where did the dark matter that causes flat rotation curves in gal

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
(Aladar) writes:
Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
(Aladar) writes:

Since then Craig Markwardt has independently processed
the raw data using IDL software and has confirmed both
the sense and magnitude of the anomaly:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208046

George

Yes, I know. He made a very nice job. However: my interpretation
is the correct one: the collected residual is the cumulative
Hubble redshift for the distance of signal travel. Also, it verifies
the value of independently calculated theoretical Hubble wavelength
doubling time constant at Hd=4.234 billion years.

Your statements are incorrect. None of my plots or conclusions are
based on accumulation of frequencies or times. In particular, Figure
3 of my paper shows the observed minus calculated frequency for a
*single* round trip for a transmission on a particular calendar date.
The residuals reflect that the received frequency is slightly higher
than expected (ie, a slight blue shift).

Therefore, your conclusions associating the Pioneer effect with the
Hubble recession are unsubstantiated and irrelevant.

CM

You are using data provided to you. We were talking about beat
frequencies as I recall. I really would like to get to the end of this
issue, but 'somehow' it does not seem possible without a new
experiment. Which is proposed by JPL...

You have not provided any substantial criticism of my analysis, only
innuendo. On the other hand, I can claim that my analysis included
all major effects including spacecraft motion, earth motion, earth
rotation, precession, nutation, polar motion, and (optionally)
tectonic drift. All of these effects are clearly detectable in the
Doppler signal, and thus verify that the analysis was performed
correctly.


I am the only person here who can do forensics on your highly flawed
analysis,you are all over the place with some effects and do not
mention the major one - i.e. the outward trajectory of the Pioneer
spacecraft against the annual orbital rotation of the Earth which
generates a net cyclical 'acceleration' effect due to the
observational limitation of finite light distance,the conclusion being
that the correct solution for Pioneer's motion is strictly
nonlocal.The correct solution is the cyclical variation in the
distance between Earth and Pioneer and the bi-annual 'accelerative'
drift due to the approach of the trajectory of the earth against the
outward trajectory of the spacecraft.

Claiming things is fine among poor opposition but including polar
motion and precession as two different things or your lack of
precision in defining earth motion (you should specify elliptical
rotation) and earth rotation that conditions all geocentric
observations and constitutes the constant day against the variable day
makes your impressive list an astronomical mess.Until you stop your
linguistic dithering your paper is worthless except for relativistic
thumbsucking purposes,otoh,if you wish to go through the motions of
the earth and work on what is valid and what is not,feel free to
discuss the matter.









I think so, you are not in position to define the validity of my
conclusions. Nobody is.

You are making unsubstantiated and incorrect claims about work that I
have done myself. The magnitude of the Pioneer anomaly is too large
by many orders of magnitude to be the Hubble effect, and it is
apparent as a slight *increase* in frequency compared to the expected
Doppler frequency. I leave no ambiguity in my paper, and further I
fully agree with the Anderson (2002) result, in terms of magnitude and
sign.

CM

Charles Cagle writes:
Anderson (2002) does not include a solar wind velocity gradient with
latitude in the orbit propagation. There was no "adjustment" for
solar oblateness, which in any case is negligibly small under
Newtonian gravity at 5 AU where Ulysses is located.

5AU! Then it's pretty well established that one wouldn't detect the
effect from Ulysses. If it is that far away it isn't a fit instrument
upon which to base a measurement in the first place. Lack of evidence
is not evidence of lack.


Illogical argument. The planets lie both both within and beyond 5 AU.
A putative gravitational anisotropy which affects the planets will
also affect Ulysses. No such effect is seen in Ulysses tracking data.

