|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Pioneer Anomaly 2017
On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 2:15:13 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:47:50 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 2:37:15 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote: On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 6:19:19 PM UTC-5, wrote: The various scenarios may have failed but you haven't tested all possible scenarios. This is one doesn't fail; --- --- http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pioneer4.html Definitely fails. The Pioneer data is sensitive to the "effective" speed of light via the Shapiro delay at the ~1% level. Any deviation from this relativistic effect would be clearly detectable. How could the deviation be detectable when the results of the detection are all analyzed according to theory that can't explain the Pioneer anomaly? There are errors in current theory. i.e. The sun's mass is greater than current theory predicts. Two separate but related concepts. 1. I performed tests of alternate theories of propagation of light, including a change in the effective speed of light. These *ALL* made the pioneer Doppler solution WORSE, not better. 2. The Doppler data is clearly very, very, sensitive to changes in the speed of light, as evidenced by its sensitivity to the Shapiro effect. Doppler residuals are the differences between the calculated and observed. When they are converted to gforce acceleration the Pioneer anomalous curve is the result. My curve is near enough to a perfect match and it was generated by the gforce residuals resulting from the difference between calculations according to current theory and according to observation, which is according to my theory. If the doppler data is affected by varying light speeds, that factor is already included in the Pioneer anomaly. And if it's related to the Shapiro delay it will be directly related to gforce per radius from the sun. The only adjustment required here is in the determination of the error in current theory. http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pioneer4.html The exe file provides vital support. http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/pneer-fh.exe ----- Max Keon |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Pioneer Anomaly 2017
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-5, wrote:
1. I performed tests of alternate theories of propagation of light, including a change in the effective speed of light. These *ALL* made the pioneer Doppler solution WORSE, not better. 2. The Doppler data is clearly very, very, sensitive to changes in the speed of light, as evidenced by its sensitivity to the Shapiro effect. Doppler residuals are the differences between the calculated and observed. When they are converted to gforce acceleration the Pioneer anomalous curve is the result. My curve is near enough to a perfect match and it was generated by the gforce residuals resulting from the difference between calculations according to current theory and according to observation, which is according to my theory. ... Nope. Changing the speed of light does not result in the Pioneer anomaly. The range to the spacecraft changes by day (due to earth rotation) and by season (due to the earth revolving around the sun). By changing the speed of light, the round trip light time is altered on a daily and seasonal basis. It is not compatible with the Doppler data. CM |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Pioneer Anomaly 2017
On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 2:20:22 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-5, wrote: 1. I performed tests of alternate theories of propagation of light, including a change in the effective speed of light. These *ALL* made the pioneer Doppler solution WORSE, not better. 2. The Doppler data is clearly very, very, sensitive to changes in the speed of light, as evidenced by its sensitivity to the Shapiro effect. Doppler residuals are the differences between the calculated and observed. When they are converted to gforce acceleration the Pioneer anomalous curve is the result. My curve is near enough to a perfect match and it was generated by the gforce residuals resulting from the difference between calculations according to current theory and according to observation, which is according to my theory. ... Nope. Changing the speed of light does not result in the Pioneer anomaly. The range to the spacecraft changes by day (due to earth rotation) and by season (due to the earth revolving around the sun). Which is obviously factored into the doppler residuals. By changing the speed of light, the round trip light time is altered on a daily and seasonal basis. It is not compatible with the Doppler data. But it is compatible with the doppler data because it generates the same error curve. The methodology I used to determine the gforce residuals resulted in the Pioneer anomalous curve. Isn't that obvious? Your part paragraph from above is missing the point here. _ 1. I performed tests of alternate theories of propagation of light, _ including a change in the effective speed of light. These *ALL* made _ the pioneer Doppler solution WORSE, not better. That would be so if the radius between the sun and Pioneer hadn't also increased. The gforce residuals are negative prior to 12.6 AU. Beyond that radius they become positive. Run the .exe file. It describes how the gforce residuals were generated http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/pneer-fh.exe And this completes the story http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pioneer4.html ---- Max Keon |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Pioneer Anomaly 2017
