Ranging and Pioneer

Sorry for the delay in my response to this which got overlooked due to
other distractions.


Thus spake "
Oh No wrote:
Thus spake "
Oh No wrote:
Thus spake "
....
I don't think Anderson actually says how frequent cycle slips were, just
that some were examined by an analyst. They did exclude the data.

The samples are generally once per minute and
few are missing in the small sample of days I
have examined. That may give you an upper
limit of a few per hour at most, possibly much
lower, that you could compare with your predicted
rate.

Of course where there is a drift the rate should be increasing. I am not
clear that a rate for cycle slip is calculable for Pioneer, as it should
only be detected when we are able to perform direct measurements of
position, and hence find a conflict between ranging and Doppler. I am
hoping that in attempting to answer your points things will become
clearer to me. In the instance of Mars I calculate a maximum shift
equivalent to a velocity 0.34m/s, which I believe should be detectable
in principle at optical frequencies, although is actually two orders of
magnitude smaller than the resolution of HIRES, the most accurate
echelle spectrometer. This equates to a proportional shift of 0.34/c, or
10^-9. That does not translate directly into a rate for cycle slip,
because the disparity between Doppler and ranging should only be
detectable at the frequency corresponding to measurement accuracy. Thus,
if we can measure Mars to an accuracy of 12m (Anderson's figure), then
intermediate positions calculated from high frequency Doppler (if we
could resolve them with sufficient accuracy) would have to be corrected
every 12/c secs.

I am not quite sure where the 15000 increase is, or what the equation
a_H = 2 Hv refers to.

snip derivations

... giving an apparent acceleration
of 5.50e-14 m/s^2. Compare that with the anomaly
of 8.74e-10 m/s^2.

Did that clarify my comment and show how the
speed of the craft comes into the equation?

Can you now explain why your result is so much
higher for Pioneer

As I think I said elsewhere, this is not the calculation I am doing. In
quantum coordinates the time coordinate shows an acceleration in time
which leads to prediction of a shift equivalent to uniform acceleration,
independent of the motion of the spacecraft. Radar uses measured time in
classical coordinates, so should not show any such acceleration.

yet that doesn't translate to
extra-galactic redshift measurements?

Ah, but it does. Actually my arguments, and results, are much clearer
for extra galactic red shift measurements. Translating them into results
for Pioneer I find much harder. The basic result is that for
measurements on a distant stellar object cosmological redshift goes as
the square of the expansion parameter. This leads to the result that
recession velocities are half of those calculated in the standard model,
and it directly follows that the universe is twice as old and requires a
quarter of the mass density for closure as in the corresponding standard
model. I have calculated the m-z relation and done a comparison with
supernova data from Astier and Riess, and find that, for a no Lambda
model, the predicted curve is almost indistinguishable from that of the
standard concordance up to redshifts in the region of z=1.5. After
renormalising Omega so that Omega=1 is critical density, for the 115
points in the SNLS (Astier) data set I find Omega=1.85 with chi^2=113.4,
compared to a standard fit of Omega=0.264 with chi^2=113.6. There is a
slightly larger difference for the Riess data set which includes SN of
higher redshifts. For 154 dof (3 outliers removed from the gold set) the
standard model has Omega=0.295 with chi^2=151.3, while I find for the no
Lambda model, Omega=1.90 with chi^2=150.0. These fits are really too
close to call, and I await SNAP (maybe 15yrs hence) for any real advance
based on SN detections at z1.5. However I also take it as a positive
indication that I have greater consistency in the predicted values of
Omega from the two data sets, as evidenced by a slightly increased
difference in chi^2 values when data sets are combined. For 225 dof
including 154 supernovae from the Riess gold set and 71 SNLS supernovae,
corrected for the choice of Hubbleâ~@~Ys constant, the best fit standard
flat space Lambda model has Omega=0.284, chi^2=212.5. The best fit
teleconnection no L model has Omega=1.89, chi^2=210.8.

I have it that quantum coordinates introduce an
acceleration in time which can be shown by a coordinate transformation
equivalent to an acceleration Hc.

What puzzles me here is that your anomalous
acceleration is independent of the craft speed.
If the craft were sitting at a fixed location with
neither radial nor tangential velocity (e.g. station
keeping with a solar sail), this implies you would
still get a downlink frequency shift which increased
linearly with time for a constant uplink frequency
and it would also be independent of distance (as
is observed) hence should apply to short range
measurements over some spread of distance
resolution.

... Of the phenomenological
time models considered by Anderson et al, do any
of their equations (60) through (65) match? ...

Equation 60 is the probably the best match, though I am not sure how
different it is from 61 or 62.

I need to refresh my memory on the details.

I used cosmic time, but in the quantum
domain an "accelerating" time coordinate is used, proportional to the
expansion parameter. This will affect Doppler, but not ranging which is
based on cosmic time.

Interesting, that might offer you another test as
an inconsistency with other means of measuring
the solar plasma. From page 10 of gr-qc/0104064:

"Thus, the ranging data are independent of the Doppler
data, which represents a frequency shift of the radio carrier
wave without modulation. For example, solar plasma
introduces a group delay in the ranging data but a phase
advance in the Doppler data.

Ranging data can also be used to distinguish an actual
range change from a fictitious range change seen in
Doppler data that is caused by a frequency error [39].
The Doppler frequency integrated over time (the accumulated
phase) should equal the range change except for
the difference introduced by charged particles."


Yes. I think really though that a new mission is required, preferably
one which allows both Doppler and ranging measurements in the outer
solar system.



Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email