There are other bodies whose orbits lie outside of the ecliptic plane,
such as Asteroid 9969 Braille (29 deg; 1.33 AU perihelion);
19P/Borrelly (30 deg; 1.36 AU); 5381 Sekhmet (49 deg; 1 AU semi-major
axis); 10563 Izhdubar (63 deg; 1.0 AU); and of course Pallas.
Mercury's orbit lies 7 degrees of the ecliptic, and Venus's is at 3.4
deg. This is further substantiation that solar system bodies are not
constrained to the ecliptic.




The fact that the planets lie primarily in a plane is not an argument
for or against a non-spherical mass distribution within the sun.

Sure it is. Below you make it an argument for a common origin. Bodies
all obtain to the lowest energy state possible; this is an axiom upon
which thermodynamics is based. The idea that all of the planetary
bodies are occupying a low energy state orbit argues strongly for
gravitational anisotropy.

Irrelevant, since all planar orbits in a central body system with the
same major/minor axes have the same energy, regardless of orientation.
Bodies "obtaining" to a different orbital inclination would need to
violate the conservation of angular momentum.


As I have pointed out before, a significant non-spherical distribution
of mass within the sun would indeed affect the orbits of the planets,
because there is an additional 1/r^3 term. Radar ranging to Mars
alone constrains any non-spherical component to be negligible compared
to the total mass of the sun.

The point is that it is not negligible unless you are stark raving
blind to the idea that the components of the universe do obtain to the
lowest energy state possible. This is so obvious I can only wonder
what things you did to yourself which so utterly blocks your intuition.

This is an unsubstantiated claim. Using Newtonian mechanics I showed
that observations of earth and Mars constrain the distribution of mass
within the sun, and any anisotropies must be small. However, it is
important to note that the Sun's equatorial bulge should slightly
affect the orbits of the asteroids and Mercury, which is consistent
with both current theories of gravity and observations.

CM

In article , Craig Markwardt
wrote:

Charles Cagle writes:
Anderson (2002) does not include a solar wind velocity gradient with
latitude in the orbit propagation. There was no "adjustment" for
solar oblateness, which in any case is negligibly small under
Newtonian gravity at 5 AU where Ulysses is located.

5AU! Then it's pretty well established that one wouldn't detect the
effect from Ulysses. If it is that far away it isn't a fit instrument
upon which to base a measurement in the first place. Lack of evidence
is not evidence of lack.


Illogical argument. The planets lie both both within and beyond 5 AU.
A putative gravitational anisotropy which affects the planets will
also affect Ulysses. No such effect is seen in Ulysses tracking data.

You're being illogical. Ulysses only momentarily (compared to the time
it spends outside of the ecliptic) cuts the ecliptic, therefore it is
not likely that you'd be able to detect the effect.


There are other bodies whose orbits lie outside of the ecliptic plane,
such as Asteroid 9969 Braille (29 deg; 1.33 AU perihelion);
19P/Borrelly (30 deg; 1.36 AU); 5381 Sekhmet (49 deg; 1 AU semi-major
axis); 10563 Izhdubar (63 deg; 1.0 AU); and of course Pallas.
Mercury's orbit lies 7 degrees of the ecliptic, and Venus's is at 3.4
deg. This is further substantiation that solar system bodies are not
constrained to the ecliptic.

There you go again erecting straw men. I never once said that the
solar system bodies are constrained to the ecliptic. I said that most
planets are within a few degrees of the ecliptic. When a planet
exlodes as did the planet which now lies as the scattered ruins which
compose the asteroid belt some of the components will certainly depart
from the elciptic. Not enough time has passed to bring them back. The
more closely the angle of their orbit to a normal to the ecliptic the
longer it will take.

The fact that the planets lie primarily in a plane is not an argument
for or against a non-spherical mass distribution within the sun.

Sure it is. Below you make it an argument for a common origin. Bodies
all obtain to the lowest energy state possible; this is an axiom upon
which thermodynamics is based. The idea that all of the planetary
bodies are occupying a low energy state orbit argues strongly for
gravitational anisotropy.

