Spacecraft Doppler&Light Speed Extrapolation

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
"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

It is striking that none of you make allowances for doppler data
arriving from objects within the galaxy and objects arriving from a
different galaxy



Try and fit doppler shifts of two supernovae observed occuring
simultaneously in two different galaxies and align them with reference
to the orientation of the local stars (which are themselves rotating
around an axis)to when these supernovae Actually occured and with
present models you can't make them fit.The price of the no boundary -
'every valid point is the center' is that galactic rotation grinds to
a halt and what remains is an insult to intelligence.

You don't leave celestial structure and motion in the hands of
kids,the material is too good for numbskull theorists,mathematicians
or whatever you call them who could'nt do astronomy to save their
lives.What in heaven's name are you doing supporting the ideas of a
man who knew nothing of the scale of the cosmos in terms of galaxies
and wrote his notions based on the motion of the "fixed stars" ?.

"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
Craig Markwardt wrote in
message ...
"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. The second kind of filtering
removed noisy
outliers after a crude solution was already achieved without
fitting.
A total of 76% of records passed.

Dont you understand that if you are excluding outlier
frequencies from
a previously filtered set of frequencies which
includes only those frequencies that were received after tuning
to the
predicted frequency based on the speed of light travel from the
assumed
transmitting site that your data is even more distorted than the
raw data.

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.
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).

Nonsense. In my scenario the receiving site which is not
blocked by the earth
is also the transmission site a few seconds earlier.
Of course this requires that transmission was going on at the
same time as
reception was going on.
In general for reasons of efficiency given the large number of
spacecraft
to communicate with, I believe this was done.

Therefore, your claims are quite simply and utterly bogus.
On the contrary your understanding of what I am saying is 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.
No your assumption and understanding of a basic fact of
radio communications
is erroneous. Resonance is always involved.
The LNA or parameteric amplifier used is a way of obtaining
resonance at the predicted
frequency. Thus frequencies not nearly equal to the predicted
frequency are not even
looked for. The predicted frequency is as we agree
(1-v/c)^2(240/221)(tx) were tx is the frequency transmitted at a
site
required by the speed of light delay assumption which is
sometimes but not necessarily the same
as that transmitted at the receiving site at the same time as
reception is going on.



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.

Your complete misunderstanding and distortion of what I am
saying is the problem.


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.

Exactly and that explains why there are so many gaps. The
fact that
there are so many gaps is because the receiving site is not
transmitting
or is transmitting at a different frequency than the wrongly
assumed site
of transmission or because the predicted frequency shift taking
into account
the craft and earth motions projected onto the assumed
craft-site lines at the
time of transmission from earth and at the assumed time of
reception and
transmission at the craft and at the assumed time of reception
back at the
earth site is too different from the actual frequency shift.
When there are no gaps and you receive a frequency that is as
predicted
because the receiving site sent such a frequency a few seconds
earlier and
the orbital spin movement of the earth at this time projected on
the line to the
spacecraft at this time and added to the movement of the
spacecraft projected
onto this line gives a frequency shift. Unless this is nearly
equal to that
obtained when the movements of the earth and craft and the angles
between
these movements and the different lines implied by the speed of
light delay
assumption are used etc then the frequency is not tuned in.



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.

But what is the documentation that says this?

In this case you are receiving presumably hydrogen spectra
that show red
or blue shifts and infer the v in (1-v/c)f where f is the
laboratory observed
hydrogen frequency for a specific energy transition
If we can show that the instantaneous prediction here is
correct for the
rather restricted set of data available we would have reason to
believe that
the same sort of thing would apply to galaxies and distant stars
Keep in mind that although the r/c delay extrapolated to
planets and stars
and galaxies may imply the (1-v/c)f Doppler shift that the
existence of the
Doppler shift does not necessarily imply an extrapolated r/c
delay.
This relation is not an if and only if relation.
The cause of the Doppler shift in all cases is attributable
to the velocity of the
receding or approaching object and the delay formula may be r/c
for rc
and 1 second for rc.


Try and fit doppler shifts of two supernovae observed occuring
simultaneously in two different galaxies and align them with
reference
to the orientation of the local stars (which are themselves
rotating
around an axis)to when these supernovae Actually occured and
with
present models you can't make them fit.The price of the no
boundary -
'every valid point is the center' is that galactic rotation
grinds to
a halt and what remains is an insult to intelligence.

I dont understand what you are trying to say here. You seem to
be saying that you can obtain doppler shifts from two different
galaxies and 'local' stars at the same time involving the same
earth motions but different galaxy motions and local star
motions.
Then what????

