Pioneer 10 test of light speed delay

DOPPLER TEST OF LIGHT SPEED DELAY FROM PIONEER 10
The Pioneer 10 anomalous acceleration is five orders of magnitude
larger than reported by Anderson et al. as revealed by archived data
for a one hour and a half time interval in 1987 when compared to the
NASA positions and velocities of the craft.
see http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/rangerate2.xls

These positions and velocities are based on Newtonian calculations of
craft velocity changes due to the known craft's mass to the attraction
of the sun and to previous velocities and positions of the craft implied
by previous radiometric data and data on earth site motions during
transmission and reception.
The procedure is to use the last best estimate of craft position and
velocity determined in this way and then to predict the position and
velocity a minute later using 1)this velocity and position and mass and
2)the assumed earth site transmitter motion at the earlier time implied
by the two way light speed delay and the receiver earth site motion and
to compare this with the received Doppler shifted frequency and to
correct the position and velocity to make the predicted received
frequency equal the observed received frequency.
Dishman and Markwardt, mistakenly claimed that 1)the approximate
agreement of the results of this procedure with the NASA ephemeris, and
2)the lack of agreement of these results with the assumption of some
other light speed delay assumption proved the validity of the
conventional light speed delay assumption, But this is a classic
"petitio principi" where the conclusion, here the craft trajectory, is
assumed in the premise.
The "approximate" agreement of the results of this procedure and the
actual received frequencies is actually a thousand times greater than
the implied margin of error even allowing for the fact that the later
NASA ephemeris calculations do not take the cumulative effect of the
anomalous acceleration into account.
It must be then that the successive positions of the craft are
different from the results of the above procedure. Let us obtain the
direction and speed of the craft assuming tentatively that the received
frequencies here were produced by transmissions from the same earth
station a few seconds earlier while the earthsite velocity,V1, wrt the
sun was nearly the same.
This would be the case if light speed delay did not extrapolate
beyond one second approximately, no matter how much the distance of the
source from the receiver exceeded d=2.998(10^8)meters where
c=d/1second. That there is no clear evidence against this hypothesis,
contrary or popular opinion, is shown below.
Thus, if the craft was stationary and the total earth movement was
toward the craft, the Doppler shifted frequency received would be
(T)(1+2v1/c) where T = the transmitted frequency(here
2.291944138GHz),v1= K1V1, the earthsite velocity wrt the craft at the
reception time, t1, and c = the speed of light and K1 is the cosine of
the angle between the craft to earthsite line and the earthsite
velocity wrt the sun at this time.
But the craft in this data is at these times moving away from the sun
at about 13.059km/sec according to 1)the conventional model and 2)its
initial launch velocity etc. and the projection of this on the earthsite
to craft line is, through a nearly zero angle, 13.059. Subtracting
13.059 from K1V1 etc., gives us a first tentative estimate of the
combined velocity of the earthsite to the craft without assuming the
conventional exact position of the craft. (T)(1+2(K1V1-13.059)/c)=R1,
so ((R1-T)c+2T(13.059))/2V1T=K1
The arccos of K1 is the angle between the velocity of the earth site
wrt the sun and the line to the craft from the receiver site at this
time. Suppose the site at this time is represented as the origin of a
3 dimensional coordinate system where the horizontal y axis into the
page is the latitude and the vertical z axis is the longitude and the
horizontal x axis on the page is directed to the zenith point in the
sky. Suppose also that the latitude at this time is along the same line
as the earth's orbital velocity and the spin and orbital velocity are in
the same direction. The angle from K1 could define a line in the xy
plane or the yz plane or any plane in between but only one of these
would give the maximal intensity of the received signal.