Irrelevant, since all planar orbits in a central body system with the
same major/minor axes have the same energy, regardless of orientation.
Bodies "obtaining" to a different orbital inclination would need to
violate the conservation of angular momentum.

An example of an irrelevant factoid being used incorrectly.


As I have pointed out before, a significant non-spherical distribution
of mass within the sun would indeed affect the orbits of the planets,
because there is an additional 1/r^3 term. Radar ranging to Mars
alone constrains any non-spherical component to be negligible compared
to the total mass of the sun.

The point is that it is not negligible unless you are stark raving
blind to the idea that the components of the universe do obtain to the
lowest energy state possible. This is so obvious I can only wonder
what things you did to yourself which so utterly blocks your intuition.

This is an unsubstantiated claim. Using Newtonian mechanics I showed
that observations of earth and Mars constrain the distribution of mass
within the sun, and any anisotropies must be small. However, it is
important to note that the Sun's equatorial bulge should slightly
affect the orbits of the asteroids and Mercury, which is consistent
with both current theories of gravity and observations.

CM

A beautiful null content catchphrase 'is consistent with' is used in
any number of nonsensical papers. Comets emerging from the outer solar
system is consistent with the theory that a huge invisible ogre tosses
them at the sun for pitching practice, too.

You're too far in denial to have a meaningful discussion about these
matters. As long as you're happy with the status quo then you'll try
to defend it no matter how stupid it really is.

Sorry I bothered you, Craig. I thought you were sharper than it now
appear that you actually are.

Charles Cagle

Charles Cagle writes:
In article , Craig Markwardt
wrote:

Charles Cagle writes:
Anderson (2002) does not include a solar wind velocity gradient with
latitude in the orbit propagation. There was no "adjustment" for
solar oblateness, which in any case is negligibly small under
Newtonian gravity at 5 AU where Ulysses is located.

5AU! Then it's pretty well established that one wouldn't detect the
effect from Ulysses. If it is that far away it isn't a fit instrument
upon which to base a measurement in the first place. Lack of evidence
is not evidence of lack.


Illogical argument. The planets lie both both within and beyond 5 AU.
A putative gravitational anisotropy which affects the planets will
also affect Ulysses. No such effect is seen in Ulysses tracking data.

You're being illogical. Ulysses only momentarily (compared to the time
it spends outside of the ecliptic) cuts the ecliptic, therefore it is
not likely that you'd be able to detect the effect.

This claim is unsubstantiated. Radiometric Doppler tracking is
extremely sensitive to anomalous accelerations (changes in velocity
~10^{-9} of the Sun's gravity at 1AU over 1 day), and no such
latitude-dependent anomalies are detected. You have not provided
estimates of the magnitude of the acceleration, or the size of the
region around the ecliptic where the putative accleration would apply,
so it is indeed *not* "well established that one wouldn't detect the
effect from Ulysses." You have provided no basis to say whether it
could or could not be.

There are other bodies whose orbits lie outside of the ecliptic plane,
such as Asteroid 9969 Braille (29 deg; 1.33 AU perihelion);
19P/Borrelly (30 deg; 1.36 AU); 5381 Sekhmet (49 deg; 1 AU semi-major
axis); 10563 Izhdubar (63 deg; 1.0 AU); and of course Pallas.
Mercury's orbit lies 7 degrees of the ecliptic, and Venus's is at 3.4
deg. This is further substantiation that solar system bodies are not
constrained to the ecliptic.

There you go again erecting straw men. I never once said that the
solar system bodies are constrained to the ecliptic. I said that most
planets are within a few degrees of the ecliptic. When a planet
exlodes as did the planet which now lies as the scattered ruins which
compose the asteroid belt some of the components will certainly depart
from the elciptic. Not enough time has passed to bring them back. The
more closely the angle of their orbit to a normal to the ecliptic the
longer it will take.