(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...

It is striking that none of you make allowances for doppler data
arriving from objects within the galaxy and objects arriving from a
different galaxy

The subject of this thread is specifically the
use of Pioneer telemetry measurements as a test
of Ralph's theory. RF from other objects does
not relate to that other than as a possible
source of noise.

Try and fit doppler shifts of two supernovae observed occuring
simultaneously in two different galaxies and align them with reference
to the orientation of the local stars (which are themselves rotating
around an axis)to when these supernovae Actually occured and with
present models you can't make them fit.

Since they different supernovae in different
galaxies presumably at different distances,
we may see them simultaneously but they did
not happen simultaneously. If one galaxy is
two million light years away, that supernova
happened two million years ago. If the other
galaxy is five million light years away, that
supernova happened five million years ago.
No problem, they are different supernovae.

George

Ralph

Please distinguish between the material prersented by Mr Markwardt and
myself which unfortunately you did not do in this posting.


"ralph sansbury" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
Craig Markwardt wrote in
message ...
"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. The second kind of filtering
removed noisy
outliers after a crude solution was already achieved without
fitting.
A total of 76% of records passed.

Dont you understand that if you are excluding outlier
frequencies from
a previously filtered set of frequencies which
includes only those frequencies that were received after tuning
to the
predicted frequency based on the speed of light travel from the
assumed
transmitting site that your data is even more distorted than the
raw data.


This belongs to Mr Markwardt


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.
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).

Nonsense. In my scenario the receiving site which is not
blocked by the earth
is also the transmission site a few seconds earlier.
Of course this requires that transmission was going on at the
same time as
reception was going on.
In general for reasons of efficiency given the large number of
spacecraft
to communicate with, I believe this was done.

Therefore, your claims are quite simply and utterly bogus.
On the contrary your understanding of what I am saying is 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.
No your assumption and understanding of a basic fact of
radio communications
is erroneous. Resonance is always involved.
The LNA or parameteric amplifier used is a way of obtaining
resonance at the predicted
frequency. Thus frequencies not nearly equal to the predicted
frequency are not even
looked for. The predicted frequency is as we agree
(1-v/c)^2(240/221)(tx) were tx is the frequency transmitted at a
site
required by the speed of light delay assumption which is
sometimes but not necessarily the same
as that transmitted at the receiving site at the same time as
reception is going on.



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.

Your complete misunderstanding and distortion of what I am
saying is the problem.


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.

Exactly and that explains why there are so many gaps. The
fact that
there are so many gaps is because the receiving site is not
transmitting
or is transmitting at a different frequency than the wrongly
assumed site
of transmission or because the predicted frequency shift taking
into account
the craft and earth motions projected onto the assumed
craft-site lines at the
time of transmission from earth and at the assumed time of
reception and
transmission at the craft and at the assumed time of reception
back at the
earth site is too different from the actual frequency shift.
When there are no gaps and you receive a frequency that is as
predicted
because the receiving site sent such a frequency a few seconds
earlier and
the orbital spin movement of the earth at this time projected on
the line to the
spacecraft at this time and added to the movement of the
spacecraft projected
onto this line gives a frequency shift. Unless this is nearly
equal to that
obtained when the movements of the earth and craft and the angles
between
these movements and the different lines implied by the speed of
light delay
assumption are used etc then the frequency is not tuned in.



Likewise this also should be addressed to Mr Markwardt.



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.

But what is the documentation that says this?

In this case you are receiving presumably hydrogen spectra
that show red
or blue shifts and infer the v in (1-v/c)f where f is the
laboratory observed
hydrogen frequency for a specific energy transition
If we can show that the instantaneous prediction here is
correct for the
rather restricted set of data available we would have reason to
believe that
the same sort of thing would apply to galaxies and distant stars
Keep in mind that although the r/c delay extrapolated to
planets and stars
and galaxies may imply the (1-v/c)f Doppler shift that the
existence of the
Doppler shift does not necessarily imply an extrapolated r/c
delay.
This relation is not an if and only if relation.
The cause of the Doppler shift in all cases is attributable
to the velocity of the
receding or approaching object and the delay formula may be r/c
for rc
and 1 second for rc.


Try and fit doppler shifts of two supernovae observed occuring
simultaneously in two different galaxies and align them with
reference
to the orientation of the local stars (which are themselves
rotating
around an axis)to when these supernovae Actually occured and
with
present models you can't make them fit.The price of the no
boundary -
'every valid point is the center' is that galactic rotation
grinds to
a halt and what remains is an insult to intelligence.

