P10 Anomalous Acceleration 7.8(10^-3)cm/sec^2?

DOPPLER TEST OF LIGHT SPEED DELAY FROM DISTANT SPACECRAFT
By Ralph Sansbury,
The Pioneer 10 anomalous acceleration may be several orders of
magnitude larger than reported by Anderson et al.

No explanation for the systematic small anomalous acceleration of
Pioneer 10 toward the sun over the thirty years of its movement away
from the sun has yet emerged[2]
More importantly, possible cumulative effects on the Earth and its
moon and on other planets and their moons, of the implied increase in
the suns mass are not observed.
That is, such an accelerative influence, which is shown in this
small time interval here to be orders of magnitude larger than shown
by Anderson et al[2], would act also on the other planets and
asteroids etc as if there was an increase in the suns mass. And over a
sufficient time period would have noticeable effect that have not been
observed. Another possibility not considered is that the gravitational
constant is different for trajectories such as that of the satellite
in contrast to the orbital trajectories of planets and asteroids etc..
Even worse is that the anomalous acceleration is never enough to
eliminate the discrepancy between the relayed back, carrier frequency
and the Doppler shifted frequency predicted by the net motions of the
transmitter and the receiver earth sites and the craft itself.
This discrepancy is for an hour and a half on Oct 7 1987 shown to be
16.79Hz for 21:22 to 11.58Hz for 22:45 with differences of .057Hz to
..073Hz between successive differences[9]. Craig Markwardt, finds a
discrepancy of -12.51Hz at 21:22 by estimating, but not obtaining from
the telnet Horizons ephemeris, the supposed positions of the craft wrt
the sun when the craft receives and retransmits the uplink carrier at
a frequency 240/221 times the frequency received at the craft but in
phase with it.
If the accuracy of the in phase, relayed, transmitted carrier
frequency is, as has been demonstrated, enough to measure an
acceleration of 10^-8cm/s^2(it is claimed that 10mm/sec motions can
be measured by the phase locked loop and Fourier transform techniques
etc.used), such relatively large discrepancies between observed and
predicted frequencies indicates something very wrong with the
conventional view that light speed extrapolates indefinitely!
That is, the conventional light speed delay model is used in making
these successive predictions and correcting the craft positions,
minute by minute, to be compatible with the Newtonian calculations of
craft velocity given the accelerative effects of the sun, planets etc
and the initial craft velocity etc..
And so subsequent Newtonian calculations of positions are compatible
with the conventional light speed delay model predictions but not with
the actual observed values. Thus further corrections are constantly
required.
The discrepancy between the true position when the craft was
approaching Jupiter almost two years after launch were relatively
small compared to later positions after launch but the discrepancy
when the craft as in this example was in the far part of the orbit of
Pluto or beyond, 31 years after the discrepancy may have become much
larger.
Note that a total net motion of the earth and craft of 2.998m/s.
toward one another, given a transmitter frequency of 2,292,000,000Hz
produces a Doppler shifted frequency of
2,292,000,000+.000,000,022.9210, so 17Hz corresponds to about 2m./s.
less net motion toward one another than predicted.
A constant increase of about .06Hz net motion toward one another of
the earth sites and the craft indicates an acceleration of about .06
times 2.998 divided by 22.92 = 0.0078m./s.^2. It is reasonable to
suppose that at least one tenth of this is associated with the
movement of the craft and that at least one tenth of this is the
component in the direction of the sun. So the acceleration toward the
sun, if this is the case, is five orders of magnitude more than
claimed in the Anderson paper.
It is perhaps important to note also that a limit to light speed
delay extrapolation (ct=d for d=ac eg for a=1 or some other, to be
determined, value) changes the interpretation but not the value of, c,
in the Doppler equation or of, c^2, in the electromagnetic equation or
in Einsteins Relativity equations(E=mc^2,the frequency shift equation
and the light bending equation etc.)
It is important to note also that contrary to public opinion, there
is no unambiguous evidence that light speed extrapolates beyond a
second.
That is, Roemer supposedly measured the speed of light by the
differences in the times of the occultation and reappearance of some
of the moons of Jupiter when the Earth is on the same side of the Sun
as Jupiter or on the opposite side. But as Cassini, the expert on such
observations at the time said, the differences in times could be due
to differences in viewing angle and not to the difference in distances
divided by time. A similar argument applies to pulsars. Bradleys
aberration measurement of the position of polar stars when the Earth
is moving in opposite directions under these stars can also be
ascribed to a nanosecond difference in response time which would
change the direction to the star at opposite times of the year.
Supposed variations in radar reflections from surfaces of Venus etc
from powerful radar emissions on Earth have such large error bars that
the results could equally well be considered noise. The radar
reflections recorded at a specific time could have been seconds before
according to the proposed model and not minutes before according to
the conventional light speed delay assumptions. These radar
reflections might be used to modify the ephemeris positions of Venus
or other planets and asteroids and so would be consistent with the
modified ephemeris.
The supposed 1.25 second delay in moon radar and lidar given
secondary reflections and given the precision of the measurements a 1
second delay is also possible. Constant repetition of the same
spacecraft downlinks and time consuming codes for each bit of data
that increases the duration of transmission with distance are some of
the reasons that the conventional light speed delay assumptions, if
wrong, are not observed. That is a signal sent to the craft at one
time that produces after the coding and decoding delay plus any delay
associated with the requested action and downlink coding and decoding
could produce a result within this time on the earth that is ignored.
The receiver at an earth site that could receive the signal might be
off or the reception is ignored. But repetition of this same signal
until the expected time of reception continues and so seems to confirm
the conventional light speed delay assumption. The fact that the
spacecraft clock is constantly synchronized with the expected light
speed delay in successive communications between the spacecraft and
earth explains that the clock is consistent with the expected light
time delay.
Many circumlocutions and problems in modern physics are avoided if
electromagnetic radiation is regarded not as moving photons or wave
fronts or probabilistic photons but rather as an instantaneous force
at a distance which involves a response delay that does not exeed a
second or so. The archived Pioneer data provides a way of determining
if the conventional light speed delay model or a less than one minute
delay model is more accurate. To do this one would look at the data
from the time of launch in 1972 and compare the track of spacecraft
determined by the each model in conjunction with the Newtonian
calculations of position and velocity minute by minute.
The need to do this is long overdue.

