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

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

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

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).

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

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 !

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