P10Accel:Light Speed Does Not Extrapolate.

Markwardt has said that you need many years of data to show what I
claim here with about 90 data points. I disagree for the reasons given
in the initial post and clarified here. In short it is that the
conventional light speed delay model uses earth motions that are often
in the Anderson data to some degree opposite or at least not
essentially the sam while the nearly instantaneous model uses earth
motions on the uplink and downlink that are nearly the same. Thus if
one shows that the anomalous acceleration disappears for the nearly
instantaneous model for 90 data points then one could expect to do so
for other randomly chosen set of available data points.

He also denies saying earlier that radar sent from earth and reflected
back from Venus had such large error bars that the results were
effectively noise. As I recall he did say this or that the error bars
were so great that differences in topography pixel by pixel over the
image were not distinguishable. Thus the good pictures that came from
radar reflections from spacecraft near Venus and sent back to Earth as
data from these spacecraft were not inconsistent with the effective
noise that was recorded earlier.

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

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


The method is to choose a time when tracking radar reception is
available and to compare the received frequency with that expected if
the transmission which produced it was from the same earthsite within
the previous minute and the craft was at the position and moving with
the velocity given in the ephemeris.
The ephemeris position and velocity data is based on previous
conventional light speed delay assumptions used to the adjust the
Newtonian calculation position and velocity given the effects of
velocities imparted to the craft and those due to attraction by the
sun and other other planets.
The ephemeris position and velocity has not constantly been
readjusted to match this tracking data perhaps since 1980 or earlier
but it can be readjusted at any time using the conventional model or
the nearly instantaneous light speed delay model. The procedure is
similar in the two cases but is simpler when we assume the nearly
instantaneous light speed delay model. First,referring to the NASA
Horizons ephemeris, we project the Madrid earthsite velocity wrt
sun,V=(u,v,w), a vector starting at Madrid at a specific time( eg
t=21:24 Oct 7 1987) onto the line between Madrid and the craft
position assuming the nearly instantantaneous light delay model, at
this same time. The coordinates of the craft positions however are
based on the above estimation procedure and earth site motions
assuming the conventional light delay model.
The velocity coordinates of the earth site wrt sun are
u(t)=(x(t)-x(t-1))/60sec., etc.
(in this example the earthsite velocity is V=30.028km/sec and the
projected velocity on the line from the earth site to the ephemeris
craft position at this same time is W= 25.43728km per second toward
the craft.. The projected velocity of the craft onto this same line is
12.841164 (from 13.06)away from the earthsite. Thus the difference,
12.5801242 is the total uplink velocity and twice this is the total
total uplink plus downlink velocity which is 25.16022929.
The ratio of the projected earth site part of the total is
25/30=10/12 whereas the projected craft part of the total is 12/13
which is a smaller fraction. If we change the position of the craft by
changing these angles of projection implied by a change in the angle
of projection of the total total uplink plus downlink velocites and
assume tentatively a slight change in the velocity of the craft, we
can make the ephemeris position of the craft and its velocity give
results that match more closely the received radar tracking data-at
least for this minute.
After repeating this procedure a few times we find no further
changes are needed to sustain a close match minute by minute, and we
can have confirmation of the trajectory determined in this way.

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

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

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

In message , Ralph
Sansbury writes
Markwardt has said that you need many years of data to show what I
claim here with about 90 data points. I disagree for the reasons given
in the initial post and clarified here. In short it is that the
conventional light speed delay model uses earth motions that are often
in the Anderson data to some degree opposite or at least not
essentially the sam while the nearly instantaneous model uses earth
motions on the uplink and downlink that are nearly the same. Thus if
one shows that the anomalous acceleration disappears for the nearly
instantaneous model for 90 data points then one could expect to do so
for other randomly chosen set of available data points.

He also denies saying earlier that radar sent from earth and reflected
back from Venus had such large error bars that the results were
effectively noise. As I recall he did say this or that the error bars
were so great that differences in topography pixel by pixel over the
image were not distinguishable. Thus the good pictures that came from
radar reflections from spacecraft near Venus and sent back to Earth as
data from these spacecraft were not inconsistent with the effective
noise that was recorded earlier.