References
1)Electric Gravity and Instantaneous Light, Ralph Sansbury, 1998,
http://www.bestweb.net/~sansbury/book03.pdf
2)"Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11",
Anderson, J.D., Laing, P.A., Lau, E.L., Liu, A.S., Nieto, M.M., and
Turyshev, S.G., Physics Review D, v65, 082004, (2002))
3)http://pdsgeophys.wustl.edu/pds/mars...t/trk_2_25.txt
4) C++ compiler http://simtel.net/product.download.mirrors.php?id=17456
5)Doppler data in binary files and related documents with definitions
of some terms..
http://windsor.gsfc.nasa.gov/spacecr...tdf/atdf_data/
4) http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/dsndoc...tationdata.cfm
5) http://descanso.jpl.nasa.gov/Monogra...rce_external=0
6) Doppler Tracking of Planetary Spacecraft, Peter Kinman ,IEEE trans
on microwave theory and techniques” vol 40,no.6,June 1992
p1199..
7) http://tda.jpl.nasa.gov/tmo/progress...2-120/120B.pdf
8) Radio Science Performance Analysis Software; Morabito and Asmar
,TDA Progress Report 42-120, February 15, 1995.
9)http://www.bestweb.net/~sansbury/Doppler/rangerate.xls

Ralph Sansbury wrote in message
om...
DOPPLER TEST OF LIGHT SPEED DELAY FROM DISTANT SPACECRAFT
By Ralph Sansbury,
The Pioneer 10 anomalous acceleration may be several orders of
magnitude larger than reported by Anderson et al.

No explanation for the systematic small anomalous acceleration of
Pioneer 10 toward the sun over the thirty years of its movement away
from the sun has yet emerged[2]
More importantly, possible cumulative effects on the Earth and its
moon and on other planets and their moons, of the implied increase in
the suns mass are not observed.