This value of K1 so determined and the value given by the
conventional model for the craft sun distance, r1=6,295 116 208 gives us
an estimate of the craft position. We can change,13.059, K and r as
needed to produce a succession of craft positions consistent with the
observed received frequencies and Newtonian calculations of successive
velocities and positions of the craft. The craft acceleration at a
distance r toward the sun is a1 = kM/r^2=6.67(10^-11)(2)(10^30)/r1, so
that the velocity that must be subtracted from each 'previous' velocity
to obtain the next velocity and position and r value is, (a1)(t2-t1)/2
for the assumed r1.
If the craft minute by minute trajectory obtained in this way over
any randomly chosen hour or so time interval like this one, is more
accurate without requiring anomalous acceleration or constant
adjustments after the intial adjustements, then the conventional model
and light speed delay assumptions are disproven and the proposed light
speed delay model is indicated.

The following data from Oct 7 1987 is from
http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/rangerate2.xls
:

Time DnCnFr R freq Hz V km/s r
K
21:27 810154 2292133984 30.03149 6295116208 0.848293063
21:28 810166 2292133972 30.03246 6295116975 0.848239147
....
22:43 811249 2292132889 30.09136 6295174532 0.844225255
22:44 811266 2292132872 30.09194 629517529
0.844172955


We note that the received frequencies,R, are decreasing but that they
are all greater than the transmitted frequency which suggests that the
earthsite motion wrt the sun(which includes the approx 353m/s earth
rotation at Madrid, has a component toward the craft but that the
motion toward the craft as the earth orbits and spins, is decreasing-
even though the total motion,V, of the craft wrt the sun is increasing.
..
We note also that, (1+.33(10^-8))T = T+7.66Hz corresponds to 1m/s when
the transmitter frequency is at is here T=2.291944138GHz.

It is important to note 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, c2, in the electromagnetic equation or in
Einstein's 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,c, extrapolates beyond a
second.

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. Bradley's 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.
Variations in radar reflections from surfaces of Venus etc from
powerful radar emissions and received after the two way light delay time
are given as evidence of the conventional light speed delay. But the
variations in frequency intensity received have no unambiguous time
stamps or unambiguous indications of surface heights etc. These radar
reflections recorded at a specific time, if it could be established that
they were not noise or reflections from other surfaces than Venus, could
have been sent seconds before according to the proposed model and not
minutes before according to the conventional light speed delay
assumptions. And of course there is no independent confirmation of any
of these results.
The supposed 1.25 second delay in moon radar and lidar given
secondary reflections and given the precision of the measurements, imply
a 1 second delay is also possible.
Re spacecraft communications: 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 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 at the receiver station on earth that
is overlooked, ie, 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 exceed a second
or so.
References
1)Electric Gravity and Instantaneous Light, Ralph Sansbury, 1998,
http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/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...1/document/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...er10/radio/atd
f/atdf_data/
4) http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/dsndoc...tationdata.cfm
5)
http://descanso.jpl.nasa.gov/Monogra...?force_externa
l=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://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/rangerate2.xls

ralph sansbury wrote:

DOPPLER TEST OF LIGHT SPEED DELAY FROM PIONEER 10
The Pioneer 10 anomalous acceleration is five orders of magnitude
larger than reported by Anderson et al. as revealed by archived data
for a one hour and a half time interval in 1987 when compared to the
NASA positions and velocities of the craft.
see http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/rangerate2.xls

These positions and velocities are based on Newtonian calculations of
craft velocity changes due to the known craft's mass to the attraction
of the sun and to previous velocities and positions of the craft implied
by previous radiometric data and data on earth site motions during
transmission and reception.

If the calculations are Newtonian then the answers to high precision
are precisely trivially wrong, perpetual empirical idiot sansbury.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205059
Pioneer anomaly
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0307042
Rationalized Pioneer anomaly
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9810085
Believable rationalized Pioneer anomaly
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/gr-qc/0310088
Believable Pioneer anomaly updated

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Uncle Al wrote in message ...