On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 5:41:34 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 2:20:22 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote: On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-5, wrote: 1. I performed tests of alternate theories of propagation of light, including a change in the effective speed of light. These *ALL* made the pioneer Doppler solution WORSE, not better. 2. The Doppler data is clearly very, very, sensitive to changes in the speed of light, as evidenced by its sensitivity to the Shapiro effect. Doppler residuals are the differences between the calculated and observed. When they are converted to gforce acceleration the Pioneer anomalous curve is the result. My curve is near enough to a perfect match and it was generated by the gforce residuals resulting from the difference between calculations according to current theory and according to observation, which is according to my theory. ... Nope. Changing the speed of light does not result in the Pioneer anomaly. The range to the spacecraft changes by day (due to earth rotation) and by season (due to the earth revolving around the sun). Which is obviously factored into the doppler residuals. Well yes, the Doppler residuals capture "everything," and that is why your scenario fails. The Doppler residuals are, RESID = (observed doppler shift) - (modeled doppler shift) The model contains the spacecraft trajectory, planetary motion, planetary rotation and orientation, station positions, the physics of light propagation, an arbitrary "anomalous" acceleration, and more. The "g-force" curve as you call it, is just one component in the doppler modeling. The doppler shifts are accurately modeled with standard physics at the level of 0.002 Hz out of 2.2 billion Hz. One can't just postulate that the speed of light (or orbit of earth) is different than the standard value, without having a dramatic effect on the Doppler residuals. Changing either by even a few parts per million creates Doppler error amounts of tens of Hertz (compare to 0.002 Hz accuracy above), with sub-daily, daily and annual periods. I know, because I did the actual analysis with actual Doppler data. With such huge errors, it's no longer possible to identify a "g-force" curve. Your scenario is busted. You are using second-hand data ("g-force" data) which have a whole bunch of modeling assumptions behind them. That "g-force" data falls apart when one changes the assumptions about the speed of light and/or orbit of the earth. CM P.S. And let's not forget that the orbit of the earth is tied down to extreme precision via ranging to other spacecraft, other planets, and to objects outside our solar system (pulsar timing and VLBI quasars). |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Pioneer Anomaly 2017
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 12:28:15 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 5:41:34 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 2:20:22 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote: On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-5, wrote: --- --- Doppler residuals are the differences between the calculated and observed. When they are converted to gforce acceleration the Pioneer anomalous curve is the result. My curve is near enough to a perfect match and it was generated by the gforce residuals resulting from the difference between calculations according to current theory and according to observation, which is according to my theory. ... Nope. Changing the speed of light does not result in the Pioneer anomaly. The range to the spacecraft changes by day (due to earth rotation) and by season (due to the earth revolving around the sun). Which is obviously factored into the doppler residuals. Well yes, the Doppler residuals capture "everything," and that is why your scenario fails. The Doppler residuals are, RESID = (observed doppler shift) - (modeled doppler shift) The model contains the spacecraft trajectory, planetary motion, planetary rotation and orientation, station positions, the physics of light propagation, an arbitrary "anomalous" acceleration, and more. The "g-force" curve as you call it, is just one component in the doppler modeling. The doppler shifts are accurately modeled with standard physics at the level of 0.002 Hz out of 2.2 billion Hz. One can't just postulate that the speed of light (or orbit of earth) is different than the standard value, without having a dramatic effect on the Doppler residuals. Changing either by even a few parts per million creates Doppler error amounts of tens of Hertz (compare to 0.002 Hz accuracy above), with sub-daily, daily and annual periods. I know, because I did the actual analysis with actual Doppler data. With such huge errors, it's no longer possible to identify a "g-force" curve. Your scenario is busted. You are using second-hand data ("g-force" data) which have a whole bunch of modeling assumptions behind them. That "g-force" data falls apart when one changes the assumptions about the speed of light and/or orbit of the earth. CM P.S. And let's not forget that the