Any such drag is countered by orbital aberration. It is only linear (or
hyperbolic) trajectories that demonstrate drag.

That is, such an accelerative influence, which is shown in this
small time interval here to be orders of magnitude larger than shown
by Anderson et al[2], would act also on the other planets and
asteroids etc as if there was an increase in the suns mass. And over a
sufficient time period would have noticeable effect that have not been
observed. Another possibility not considered is that the gravitational
constant is different for trajectories such as that of the satellite
in contrast to the orbital trajectories of planets and asteroids etc..

Bingo.

Even worse

Worse? There's nothing 'bad' about the universe.

{snip the rest}

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

(Ralph Sansbury) writes:
... Craig Markwardt, finds a
discrepancy of -12.51Hz at 21:22 by estimating, but not obtaining from
the telnet Horizons ephemeris, ...

This is a lie. You knew or should have known that I used HORIZONS,
since I posted a transcript of my HORIZONS telnet session. Please
remove this statement from your report.

HORIZONS has several limitations I already posted (including the time
system, and coarse time samples) which prevent one from realizing the
fully possible precision. Therefore your claims are irrelevant.

CM

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
(Ralph Sansbury) writes:
... Craig Markwardt, finds a
discrepancy of -12.51Hz at 21:22 by estimating, but not obtaining from
the telnet Horizons ephemeris, ...

This is a lie.

snip.
Not at all. I posted the values from which the calculation was
made. You did not.
I posted the results of the calculation. You did not.

You said that you estimated the values and did not actually calculate
the distances between LA and P10 a light time later. Your result was
close to the accurate result but 4Hz to 5Hz less. Your method did not
permit an accurate measurement of the required added acceleration to
make the predicted frequencies match the observed.

HORIZONS has several limitations I already posted (including the time
system, and coarse time samples) which prevent one from realizing the
fully possible precision. Therefore your claims are irrelevant.


The limitations have nothing to do with coarse time samples. They
have to do with the earlier adjustments of the position and velocity
of P10 where the adjustments are based on the earth motions at the
transmitter and receiver assuming the conventional light speed delay
assumption.
You are right then to indicate that there is something imprecise
about the ephemeris positions of P10 since they are ultimately based
on these earlier adjustments of position and velocity based on earth
site motions that are not seconds off but are rather hours off of the
true earth site motions.
The point is that if you continue faithfully with the conventional
light speed delay assumptions you require a constant added
acceleration to make the conventional prediction to match the observed
frequency.

(Ralph Sansbury) writes:

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
(Ralph Sansbury) writes:
... Craig Markwardt, finds a
discrepancy of -12.51Hz at 21:22 by estimating, but not obtaining from
the telnet Horizons ephemeris, ...

This is a lie.

snip.
Not at all. I posted the values from which the calculation was
made. You did not.
I posted the results of the calculation. You did not.

You are in error. You have been reading and responding to the posts
in this thread, so you should have found the below quotes, including
at least five discussions of how the telnet HORIZONS interface
directly computed the relevant range rates. And also, a COMPLETE
HORIZONS TRANSCRIPT.


Markwardt: "I did in fact use the HORIZONS telnet inte face as I said
all along." [ref. 1]

Markwardt: [ref. 1]
************************************************** *****************************
Ephemeris / PORT_LOGIN Sat May 1 09:38:29 2004 Pasadena, USA / Horizons
************************************************** *****************************
Target body name: Pioneer 10 Spacecraft (-23) {source: pfile10.nio}
Center body name: Earth (399) {source: DE-0406LE-0406}
Center-site name: DSS 63
...
2.073386908486728E+04 6.215857576802573E+09 -1.257832655649092E+01
^^ = -12.578327 km/s

Markwardt: "I used HORIZONS to directly compute the range rate..." [ref. 2]

Markwardt: "... and that [I did] use the telnet interface[.]" [ref. 3]

Markwardt: "With a simple calculation using HORIZONS (telnet) speed
estimates, I demonstrated your error, but you continue to fail to
acknowledge this." [ref. 4]

Markwardt: "If we move past the scan to time 21:22, and again query
HORIZONS for the range rate, we find..." [ref. 5]

The fact that you ignored all these numerous statements, and the
transcript, either makes you a liar or a negligent reader. Neither is
an excuse for not doing proper scientific research. Either way, you
must withdraw your incorrect claim about what I didn't do with HORIZONS.