There are four hits on Google Groups for Markwardt and "error bar" and
none of them are about Venus. Try again.
I don't have access to Rumsey and Goldstein's original papers, but I'd
guess that the noise at the pixel level was considerable. So you add
lots of signals to remove it.

I'm snipping the rest; it's almost word for word what you wrote before,
and unlike radar signals, repeating doesn't make it any more accurate.

In message , Ralph
Sansbury writes
Markwardt has said that you need many years of data to show what I
claim here with about 90 data points. I disagree for the reasons given
in the initial post and clarified here. In short it is that the
conventional light speed delay model uses earth motions that are often
in the Anderson data to some degree opposite or at least not
essentially the sam while the nearly instantaneous model uses earth
motions on the uplink and downlink that are nearly the same. Thus if
one shows that the anomalous acceleration disappears for the nearly
instantaneous model for 90 data points then one could expect to do so
for other randomly chosen set of available data points.

He also denies saying earlier that radar sent from earth and reflected
back from Venus had such large error bars that the results were
effectively noise. As I recall he did say this or that the error bars
were so great that differences in topography pixel by pixel over the
image were not distinguishable. Thus the good pictures that came from
radar reflections from spacecraft near Venus and sent back to Earth as
data from these spacecraft were not inconsistent with the effective
noise that was recorded earlier.


There are four hits on Google Groups for Markwardt and "error bar" and
none of them are about Venus. Try again.
I don't have access to Rumsey and Goldstein's original papers, but I'd
guess that the noise at the pixel level was considerable. So you add
lots of signals to remove it.

I'm snipping the rest; it's almost word for word what you wrote before,
and unlike radar signals, repeating doesn't make it any more accurate.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
In message , Ralph
Sansbury writes
Markwardt has said that you need many years of data to show what I
claim here with about 90 data points. I disagree for the reasons given
in the initial post and clarified here. In short it is that the
conventional light speed delay model uses earth motions that are often
in the Anderson data to some degree opposite or at least not
essentially the sam while the nearly instantaneous model uses earth
motions on the uplink and downlink that are nearly the same. Thus if
one shows that the anomalous acceleration disappears for the nearly
instantaneous model for 90 data points then one could expect to do so
for other randomly chosen set of available data points.

He also denies saying earlier that radar sent from earth and reflected
back from Venus had such large error bars that the results were
effectively noise. As I recall he did say this or that the error bars
were so great that differences in topography pixel by pixel over the
image were not distinguishable. Thus the good pictures that came from
radar reflections from spacecraft near Venus and sent back to Earth as
data from these spacecraft were not inconsistent with the effective
noise that was recorded earlier.


There are four hits on Google Groups for Markwardt and "error bar" and
none of them are about Venus. Try again.
I don't have access to Rumsey and Goldstein's original papers, but I'd
guess that the noise at the pixel level was considerable. So you add
lots of signals to remove it.

I think the Venus signals cannot be distinguished from noise and
that the variations in the average associated with each pixel of
surface could not be distinguished from the average which may itself
have been noise. ie there is no evidence that it is not noise and the
statistical method itself is non standard.
I have tried to clarify this in my paper and other things like the
..209 degree angle of projection of the earthsite velocity on the
craft-earthsite line that would give an accurate(withing
..001Hz)predicted frequency assuming the nearly instantaneous model. Of
course an even smaller angle would be needed using the conventional
model because the previous positions were based on the conventional
model assumption.