orbit of the earth is tied down to extreme precision via ranging to other spacecraft, other planets, and to objects outside our solar system (pulsar timing and VLBI quasars). I can understand why you're having problems with this Craig. It hasn't been easy for me either. -- From a viewpoint in deep space where the speed of light is the minimum for this stage in the evolution of the universe, the distance 0-o (and the 'o' line length) will be expanded in a realm where the speed of light is increased. The lengths will always be the same in both realms because they are measured according to the speed of light. - - x - o x - o x - o x 0 o x - o x - o x - o x - x - But the expanded dimension isn't an expansion outward, it's an expansion inward below the zero base of the lesser evolved realm. -x - x - - ox - - ox - - ox 0 0 ox - - ox - - ox - - ox - x -x Doppler ranging can never identify the length changes from a fixed location where all measurements are made according to a fixed speed of light. That's why the Pioneer anomaly exists. The comparisons shown here only apply in the realm of light. The square root of all measurements are required for comparisons in the realm of matter. That fact was proven centuries ago by Pythagoras. The right angle triangle leg comparisons in the realm of light are a+b=c. The reason being is that every linear dimension is a dual dimension. And that is proof that the dual dimensions of the zero origin universe are real. The comparisons are brought back to the realm of matter by taking the square root of the results. meter = sqr((cu+cs)/cu) is given in this link to determine the true distance between a Pioneer spacecraft and the sun at every stage of its journey. According to the above that is correct. cu and cs are measurements of light speed and clearly reside in the realm of light. http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/pneer-fh.exe (199168 bytes) These are NOT postulates in any way, they are fundamental consequences of the zero origin. This is what it's all about. ----- Max Keon |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Pioneer Anomaly 2017
Il giorno sabato 18 marzo 2017 12:00:43 UTC+1, ha scritto:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 12:28:15 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote: On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 5:41:34 AM UTC-5, wrote: On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 2:20:22 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote: On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-5, wrote: --- --- Doppler residuals are the differences between the calculated and observed. When they are converted to gforce acceleration the Pioneer anomalous curve is the result. My curve is near enough to a perfect match and it was generated by the gforce residuals resulting from the difference between calculations according to current theory and according to observation, which is according to my theory. ... Nope. Changing the speed of light does not result in the Pioneer anomaly. The range to the spacecraft changes by day (due to earth rotation) and by season (due to the earth revolving around the sun). Which is obviously factored into the doppler residuals. Well yes, the Doppler residuals capture "everything," and that is why your scenario fails. The Doppler residuals are, RESID = (observed doppler shift) - (modeled doppler shift) The model contains the spacecraft trajectory, planetary motion, planetary rotation and orientation, station positions, the physics of light propagation, an arbitrary "anomalous" acceleration, and more. The "g-force" curve as you call it, is just one component in the doppler modeling. The doppler shifts are accurately modeled with standard physics at the level of 0.002 Hz out of 2.2 billion Hz. One can't just postulate that the speed of light (or orbit of earth) is different than the standard value, without having a dramatic effect on the Doppler residuals. Changing either by even a few parts per million creates Doppler error amounts of tens of Hertz (compare to 0.002 Hz accuracy above), with sub-daily, daily and annual periods. I know, because I did the actual analysis with actual Doppler data. With such huge errors, it's no longer possible to identify a "g-force" curve. Your scenario is busted. You are using second-hand data ("g-force" data) which have a whole bunch of modeling assumptions behind them. That "g-force" data falls apart when one changes the assumptions about the speed of light and/or orbit of the earth. CM P.S. And let's not forget that the orbit of the earth is tied down to extreme precision via ranging to other spacecraft, other planets, and to objects outside our solar system (pulsar timing and VLBI quasars). I can understand why you're having problems with this Craig. It hasn't been easy for me either. -- From a viewpoint in deep space where the speed of light is the minimum for this stage in the evolution of the universe, the distance 0-o (and the 'o' line length) will be expanded in a realm where the speed of light is increased. The lengths will always be the same in both realms because they are measured according to the speed of light. - - x - o x - o x - o x 0 o x - o x - o x - o x - x - But the expanded dimension isn't an expansion outward, it's an expansion inward below the zero base of the lesser evolved realm. -x - x - - ox - - ox - - ox 0 0 ox - - ox - - ox - - ox - x -x Doppler ranging can