HORIZONS has several limitations I already posted (including the time
system, and coarse time samples) which prevent one from realizing the
fully possible precision. Therefore your claims are irrelevant.


The limitations have nothing to do with coarse time samples. They

Of course there are limitations with your use of HORIZONS. See post
in other thread.

CM



References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
************************************************** *****************************
Ephemeris / PORT_LOGIN Sat May 1 09:38:29 2004 Pasadena, USA / Horizons
************************************************** *****************************
Target body name: Pioneer 10 Spacecraft (-23) {source: pfile10.nio}
Center body name: Earth (399) {source: DE-0406LE-0406}
Center-site name: DSS 63
...
2.073386908486728E+04 6.215857576802573E+09 -1.257832655649092E+01
^^ = -12.578327 km/s


But this should be a range rate of -12.5799km/sec if this refers
to the rate between P10 at 15:38 and Madrid at 21:23etc.
Perhaps you have obtained the range rate between Madrid at 15:38
and P10 a light time later when you should have calculated the range
rate between P10 at 15:38 and Madrid, a light time later, ie 21:23.
Do it correctly then your spreadsheet will show the same sorts of
differences between the predicted and observed frequencies assuming
CT is GMT or assuming CT is GMT plus 1 minute or minus 1 minute.
These differences would not occur if,from the early stages, right
positions and velocities of the earth are used in conjunction with the
assumed positions and velocities of P10 due to the initial velocities
etc and the influence of Jupiter and the sun and then these P10
positions and velocities are adjusted in these early stages minute by
minute to make the observed and predicted frequencies equal.
Your earlier statment was that this was impossible because the
complexity of calculating the effect of Jupiter and the Sun etc on P10
was overwhelming and led to gross errors.
Of course and these errors as they were incorrectly corrected
minute by minute yielded continual errors in the position and velocity
of P10 and that is why the 1987 predictions are not accurate.

(Ralph Sansbury) wrote in message . com...
Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...

1)What is the formula relating tracking data time(GMT) to coordinate
time(CT) of the Horizons telnet ephemeris?
2)Where is data if it still exists that shows the received
frequencies minute by minute just after P10 left the environs of
Jupiter?
There would not be a great difference then between the earth site
motions using the conventional light speed delay model or the 1
minute light speed delay motions.
For example the earth site motions might be 20 to 30 minutes apart
as opposed to 12 hours apart in 1987 etc.
The change in velocity as P10 was given added thrusts to leave the
environs of Jupiter and the gravitational effects of Jupiter and the
Sun etc would imply specific positions and velocities of P10 at this
general time period. This positions and velocities and the assumed
earth site velocities would in turn predict specific received
frequencies. If there was an error in prediction, a change in position
might imply a different velocity component in the direction between
P10 and the assumed earth site or a change in P10 velocity or both.
So we would change both and then see how close the next prediction
was to the Newtonian calculation of the new position and velocity.
That is, the process would be self correcting.
We would do this for both the conventional delay model earth site
motions and the 1 minute delay model earth site motions.
The preferred model would be the one which led to more accurate
predictions and required less constant adjustments including the
added acceleration toward the sun and earth.







************************************************** *****************************
Ephemeris / PORT_LOGIN Sat May 1 09:38:29 2004 Pasadena, USA / Horizons
************************************************** *****************************
Target body name: Pioneer 10 Spacecraft (-23) {source: pfile10.nio}
Center body name: Earth (399) {source: DE-0406LE-0406}
Center-site name: DSS 63
...
2.073386908486728E+04 6.215857576802573E+09 -1.257832655649092E+01
^^ = -12.578327 km/s


