predicted frequency it can still be obtained) The receiver searches to acquire the downlink signal rather than 'tuning'. Craig Marquardt That should be Markwardt. has further filtered some of these files to exclude the daily modulations due to the earth's spin, plus or minus.5km/sec(plus or minus10kHz he claims although I dont think this takes into account the enormous changes in the projection angle between the velocity of the earth and the line to the spacecraft) Craig does not use a rotating coordinate system, nor do I, so this change of angle is non-existent. The result is another "data" file attempting to be consistent with the speed of light delay. No, the filtering removes outliers far from the mean of their neighbours, regardless of the speed of light. The assumptions of the speed of light delay are so built into all of the data coming from NASA that it may be impossible to actually test the hypothesis that light is nearly instantaneous. The data Ralph has is independent records of a) transmit frequency with time of transmission b) receive frequency with time of reception so the speed of light doesn't come into the picture at all up to this stage. It is up to the user to determine, for any record of a reception, when the corresponding transmission ocurred and determine the transmit frequency accordingly so if Ralph doesn't want to use the speed of light, that is up to him. Ralph knows all this already, we have been discussing it for some months by email so why he is making these statements he knows to be false. But lets see. I am told that at 7:38 Mar 7 1988, rx=2.291710886.9109Hz. From the telnet ephemeris I find that Pioneer 10 had the following heliocentric,xyz, coordinates in AU units: snip and that the Sun at the same time had : snip and so Canberra in solar coordinates would have an x coordinate which is the negative of the sun's x coordinate here etc. I think you must be giving geocentric, not heliocentric, coordinates since you have no reference to the Earth or sites in the above. That gives you a rotating reference frame and may lead to other problems. I would suggest using barycentric coordinates for the sites and craft to reduce these risks. From this data one gets the craft-site difference vector at 7:38 that represents the craft-site line "d" and the two time difference vectors (7:38 and 7:37 etc) divided by 60 seconds gives the speed of the site,'vs', and the speed of the craft,'vc'. The dot products of each velocity and the line "d" divided by the sum of squares of coordinates of "d" gives the projections of these velocities on the line, "d" and the difference in these projected velocities gives the craft site relative velocity v which plugged into the formula above gives the predicted Doppler. That is roughly right though your shorthand description leaves a bit to the imagination. However, this can be done by using Horizons directly by noting that the rate of change of range is 42.51139km/s for Canberra at 07:38 on the 7th and 42.67846km/s for Madrid at 19:38 on the 6th. (The round trip time was 12 hours by conventional theory.) If the predicted Doppler here is close to the observed rx then the instantaneous hypothesis is indicated. Conversely if the actuals are closer to the conventional prediction then your theory can be falsified. However the coseness of a single reading is a poor indicator. The key part of my suggestion was that the phase of the diurnal variation directly indicates the longitude of the transmitter for any assumption about the transmit time. The problem is to obtain from NASA the correct tx values?????? Both sites transmitted at 2110883520Hz on both days so there is no problem with that part. Again this information is in the data Ralph received directly. Two further pieces of information are required. First there is a transponder ratio of 240:221 that must be included in the predictions. Secondly Ralph, you haven't stated the equation to be used for the speed-related frequency shift in your theory, equivalent to Doppler shift in conventional theory. Other readers should note this is an approximate technique, adequate for this purpose, but with several shortcomings for more accurate work. George |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Spacecraft Doppler&Light Speed Extrapolation
----- Original Message ----- From: "George G. Dishman" Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 5:50 PM Subject: Spacecraft Doppler&Light Speed Extrapolation "ralph sansbury" wrote in message ... George Dishman suggested to me that Doppler signals sent to a spacecraft and relayed back to earth would provide a good test of the instantaneous speed of light hypothesis. That hypothesis states that the r/c delay in light does not extrapolate beyond c but at great distances does not increase beyond a maximal value. Thus a light source, 30 time 10^8 meters away, like a source 3 times 10^8 meters away still produces an effect in a second (due to instantaneous forces that produce a cumulative effect rising above threshold after such a one second at