never identify the length changes from a fixed location where all measurements are made according to a fixed speed of light. That's why the Pioneer anomaly exists. The comparisons shown here only apply in the realm of light. The square root of all measurements are required for comparisons in the realm of matter. That fact was proven centuries ago by Pythagoras. The right angle triangle leg comparisons in the realm of light are a+b=c. The reason being is that every linear dimension is a dual dimension. And that is proof that the dual dimensions of the zero origin universe are real. The comparisons are brought back to the realm of matter by taking the square root of the results. meter = sqr((cu+cs)/cu) is given in this link to determine the true distance between a Pioneer spacecraft and the sun at every stage of its journey. According to the above that is correct. cu and cs are measurements of light speed and clearly reside in the realm of light. http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/pneer-fh.exe (199168 bytes) These are NOT postulates in any way, they are fundamental consequences of the zero origin. This is what it's all about. ----- Max Keon ...dear friends .. it's good that you propose unresolved problems , also about Pioneer 10-11 .. i would give to you 3 points of reflexions 1) the anomal acceleration is given in cm.. for sec ... ; if you report that number in km/sec .. for million years .. , that number becomes magically like the Constant Hubble ( or constant of bigbang'acceleration ) 2) the pioneers had two ways of distance'reliefment and the choice of the right way is decisive for understand the acceleration-or-deceleration .. 3) the pioneers had also an yearly and dayly component of deviation ..; a good solution should clear also all that ! have good dreams ! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Pioneer Anomaly 2017
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 7:00:43 AM UTC-4, wrote:
The comparisons shown here only apply in the realm of light. The square root of all measurements are required for comparisons in the realm of matter. ... Nope, this is not sufficient. A few vague words about square roots and ASCII line-art drawings won't solve anything. Understanding and retrieving information from high-precision radiometric data requires a very detailed prescription of how to analyze it. See for example, Moyer, "Formulation for Observed and Computed Values of Deep Space Network Data." The speed of light and other terms are *variables* the prescription which can potentially be adjusted. If you have an alternate prescription -- at the same level of detail -- it can be tested. Otherwise, it cannot be used to verify or refute the Pioneer anomaly. CM |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Pioneer Anomaly 2017
On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 12:08:57 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 7:00:43 AM UTC-4, wrote: The comparisons shown here only apply in the realm of light. The square root of all measurements are required for comparisons in the realm of matter. ... Nope, this is not sufficient. A few vague words about square roots and ASCII line-art drawings won't solve anything. You really don't know what I'm talking about do you! Understanding and retrieving information from high-precision radiometric data requires a very detailed prescription of how to analyze it. See for example, Moyer, "Formulation for Observed and Computed Values of Deep Space Network Data." The speed of light and other terms are *variables* the prescription which can potentially be adjusted. If you have an alternate prescription -- at the same level of detail -- it can be tested. Otherwise, it cannot be used to verify or refute the Pioneer anomaly. a^2+b^2=c^2 gives the comparisons for the component lengths of a right angle triangle. The equation is clearly stating that area(a) + area(b) = area(c). So wherever that comparison is made; a+b=c. But in what universe would linear measurements compare in this way? That's easy. A universe consisting of two diametrically opposed dimensions running parallel with each other. Linear measurements involve both dimensions simultaneously. http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/zerorign.html The Pythagoras equation has provided an insight into the workings of the real universe for centuries, yet we still blunder along the same old path with our blinkers on. The reason I mention this is because the same thing is happening here. The Pioneer anomalous curve is matched exactly using reasoning based on the same universe that we can't visibly comprehend. The Pioneer anomaly is clear evidence that such a universe exists. That and the Pythagoras equation is the only kind of evidence you are going to find. What else do you expect? ----- Max Keon |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Pioneer Anomaly 2017