I dont understand what you are trying to say here. You seem to
be saying that you can obtain doppler shifts from two different
galaxies and 'local' stars at the same time involving the same
earth motions but different galaxy motions and local star
motions.
Then what????




Although you did scramble the whole thing I can put that down to a
descriptive deficiency on my part yet in presenting valid observations
it should not matter whether there is a descriptive shortfall or
not,it is up to men to work through principles that are common to
all,to untangle planetary or the wider cosmological modelling in terms
of structure and motion sometimesd requires the reworking of basic
things like how many rotations constitute geocentric observations,how
the use of the local stars as reference markers for planetary motion
differ from their use as markers against the remaining galaxies and
perhaps other approaches and avenues that have yet to emerge.

Originating with Copernicus and refined by Kepler,the basic principle
of heliocentric modelling relies on the composite rotations which
constitute the motion of sun and the stars from a geocentric point of
view,if nobody inquires why the twin rotations of the Earth on its
axis and the Earth around the Sun reduce to one rotation which makes
the sun and the stars appear to rotate around the Earth,they have not
clearly comprehended what was technically unique about the insight of
Copernicus which compelled Galileo to support it.Today,there is nobody
here who supports it,the variation in a day due to Kepler's second law
against a day fixed to planetary geometry generates the Equation of
Time and constitutes the definition of Newton's absolute and relative
time however the convenience of the sidereal day obscures the fact
that all geocentric observations actually follow the inequality of a
day due to the Earth's annual orbital motion which most astronomers
tranfer to a different set of parameters which gives them the sidereal
day,the constant which belongs to the Earth's diurnal rotation was
transfered to the motion of the local stars.This technical adjustment
may be convenient but ultimately it is counterproductive as you go on
to rework the true motions of the local stars around the galactic
axis,somehow astronomers may recognise that there is something quite
not right about cosmological modelling but seem happy enough to go
along with theorists who have no notions of the complexities of these
things,at least this is what I found in these forums through
experience.

Depending on how capable or comfortable men are with discerning
rotations encompassed in our one geocentric observation, the question
remains.Due to the rotation of the local stars around the galactic
axis it follows that galaxies at differeing distances change their
orientation to the local stars and to each other as the Universe
evolves,presently the use of doppler data makes no distinction between
motion of objects within our galaxy and motion of the remaining
galaxies against the local stars.

Using supernovae data which act as markers for their parent galaxy,if
the occuring supernovae events are observed simultaneously from
Earth,we can say that the local stars have rotated a certain degree
against the parent galaxies but the rotational reference will be
different for both.To be more specific,the actual supernovae events
occured at different eras in the cosmos,geometrically finite light
distance conditions simultaneous observance from Earth however it is
not so geometrically simple as that,present cosmological modelling
based on the Hubble constant completely ignores the changing
orientation of individual galaxies to the rotation of the local stars
which in turn affects the orientation of galaxies to each other.

The minisicule natural apparent acceleration of Pioneer due to the
affects of finite light distance become total at a cosmological scale
which is why we can discern apparent 'accelerating' expansion as a 4th
rotation or a cosmological rotation greater than galactic rotation and
thereby we can jettison these 'dark matter' or 'dark energy'
propositions for galactic structure and cosmological structure and
motion.I have absolutely no idea what the actual structure and motion
of the cosmos is nor what is the best possible approach to discerning
a workable geometric composite picture but at least I can see the
outlines of a far more complex geometric picture than these
simpleminded notions based on the 'fixed stars' or 'every point is the
valid center' which is the dismal logical conclusion to which
relativity tends.

(George G. Dishman) wrote in message om...
(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...

It is striking that none of you make allowances for doppler data
arriving from objects within the galaxy and objects arriving from a
different galaxy

The subject of this thread is specifically the
use of Pioneer telemetry measurements as a test
of Ralph's theory. RF from other objects does
not relate to that other than as a possible
source of noise.


Good to see you George.


Try and fit doppler shifts of two supernovae observed occuring
simultaneously in two different galaxies and align them with reference
to the orientation of the local stars (which are themselves rotating
around an axis)to when these supernovae Actually occured and with
present models you can't make them fit.

Since they different supernovae in different
galaxies presumably at different distances,
we may see them simultaneously but they did
not happen simultaneously.

This is correct,assuming that the local stars of our Milky Way rotated
a certain degree differently for each therefore you may wish to have a
look at geometrical difference between actual individual supernova
occurence and simultaneous observance and how to align this with
constant rotation of the local reference stars.