most delay) The problem with this proposed test is that Doppler data that is inconsistent with the speed of light assumptions is partially or entirely filtered out by NASA. According to Morabito-Asmar(see Google) paper "The closed-loop NASA tracking system produces Doppler counts, Doppler "pseudoresiduals"( residual based on predicted frequencies used to tune the receivers),signal strengths(AGCs) and Doppler reference frequencies either in the form of a constant frequency or uplink ramps." All this is output on a so called ATDF tape , Note in particular this quote says that the signal strength is obtained from the "AGC" meaning "Automatic Gain Control". Looking at http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Sp...oneer/PNStat.h tml "DSS 63 acquired the downlink on time at -183 dbm. After peaking the signal to -178.5 dbm, they locked the telemetry at 16 bps with SNR of -0.5 db." This suggests that a frequency near the predicted frequency has been resonated and that an AGC circuit to reduce strong local interference has been employed so that subsequently the modulation code or signal can be removed and identified if it is really there to confirm that the tuned resonant frequency is not Johnson noise. Clearly, the filtering techniques of nasa and Marquardt are as they say they are namely used to avoid data too far from the predicted frequencies. In spite of this I have some hope that the accepted data in some cases will show that the received Doppler could have been produced a second before by the receiving station if the receiving station was also actively transmitting at the time of reception. The data you have is filtered and modified even further by Craig Marquardt as you know. ( I am assuming that in this process the carrier frequency is modulated so that when a resonant increase of a specific incoming frequency is produced it is not Johnson noise or whatever but the code modulated carrier from the spacecraft. I am also assuming that tuning around the predicted shift will occur so that even if the incoming frequency is not too far from the predicted frequency it can still be obtained) The result is another "data" file attempting to be consistent with the speed of light delay. No, the filtering removes outliers far from the mean of their neighbours, regardless of the speed of light. I disagree. Since this gets rid of neighbors that depart the most from the predicted values based on the speed of light assumptions. The assumptions of the speed of light delay are so built into all of the data coming from NASA that it may be impossible to actually test the hypothesis that light is nearly instantaneous. But lets see. I am told that at 7:38 Mar 7 1988, rx=2.291710886.9109Hz. From the telnet ephemeris I find that Pioneer 10 had the following heliocentric,xyz, coordinates in AU units: snip and that the Sun at the same time had : snip and so Canberra in solar coordinates would have an x coordinate which is the negative of the sun's x coordinate here etc. I think you must be giving geocentric, not heliocentric, coordinates since you have no reference to the Earth or sites in the above. That gives you a rotating reference frame and may lead to other problems. I would suggest using barycentric coordinates for the sites and craft to reduce these risks. The coordinates are what is available from telnet and since relativistic considerations are not necessary here have no risks .. xy-plane: plane of the Earth's orbit at the reference epoch x-axis : out along ascending node of instantaneous plane of the Earth's orbit and the Earth's mean equator at the reference epoch z-axis : perpendicular to the xy-plane in the directional (+ or -) sense of Earth's north pole at the reference epoch. From this data one gets the craft-site difference vector at 7:38 that represents the craft-site line "d" and the two time difference vectors (7:38 and 7:37 etc) divided by 60 seconds gives the speed of the site,'vs', and the speed of the craft,'vc'. The dot products of each velocity and the line "d" divided by the sum of squares of coordinates of "d" gives the projections of these velocities on the line, "d" and the difference in these projected velocities gives the craft site relative velocity v which plugged into the formula above gives the predicted Doppler. If the predicted Doppler here is close to the observed rx then the instantaneous hypothesis is indicated. Conversely if the actuals are closer to the conventional prediction then your theory can be falsified. Unfortunately because of the- acknowledged by nasa and Marquardt but not by you- filtering process guarantees that the conventional prediction is also close. So this proves nothing about the conventional prediction. It does however permit a falsification of my theory that the r/c speed of light does not extrapolate beyond r=c and that the Doppler signal could have been received within seconds or not. However the coseness of a single reading is a poor indicator. But there may be hundreds of close readings just like this perhaps which thus confirm