If the calculations are Newtonian then the answers to high precision
are precisely trivially wrong, perpetual empirical idiot sansbury.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205059
Pioneer anomaly



Uncle Al has said that my calculations must be wrong. But Markwardt
and
Dishman calculations agree with mine in order of magnitude. The
problem is
Markwardt and Dishman have no explanation as to why these calculations
are NINE orders of magnitude different than what they should be if the
Pioneer anomaly is as claimed.
The reason is that the Pioneer anomaly is much larger than claimed
and too large to be explained by a modification of the law of
gravity.The required modification would make planets fall into the
sun.
A more acceptable explanation is that the speed of light delay
assumptions are wrong and lead to a wrong trajectory for Pioneer 10
and that the assumption that the speed of light delay does not
extrapolate beyond a second leads to the correct trajectory.

Here again is my original post. Please reply to if
you know something about radio astronomy and the problems discussed
here.


The Pioneer 10 anomalous acceleration is five orders of magnitude
larger than reported by Anderson et al. as revealed by archived data
for a one hour and a half time interval in 1987 when compared to the
NASA positions and velocities of the craft.
see http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/rangerate2.xls

These positions and velocities are based on Newtonian calculations
of
craft velocity changes due to the known craft's mass to the
attraction
of the sun and to previous velocities and positions of the craft
implied
by previous radiometric data and data on earth site motions during
transmission and reception.
The procedure is to use the last best estimate of craft position
and
velocity determined in this way and then to predict the position and
velocity a minute later using 1)this velocity and position and mass
and
2)the assumed earth site transmitter motion at the earlier time
implied
by the two way light speed delay and the receiver earth site motion
and
to compare this with the received Doppler shifted frequency and to
correct the position and velocity to make the predicted received
frequency equal the observed received frequency.
Dishman and Markwardt, mistakenly claimed that 1)the approximate
agreement of the results of this procedure with the NASA ephemeris,
and
2)the lack of agreement of these results with the assumption of some
other light speed delay assumption proved the validity of the
conventional light speed delay assumption, But this is a classic
petitio principi where the conclusion, here the craft trajectory,
is
assumed in the premise.
The "approximate" agreement of the results of this procedure and
the
actual received frequencies is actually a thousand times greater
than
the implied margin of error even allowing for the fact that the
later
NASA ephemeris calculations do not take the cumulative effect of the
anomalous acceleration into account.
It must be then that the successive positions of the craft are
different from the results of the above procedure. Let us obtain the
direction and speed of the craft assuming tentatively that the
received
frequencies here were produced by transmissions from the same earth
station a few seconds earlier while the earthsite velocity,V1, wrt
the
sun was nearly the same.
This would be the case if light speed delay did not extrapolate
beyond one second approximately, no matter how much the distance of
the
source from the receiver exceeded d=2.998(10^8)meters where
c=d/1second. That there is no clear evidence against this hypothesis,
contrary or popular opinion, is shown below.
Thus, if the craft was stationary and the total earth movement was
toward the craft, the Doppler shifted frequency received would be
(T)(1+2v1/c) where T = the transmitted frequency(here
2.291944138GHz),v1= K1V1, the earthsite velocity wrt the craft at the
reception time, t1, and c = the speed of light and K1 is the cosine
of
the angle between the craft to earthsite line and the earthsite
velocity wrt the sun at this time.
But the craft in this data is at these times moving away from the
sun
at about 13.059km/sec according to 1)the conventional model and 2)its
initial launch velocity etc. and the projection of this on the
earthsite
to craft line is, through a nearly zero angle, 13.059. Subtracting
13.059 from K1V1 etc., gives us a first tentative estimate of the
combined velocity of the earthsite to the craft without assuming the
conventional exact position of the craft.
(T)(1+2(K1V1-13.059)/c)=R1,
so ((R1-T)c+2T(13.059))/2V1T=K1
The arccos of K1 is the angle between the velocity of the earth
site
wrt the sun and the line to the craft from the receiver site at this
time. Suppose the site at this time is represented as the origin of
a
3 dimensional coordinate system where the horizontal y axis into the
page is the latitude and the vertical z axis is the longitude and the
horizontal x axis on the page is directed to the zenith point in the
sky. Suppose also that the latitude at this time is along the same
line
as the earth's orbital velocity and the spin and orbital velocity are
in
the same direction. The angle from K1 could define a line in the xy
plane or the yz plane or any plane in between but only one of these
would give the maximal intensity of the received signal.