I would'nt blame you for shying away from this headache although it is
not any better to remain with models that ignore the changing
orientation of the local stars to the supernova and the parent
galaxies in which they reside,obviously a 3rd rotation becomes
factored into astronomical observations via the shifting reference of
galaxies to the local stars and for various reasons few are presently
unwilling or incapable of making the transition to this greater axis
for cosmological modelling.

The limitations of heliocentric modelling converge at observed
circumpolar rotation which is a product of two composite rotations,the
3rd rotation or stellar rotation around the galactic axis is
completely absent from observation except as the changing orientation
of other galaxies to the local stars,since 1923 this information
remains dormant even though it is highly productive once the initial
difficulties are surmounted.


If one galaxy is
two million light years away, that supernova
happened two million years ago. If the other
galaxy is five million light years away, that
supernova happened five million years ago.
No problem, they are different supernovae.

George

Nobody here will object to the introduction of the changing rotational
reference of the remaining galaxies to the local stars and to each
other yet the information above,if left as it stands,provides a
distorted cosmological picture if you are unwilling to concede that
the orientation does change or perhaps you may not have the capacity
(no offense intended) to visualise why cosmological modelling off the
galactic axis forces the 'Now' back into astronomy.

I hope I can rely on your comments as though we are men discussing
technical matters rather than the usual opposition to these things and
for the most part I have respect you for dealing with issues others
would not be even capable of considering and perhaps even Mr Markwardt
will go along for a while.

----- Original Message -----
From: "George G. Dishman"
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 7:09 PM
Subject: Spacecraft Doppler&Light Speed Extrapolation


George I snipped the details of your argument because they are
too vague
1) Resonance tuning of some form is going on and if you can
explain
how it goes on and show you understand the basic physics and how
the
changes in resonant increases in voltage are digitized this would
at
least show that you understand the necessity of resonance in all
radio
communications including spacecraft communications. Right now it
appears that you dont and so your suggested expertise in all
these
matter is completely undermined. Ask someone at your company
how the LNA differs from the parametric amplifier?
2)The point which you have to admit unless you want me to think
you
are not as honest as you claim to be, is that the tuning method
here
filters out frequencies that are not nearly equal to the
predicted
frequency and the existence of some records you claim exist which
are
further than than others from the predicted frequency does not
alter
this general point. Thus the method of obtaining the received
frequencies
guarantees that the ones received are consistent with the speed
of light
delay assumptions.
3) Please answer the issues raised below.
Ralph


"ralph sansbury" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
Craig Markwardt wrote in
message ...
"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. The second kind of filtering
removed noisy
outliers after a crude solution was already achieved
without
fitting.
A total of 76% of records passed.

Dont you understand that if you are excluding outlier
frequencies from
a previously filtered set of frequencies which
includes only those frequencies that were received after tuning
to the
predicted frequency based on the speed of light travel from
the
assumed
transmitting site that your data is even more distorted than
the
raw data.




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.
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).

Nonsense. In my scenario the receiving site which is not
blocked by the earth
is also the transmission site a few seconds earlier.
Of course this requires that transmission was going on at
the
same time as
reception was going on.
In general for reasons of efficiency given the large number
of
spacecraft
to communicate with, I believe this was done.

Therefore, your claims are quite simply and utterly bogus.
On the contrary your understanding of what I am saying is
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.
No your assumption and understanding of a basic fact of
radio communications
is erroneous. Resonance is always involved.
The LNA or parameteric amplifier used is a way of obtaining
resonance at the predicted
frequency. Thus frequencies not nearly equal to the predicted
frequency are not even
looked for. The predicted frequency is as we agree
(1-v/c)^2(240/221)(tx) were tx is the frequency transmitted at
a
site
required by the speed of light delay assumption which is
sometimes but not necessarily the same
as that transmitted at the receiving site at the same time as
reception is going on.



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.

Your complete misunderstanding and distortion of what I
am
saying is the problem.


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.

Exactly and that explains why there are so many gaps.
The
fact that
there are so many gaps is because the receiving site is not
transmitting
or is transmitting at a different frequency than the wrongly
assumed site
of transmission or because the predicted frequency shift
taking
into account
the craft and earth motions projected onto the assumed
craft-site lines at the
time of transmission from earth and at the assumed time of
reception and
transmission at the craft and at the assumed time of reception
back at the
earth site is too different from the actual frequency shift.
When there are no gaps and you receive a frequency that is
as
predicted
because the receiving site sent such a frequency a few seconds
earlier and
the orbital spin movement of the earth at this time projected
on
the line to the
spacecraft at this time and added to the movement of the
spacecraft projected
onto this line gives a frequency shift. Unless this is nearly
equal to that
obtained when the movements of the earth and craft and the
angles
between
these movements and the different lines implied by the speed of
light delay
assumption are used etc then the frequency is not tuned in.