the hypothesis. The fact that there aren't many more is because there are so many gaps in the data due to failed attempts to tune in predicted frequencies ( based on the mistaken and never tested theorythat the r/c speed of light extrapolates to distances greater than c.) The problem is to obtain from NASA the correct tx values?????? Both sites transmitted at 2110883520Hz on both days so there is no problem with that part. I take you at your word but would like to know what nasa documents say this. Two further pieces of information are required. First there is a transponder ratio of 240:221 that must be included in the predictions. Secondly Ralph, you haven't stated the equation to be used for the speed-related frequency shift in your theory, equivalent to Doppler shift in conventional theory. The Doppler shift equation is (1+v/c)f without relativitistic modifications which are unnecessary here where v here is the difference in the projections of vs an vc on the line d. (1+v/c)f is received by the spacecraft and retransmitted as (240/221)(1+v)f so that(1+ v)^2 times 24/221 times f should be received by the sending site a second or so later if the sending site was also scheduled to send at this time of reception v denotes the sum of the projected craft and earth site velocities on the instantaneous line, d. Its easy to put the data and equations in a spreadsheet and calculate the answer But I would suggest using the least filtered data. I am working on that now |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Spacecraft Doppler&Light Speed Extrapolation
"ralph sansbury" writes: Clearly, the filtering techniques of nasa and Marquardt are as they say they are namely used to avoid data too far from the predicted frequencies. [ Note incorrect spellings of proper noun. ] Your claims are unsubstantiated. Two kinds of filtering were applied. The first kind excluded outliers from the local trend. No assumption of light travel was made. The second kind of filtering removed noisy outliers after a crude solution was already achieved without fitting. A total of 76% of records passed. On the other hand, as you are well awa In 1987, Pioneer was below the horizon (i.e. blocked by the earth) as seen by the uplink station, for 89% of the downlinks. In 1988, that fraction goes up to 92%. For the overall 1987 to 1994 timeframe, the average amount of time this occurs is 85%. The opposite situation, where Pioneer is below the horizon as seen by the downlink station at the time of uplink, occurs 83% and 91% of the time. A general conclusion is that more than four fifths of the time between 1987 and 1994, the spacecraft is blocked from seeing one station at the same time that the other station is actively up- or down-linking. Therefore, it impossible for your putative scenario (i.e. nearly instantaneous light propagation) to have happened, since radio waves don't penetrate the earth. There is only a few per cents of the time where the uplink and downlink station were in view of the Pioneer spacecraft at the same time, and yet 76% of the data were good!! EVEN WITHOUT EXCLUDING THE NOISY DATA, THE SOLUTION WAS STILL VALID (see Markwardt 2002, sec. E). Therefore, your claims are quite simply and utterly bogus. [ Dishman: ] No, the filtering removes outliers far from the mean of their neighbours, regardless of the speed of light. I disagree. Since this gets rid of neighbors that depart the most from the predicted values based on the speed of light assumptions. Erroneous assumption, as noted above. But there may be hundreds of close readings just like this perhaps which thus confirm the hypothesis. The fact that there aren't many more is because there are so many gaps in the data due to failed attempts to tune in predicted frequencies ( based on the mistaken and never tested theorythat the r/c speed of light extrapolates to distances greater than c.) Your "close readings" theory is unsubstantiated. The Pioneer 10 solution requires knowledge of earth motion, earth rotation, and variations in earth rotation on the line of sight to less than 1 *millimeter* per second. It is not possible to get a close reading just by chance. If light travel time were nearly instantaneous, the linear speed of the earth would be incorrect by hundreds of *meters* per second. The problem is to obtain from NASA the correct tx values?????? Both sites transmitted at 2110883520Hz on both days so there is no problem with that part. I take you at your word but would like to know what nasa documents say this. The transmitted frequency is not a matter of NASA documentation. It's a matter of the Doppler tracking records, stored in the ATDF files. The Doppler shift equation is (1+v/c)f without relativitistic modifications which are unnecessary here where v here is the difference in the projections of vs an vc on the line d. I performed a test which showed that the relativistic form of the Doppler shift are indeed required. The classical form leads to much higher residuals. CM |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Spacecraft Doppler&Light Speed Extrapolation