Claims that high latitude asteroids could have come from an exploded
planet are unsubstantiated; they are not in the asteroid "belt."
Mercury and Venus, which are not asteroids, have the second and third
highest planetary inclinations from the ecliptic. In any case, the
definition of the ecliptic is a purely imaginary construction, namely
the plane of the earth's orbit. Even the sun's rotation axis is
inclined with respect to the plane of the ecliptic.


The fact that the planets lie primarily in a plane is not an argument
for or against a non-spherical mass distribution within the sun.

Sure it is. Below you make it an argument for a common origin. Bodies
all obtain to the lowest energy state possible; this is an axiom upon
which thermodynamics is based. The idea that all of the planetary
bodies are occupying a low energy state orbit argues strongly for
gravitational anisotropy.

Irrelevant, since all planar orbits in a central body system with the
same major/minor axes have the same energy, regardless of orientation.
Bodies "obtaining" to a different orbital inclination would need to
violate the conservation of angular momentum.

An example of an irrelevant factoid being used incorrectly.

Conservation of angular momentum is not irrelevant. Angular momentum
plays a large role in orbital mechanics.


As I have pointed out before, a significant non-spherical distribution
of mass within the sun would indeed affect the orbits of the planets,
because there is an additional 1/r^3 term. Radar ranging to Mars
alone constrains any non-spherical component to be negligible compared
to the total mass of the sun.

The point is that it is not negligible unless you are stark raving
blind to the idea that the components of the universe do obtain to the
lowest energy state possible. This is so obvious I can only wonder
what things you did to yourself which so utterly blocks your intuition.

This is an unsubstantiated claim. Using Newtonian mechanics I showed
that observations of earth and Mars constrain the distribution of mass
within the sun, and any anisotropies must be small. However, it is
important to note that the Sun's equatorial bulge should slightly
affect the orbits of the asteroids and Mercury, which is consistent
with both current theories of gravity and observations.

CM

A beautiful null content catchphrase 'is consistent with' is used in
any number of nonsensical papers. Comets emerging from the outer solar
system is consistent with the theory that a huge invisible ogre tosses
them at the sun for pitching practice, too.

"Consistent" and "inconsistent" are mutually exclusive adjectives.
Those experiments which are consistent with a theory are distinguished
from those which are not. Therefore, "is consistent with" is
meaningful. Interesting that your "straw man" is fantastically
nonsensical, whereas my counterexamples are based in observational
fact.

Sorry I bothered you, Craig. I thought you were sharper than it now
appear that you actually are.

Congratulations, you also have also not lived up to my expectations.
The difference is that my expectations were low.

CM

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
Since then Craig Markwardt has independently processed
the raw data using IDL software and has confirmed both
the sense and magnitude of the anomaly:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208046

George

Yes, I know. He made a very nice job. However: my interpretation
is the correct one: the collected residual is the cumulative
Hubble redshift for the distance of signal travel. Also, it verifies
the value of independently calculated theoretical Hubble wavelength
doubling time constant at Hd=4.234 billion years.

Your statements are incorrect. None of my plots or conclusions are
based on accumulation of frequencies or times. In particular, Figure
3 of my paper shows the observed minus calculated frequency for a
*single* round trip for a transmission on a particular calendar date.
The residuals reflect that the received frequency is slightly higher
than expected (ie, a slight blue shift).

Therefore, your conclusions associating the Pioneer effect with the
Hubble recession are unsubstantiated and irrelevant.

CM

You are using data provided to you. We were talking about beat
frequencies as I recall. I really would like to get to the end of this
issue, but 'somehow' it does not seem possible without a new
experiment. Which is proposed by JPL...

You have not provided any substantial criticism of my analysis, only
innuendo. On the other hand, I can claim that my analysis included
all major effects including spacecraft motion, earth motion, earth
rotation, precession, nutation, polar motion, and (optionally)
tectonic drift. All of these effects are clearly detectable in the
Doppler signal, and thus verify that the analysis was performed
correctly.

What I suspect: the data is already a cumulative sum of residuals,
presented as a function of accumulated light time. You - all NASA related
parties - use this data to present it as a calendar day related data.
It is simply not true, but you get the verification of your bigbangology.
Which is the object of the exercise.



I think so, you are not in position to define the validity of my
conclusions. Nobody is.

You are making unsubstantiated and incorrect claims about work that I
have done myself.

No, I'm not.

The magnitude of the Pioneer anomaly is too large
by many orders of magnitude to be the Hubble effect, and it is
apparent as a slight *increase* in frequency compared to the expected
Doppler frequency.

PLease check it: if you take the 'calendar time' for the 'signal travel
time' you get the magnitude just perfect for the Hubble effect. Also,
since the record is beat frequency - and the insinuation of sign
convention - the (*increase*) of frequency means *decrease* of really
observed frequency - as it been reported in the early days.

I leave no ambiguity in my paper, and further I
fully agree with the Anderson (2002) result, in terms of magnitude and
sign.

CM

I agree with that. You made a very nice verification: the effect is really
there! HOwever, you just don't have the clear picture what's really there.

And I agree with Anderson at al.: it is necessary to make dedicated
experiments to find out.

That's all!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com

In sci.astro Old Man wrote:
[snip]
The magnitude might be correct for cosmological red shift, but the
sign (direction) of the observed anomalous acceleration is opposite
to what it should be for an expanding universe. According to Aladar,
the Universe would have to be collapsing rather than expanding.
[Old Man]

Actually, the magnitude is about 4 orders of magnitude bigger
than Hubble shifts, and (as you note) with the opposite sign.

Cheers -- Chris

(Aladar) writes:

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
[ ... ]
You have not provided any substantial criticism of my analysis, only
innuendo. On the other hand, I can claim that my analysis included
all major effects including spacecraft motion, earth motion, earth
rotation, precession, nutation, polar motion, and (optionally)
tectonic drift. All of these effects are clearly detectable in the
Doppler signal, and thus verify that the analysis was performed
correctly.

What I suspect: the data is already a cumulative sum of residuals,
presented as a function of accumulated light time. You - all NASA related
parties - use this data to present it as a calendar day related data.
It is simply not true, but you get the verification of your bigbangology.
Which is the object of the exercise.

This conclusion is unsubstantiated. None of the effects of earth
motion, earth rotation, precession, nutation or polar motion are
cumulative in any fashion, and neither is the anomalous Pioneer
acceleration. The "calendar day" is quite simply the date of
observation, no "accumulation" was performed or required.


PLease check it: if you take the 'calendar time' for the 'signal travel
time' you get the magnitude just perfect for the Hubble effect. Also,
since the record is beat frequency - and the insinuation of sign
convention - the (*increase*) of frequency means *decrease* of really
observed frequency - as it been reported in the early days.

I am not insinuating any sign. I am declaring explicitly that the
received frequency was slightly higher than expected. A putative sign
error would have been hideously obvious, since all the other Doppler
terms are very strongly imprinted in the signal. Therefore your
claims are unsubstantiated, and your conclusions are irrelevant.


CM

(Oriel36) writes:

A good start is to look at how Ole Roemer made good use of positional
displacement or the seasonal anomalous acceleration and decceleration
in the orbit of Io.If you are in any way intelligent you will realise
that pioneer has an outward trajectory whereas Jupiter has a cyclical
orbital trajectory,the upshot is that pioneer will always appear to
have a net acceleration against the annual orbit of the Earth,again I
will explain the details when you grasp the composite rotations of the
Earth summed up by the Equation of Time or what amounts to the same
thing,the difference between absolute time and relative time.

Your comments are apparently irrelevant. Of course the fact that
Pioneer has an outward trajectory was taken into account. All known
forces on the spacecraft were taken into account. The "anomaly" is
that a residual acceleration remained.


For goodness sake drop this notion that the sun has a different motion
than the local stars or what is known as the sidereal day,when the
author of spacetime modelled the motion of Mercury he attached the sun
to sidereal motion,an extraordinary feat of ineptitude.

You can't be serious. Of course the sun has a different apparent
motion than the stars. There's no other way for the different signs
of the zodiac to be visible through the seasons.


Precession (and nutation) refer to the pole of the celestial sphere.
Polar motion refers to the terestrial point where that pole intersects
with the earth. The two are different.


Now you are just reaching,if you wish to discover how precession
affects observation check out the comments of the astronomer
royal,Nevil Maskelyne and we can discuss the Equation of Time
together,he even uses Absolute time in his comments which refers to
the particular alignment of diurnal rotation against annual
elliptical.

Your comments are irrelevant. Of course precession and nutation of
the equinox are taken into account, in a manner compatible with that
described by Maskelyne. Polar motion (Chandler wobble) has been known
for more than a century, since it changes the latitude of earth
stations.


CM

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
What I suspect: the data is already a cumulative sum of residuals,
presented as a function of accumulated light time. You - all NASA related
parties - use this data to present it as a calendar day related data.
It is simply not true, but you get the verification of your bigbangology.
Which is the object of the exercise.

This conclusion is unsubstantiated. None of the effects of earth
motion, earth rotation, precession, nutation or polar motion are
cumulative in any fashion, and neither is the anomalous Pioneer
acceleration. The "calendar day" is quite simply the date of
observation, no "accumulation" was performed or required.

However, the Doppler data is 'averaged' - which I suspect is the
accumulation, adding the residuals and adding the light times, signal
travel times to match the assigned timetags. This conclusion was
substantiated by the response to my very first question, related to
the Pioneer 10 anomalous Doppler observations.



PLease check it: if you take the 'calendar time' for the 'signal travel
time' you get the magnitude just perfect for the Hubble effect. Also,
since the record is beat frequency - and the insinuation of sign
convention - the (*increase*) of frequency means *decrease* of really
observed frequency - as it been reported in the early days.

I am not insinuating any sign. I am declaring explicitly that the
received frequency was slightly higher than expected. A putative sign
error would have been hideously obvious, since all the other Doppler
terms are very strongly imprinted in the signal. Therefore your
claims are unsubstantiated, and your conclusions are irrelevant.


CM

But again: how to explain than the proposed test, made by the
authors?!

Is there a clearly defined 1. we sent this frequency, 2. we should get
this frequency and 3. we got as much higher then expected frequency -
unexplained but at least clear picture as you are trying to suggest?

From here it looks differently: the processing of large amounts of
signal travel time related Doppler data resulted in a drift of
returned signal's frequency toward the longer wavelengths (frequency
deficit) showing the Hubble redshift, equal to the distance of the
signal travel. The presentation of these data files is causing the
different interpretations.

Again, I agree with the authors, for a clear picture repeated tests
are necessary with clear records of sent frequency, clearly and
precisely measured distance and clearly recorded returned frequencies.

As I see, even you avoid a clear factual declaration about the
records.

In light of the early reports, your standing is too risky: you may be
wrong.

Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
[...]
The "calendar day" is quite simply the date of
observation, no "accumulation" was performed or required.

[...]

I am not insinuating any sign. I am declaring explicitly that the
received frequency was slightly higher than expected. A putative sign
error would have been hideously obvious, since all the other Doppler
terms are very strongly imprinted in the signal. Therefore your
claims are unsubstantiated, and your conclusions are irrelevant.


CM

(I hate to do it again, but in fact I'm leaving for two weeks.)

Are you really saying that the error in JPL location determination - as
a result of cummulative error in the velocity determination - is in
order of light seconds?!

In that case the claims that we know anything about gravity is
substantiated, and great many conclusions are irrelevant -
on the establishment side...

Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com