But this should be a range rate of -12.5799km/sec if this refers
to the rate between P10 at 15:38 and Madrid at 21:23etc.
Perhaps you have obtained the range rate between Madrid at 15:38
and P10 a light time later when you should have calculated the range
rate between P10 at 15:38 and Madrid, a light time later, ie 21:23.
Do it correctly then your spreadsheet will show the same sorts of
differences between the predicted and observed frequencies assuming
CT is GMT or assuming CT is GMT plus 1 minute or minus 1 minute.
These differences would not occur if,from the early stages, right
positions and velocities of the earth are used in conjunction with the
assumed positions and velocities of P10 due to the initial velocities
etc and the influence of Jupiter and the sun and then these P10
positions and velocities are adjusted in these early stages minute by
minute to make the observed and predicted frequencies equal.
Your earlier statment was that this was impossible because the
complexity of calculating the effect of Jupiter and the Sun etc on P10
was overwhelming and led to gross errors.
Of course if you are using the wrong ie conventional light speed delay model, and these errors as they were incorrectly corrected
minute by minute yielded continual errors in the position and velocity
of P10 and that is why the 1987 predictions are not accurate.

(Ralph Sansbury) writes:

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
************************************************** *****************************
Ephemeris / PORT_LOGIN Sat May 1 09:38:29 2004 Pasadena, USA / Horizons
************************************************** *****************************
Target body name: Pioneer 10 Spacecraft (-23) {source: pfile10.nio}
Center body name: Earth (399) {source: DE-0406LE-0406}
Center-site name: DSS 63
...
2.073386908486728E+04 6.215857576802573E+09 -1.257832655649092E+01
^^ = -12.578327 km/s


But this should be a range rate of -12.5799km/sec if this refers
to the rate between P10 at 15:38 and Madrid at 21:23etc.

Regardless of the numbers, what my quotations provide is evidence that
I did indeed use the HORIZONS telnet interface for this demonstration,
and evidence that you should have known it. Therefore the claim in
your "report" about what I didn't do with HORIZONS is knowing
falsehood, which you should retract.

Perhaps you have obtained the range rate between Madrid at 15:38
and P10 a light time later when you should have calculated the range
rate between P10 at 15:38 and Madrid, a light time later, ie 21:23.
Do it correctly then your spreadsheet will show the same sorts of

You seem to be missing something fundamental. For the purposes of
this range rate demonstration, I used HORIZONS *ONLY*, no spreadsheet,
no other hidden calculations, nothing. HORIZONS itself computes the
range rate! And it includes a high precision light time correction
(not the coarse 1 minute sampling you are limited to).

At the time 21:23, at the Madrid DSN station, the range rate can be
read directly from the HORIZONS output [w/ L.T. corrections]:
2447076.390972222 = A.D. 1987-Oct-07 21:23:00.0000 (CT)
1.839325869733010E+09 5.302950305912963E+09 2.670050079617804E+09
9.176500840733194E+00 -1.507064041663481E+01 -5.670489688575161E+00
2.073297922308023E+04 6.215590802950152E+09 -1.257817249247732E+01

The last number is the range rate: -12.578172... km/s.

If you dispute that number, then you are disputing that HORIZONS is
correct. Then you undermine your whole position, since you are
depending on HORIZONS for your own raw input data.

CM

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
(Ralph Sansbury) writes:

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
************************************************** *****************************
Ephemeris / PORT_LOGIN Sat May 1 09:38:29 2004 Pasadena, USA / Horizons
************************************************** *****************************
Target body name: Pioneer 10 Spacecraft (-23) {source: pfile10.nio}
Center body name: Earth (399) {source: DE-0406LE-0406}
Center-site name: DSS 63
...
2.073386908486728E+04 6.215857576802573E+09 -1.257832655649092E+01
^^ = -12.578327 km/s


But this should be a range rate of -12.5799km/sec if this refers
to the rate between P10 at 15:38 and Madrid at 21:23etc.


Perhaps you have obtained the range rate between Madrid at 15:38
and P10 a light time later when you should have calculated the range
rate between P10 at 15:38 and Madrid, a light time later, ie 21:23.

You seem to be missing something fundamental. For the purposes of
this range rate demonstration, I used HORIZONS *ONLY*, no spreadsheet,
no other hidden calculations, nothing. HORIZONS itself computes the
range rate!
But you said,
HORIZONS assumes that DSS 14 is a
*receiver* at time 09:51, which in reality it is a transmitter. It
properly accounts for the earth motions at time 09:51, but should
consider the velocity of the craft in the future when the signal
reaches P10 (~15:35), instead of the past.