"Craig Markwardt" wrote in message news "ralph sansbury" writes: Clearly, the filtering techniques of nasa and Markwardt are as they say they are namely used to avoid data too far from the predicted frequencies. Your claims are unsubstantiated. Two kinds of filtering were applied. The first kind excluded outliers from the local trend. No assumption of light travel was made. But these are outliers with respect to previously filtered data required by the resonance frequencies used to tune the receiver. and the intermediate frequency before further processing. That implies they are outliers from the predicted frequency. The second kind of filtering removed noisy outliers after a crude solution was already achieved without fitting. A total of 76% of records passed. On the other hand, as you are well awa In 1987, We are talking about 1980. Pioneer was below the horizon (i.e. blocked by the earth) as seen by the uplink station, for 89% of the downlinks. I am saying that what you think was the uplink station for a specific reception was not the uplink station. The true uplink station was the receiving station. If that is the case the earth would not block reception. Do you understand? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Spacecraft Doppler&Light Speed Extrapolation
"ralph sansbury" wrote in message ... "Craig Markwardt" wrote in message news "ralph sansbury" writes: Clearly, the filtering techniques of nasa and Markwardt are as they say they are namely used to avoid data too far from the predicted frequencies. Your claims are unsubstantiated. Two kinds of filtering were applied. The first kind excluded outliers from the local trend. No assumption of light travel was made. But these are outliers with respect to previously filtered data required by the resonance frequencies used to tune the receiver and the intermediate frequency before further processing. That implies they are outliers from the predicted frequency. The second kind of filtering removed noisy outliers after a crude solution was already achieved without fitting. A total of 76% of records passed. On the other hand, as you are well awa In 1987, We are talking about 1980. Sorry. We are not talking about 1980 but about 1987 and 1988. But the horizon blocking of the uplink sites ( Calif and Madrid?) for 89% of the assumed downlinks in Canberra does not matter. I am assuming that when receptions are scheduled for a specific craft of the many crafts out there that transmissions to the same craft also occur at the same time in the interest of efficiency. So clearly there is no horizon earth blocking problem at the time of reception!!!!!!! Pioneer was below the horizon (i.e. blocked by the earth) as seen by the uplink station, for 89% of the downlinks. I am saying that what you think was the uplink station for a specific reception was not the uplink station. The true uplink station was the receiving station. If that is the case the earth would not block reception. Do you understand? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Spacecraft Doppler&Light Speed Extrapolation
"George G. Dishman" wrote in message om... "ralph sansbury" wrote in message ... According to Morabito-Asmar(see Google) paper .. Note in particular this quote says that the signal strength is obtained from the "AGC" meaning "Automatic Gain Control". Looking at http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Sp...oneer/PNStat.h tml "DSS 63 acquired the downlink on time at -183 dbm. After peaking the signal to -178.5 dbm, they locked the telemetry at 16 bps with SNR of -0.5 db." This suggests that a frequency near the predicted frequency has been resonated and that an AGC circuit to reduce strong local interference has been employed so that subsequently the modulation code or signal can be removed and identified if it is really there to confirm that the tuned resonant frequency is not Johnson noise. No, the system is nothing like that. The front end is wideband and uses an LNA, a Low Noise Amplifier, to amplify the signal and pass it down to the receiving equipment. The filtering is done there as part of the digital PLL. All this is described in the document you quoted Ralph. There is no resonant circuit involved at all. I cant believe a resonant circuit is not involved. This is the basis of all radio and microwave communications. The gang tuning of carrier frequency and the local oscillator at a fixed difference below the carrier produces an intermediate frequency and the modulations of the carrier,a pattern of zeros and ones I suppose, that is produced by the transmitter on the uplink is extracted by the diode and processed by the agc control circuit etc. to indicate if the resonant carrier is not Johnson noise at this frequency. I have a book by Allan Scott on Understanding Microwaves that describes the electronic tuning of the capacitance of varactor diode with a pump frequency of twice the predicted frequency in a cryogenic parametric amplifier so these adjusmentsare analagous to those in gang tuning