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.

But what is the documentation that says this?

(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...

Originating with Copernicus and refined by Kepler,the basic principle
of heliocentric modelling relies on the composite rotations which
constitute the motion of sun and the stars from a geocentric point of
view, ...

The difference between the sidereal and solar days
as the rest of us understand them comes not from
the motion of the Sun in comparison to that of
the 'fixed stars', i.e. a difference of what is
called their proper motion, but from the motion
of the Earth around the Sun.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P34412E35

Go on Gerald, start a revolution or at least catch
up. You will probably only understand that once
you adopt the Copernican view. I finally understand
why we have had so much trouble conversing. You are
trying to still work with a geocentric model and
apply epicycles to extra-solar observations.

...Today,there is nobody
here who supports it,the variation in a day due to Kepler's second law
against a day fixed to planetary geometry generates the Equation of
Time .. however the convenience of the sidereal day obscures the fact
that all geocentric observations actually follow the inequality of a
day due to the Earth's annual orbital motion which most astronomers
tranfer to a different set of parameters which gives them the sidereal
day,the constant which belongs to the Earth's diurnal rotation was
transfered to the motion of the local stars. ...

You are almost there but you have missed one key point.
The Earth's orbital motion introduces an extra one
rotation per year to a time-scale based on local noon.
That is the main difference between the sidereal and
solar day though you are right in that the effect of
the Earth's elliptical orbit and some other effects
also contribute.

I have absolutely no idea what the actual structure and motion
of the cosmos is nor what is the best possible approach to discerning
a workable geometric composite picture but at least I can see the
outlines of a far more complex geometric picture than these
simpleminded notions based on the 'fixed stars' ..

Ptolemy saw the same.

George

(George G. Dishman) wrote in message . com...
(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...

Originating with Copernicus and refined by Kepler,the basic principle
of heliocentric modelling relies on the composite rotations which
constitute the motion of sun and the stars from a geocentric point of
view, ...

The difference between the sidereal and solar days
as the rest of us understand them comes not from
the motion of the Sun in comparison to that of
the 'fixed stars', i.e. a difference of what is
called their proper motion, but from the motion
of the Earth around the Sun.


Let us look at what Newton wrote;

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions." Newton,Principia

The Natural days are truly unequal due to Kepler's second law which
we register as a variation in the motion of the Sun from day to day
from a geocentric perspective.Not only astronomers but more
importantly navigators corrected the inequality by artificially
reducing the elliptical rotation to circular via the Equation of
Time,by this means the Sun acted as one clock and an onboard clock
fixed geometrically and geographically to the planet where diurnal
rotation is a constant 24 hours for a full rotation with no reference
to the local stars whatsoever acted as a fixed ruler.By this means the
navigators could always fix their position but also astronomers could
, via the Equation of Time, artificially negate the natural variation
in a day to a constant day.If you cannot comprehend how clocks act as
rulers and accurate ones were developed for that purpose you have no
business tampering with Newton's definitions which were adapted for
dual purposes by astronomers and mariners in his era.

Now have a look at this spectacular mess and go ahead and explain what
your 'genius' manages to accomplish and especially this line -
"According
to Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which
would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed
stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves
and the action of the other planets under consideration."

After removing the Equation of Time or what amounts to the same
thing;the difference between absolute time and relative time from
heliocentric modelling via geocentric observations he talks of the
"motion of the fixed stars" which follow the inequable day like the
Sun,have you any idea just what sort of a mind produces such nonsense
and you swallow it wholesale.I may have no support in this matter but
not even all the relativistic politics in the world is worth the
personal embaressement shared by all of you and I certainly am not
fazed by the apparent isolation,I am correct you are not.




Albert Einstein Relativity 29. The Solution of the Problem of
Gravitation on the Basis of the General Principle of Relativity


" We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. According
to Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which
would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed
stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves
and the action of the other planets under consideration. Thus, if we
correct the observed motion of the planets for these two influences,
and if Newton's theory be strictly correct, we ought to obtain for the
orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the
fixed stars.




http://makeashorterlink.com/?P34412E35

Go on Gerald, start a revolution or at least catch
up. You will probably only understand that once
you adopt the Copernican view. I finally understand
why we have had so much trouble conversing. You are
trying to still work with a geocentric model and
apply epicycles to extra-solar observations.