One can avoid the unknown errors of approximation here as follows:
calculate the change in distance over a minute and divide by 60
seconds. It may be that the change in distance over the last second is
different than this average. But when you compare this average over a
minute to the received frequency which to get accurately you may have
to average over a minute, you get a less error riddled comparison
between predicted and observed frequencies.

And it includes a high precision light time correction
(not the coarse 1 minute sampling you are limited to).

At the time 21:23, at the Madrid DSN station, the range rate can be
read directly from the HORIZONS output [w/ L.T. corrections]:
2447076.390972222 = A.D. 1987-Oct-07 21:23:00.0000 (CT)
1.839325869733010E+09 5.302950305912963E+09 2.670050079617804E+09
9.176500840733194E+00 -1.507064041663481E+01 -5.670489688575161E+00
2.073297922308023E+04 6.215590802950152E+09 -1.257817249247732E+01

The last number is the range rate: -12.578172... km/s.

If you dispute that number, then you are disputing that HORIZONS is
correct.

I am concerned about the definition of range rate at 21:23. It could
be this is not the change in distance between P10 at 15:37to 15:38 and
Madrid at 21:22 to 21:23 but rather the change in distance from Madrid
at this time to P10 at 21:22 plus a light time etc..
This calculated change in distance per second and denoted the range
rate for 21:22 is 12.5799 and this is the same for 21:21 and 21:23.
According to the author of the ephemeris this calculation of the range
rate from the positions is more accurate and should be used for
radiometric as opposed to visual observations.
Because the change in distance per second a minute before and
minute later are the same, I doubt if the distance change per second
calculated each second is different from this average distance change
per second over a minute.
I get 12.5314km/sec for the uplink velocity associated with 9:52 but
which is the difference between the distances at 9:52 and 9:53 divided
by 60 seconds.
This is probably different than the value you get by using a different
times for the uplink and then estimating what it would be for these
times.

So I think your method is wrong for these reasons. Of course your
results and my results are both wrong because of the 55second
difference between CT and UTC during this time period according to the
telnet observer table. When this correction is made, the observed
frequency is greater 40Hz to 44.6 over the hour and a half considered
and an accleration of .06Hz each minute is typical.
The question arises is this added acceleration between craft and
earth
due in part to errors in the change in the earth's projected velocity
on the line from the earth site to P10.
But presumably the earth site motions are very accurately known
from various ways of measuring it.
So it would appear that the unexplained acceleration is much larger
ie on the order of 10cm/sec^2.
How do you explain this?

(Ralph Sansbury) writes:


Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
(Ralph Sansbury) writes:

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
************************************************** *****************************
Ephemeris / PORT_LOGIN Sat May 1 09:38:29 2004 Pasadena, USA / Horizons
************************************************** *****************************
Target body name: Pioneer 10 Spacecraft (-23) {source: pfile10.nio}
Center body name: Earth (399) {source: DE-0406LE-0406}
Center-site name: DSS 63
...
2.073386908486728E+04 6.215857576802573E+09 -1.257832655649092E+01
^^ = -12.578327 km/s


But this should be a range rate of -12.5799km/sec if this refers
to the rate between P10 at 15:38 and Madrid at 21:23etc.


[ Restored Markwardt quote: ]
Regardless of the numbers, what my quotations provide is evidence that
I did indeed use the HORIZONS telnet interface for this demonstration,
and evidence that you should have known it. Therefore the claim in
your "report" about what I didn't do with HORIZONS is knowing
falsehood, which you should retract.


I note that you have no response to my statement. In fact, you
silently deleted it. Thus, despite having been informed numerous
times of your error, and being provided with explicit evidence of your
misstatements, you neglectfully persist in your erroneous claim. This
transforms your original claim about what I didn't do with HORIZONS
from a knowing falsehood, to a willful falsehood (i.e. a lie).

Why do you persist in lying, when you know full well that I used the
HORIZONS telnet interface?

CM