a radio circuit The low noise amplification you are talking about depends on resonance and so you are filtering out all frequencies too far from the frequency predicted on the basis of the light speed delay assumption and the frequency of that site The AGC keeps the output of the early stages at a constant amplitude so for pure noise you get some level on the AGC line while in the presence of a signal the gain is reduced and by using a circuit with a well-defined relationship between control voltage and gain, you know how much signal is present. If there was strong local noise, an AGC circuit would discard the signal when the noise was present giving the worst possible effect. Just the opposite. A proportion of the rectified voltage coming off the detector diode is fed back in such a way as lower the bias potential of the base and prevent distortions from strong local noise. Clearly, the filtering techniques of nasa and Markwardt are as they say they are namely used to avoid data too far from the predicted frequencies. The DSN receiver filters the signal severely to pull it out of the noise so part of what you say is true. You might want to talk more about that aspect. The filtering Craig adds does not use the predicted frequency AIUI but filters relative to the mean (or median, I need to check his paper?) so does not cause us a problem. In spite of this I have some hope that the accepted data in some cases will show that the received Doppler could have been produced a second before by the receiving station if the receiving station was also actively transmitting at the time of reception. The data you have is filtered and modified even further by Craig Markwardt The data I have been using and sent you is the raw values _before_ any filtering is applied by Craig. You should get the same from your C++ program when you extract the data directly from the NASA CD. I am also assuming that tuning around the predicted shift will occur so that even if the incoming frequency is not too far from the predicted frequency it can still be obtained) That is correct and an important feature of the system. The result is another "data" file attempting to be consistent with the speed of light delay. No, the filtering removes outliers far from the mean of their neighbours, regardless of the speed of light. I disagree. Since this gets rid of neighbors that depart the most from the predicted values based on the speed of light assumptions. Craig removes values that depart from those nearby without comparing against predicted values so your comments are wrong. They are implicitly compared because most of the values are already near the predicted values perforce. So your comments are wrong. It is important that he doesn't do this since the anomaly is about +3Hz by the end so if he filtered against the prediction he would always throw away more high values than low, hence he would introduce a bias into the measurement. The anomaly is so small that the filtering does not influence them. The problem is that the filter prevents tuning in the true frequency produced a few seconds ago at the receiving site by the transmitter at the receiving site. From the telnet ephemeris I find that Pioneer 10 had the following heliocentric,xyz, coordinates in AU units: snip and that the Sun at the same time had : snip and so Canberra in solar coordinates would have an x coordinate which is the negative of the sun's x coordinate here etc. I think you must be giving geocentric, not heliocentric, coordinates since you have no reference to the Earth or sites in the above. That gives you a rotating reference frame and may lead to other problems. I would suggest using barycentric coordinates for the sites and craft to reduce these risks. The coordinates are what is available from telnet and since relativistic considerations are not necessary here have no risks I am not using relativistic corrections anywhere except in the Doppler formula for the conventional theory. The risk I think is in keeping track of various parameters and the difficulty of estimating errors. Anyway, I think it was just a typo but an important one to correct. If the predicted Doppler here is close to the observed rx then the instantaneous hypothesis is indicated. Conversely if the actuals are closer to the conventional prediction then your theory can be falsified. Unfortunately because of the- acknowledged by nasa and Markwardt but not by you- filtering process guarantees that the conventional prediction is also close. If there is a significant difference between the predictions, they cannot both be close. The test does not prove the conventional prediction wrong because all frequencies not conforming to the conventional prediction are ignored and do not become part of the available data. The test does indicate that the instantaneous speed of light possible contrary to the conventional hypothesis and so in this way proves the conventional hypothesis wrong. I acknowledge there is filtering in the PLL which is by far the most important from your point of view. There