Spacecraft Doppler&Light Speed Extrapolation

George Dishman suggested to me that Doppler signals sent to
a spacecraft and relayed back to earth would provide a good
test of the instantaneous speed of light hypothesis.
That hypothesis states that the r/c delay in light does not
extrapolate
beyond c but at great distances does not increase beyond a
maximal value. Thus a
light source, 30 time 10^8 meters away, like a source 3 times
10^8
meters away still produces an effect in a second (due to
instantaneous forces that produce a cumulative effect rising
above threshold after such a one second at most delay)
The problem with this proposed test is that Doppler data
that is inconsistent with the speed of light assumptions is
partially or entirely filtered out by NASA.
According to Morabito-Asmar(see Google) paper "The
closed-loop NASA tracking system produces Doppler counts,
Doppler
"pseudoresiduals"( residual based on predicted frequencies used
to tune the receivers),signal strengths(AGCs) and Doppler
reference frequencies either in the form of a constant
frequency or uplink ramps." All this is output on a so called
ATDF tape ,
so frequencies that are too far from the predicted shifted
frequency may be filtered out.
( I am assuming that in this process the carrier frequency is
modulated
so that when a resonant increase of a specific incoming frequency
is produced
it is not Johnson noise or whatever but the code modulated
carrier from the
spacecraft. I am also assuming that tuning around the predicted
shift will occur
so that even if the incoming frequency is not too far from the
predicted frequency it can still be obtained)
Craig Marquardt has further filtered some of these files to
exclude the daily modulations due to the earth's spin, plus or
minus.5km/sec(plus or minus10kHz he claims although I dont
think this takes into account the enormous changes in the
projection
angle between the velocity of the earth and the line to the
spacecraft)
The result is another "data" file attempting to be consistent
with the
speed of light delay . The assumptions of the speed of light
delay are so built
into all of the data coming from NASA that it may be impossible
to
actually test the hypothesis that light is nearly instantaneous.
But lets see. I am told that at 7:38 Mar 7 1988,
rx=2.291710886.9109Hz.

From the telnet ephemeris I find that Pioneer 10 had the
following heliocentric,xyz, coordinates in AU units:
2447227.817361111, A.D. 1988-Mar-07 07:37:00.0000,
1.436437796483437E+01, 4.078001848489932E+01,
2.333352522486281E+00,
2447227.818055556, A.D. 1988-Mar-07 07:38:00.0000,
1.436438157235370E+01, 4.078003529995198E+01,
2.333352811320062E+00,
2447227.818750000, A.D. 1988-Mar-07 07:39:00.0000,
1.436438517997504E+01, 4.078005211560639E+01,
2.333353099907363E+00,
and that the Sun at the same time had :
2447227.817361111, A.D. 1988-Mar-07 07:37:00.0000,
9.674871050446867E-01, -2.212064445087720E-01,
3.105791038669308E-05,
2447227.818055556, A.D. 1988-Mar-07 07:38:00.0000,
9.674901060953275E-01, -2.211948077051214E-01,
3.108019085814273E-05,
2447227.818750000, A.D. 1988-Mar-07 07:39:00.0000,
9.674931072480047E-01, -2.211831702995969E-01,
3.110222484770500E-05,
and so Canberra in solar coordinates would have an x coordinate
which is the negative of the sun's x coordinate here etc.
From this data one gets the craft-site difference vector at
7:38 that represents the craft-site line "d" and the two time
difference vectors (7:38 and 7:37 etc) divided by 60 seconds
gives the speed
of the site,'vs', and the speed of the craft,'vc'.
The dot products of each velocity and the line "d" divided by
the sum of squares of coordinates of "d" gives the projections
of
these velocities on the line, "d" and the difference in these
projected
velocities gives the craft site relative velocity v which plugged
into the
formula above gives the predicted Doppler.
If the predicted Doppler here is close to the observed rx then
the instantaneous hypothesis is indicated.
The problem is to obtain from NASA the correct tx values??????

ralph sansbury wrote:

George Dishman suggested to me that Doppler signals sent to
a spacecraft and relayed back to earth would provide a good
test of the instantaneous speed of light hypothesis.