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 8:59:04 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 12:08:57 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote: On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 7:00:43 AM UTC-4, wrote: The comparisons shown here only apply in the realm of light. The square root of all measurements are required for comparisons in the realm of matter. ... Nope, this is not sufficient. A few vague words about square roots and ASCII line-art drawings won't solve anything. You really don't know what I'm talking about do you! That's because the detailed presentation of physics is missing. Let's summarize. 1. You claimed the incorrect speed of light was used for the Pioneer analysis. I have actually analyzed Pioneer data - the original Doppler data - and changing the speed of light by even one part per million makes the solution worse, not better. There is no better speed of light to use for Pioneer than "c." 2. All radiometric data analysis is based on a detailed physics model, which accounts for spacecraft trajectories, orbital physics, and light propagation. The presented "zero origin theory" is missing that, so there is no way it could prove or disprove anything regarding the Pioneer results. 3. The "Pioneer curve," as you like to call it, is actually a chart of a fitted acceleration parameter. It is based on the assumption and question: IF all known physics is true, PLUS there is an additional unexplained "constant" (*) spacecraft acceleration, THEN what is the magnitude of the acceleration? Using this model one obtains good fits to the data, and thus it is possible to retrieve the acceleration parameter. If one proposes to change the physics model, for example change the speed of light, that destructively worsens the solution, by factors of 1000x, and then it is no longer possible to retrieve the acceleration parameter. It thus makes no sense to talk about the "Pioneer curve." And finally, let's recall that a paper from several years ago by Turyshev et al, which I helped contribute to, did indeed find a more mundane explanation to the Pioneer effect. When the thermal effects were more carefully considered, it was then understood that thermal emissions (and their associated radiation pressures) could explain the Pioneer accelerations, to within the tolerances of the thermal design. CM (*) "constant" here means a single constant acceleration per batch. Each batch has a 2-month duration I believe. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Pioneer Anomaly 2017
Il giorno venerdì 24 marzo 2017 15:12:10 UTC+1, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 8:59:04 PM UTC-4, wrote: On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 12:08:57 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote: On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 7:00:43 AM UTC-4, wrote: The comparisons shown here only apply in the realm of light. The square root of all measurements are required for comparisons in the realm of matter. ... Nope, this is not sufficient. A few vague words about square roots and ASCII line-art drawings won't solve anything. You really don't know what I'm talking about do you! That's because the detailed presentation of physics is missing. Let's summarize. 1. You claimed the incorrect speed of light was used for the Pioneer analysis. I have actually analyzed Pioneer data - the original Doppler data - and changing the speed of light by even one part per million makes the solution worse, not better. There is no better speed of light to use for Pioneer than "c." 2. All radiometric data analysis is based on a detailed physics model, which accounts for spacecraft trajectories, orbital physics, and light propagation. The presented "zero origin theory" is missing that, so there is no way it could prove or disprove anything regarding the Pioneer results. 3. The "Pioneer curve," as you like to call it, is actually a chart of a fitted acceleration parameter. It is based on the assumption and question: IF all known physics is true, PLUS there is an additional unexplained "constant" (*) spacecraft acceleration, THEN what is the magnitude of the acceleration? Using this model one obtains good fits to the data, and thus it is possible to retrieve the acceleration parameter. If one proposes to change the physics model, for example change the speed of light, that destructively worsens the solution, by factors of 1000x, and then it is no longer possible to retrieve the acceleration parameter. It thus makes no sense to talk about the "Pioneer curve." And finally, let's recall that a paper from several years ago by Turyshev et al, which I helped contribute to, did indeed find a more mundane explanation to the Pioneer effect. When the thermal effects were more carefully considered, it was then understood that thermal emissions (and their associated radiation pressures) could explain the Pioneer accelerations, to within the tolerances of the thermal design. CM (*) "constant" here means a single constant acceleration per batch. Each batch has a 2-month duration I believe. .... today , somebody speaks about the Stoke'lines ( Raman ) as Stoke ' scattering ... .... if you apply it to the Pioneer ' anomaly with the same amount of Hubble Constant ( cm to km , sec. to M.y. ) , you resolve each question ( also yearly and dayly changements ).. .... if you apply it to the universe , the BigBang does't exists , all galaxies are where we look its and many other questions are easier ... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pioneer Anomaly | [email protected] | Policy | 7 | July 21st 07 09:44 PM |
30 Years of Pioneer Spacecraft Data Rescued: The Planetary Society Enables Study of the Mysterious Pioneer Anomaly | [email protected] | News | 0 | June 6th 06 05:35 PM |
Pioneer anomaly | Oz | Research | 10 | October 1st 05 09:40 AM |
The Pioneer Anomaly | Mark F. | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | December 25th 04 01:30 PM |