is no resonant circuit at the front-end and Craig's filtering does not use the predicted value. I don't object to your statement in principle, I am only correcting the details. And I am surprised that you think radio communications can occur without resonance So this proves nothing about the conventional prediction. It does however permit a falsification of my theory that the r/c speed of light does not extrapolate beyond r=c and that the Doppler signal could have been received within seconds or not. Yes, I agree. That is the reason I suggested the test and the use of the phase shift rather than frequency directly. However the coseness of a single reading is a poor indicator. But there may be hundreds of close readings just like this perhaps which thus confirm the hypothesis. The fact that there aren't many more is because there are so many gaps in the data due to failed attempts to tune in predicted frequencies ( based on the mistaken This is where things get a little more complicated. There is always some error in the prediction so the receiver must hunt around the anticipated frequency for the signal. When the craft was close to Earth, this was done with a wide bandwidth and once the signal was found, the bandwidth could be reduced to reduce the noise. At greater ranges the bandwidth must be narrowed to reduce the noise and the search frequency moved about until the find the signal. This is also the most likely reason why they could only work in three-way mode recently. Better knowledge of the frequency allowed the use of narrower bandwidth. You are right that they would not find the signal if it was too far off, but once found the receiver PLL locks to the signal and the actual frequency is measured regardless of the prediction. If that weren't the case, the anomaly could not have been found. and never tested theorythat the r/c speed of light extrapolates to distances greater than c.) The problem is to obtain from NASA the correct tx values?????? Both sites transmitted at 2110883520Hz on both days so there is no problem with that part. I take you at your word but would like to know what nasa documents say this. It is in the "ramp" records on the CD. Where are the documents on this? You can check once you get the C++ program working. The values must be multiplied by 48 to get the actual frequency. I think Morabito and Asnar say 96 but this is obvious. Two further pieces of information are required. First there is a transponder ratio of 240:221 that must be included in the predictions. Secondly Ralph, you haven't stated the equation to be used for the speed-related frequency shift in your theory, equivalent to Doppler shift in conventional theory. The Doppler shift equation is (1+v/c)f without relativitistic modifications which are unnecessary here where v here is the difference in the projections of vs an vc on the line d. 'v' is the rate of change of range, right? (1+v/c)f is received by the spacecraft and retransmitted as (240/221)(1+v/c)f so that(1+ v/c)^2 times 24/221 times f should be received by the sending site a second or so later if the sending site There are a few typos there but the formula is: f_r = 240/221 * f_t * (1 + v/c)^2 where f_t is the transmitted frequency f_r is the predicted receive frequency, v is the rate of change of range c is 299792458m/s Presumably v is positive for reducing range and negative for increasing range. was also scheduled to send at this time of reception v denotes the sum of the projected craft and earth site velocities on the instantaneous line, d. Its easy to put the data and equations in a spreadsheet and calculate the answer But I would suggest using the least filtered data. I am working on that now Absolutely. I will have a look at the Telnet interface for Horizons. best regards George |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Spacecraft Doppler&Light Speed Extrapolation
"ralph sansbury" wrote in message ...
[snips] I am saying that what you think was the uplink station for a specific reception was not the uplink station. The true uplink station was the receiving station. If that is the case the earth would not block reception. Do you understand? And since the Earth *does* block reception? Socks |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Spacecraft Doppler&Light Speed Extrapolation
ralph sansbury wrote:
[ incredible quantities of **** ] Ralph, take your insanity elsewhere. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Decision on the Soyuz TMA-4 spacecraft prelaunch processing | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | April 1st 04 01:12 PM |
Voyager Spacecraft Approaching Solar System's Final Frontier | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | November 5th 03 06:56 PM |
Soyuz TMA-3 manned spacecraft launch to the ISS | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | October 21st 03 09:39 AM |
orbit question | Jan Philips | History | 7 | September 29th 03 06:16 PM |
The Final Day on Galileo | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | September 19th 03 07:32 PM |