What folly--It's hard to understand why some folks (that appear to
be interested in physics) don't take the lime to learn any physics.
There are many wonderful physics books available in libraries and
bookstores at various levels.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._booklist.html

"ralph sansbury" wrote in message ...
George Dishman suggested to me that Doppler signals sent to
a spacecraft and relayed back to earth would provide a good
test of the instantaneous speed of light hypothesis.
That hypothesis states that the r/c delay in light does not
extrapolate
beyond c but at great distances does not increase beyond a
maximal value. Thus a
light source, 30 time 10^8 meters away, like a source 3 times
10^8
meters away still produces an effect in a second (due to
instantaneous forces that produce a cumulative effect rising
above threshold after such a one second at most delay)

Both the conventional theory and Ralph's have been used
to produce predictions of the receive frequency for
days in March 1988.

http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Ralph/1988_pred.gif

The blue lines are Ralph's while orange and magenta
are conventional. There are clear differences most
notably in the phase of the diurnal variation, hence
my recommendation.

The problem with this proposed test is that Doppler data
that is inconsistent with the speed of light assumptions is
partially or entirely filtered out by NASA.

That is not true. The data available from the NSSDC
includes _all_ results and it is up to the user to
perform the filtering.

According to Morabito-Asmar(see Google) paper "The
closed-loop NASA tracking system produces Doppler counts,
Doppler
"pseudoresiduals"( residual based on predicted frequencies used
to tune the receivers),signal strengths(AGCs) and Doppler
reference frequencies either in the form of a constant
frequency or uplink ramps." All this is output on a so called
ATDF tape ,

Note in particular this quote says that the signal
strength is obtained from the "AGC" meaning "Automatic
Gain Control". Looking at

http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Sp...er/PNStat.html

"DSS 63 acquired the downlink on time at -183 dbm.
After peaking the signal to -178.5 dbm, they locked
the telemetry at 16 bps with SNR of -0.5 db."

Clearly, they first locked on to the RF signal before
attempting to detect the sub-carrier and the processes
are quite separate.

so frequencies that are too far from the predicted shifted
frequency may be filtered out.

Inspection of the data shows large tails on the
distribution so this is not the case.

( I am assuming that in this process the carrier frequency is
modulated
so that when a resonant increase of a specific incoming frequency
is produced
it is not Johnson noise or whatever but the code modulated
carrier from the
spacecraft.

The microwave carrier is modulated by a 16kHz sub-carrier
which is further modulated by the science data. Neither
modulation plays any part in the RF acquisition however,
as Ralph quoted above the RF signal level is measured
from the AGC circuit.

I am also assuming that tuning around the predicted
shift will occur
so that even if the incoming frequency is not too far from the
predicted frequency it can still be obtained)

The receiver searches to acquire the downlink signal
rather than 'tuning'.

Craig Marquardt

That should be Markwardt.

has further filtered some of these files to
exclude the daily modulations due to the earth's spin, plus or
minus.5km/sec(plus or minus10kHz he claims although I dont
think this takes into account the enormous changes in the
projection
angle between the velocity of the earth and the line to the
spacecraft)

Craig does not use a rotating coordinate system, nor
do I, so this change of angle is non-existent.

The result is another "data" file attempting to be consistent
with the
speed of light delay.

No, the filtering removes outliers far from the mean
of their neighbours, regardless of the speed of light.

The assumptions of the speed of light
delay are so built
into all of the data coming from NASA that it may be impossible
to
actually test the hypothesis that light is nearly instantaneous.

The data Ralph has is independent records of
a) transmit frequency with time of transmission
b) receive frequency with time of reception
so the speed of light doesn't come into the
picture at all up to this stage.

It is up to the user to determine, for any record
of a reception, when the corresponding transmission
ocurred and determine the transmit frequency
accordingly so if Ralph doesn't want to use the
speed of light, that is up to him.

Ralph knows all this already, we have been
discussing it for some months by email so why he
is making these statements he knows to be false.

But lets see. I am told that at 7:38 Mar 7 1988,
rx=2.291710886.9109Hz.

From the telnet ephemeris I find that Pioneer 10 had the
following heliocentric,xyz, coordinates in AU units:
snip
and that the Sun at the same time had :
snip
and so Canberra in solar coordinates would have an x coordinate
which is the negative of the sun's x coordinate here etc.

I think you must be giving geocentric, not heliocentric,
coordinates since you have no reference to the Earth or
sites in the above. That gives you a rotating reference
frame and may lead to other problems. I would suggest
using barycentric coordinates for the sites and craft
to reduce these risks.

From this data one gets the craft-site difference vector at
7:38 that represents the craft-site line "d" and the two time
difference vectors (7:38 and 7:37 etc) divided by 60 seconds
gives the speed
of the site,'vs', and the speed of the craft,'vc'.
The dot products of each velocity and the line "d" divided by
the sum of squares of coordinates of "d" gives the projections
of
these velocities on the line, "d" and the difference in these
projected
velocities gives the craft site relative velocity v which plugged
into the
formula above gives the predicted Doppler.

That is roughly right though your shorthand description
leaves a bit to the imagination. However, this can be
done by using Horizons directly by noting that the rate
of change of range is 42.51139km/s for Canberra at 07:38
on the 7th and 42.67846km/s for Madrid at 19:38 on the 6th.
(The round trip time was 12 hours by conventional theory.)

If the predicted Doppler here is close to the observed rx then
the instantaneous hypothesis is indicated.

Conversely if the actuals are closer to the conventional
prediction then your theory can be falsified. However
the coseness of a single reading is a poor indicator. The
key part of my suggestion was that the phase of the diurnal
variation directly indicates the longitude of the transmitter
for any assumption about the transmit time.

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. Again this information
is in the data Ralph received directly.

Two further pieces of information are required. First
there is a transponder ratio of 240:221 that must be
included in the predictions. Secondly Ralph, you haven't
stated the equation to be used for the speed-related
frequency shift in your theory, equivalent to Doppler
shift in conventional theory.

Other readers should note this is an approximate technique,
adequate for this purpose, but with several shortcomings
for more accurate work.

George

----- Original Message -----
From: "George G. Dishman"
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 5:50 PM
Subject: Spacecraft Doppler&Light Speed Extrapolation


"ralph sansbury" wrote in message
...
George Dishman suggested to me that Doppler signals sent to
a spacecraft and relayed back to earth would provide a good
test of the instantaneous speed of light hypothesis.
That hypothesis states that the r/c delay in light does
not
extrapolate
beyond c but at great distances does not increase beyond a
maximal value. Thus a
light source, 30 time 10^8 meters away, like a source 3 times
10^8
meters away still produces an effect in a second (due to
instantaneous forces that produce a cumulative effect rising
above threshold after such a one second at most delay)

The problem with this proposed test is that Doppler
data
that is inconsistent with the speed of light assumptions is
partially or entirely filtered out by NASA.

According to Morabito-Asmar(see Google) paper "The
closed-loop NASA tracking system produces Doppler counts,
Doppler
"pseudoresiduals"( residual based on predicted frequencies
used
to tune the receivers),signal strengths(AGCs) and Doppler
reference frequencies either in the form of a constant
frequency or uplink ramps." All this is output on a so called
ATDF tape ,

Note in particular this quote says that the signal
strength is obtained from the "AGC" meaning "Automatic
Gain Control". Looking at


http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Sp...oneer/PNStat.h
tml

"DSS 63 acquired the downlink on time at -183 dbm.
After peaking the signal to -178.5 dbm, they locked
the telemetry at 16 bps with SNR of -0.5 db."

This suggests that a frequency near the predicted frequency
has
been
resonated and that an AGC circuit to reduce strong local
interference
has been employed so that subsequently the modulation code or
signal
can be removed and identified if it is really there to confirm
that
the tuned resonant frequency is not Johnson noise.
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.
In spite of this I have some hope that the accepted data
in some cases will show that the received Doppler could have
been produced a second before by the receiving station
if the receiving station was also actively transmitting
at the time of reception.

The data you have is filtered and modified even further by Craig
Marquardt as you know.

( I am assuming that in this process the carrier frequency
is
modulated
so that when a resonant increase of a specific incoming
frequency
is produced
it is not Johnson noise or whatever but the code modulated
carrier from the
spacecraft.
I am also assuming that tuning around the predicted
shift will occur
so that even if the incoming frequency is not too far from
the
predicted frequency it can still be obtained)
The result is another "data" file attempting to be
consistent
with the
speed of light delay.

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.


The assumptions of the speed of light
delay are so built
into all of the data coming from NASA that it may be
impossible
to
actually test the hypothesis that light is nearly
instantaneous.
But lets see. I am told that at 7:38 Mar 7 1988,
rx=2.291710886.9109Hz.

From the telnet ephemeris I find that Pioneer 10 had the
following heliocentric,xyz, coordinates in AU units:
snip
and that the Sun at the same time had :
snip
and so Canberra in solar coordinates would have an x
coordinate
which is the negative of the sun's x coordinate here etc.

I think you must be giving geocentric, not heliocentric,
coordinates since you have no reference to the Earth or
sites in the above. That gives you a rotating reference
frame and may lead to other problems. I would suggest
using barycentric coordinates for the sites and craft
to reduce these risks.

The coordinates are what is available from telnet and since
relativistic considerations are not necessary here have no risks
..
xy-plane: plane of the Earth's orbit at the reference
epoch
x-axis : out along ascending node of instantaneous plane of
the
Earth's orbit and the Earth's mean equator at the reference
epoch
z-axis : perpendicular to the xy-plane in the directional (+
or -) sense
of Earth's north pole at the reference epoch.

From this data one gets the craft-site difference vector
at
7:38 that represents the craft-site line "d" and the two time
difference vectors (7:38 and 7:37 etc) divided by 60 seconds
gives the speed
of the site,'vs', and the speed of the craft,'vc'.
The dot products of each velocity and the line "d"
divided by
the sum of squares of coordinates of "d" gives the
projections
of
these velocities on the line, "d" and the difference in these
projected
velocities gives the craft site relative velocity v which
plugged
into the
formula above gives the predicted Doppler.



If the predicted Doppler here is close to the observed rx
then
the instantaneous hypothesis is indicated.

Conversely if the actuals are closer to the conventional
prediction then your theory can be falsified.

Unfortunately because of the- acknowledged by nasa and
Marquardt
but not by you- filtering process guarantees that the
conventional
prediction is also close. So this proves nothing about the
conventional
prediction.
It does however permit a falsification of my theory that the
r/c speed of light does not extrapolate beyond r=c and that the
Doppler
signal could have been received within seconds or not.

However
the coseness of a single reading is a poor indicator.
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.)



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.



Two further pieces of information are required. First
there is a transponder ratio of 240:221 that must be
included in the predictions. Secondly Ralph, you haven't
stated the equation to be used for the speed-related
frequency shift in your theory, equivalent to Doppler
shift in conventional theory.

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.
(1+v/c)f is received by the spacecraft and retransmitted as
(240/221)(1+v)f so that(1+ v)^2 times 24/221 times f should be
received by the sending site a second or so later if the sending
site
was also scheduled to send at this time of reception
v denotes the sum of the projected craft and earth site
velocities
on the instantaneous line, d.
Its easy to put the data and equations in a spreadsheet and
calculate the answer
But I would suggest using the least filtered data. I am
working on
that now

"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

"Craig Markwardt" wrote in
message news

"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.

But these are outliers with respect to previously filtered
data required by the resonance frequencies used to tune the
receiver. and the intermediate frequency before further
processing. That implies they are outliers from the predicted
frequency.

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,

We are talking about 1980.

Pioneer was below the horizon (i.e. blocked by the earth) as
seen by the uplink station, for 89% of the downlinks.

I am saying that what you think was the uplink station for a
specific reception was not the uplink station. The true uplink
station was the receiving station.
If that is the case the earth would not block reception. Do
you understand?

"ralph sansbury" wrote in message
...

"Craig Markwardt" wrote in
message news

"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.

But these are outliers with respect to previously filtered
data required by the resonance frequencies used to tune the
receiver and the intermediate frequency before further
processing. That implies they are outliers from the predicted
frequency.

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,

We are talking about 1980.

Sorry. We are not talking about 1980 but about 1987 and 1988.
But the horizon blocking of the uplink sites ( Calif and Madrid?)
for 89% of the assumed downlinks in Canberra does not matter.
I am assuming that when receptions are scheduled for a
specific craft of the many crafts out there that transmissions to
the same craft also occur at the same time in the interest of
efficiency.
So clearly there is no horizon earth blocking problem at the
time of reception!!!!!!!


Pioneer was below the horizon (i.e. blocked by the earth) as
seen by the uplink station, for 89% of the downlinks.

I am saying that what you think was the uplink station for
a
specific reception was not the uplink station. The true uplink
station was the receiving station.
If that is the case the earth would not block reception. Do
you understand?

"ralph sansbury" wrote in message ...
[snips]
I am saying that what you think was the uplink station for a
specific reception was not the uplink station. The true uplink
station was the receiving station.
If that is the case the earth would not block reception. Do
you understand?

And since the Earth *does* block reception?
Socks

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????