Light speed delay is assumed to extrapolate to the most distant
stars and galaxies but for distances beyond the GPSS satellites at
11,000 miles etc, the evidence is not as clearcut. (Roemer’s so
called light speed measurement and Pulsar phenomena could be due to
changes in perspective of the appearance and reappearance of
Jupiter’s moons or binary stars at different times of year while
Bradley’s measurement could be ascribed alternatively to
nanosecond delay times in the response to light from a polar star as
the Earth, passing under the star, moved in opposite directions at
opposite times of the year. Etc..
Weak reflections from Venus of radar transmitted from Earth show
variations in surface height but with such large error bars that these
variations AND the mean values could just as well be noise. Spacecraft
navigation to Mars and Saturn etc can evidently be programmed ahead of
time to take into account various contingencies without depending on
the time delay assumptions used in sending and receiving data to the
spacecraft. see http://www.bestweb.net/~sansbury)

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


The method is to choose a time when tracking radar reception is
available and to compare the received frequency with that expected if
the transmission which produced it was from the same earthsite within
the previous minute and the craft was at the position and moving with
the velocity given in the ephemeris.
The ephemeris position and velocity data is based on previous
conventional light speed delay assumptions used to the adjust the
Newtonian calculation position and velocity given the effects of
velocities imparted to the craft and those due to attraction by the
sun and other other planets.
The ephemeris position and velocity have not been readjusted
constantly to match this tracking data perhaps since 1980 or earlier
but it can be readjusted at any time using the conventional model or
the nearly instantaneous light speed delay model. The procedure is
similar in the two cases but is simpler when we assume the nearly
instantaneous light speed delay model. Also the nearly instantaneous
model leads to a greater adjustment because the previous positions of
the craft are based on the conventional model and so more closely
match subsequent observed frequencies.
First,referring to the NASA Horizons ephemeris, we project the
Madrid earthsite velocity wrt sun,V=(u,v,w), a vector starting at
Madrid at a specific time( eg t=21:24 Oct 7 1987) onto the line
between Madrid and the craft position assuming the nearly
instantantaneous light delay model, at this same time. The coordinates
of the craft positions however are based on the above estimation
procedure and earth site motions assuming the conventional light
delay model.
The velocity coordinates of the earth site wrt sun are
u(t)=(x(t)-x(t-1))/60sec., etc.
(at this time 21:24, the earthsite velocity is V=30.028539km/sec and
the
projected velocity on the line from the earth site to the ephemeris
craft position at this same time is W= 25.421291km per second toward
the craft. The projected velocity of the craft onto this same line is
12.841164 (from 13.06) away from the earthsite. Thus the difference,
12.5801257 is the total uplink velocity and twice this is the combined
total uplink plus downlink velocity which is 25.16022929.
arcos(25.16023/30.02854)The angle of projection is arcos(0.837877)=
33.083 deg.
The ratio of the projected earth site part of the total is about
25/30=10/12 whereas the projected craft part of the total is 12/13
which is a smaller fraction. We can by trial and error change the
position of the craft by changing the angle of projection so that the
projected earthsite velocity is reduced from 25.421304 to 25.100317,
so the angle is arccos(25.100317/30.02854)= 33.292 deg. This is .209
degrees more.
We assume the projected craft velocity remains the same which
implies a slight increase in its unprojected velocity since its
projection angle must also change.
By doing this we reduce the discrepancy between predicted and
observed frequency to .001Hz.
Then, assuming this new craft position and the previous velocity
of the craft modified by the acceleration of the craft toward the sun
during the next minute, and assuming the correct earthsite velocity at
the next minute, the predicted frequency should also be within .001Hz
of the observed,etc..
The test of the validity of our assumptions is that no further
changes are needed to sustain a close match minute by minute, and we
can have confirmation of the trajectory determined in this way.
In this example the positions of the earth sites given by the
ephemeris(NASA Horizons Telnet, observer table) are 55 seconds later
than the times for the frequencies in the tracking data. Thus the
change in position of the Madrid earthsite wrt the Sun from 21:23 to
21:24 divided by 60 seconds and associated with the spreadsheet time,
21:24, represents the average velocity during this minute in the CT
time system but in the GMT time system this is the average velocity
from 21:22 to 21:23 which produces the received frequency in the
tracking data recorded at 21:23 etc. So we compare the spreadsheet
predicted frequency for 21:24 with the observed received frequency for
21:23 (or a linear interpolation of the value for 21:23:05)etc.