This value of K1 so determined and the value given by the
conventional model for the craft sun distance, r1=6,295 116 208 gives
us
an estimate of the craft position. We can change,13.059, K and r as
needed to produce a succession of craft positions consistent with the
observed received frequencies and Newtonian calculations of
successive
velocities and positions of the craft. The craft acceleration at a
distance r toward the sun is a1 = kM/r^2=6.67(10^-11)(2)(10^30)/r1,
so
that the velocity that must be subtracted from each 'previous'
velocity
to obtain the next velocity and position and r value is,
(a1)(t2-t1)/2
for the assumed r1.
If the craft minute by minute trajectory obtained in this way over
any randomly chosen hour or so time interval like this one, is more
accurate without requiring anomalous acceleration or constant
adjustments after the intial adjustements, then the conventional
model
and light speed delay assumptions are disproven and the proposed
light
speed delay model is indicated.

The following data from Oct 7 1987 is from
http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/rangerate2.xls
:

Time DnCnFr R freq Hz V km/s r
K
21:27 810154 2292133984 30.03149 6295116208 0.848293063
21:28 810166 2292133972 30.03246 6295116975 0.848239147
...
22:43 811249 2292132889 30.09136 6295174532 0.844225255
22:44 811266 2292132872 30.09194 629517529
0.844172955


We note that the received frequencies,R, are decreasing but that
they
are all greater than the transmitted frequency which suggests that
the
earthsite motion wrt the sun(which includes the approx 353m/s earth
rotation at Madrid, has a component toward the craft but that the
motion toward the craft as the earth orbits and spins, is decreasing-
even though the total motion,V, of the craft wrt the sun is
increasing.

(r9ns) writes:
Uncle Al has said that my calculations must be wrong. But
Markwardt and Dishman calculations agree with mine in order of
magnitude. The problem is Markwardt and Dishman have no explanation
as to why these calculations are NINE orders of magnitude different
than what they should be if the Pioneer anomaly is as claimed.

Your claim is unsubstantiated. In fact, Markwardt has a simple
explanation:

Markwardt writes in :
] However, in reality, the light
] travel time is not constrained to one minute increments. Furthermore,
] the light travel time varies smoothly (and slowly) with time.
]
] Thus, while you have arbitrarily imposed one-minute increments on the
] light travel time by virtue of the HORIZONS sampling period, the
] physics does not obey those limits, and this leads to an error in your
] model.

To which you replied in the form of a question:

Sansbury:
] The error is present in any model and it averages out to
] zero,right?

And the answer was "no":

Markwardt:
] Your model relies on one minute samples, and is
] therefore prone to the above-described error. Other models can solve
] the light time to much better than one second, and therefore are not
] vulnerable to the same problem.
]
] Your error does not average to zero, and in fact will "trend," for the
] reasons listed above.

But I should clarify that the trend will not average to zero only as
long as the spacecraft travels less than one light-minute during the
interval of interest. The spacecraft travels one light minute every
~20 days (at 12 km/s), so one would need to average many months of
data to average out your coarseness error -- which you did not do.

This error has been pointed out to you many times, and you refuse to
acknowledge or address it.

CM

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
(r9ns) writes:

The problem is Markwardt and Dishman have no explanation
as to why these calculations are NINE orders of magnitude different
than what they should be if the Pioneer anomaly is as claimed.