Catch up to what ?,if you can justify the development of accurate
clocks with the sidereal day then be my guest,I can be certain that
both Newton and John Harrison would find you an intellectual midget
for following after fools who can only squeek out "clocks measure
time".The principles which make clocks good rulers rely on the
difference between composite rotations that Copernicus introduced and
Kepler refined.I am remarking that you can introduce a 3rd rotation in
geocentric observations by utilising the local stars as reference
markers in a different manner via observed supernovae events for the
purpose of cosmological modelling.You are probably too old to change
and perhaps you should join Heymann in the gardening and stamp
collecting newsgroups.


...Today,there is nobody
here who supports it,the variation in a day due to Kepler's second law
against a day fixed to planetary geometry generates the Equation of
Time .. however the convenience of the sidereal day obscures the fact
that all geocentric observations actually follow the inequality of a
day due to the Earth's annual orbital motion which most astronomers
tranfer to a different set of parameters which gives them the sidereal
day,the constant which belongs to the Earth's diurnal rotation was
transfered to the motion of the local stars. ...

You are almost there but you have missed one key point.
The Earth's orbital motion introduces an extra one
rotation per year to a time-scale based on local noon.
That is the main difference between the sidereal and
solar day though you are right in that the effect of
the Earth's elliptical orbit and some other effects
also contribute.


You may forget that navigators had only to set their clocks at local
noon at the physical location of Greenwich,the prescription of the
Equation of Time took over as they moved out to sea,the precision in
determination of location away from Greenwich relied on the cyclical
variation in a day due to the difference between clocks tethered to 24
hours per 360 degrees and the variation in a day due to elliptical
motion,again ,the Equation of Time negates the elliptical influence
and reduces it artificially to circular.As geometrically the precision
of the equinoxes and solstices could be determined there was no
problem for astronomers even as some of them recognised that the
cycles of clocks were moving out of kilter with calendars but now we
are digressing from the purity of the geometry of clocks as they
relate to planetary rotation on its axis and its orbital rotation
around the Sun and by association why clocks make good rulers in
contrast to the trumped up notion that clocks measure one thing and
rulers another.



I have absolutely no idea what the actual structure and motion
of the cosmos is nor what is the best possible approach to discerning
a workable geometric composite picture but at least I can see the
outlines of a far more complex geometric picture than these
simpleminded notions based on the 'fixed stars' ..

Ptolemy saw the same.

George

Naw,there are no disciplined minds willing to introduce that 3rd
rotation into geocentric observations even if the thing is so obvious
that only a complete fool would contend with it.The truth of the
matter is that there is nobody good enough yet to tackle the
implications of the progression to cosmological modelling off the
galactic axis,this is no boast on my part but a working observation as
part of this newsgroup.

(George G. Dishman) wrote in message . com...
(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...

Originating with Copernicus and refined by Kepler,the basic principle
of heliocentric modelling relies on the composite rotations which
constitute the motion of sun and the stars from a geocentric point of
view, ...

The difference between the sidereal and solar days
as the rest of us understand them comes not from
the motion of the Sun in comparison to that of
the 'fixed stars', i.e. a difference of what is
called their proper motion, but from the motion
of the Earth around the Sun.


Let us look at what Newton wrote;

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions." Newton,Principia

The Natural days are truly unequal due to Kepler's second law which
we register as a variation in the motion of the Sun from day to day
from a geocentric perspective.Not only astronomers but more
importantly navigators corrected the inequality by artificially
reducing the elliptical rotation to circular via the Equation of
Time,by this means the Sun acted as one clock and an onboard clock
fixed geometrically and geographically to the planet where diurnal
rotation is a constant 24 hours for a full rotation with no reference
to the local stars whatsoever acted as a fixed ruler.By this means the
navigators could always fix their position but also astronomers could
, via the Equation of Time, artificially negate the natural variation
in a day to a constant day.If you cannot comprehend how clocks act as
rulers and accurate ones were developed for that purpose you have no
business tampering with Newton's definitions which were adapted for
dual purposes by astronomers and mariners in his era.

Now have a look at this spectacular mess and go ahead and explain what
your 'genius' manages to accomplish and especially this line -
"According
to Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which
would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed
stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves
and the action of the other planets under consideration."

After removing the Equation of Time or what amounts to the same
thing;the difference between absolute time and relative time from
heliocentric modelling via geocentric observations he talks of the
"motion of the fixed stars" which follow the inequable day like the
Sun,have you any idea just what sort of a mind produces such nonsense
and you swallow it wholesale.I may have no support in this matter but
not even all the relativistic politics in the world is worth the
personal embaressement shared by all of you and I certainly am not
fazed by the apparent isolation,I am correct you are not.




Albert Einstein Relativity 29. The Solution of the Problem of
Gravitation on the Basis of the General Principle of Relativity


" We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. According
to Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which
would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed
stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves
and the action of the other planets under consideration. Thus, if we
correct the observed motion of the planets for these two influences,
and if Newton's theory be strictly correct, we ought to obtain for the
orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the
fixed stars.




http://makeashorterlink.com/?P34412E35

Go on Gerald, start a revolution or at least catch
up. You will probably only understand that once
you adopt the Copernican view. I finally understand
why we have had so much trouble conversing. You are
trying to still work with a geocentric model and
apply epicycles to extra-solar observations.


Catch up to what ?,if you can justify the development of accurate
clocks with the sidereal day then be my guest,I can be certain that
both Newton and John Harrison would find you an intellectual midget
for following after fools who can only squeek out "clocks measure
time".The principles which make clocks good rulers rely on the
difference between composite rotations that Copernicus introduced and
Kepler refined.I am remarking that you can introduce a 3rd rotation in
geocentric observations by utilising the local stars as reference
markers in a different manner via observed supernovae events for the
purpose of cosmological modelling.You are probably too old to change
and perhaps you should join Heymann in the gardening and stamp
collecting newsgroups.


...Today,there is nobody
here who supports it,the variation in a day due to Kepler's second law
against a day fixed to planetary geometry generates the Equation of
Time .. however the convenience of the sidereal day obscures the fact
that all geocentric observations actually follow the inequality of a
day due to the Earth's annual orbital motion which most astronomers
tranfer to a different set of parameters which gives them the sidereal
day,the constant which belongs to the Earth's diurnal rotation was
transfered to the motion of the local stars. ...

You are almost there but you have missed one key point.
The Earth's orbital motion introduces an extra one
rotation per year to a time-scale based on local noon.
That is the main difference between the sidereal and
solar day though you are right in that the effect of
the Earth's elliptical orbit and some other effects
also contribute.


You may forget that navigators had only to set their clocks at local
noon at the physical location of Greenwich,the prescription of the
Equation of Time took over as they moved out to sea,the precision in
determination of location away from Greenwich relied on the cyclical
variation in a day due to the difference between clocks tethered to 24
hours per 360 degrees and the variation in a day due to elliptical
motion,again ,the Equation of Time negates the elliptical influence
and reduces it artificially to circular.As geometrically the precision
of the equinoxes and solstices could be determined there was no
problem for astronomers even as some of them recognised that the
cycles of clocks were moving out of kilter with calendars but now we
are digressing from the purity of the geometry of clocks as they
relate to planetary rotation on its axis and its orbital rotation
around the Sun and by association why clocks make good rulers in
contrast to the trumped up notion that clocks measure one thing and
rulers another.



I have absolutely no idea what the actual structure and motion
of the cosmos is nor what is the best possible approach to discerning
a workable geometric composite picture but at least I can see the
outlines of a far more complex geometric picture than these
simpleminded notions based on the 'fixed stars' ..

Ptolemy saw the same.

George

Naw,there are no disciplined minds willing to introduce that 3rd
rotation into geocentric observations even if the thing is so obvious
that only a complete fool would contend with it.The truth of the
matter is that there is nobody good enough yet to tackle the
implications of the progression to cosmological modelling off the
galactic axis,this is no boast on my part but a working observation as
part of this newsgroup.

(George G. Dishman) wrote in message . com...
(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...

Originating with Copernicus and refined by Kepler,the basic principle
of heliocentric modelling relies on the composite rotations which
constitute the motion of sun and the stars from a geocentric point of
view, ...

The difference between the sidereal and solar days
as the rest of us understand them comes not from
the motion of the Sun in comparison to that of
the 'fixed stars', i.e. a difference of what is
called their proper motion, but from the motion
of the Earth around the Sun.


Let us look at what Newton wrote;

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions." Newton,Principia

The Natural days are truly unequal due to Kepler's second law which
we register as a variation in the motion of the Sun from day to day
from a geocentric perspective.Not only astronomers but more
importantly navigators corrected the inequality by artificially
reducing the elliptical rotation to circular via the Equation of
Time,by this means the Sun acted as one clock and an onboard clock
fixed geometrically and geographically to the planet where diurnal
rotation is a constant 24 hours for a full rotation with no reference
to the local stars whatsoever acted as a fixed ruler.By this means the
navigators could always fix their position but also astronomers could
, via the Equation of Time, artificially negate the natural variation
in a day to a constant day.If you cannot comprehend how clocks act as
rulers and accurate ones were developed for that purpose you have no
business tampering with Newton's definitions which were adapted for
dual purposes by astronomers and mariners in his era.

Now have a look at this spectacular mess and go ahead and explain what
your 'genius' manages to accomplish and especially this line -
"According
to Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which
would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed
stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves
and the action of the other planets under consideration."

After removing the Equation of Time or what amounts to the same
thing;the difference between absolute time and relative time from
heliocentric modelling via geocentric observations he talks of the
"motion of the fixed stars" which follow the inequable day like the
Sun,have you any idea just what sort of a mind produces such nonsense
and you swallow it wholesale.I may have no support in this matter but
not even all the relativistic politics in the world is worth the
personal embaressement shared by all of you and I certainly am not
fazed by the apparent isolation,I am correct you are not.




Albert Einstein Relativity 29. The Solution of the Problem of
Gravitation on the Basis of the General Principle of Relativity


" We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. According
to Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which
would permanently maintain its position with respect to the fixed
stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars, themselves
and the action of the other planets under consideration. Thus, if we
correct the observed motion of the planets for these two influences,
and if Newton's theory be strictly correct, we ought to obtain for the
orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the
fixed stars.




http://makeashorterlink.com/?P34412E35

Go on Gerald, start a revolution or at least catch
up. You will probably only understand that once
you adopt the Copernican view. I finally understand
why we have had so much trouble conversing. You are
trying to still work with a geocentric model and
apply epicycles to extra-solar observations.


Catch up to what ?,if you can justify the development of accurate
clocks with the sidereal day then be my guest,I can be certain that
both Newton and John Harrison would find you an intellectual midget
for following after fools who can only squeek out "clocks measure
time".The principles which make clocks good rulers rely on the
difference between composite rotations that Copernicus introduced and
Kepler refined.I am remarking that you can introduce a 3rd rotation in
geocentric observations by utilising the local stars as reference
markers in a different manner via observed supernovae events for the
purpose of cosmological modelling.You are probably too old to change
and perhaps you should join Heymann in the gardening and stamp
collecting newsgroups.


...Today,there is nobody
here who supports it,the variation in a day due to Kepler's second law
against a day fixed to planetary geometry generates the Equation of
Time .. however the convenience of the sidereal day obscures the fact
that all geocentric observations actually follow the inequality of a
day due to the Earth's annual orbital motion which most astronomers
tranfer to a different set of parameters which gives them the sidereal
day,the constant which belongs to the Earth's diurnal rotation was
transfered to the motion of the local stars. ...

You are almost there but you have missed one key point.
The Earth's orbital motion introduces an extra one
rotation per year to a time-scale based on local noon.
That is the main difference between the sidereal and
solar day though you are right in that the effect of
the Earth's elliptical orbit and some other effects
also contribute.


You may forget that navigators had only to set their clocks at local
noon at the physical location of Greenwich,the prescription of the
Equation of Time took over as they moved out to sea,the precision in
determination of location away from Greenwich relied on the cyclical
variation in a day due to the difference between clocks tethered to 24
hours per 360 degrees and the variation in a day due to elliptical
motion,again ,the Equation of Time negates the elliptical influence
and reduces it artificially to circular.As geometrically the precision
of the equinoxes and solstices could be determined there was no
problem for astronomers even as some of them recognised that the
cycles of clocks were moving out of kilter with calendars but now we
are digressing from the purity of the geometry of clocks as they
relate to planetary rotation on its axis and its orbital rotation
around the Sun and by association why clocks make good rulers in
contrast to the trumped up notion that clocks measure one thing and
rulers another.



I have absolutely no idea what the actual structure and motion
of the cosmos is nor what is the best possible approach to discerning
a workable geometric composite picture but at least I can see the
outlines of a far more complex geometric picture than these
simpleminded notions based on the 'fixed stars' ..

Ptolemy saw the same.

George

Naw,there are no disciplined minds willing to introduce that 3rd
rotation into geocentric observations even if the thing is so obvious
that only a complete fool would contend with it.The truth of the
matter is that there is nobody good enough yet to tackle the
implications of the progression to cosmological modelling off the
galactic axis,this is no boast on my part but a working observation as
part of this newsgroup.