Markwardt writes in :
] However, in reality, the light
] travel time is not constrained to one minute increments. Furthermore,
] the light travel time varies smoothly (and slowly) with time.
]
] Thus, while you have arbitrarily imposed one-minute increments on the
] light travel time by virtue of the HORIZONS sampling period, the
] physics does not obey those limits, and this leads to an error in your
] model.

We are talking about YOUR model. The error of nine orders of
magnitude in YOUR model is due to the assumption that the transmission
time was hours before and not seconds before the received signal. If
you used signals sent at these times that were seconds apart and
signals received hours later seconds apart to obtain your formula for
the trajectory then it should work when observations of the received
signals are made after each minute. If not then there is something
wrong with YOUR model.

(r9ns) writes:

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
(r9ns) writes:

The problem is Markwardt and Dishman have no explanation
as to why these calculations are NINE orders of magnitude different
than what they should be if the Pioneer anomaly is as claimed.

Markwardt writes in :
] However, in reality, the light
] travel time is not constrained to one minute increments. Furthermore,
] the light travel time varies smoothly (and slowly) with time.
]
] Thus, while you have arbitrarily imposed one-minute increments on the
] light travel time by virtue of the HORIZONS sampling period, the
] physics does not obey those limits, and this leads to an error in your
] model.

We are talking about YOUR model. The error of nine orders of
magnitude in YOUR model is due to the assumption that the transmission
time was hours before and not seconds before the received signal. If
you used signals sent at these times that were seconds apart and
signals received hours later seconds apart to obtain your formula for
the trajectory then it should work when observations of the received
signals are made after each minute. If not then there is something
wrong with YOUR model.

Don't be ridiculous. If we were talking about MY model, then we would
be talking about the paper Markwardt 2002 (preprint gr-qc/0208046), in
which I confirm the Anderson anomalous acceleration, and achieve
0.0042 Hz residuals, *MUCH* better than you claim.

No, in fact we are talking about YOUR OWN erroneous realization of the
"conventional" model. You introduce an arbitrarily coarse 1 minute
sample period, by virtue of your use of a discretely sampled HORIZONS
report (among other problems). Thus, while the round trip light time,
the spacecraft velocity, and the station velocity are changing
continuously with time, you have arbitrily introduced discontinuities
into your solution.

Example: if the true transmission time is 09:42:45 UTC, you must
choose either 09:42 or 09:43, but neither is correct.

This limitation is not present in my or the Anderson models, so it is
an error belonging exclusively to yourself. It is significant enough
to cause the discrepancies that you claim. [ One minute epoch errors
can cause max ~20 Hz frequency errors, and ~0.1 Hz/min trends. ]

And, if you had bothered to check more data, as I have, you would have
found that your claimed anomalous "trend" did not extend. This is
more evidence of your lack of substantiation of your claims.

CM

Ralphie IFS, you stupid twit, you're bleeding into the SCI.OPTICS newsgroup
again! I removed the NG from the list so I won't be spewing on it when I
tell you this. Don't post to the group as we really don't want to hear your
stupidity.

--
Why isn't there an Ozone Hole at the NORTH Pole?

In message , Bob May
writes
Ralphie IFS, you stupid twit, you're bleeding into the SCI.OPTICS newsgroup
again! I removed the NG from the list so I won't be spewing on it when I
tell you this. Don't post to the group as we really don't want to hear your
stupidity.

--
Why isn't there an Ozone Hole at the NORTH Pole?

But there is. Look at
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030331045035.htm, for
instance.
I'll drop the cross posting from now on - if I post at all :-)
--
What have they got to hide? Release the ESA Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

What amazes me is why scientific news groups seem to gather all the
nut ball psychotics and religious freaks and moon worshipers.

Dr. Image Nius,
Warp field specialist and all around nice guy. :-)

West Coast Engineering wrote:

What amazes me is why scientific news groups seem to gather all the
nut ball psychotics and religious freaks and moon worshipers.

They find the presence of their own ilk in religious newsgroups to be
offensive.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf