Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous
Joe Jakarta
"One of the most intriguing mysteries in physics is the "Pioneer
anomaly," the slowing down of two spacecraft by an unknown force. NASA
launched Pioneer 10 and 11 in 1972 and 1973, respectively, and the
craft returned stunning images of Jupiter and Saturn. But as both
spacecraft continued their voyages at speeds of roughly 27,000 miles
per hour, astronomer John Anderson of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
Pasadena, Calif., noticed anomalies in telemetry data dating from as
far back as 1980. With continued analysis, researchers determined that
the spacecraft had been slowing down at a constant rate: each year they
fell 8,000 miles short of their calculated positions. The strange
behavior sparked several theories, but the lack of data made culling
the ideas difficult. Now a proposal to analyze telemetry from the early
years could literally point toward the correct explanation.
"The most obvious theory was that something on the spacecraft
themselves created a braking force--leaking gas or heat radiation,
perhaps. Over the years, however, researchers increasingly viewed this
hypothesis as less likely, and some physicists began to explore
possible flaws in Newton's laws and relativity. Others posited that
dark matter was the culprit: it might exert a gravitational or drag
force. A third theory embraces the idea that a minute acceleration
exists in the velocity of light, which might result in the appearance
that the probes are slowing down: if light travels faster, telemetry
signals arrive faster, and the craft seem to be closer.
"Anderson and theorist Michael M. Nieto of Los Alamos National
Laboratory have proposed a way to filter the ideas, noting the
interesting fact that the direction of the anomalous force would be
different for each theory. If the force points toward the sun, then it
should be a gravitational effect. If it points toward Earth, it should
be an anomaly relating to the velocity of light. If it points in the
direction of motion, it should be a drag force or a modification of
inertia. And finally, if it points along the spin axis of the probes,
it should indicate a force generated by the craft. ..."
(Alexander Hellemans, "A Force to Reckon With: What applied the brakes
on Pioneer 10 and 11? ", Scientific American, 10 October 1995)
Where's *your* money, ladies and gentlemen?
ca314159
1. Lack of funding.
2. Johnsen-Rahbek effect on the solar panels.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"ca314159" <ca31...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
news:44915189...@bestweb.net...
> Joe Jakarta wrote:
...
>> Where's *your* money, ladies and gentlemen?
>
> 1. Lack of funding.
> 2. Johnsen-Rahbek effect on the solar panels.
Did these spacecraft (Pioner 10 and 11) even have solar panels?
They were built for "outer system" work, and solar panels would
be useless.
David A. Smith
George
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:64dkg.33850$AB3.658@fed1read02...
I thought they had radioactive isotope power generators.
George
Rising-Star8471
Ill Take an unobserved gravitational influence on the craft for 1000
Alex.....
Ill be honest, my math skills stop with alegbra and I have a feeling
that my skills are no match for the scope of what Im about to
postilate, however, someone with better skills then myself should be
able to crunch the numbers.
Here are the facts as I understand them:
1. Probe traveling at 27,000 miles per hour
2. John Anderson of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
Pasadena, Calif., noticed anomalies in telemetry data dating from
as
far back as 1980.
3. Probe falls 8000 miles short as to where it is supposed to be
The only other time Ive seen scientist question there calculations on
this level was when Uranus was not where it was supposed to be. We all
know how that turned out. Is it possible that there could be an
unobeserved planet or maybe even something smaller like a kuiper belt
object that could have "peturbed" its tragectory? Nothing as big as a
Star, not this close to Sol, but something non the less.
The problem is, if it is another planet or moon or whatever, then I
would imagine that the probe would have been more then just slowed
down. I would think a curve, even if its only a slight one would be
applied to its tragectory throwing the probe WAY off its preconcived
course. Even if the probe approched the anomoly "head on" and just
missed it, I would think that it course would still be slightly
deflected.
So what does that leave us with?
Well, one common source for slowing things down is friction. Theres not
a hell of a lot of stuff in the spaces in between planets, but could
the probe have passed through a dust cloud that we cannot detect from
here? Dust could cause friction that could slow it down.
I also thought that perhaps the solar wind itself is deflecting of the
heliosheath and catching the solar panels and acting like an "air
brake", but I would think that the two voyagers would have detected and
experianced the same speed changes. Although, Pioneer 11 is on a more
direct approched to the "bow shock". Perhaps an outside influence
pentrated the bow shock and is slowing it down.
Star
Rising-Star8471
Ill Take an unobserved gravitational influence on the craft for 1000
Alex.....
Ill be honest, my math skills stop with alegbra and I have a feeling
that my skills are no match for the scope of what Im about to
postilate, however, someone with better skills then myself should be
able to crunch the numbers.
Here are the facts as I understand them:
1. Probe traveling at 27,000 miles per hour
2. John Anderson of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
Pasadena, Calif., noticed anomalies in telemetry data dating from
as
far back as 1980.
3. Probe falls 8000 miles short as to where it is supposed to be
George
"Rising-Star8471" <j.a.l...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1150378161.7...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
What are the chances that that has happened to both spacecraft travelling
in different directions? Any explanation has to take into account that
both craft have been affected.
George
Rising-Star8471
Given the numbers from the previous posts, does anyone have any idea
what the mass of an unseen object would have to be to cause the speed
discrepincy?
Star again
uri
Finder
Their model is very slightly off, and needs no adjusting.
Only 8,000 miles off after 34 years at flying 27,000 mph is Excellent!
I doubt that we can even measure 8,000 mi at that distance anyway.
Richard Saam
Gentlemen
The Primary data set may be viewed at:
Study of the Pioneer Anomaly:
A Problem Set Slava G. Turyshev,
Michael Martin Nieto,
and John D. Anderson
(Dated: September 6, 2005)
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0502123
Summary Motion data:
Pioneer 10 about 28,000 mph 1,250,000 cm/sec (sun reference)
Pioneer 11 about 26,000 mph 1,160,000 cm/sec (sun reference)
with deceleration for both at (8.74 Ä… 1.33) x 10^(-8) cm/sec2
(5.99 Ä… 0.01) x 10^(-9) Hz/s
and the pioneer spacecraft rotational spin rates
Pioneer 10 about 4 rpm (2,581 cm/sec tip speed)
Pioneer 11 about 7 rpm (4,517 cm/sec tip speed)
with deceleration for both at .0067 rpm/year
Moment of inertia = 5.88E9 g cm^2
Mass = 241,000 gram
Area = 58,965 cm2
Logically
It can be concluded that
deceleration is independent of observation coordinate
or other words
force points toward the sun
and also
force points toward Earth
and also
force points in the direction of motion
and also
force points along the spin axis of the probes
and also (an important point not noted by Anderson et al)
force points along the rotation tip angular direction of the probes
Perhaps analysis of archival data will show this more clearly.
Richard
Jeff Root
Rising-Star8471 asked:
> Given the numbers from the previous posts, does anyone have
> any idea what the mass of an unseen object would have to be
> to cause the speed discrepincy?
The mass depends on its distance from Pioneer. A larger
mass would be farther away; a smaller one would be closer.
But the mass would have to be fairly small or it would
affect other bodies in the Solar System. It doesn't.
Also, since the effect on the spacecraft was constant for
more than a decade, the masses would have to be following
the spacecraft at a constant distance behind them. The
masses would have to be approximately in line between the
Earth and the spacecraft, a short distance behind them.
And since the Pioneers were slowing down, in order to
maintain a constant distance, the masses would have to
be slowing down, too.
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Rising-Star8471
Then I would have to go with dust. It appears that they are both
traveling the plane of the eclipic, where as the voyagers are both far
above and far below the ecliptic. Its possible that the solar system
still has dust rings beyond the orbit of Neptune that are leftovers
from planetry development. We woulnt neccisarly notice from here
because this dust would have always there to us, We dont have a "dust
free: enviroment to compare the observations to. This would also
explain why it happened to both probes, and the following body of mass
theroy. The probe is still plowing through the dust. When its speed
stablizes, it will have gone through the other side.
Star
greysky
"Finder" <poe1kdi...@sdfse2gwerzxc.com> wrote in message
news:44916a9d$0$79450$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
>
> Their model is very slightly off, and needs no adjusting.
>
> Only 8,000 miles off after 34 years at flying 27,000 mph is Excellent!
>
> I doubt that we can even measure 8,000 mi at that distance anyway.
>
big problem with gravitational theory.
Greysky
Rising-Star8471
OK OK jeeeeezzzze Ill turn the tractor beam off already.......all ya
had to do was ask ;)
208000 miles total, is it still slowing down or has the speed
stablized, if it stablized, then when.
Im still sold on dust. A dust ring around the edge of the solar system
would have been undetectable by the voyager series.
PLUS it would account for both probes slowing down......
I dont think its bad math on NASAs part simply because once upon a time
it was moving at a certain rate with nonthing detectable that would
slow it down. That factor has changed. Something HAS interacted with it
to slow it down, we just dont know what.
But we can say what its not.......
Its NOT a planet
Its NOT a star
Its NOT a moon
Its not ANY ONE object that can be in solar orbit (.)
It CANNOT be an object in which the solar system is bound. If it is
gravity, then the probe should have been deflected off course, I have
not seen any data indicating this.
Not to mention that any one of the aformentioned possiblites would have
only effected ONE of the probes (Although I think of the trojen
asteriods trapped by Jupiter and wonder, but then again these objects
are in orbit and not traveling in a straight line)
What does that leave us that naturally occurs in space?
Dust
Gas
Solar Wind (or similarly classified phenominon)
cosmic rays?
Im going to stick with dust ........
We have observed dust "rings" (not to be confused with spherical clouds
of debri) around other stars in nature, why not our own? Perhaps its
this very dust that obscures our view of the center of the galaxy, and
not dust from the spiral arm as some beilive?.
Of course, the probe could have been reprogrammed in transit by another
life form to "seek out its creator" and now its slowing down to turn
around and come home :)
Star
Finder
"greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Pggkg.148043$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Bullpuppy.
It travels 236,520,000 in one year, and it is within 0.000338% of expected.
The mass of the sun is not known to that precision, nor the mass of the
spacecraft.
Llanzlan Klazmon
news:44915189...@bestweb.net:
> Joe Jakarta wrote:
>>
>> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000BB6BE-A7BA-1330-A54583414B
>> 7F0000
They don't have any. They are RTG powered.
Klazmon.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Rising-Star8471" <j.a.l...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1150392152....@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
...
> Im still sold on dust. A dust ring around the edge
> of the solar system would have been undetectable
> by the voyager series.
>
> PLUS it would account for both probes slowing down......
But not with the same rate. *If* the two probes speeds are
different by 10%, and the density of dust is the same along the
two paths, and the dust velocity radially outwards is zero, then
the acceleration due to the impulse difference should be along
the lines of 19%. But it is not.
...
> But we can say what its not.......
>
> Its NOT a planet
> Its NOT a star
> Its NOT a moon
> Its not ANY ONE object that can be in solar
> orbit (.)
> It CANNOT be an object in which the solar
> system is bound.
Yes, it could be an orbitting halo of Dark Matter. But that
means that every planet starting with/after Jupiter would be
funkey.
> If it is gravity, then the probe should have been
> deflected off course, I have not seen any data
> indicating this.
An anomalous sunward acceleration (ASA) *is* like gravity, and
the ASA *is* indicated by the data.
> Not to mention that any one of the aformentioned
> possiblites would have only effected ONE of the
> probes (Although I think of the trojen asteriods
> trapped by Jupiter and wonder, but then again
> these objects are in orbit and not traveling in a
> straight line)
>
> What does that leave us that naturally occurs in space?
>
> Dust
> Gas
> Solar Wind (or similarly classified phenominon)
> cosmic rays?
A sunward-facing solar sail (aka. radio dish) with a hot
power-plant behind it providing net-sunward thrust. Present in
all craft. Intensity of the Solar output falls off by 1/r^2
(outward on the sail), and the radioactive source falls off
1/(e^kt) (reduces inward on the sail).
> Im going to stick with dust ........
Contraindicated. Even if the dust were slightly outbound, the
differential impulse would be greater (and more would be required
to provide the acceleration detected). And if the dust were
inbound, the acceleration is then wrong and abother cause needs
to be sought.
David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"George" <geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
news:Z9adnXcttKnLwgzZ...@insightbb.com...
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com>
> wrote in message news:64dkg.33850$AB3.658@fed1read02...
>> Dear ca314159:
>>
>> "ca314159" <ca31...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
>> news:44915189...@bestweb.net...
>>> Joe Jakarta wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Where's *your* money, ladies and gentlemen?
>>>
>>> 1. Lack of funding.
>>> 2. Johnsen-Rahbek effect on the solar panels.
>>
>> Did these spacecraft (Pioner 10 and 11) even have
>> solar panels? They were built for "outer system"
>> work, and solar panels would be useless.
>
> I thought they had radioactive isotope power generators.
They did. But a quick glimpse didn't show anything that said
they didn't also have solar panels. But why they'd have
something onboard that would fail by Jupiter doesn't make sense
to me.
David A. Smith
Tom Roberts
> Only 8,000 miles off after 34 years at flying 27,000 mph is Excellent!
Yes, indeed.
> I doubt that we can even measure 8,000 mi at that distance anyway.
_They_ can measure to much better than that. I don't recall their
resolution, but a search of arXiv.org will surely find it. Remember they
are using the propagation of radio waves to measure it, not a series of
meter sticks laid end-to-end (:-)).
Tom Roberts
George
None of the available images and diagrams show solar panels on these craft.
Like this one, for instance:
http://quest.nasa.gov/sso/cool/pioneer10/graphics/lasher/slide2lg.gif
George
Jerry
Does there have to be -one- explanation? Maybe the difficulty
in determining the cause is that there are -multiple- causes.
Jerry
CWatters
"Richard Saam" <rds...@att.net> wrote in message
news:g_dkg.28280$mF2....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Summary Motion data:
>
> Pioneer 10 about 28,000 mph 1,250,000 cm/sec (sun reference)
> Pioneer 11 about 26,000 mph 1,160,000 cm/sec (sun reference)
> with deceleration for both at (8.74 Ä… 1.33) x 10^(-8) cm/sec2
> (5.99 Ä… 0.01) x 10^(-9) Hz/s
> and the pioneer spacecraft rotational spin rates
> Pioneer 10 about 4 rpm (2,581 cm/sec tip speed)
> Pioneer 11 about 7 rpm (4,517 cm/sec tip speed)
> with deceleration for both at .0067 rpm/year
> Moment of inertia = 5.88E9 g cm^2
> Mass = 241,000 gram
> Area = 58,965 cm2
>
>
> Logically
> It can be concluded that
> deceleration is independent of observation coordinate
Ok so I've no idea what I'm talking about really but....
If spacetime were quantized would energy be required to move objects between
each quantum "position"? Could that be the cause... a bit like driving over
a cobbled road? Would that explain why the effect is independant of the
coordinate system?
Would it be hard to calculate the scale of the effect on that basis? Can it
be ruled out because of the effect it would have on some other branch of
physics if it existed?
Martin Hogbin
"Joe Jakarta" <bright...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1150370385.3...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000BB6BE-A7BA-1330-A54583414B7F0000
>
> "One of the most intriguing mysteries in physics is the "Pioneer
> anomaly," the slowing down of two spacecraft by an unknown force. NASA
> launched Pioneer 10 and 11 in 1972 and 1973, respectively, and the
> craft returned stunning images of Jupiter and Saturn. But as both
> spacecraft continued their voyages at speeds of roughly 27,000 miles
> per hour, astronomer John Anderson of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
> Pasadena, Calif., noticed anomalies in telemetry data dating from as
> far back as 1980. With continued analysis, researchers determined that
> the spacecraft had been slowing down at a constant rate: each year they
> fell 8,000 miles short of their calculated positions.
> "The most obvious theory was that something on the spacecraft
> themselves created a braking force--leaking gas or heat radiation,
> perhaps.
> Where's *your* money, ladies and gentlemen?
My money is still on something in the spacecraft.
Martin Hogbin
uri
acceleration.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1150431809....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
>> Dear Rising-Star8471:
...
>> > Im going to stick with dust ........
>>
>> Contraindicated. Even if the dust were slightly
>> outbound, the differential impulse would be
>> greater (and more would be required to provide
>> the acceleration detected). And if the dust
>> were inbound, the acceleration is then wrong
>> and abother cause needs to be sought.
>
> Does there have to be -one- explanation? Maybe
> the difficulty in determining the cause is that
> there are -multiple- causes.
As in all else, there are multiple causes. So placing all faith
in "dust", or in "solar sail", is a waste of time.
Good point.
David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"CWatters" <colin....@turnersNOSPAMoak.plus.net> wrote in
message
news:44925eac$0$69385$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
...
> If spacetime were quantized would energy be
> required to move objects between each
> quantum "position"? Could that be the cause...
> a bit like driving over a cobbled road? Would
> that explain why the effect is independant of
> the coordinate system?
Why does it only affect these satellites? The planets that
travel cross streets to these "cobblestone roads" don't have any
problems.
Any "quantized space" model will have to agree with all
experimental data, and that includes other objects at similar
distances NOT showing an anomalous sunward acceleration.
David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"George" <geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
news:m7ednaNc87ktrQ_Z...@insightbb.com...
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com>
> wrote in message news:jKmkg.33862$AB3.11690@fed1read02...
...
>>> I thought they had radioactive isotope power
>>> generators.
>>
>> They did. But a quick glimpse didn't show
>> anything that said they didn't also have solar
>> panels. But why they'd have something
>> onboard that would fail by Jupiter doesn't
>> make sense to me.
>
> None of the available images and diagrams
> show solar panels on these craft. Like this
> one, for instance:
>
> http://quest.nasa.gov/sso/cool/pioneer10/graphics/lasher/slide2lg.gif
Thanks! Of course, this shoots my "solar sail" hypothesis in the
foot, since the thermopile is not shadowed by the radio dish
pointed at the Sun...
David A. Smith
kenseto
"Joe Jakarta" <bright...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1150370385.3...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000BB6BE-A7BA-1330-A54583414B7F00
00
>
> "One of the most intriguing mysteries in physics is the "Pioneer
> anomaly," the slowing down of two spacecraft by an unknown force. NASA
> launched Pioneer 10 and 11 in 1972 and 1973, respectively, and the
> craft returned stunning images of Jupiter and Saturn. But as both
> spacecraft continued their voyages at speeds of roughly 27,000 miles
> per hour, astronomer John Anderson of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
> Pasadena, Calif., noticed anomalies in telemetry data dating from as
> far back as 1980. With continued analysis, researchers determined that
> the spacecraft had been slowing down at a constant rate: each year they
> behavior sparked several theories, but the lack of data made culling
> the ideas difficult. Now a proposal to analyze telemetry from the early
> years could literally point toward the correct explanation.
>
> themselves created a braking force--leaking gas or heat radiation,
> hypothesis as less likely, and some physicists began to explore
> possible flaws in Newton's laws and relativity. Others posited that
> dark matter was the culprit: it might exert a gravitational or drag
> force. A third theory embraces the idea that a minute acceleration
> exists in the velocity of light, which might result in the appearance
> that the probes are slowing down: if light travels faster, telemetry
> signals arrive faster, and the craft seem to be closer.
>
> "Anderson and theorist Michael M. Nieto of Los Alamos National
> Laboratory have proposed a way to filter the ideas, noting the
> interesting fact that the direction of the anomalous force would be
> different for each theory. If the force points toward the sun, then it
> should be a gravitational effect. If it points toward Earth, it should
> be an anomaly relating to the velocity of light. If it points in the
> direction of motion, it should be a drag force or a modification of
> inertia. And finally, if it points along the spin axis of the probes,
> it should indicate a force generated by the craft. ..."
>
> (Alexander Hellemans, "A Force to Reckon With: What applied the brakes
> on Pioneer 10 and 11? ", Scientific American, 10 October 1995)
>
>
The paths of Pioneer 10 and 11 are affected by the concentrations of dark
matter within the sun and the planets. Since the sun conntains the greatest
concentration of dark matter that's why the probes are found to be
accelerating toward to the sun. The following link describes this effect in
details (pages 14 and 15):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Ken Seto
>
George Dishman
...
> Then I would have to go with dust. It appears that they are both
> traveling the plane of the eclipic, where as the voyagers are both far
> above and far below the ecliptic. Its possible that the solar system
> still has dust rings beyond the orbit of Neptune that are leftovers
> from planetry development. We woulnt neccisarly notice from here
> because this dust would have always there to us, We dont have a "dust
> free: enviroment to compare the observations to. This would also
> explain why it happened to both probes, and the following body of mass
> theroy. The probe is still plowing through the dust. When its speed
> stablizes, it will have gone through the other side.
The effect of dust as a drag on the craft has been
considered and is too small. The gravitation effect
of the total mass of the dust in the Kuiper Belt
region is shown in Figure 15.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064
They also consider the effect of dust on the RTG fins
changing the emission characteristics to create an
imbalance in emissivity preferentially radiating heat
away from the craft and a hypothetical interaction of
the dust with the radio signal causing a frequency
change without affecting the motion of the craft. The
anomaly remains unexplained.
George
George Dishman
"Richard Saam" <rds...@att.net> wrote in message
news:g_dkg.28280$mF2....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Study of the Pioneer Anomaly:
> A Problem Set Slava G. Turyshev,
> Michael Martin Nieto,
> and John D. Anderson
> (Dated: September 6, 2005)
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0502123
>
> Summary Motion data:
>
> Pioneer 10 about 28,000 mph 1,250,000 cm/sec (sun reference)
> Pioneer 11 about 26,000 mph 1,160,000 cm/sec (sun reference)
> with deceleration for both at (8.74 Ä… 1.33) x 10^(-8) cm/sec2
> (5.99 Ä… 0.01) x 10^(-9) Hz/s
And most importantly both directed towards the Sun
even though the craft are leaving in almost opposite
directions. See figure 3 of:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064
> and the pioneer spacecraft rotational spin rates
> Pioneer 10 about 4 rpm (2,581 cm/sec tip speed)
> Pioneer 11 about 7 rpm (4,517 cm/sec tip speed)
> with deceleration for both at .0067 rpm/year
> Moment of inertia = 5.88E9 g cm^2
> Mass = 241,000 gram
> Area = 58,965 cm2
>
>
> Logically
> It can be concluded that
> deceleration is independent of observation coordinate
The coordinates don't matter, what is important is
that the direction of the anomalous acceleration
does depend on the location of the craft in some
way. The Pioneers are accelerating in opposite
directions, both towards the central solar system.
This rules out certain ideas, such as interstellar
dust which predominantly passes through the Solar
System in a particular direction, and hence should
accelerate both craft in the same direction.
> force points toward the sun
> and also
> force points toward Earth
> and also
> force points in the direction of motion
> and also
> force points along the spin axis of the probes
> and also (an important point not noted by Anderson et al)
> force points along the rotation tip angular direction of the probes
>
> Perhaps analysis of archival data will show this more clearly.
Hopefully, but those directions are all within a few
degrees so are hard to separate. In particular the
spin axis and direction to Earth had to be kept with
about 1 degree so that the planet stayed in the beam
width of the antenna.
George
George Dishman
"CWatters" <colin....@turnersNOSPAMoak.plus.net> wrote in message
news:44925eac$0$69385$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
>
> news:g_dkg.28280$mF2....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Summary Motion data:
>>
>> Pioneer 10 about 28,000 mph 1,250,000 cm/sec (sun reference)
>> Pioneer 11 about 26,000 mph 1,160,000 cm/sec (sun reference)
>> with deceleration for both at (8.74 Ä… 1.33) x 10^(-8) cm/sec2
>> (5.99 Ä… 0.01) x 10^(-9) Hz/s
>> and the pioneer spacecraft rotational spin rates
>> Pioneer 10 about 4 rpm (2,581 cm/sec tip speed)
>> Pioneer 11 about 7 rpm (4,517 cm/sec tip speed)
>> with deceleration for both at .0067 rpm/year
>> Moment of inertia = 5.88E9 g cm^2
>> Mass = 241,000 gram
>> Area = 58,965 cm2
>>
>>
>> Logically
>> It can be concluded that
>> deceleration is independent of observation coordinate
>
> Ok so I've no idea what I'm talking about really but....
>
> If spacetime were quantized would energy be required to move objects
> between
> each quantum "position"? Could that be the cause... a bit like driving
> over
> a cobbled road? Would that explain why the effect is independant of the
> coordinate system?
Only if the road was at rest with respect to the solar
system and the cobbles produced drag. If the cobbles
were at rest wrt the galaxy, both Pioneers would show
an acceleration in a direction opposing the Sun's
motion orbiting the galaxy.
> Would it be hard to calculate the scale of the effect on that basis? Can
> it
> be ruled out because of the effect it would have on some other branch of
> physics if it existed?
Such a drag would make it difficult for galaxies to
exist as stars would lose their orbital speed and
fall into the centre. The same would apply to the
planets if the 'cobbles' were attached to the Sun.
George
CWatters
> Dear CWatters:
>
> "CWatters" <colin....@turnersNOSPAMoak.plus.net> wrote in
> message
> news:44925eac$0$69385$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
> ...
> > If spacetime were quantized would energy be
> > required to move objects between each
> > quantum "position"? Could that be the cause...
> > a bit like driving over a cobbled road? Would
> > that explain why the effect is independant of
> > the coordinate system?
>
> Why does it only affect these satellites? The planets that
> travel cross streets to these "cobblestone roads" don't have any
> problems.
Oh well so much for that idea.
Can the "no effect on planets" argument also be used to rule out wacky ideas
about the speed of light changing?
Richard Saam
The idea cannot be dismissed on those terms.
If Area to Mass ratio of object is considered
there is a possibility of
small object "pioneer" (large area to mass)
interacting with some type of field with measurable effect
and
large object "planet" (small area to mass)
interacting with some type of field with immeasurable effect.
small object's "rocks and such of Pioneer size" trajectories
where the Pioneer ventures
cannot be measured from earth.
Even then, a rock (~meter diameter) may differ considerably in Area to Mass
with Pioneer like the difference between
a bowling ball (smaller area to mass)
and soccer ball (larger area to mass).
Perhaps an analogy would be the difference in dropping
lead and aluminum balls of same size in water.
Stokes' law and all that.
Richard
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"CWatters" <colin....@turnersNOSPAMoak.plus.net> wrote in
message
news:4492e965$0$22131$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com>
> wrote in
> message news:Bfykg.33882$AB3.13711@fed1read02...
...
>> > If spacetime were quantized would energy be
>> > required to move objects between each
>> > quantum "position"? Could that be the cause...
>> > a bit like driving over a cobbled road? Would
>> > that explain why the effect is independant of
>> > the coordinate system?
>>
>> Why does it only affect these satellites? The
>> planets that travel cross streets to these
>> "cobblestone roads" don't have any problems.
>
> Oh well so much for that idea.
>
> Can the "no effect on planets" argument also
> be used to rule out wacky ideas about the
> speed of light changing?
Wacky ideas are never stopped by facts. Sort of like
neutrinos... they just sail on, in orbit, to be encounterd over
and over.
David A. Smith
Joe Jakarta
> "Anderson and theorist Michael M. Nieto of Los Alamos National
> Laboratory have proposed a way to filter the ideas, noting the
> interesting fact that the direction of the anomalous force would be
> different for each theory. If the force points toward the sun, then it
> should be a gravitational effect. If it points toward Earth, it should
> be an anomaly relating to the velocity of light. If it points in the
> direction of motion, it should be a drag force or a modification of
> inertia. And finally, if it points along the spin axis of the probes,
> it should indicate a force generated by the craft. ..."
>
Rough data for Pioneer 11 indicate that
"The anomalous acceleration was present ... at shorter distances, as
far in as ~10 AU.
"... also ... that the anomaly may be much smaller at distances < 10
AU. It appears to be amplified (or turned on) at a distance of ~10 AU
from the Sun. This is approximately when the craft flew by Saturn and
entered an hyperbolic, escape trajectory."
gr-qc/0503021
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 21:28:29 GMT (392kb)
A Route to Understanding of the Pioneer Anomaly
Authors: Slava G. Turyshev, Michael Martin Nieto, John D. Anderson
George Dishman
The anomaly is a linear variation of speed from the
trajectory which is the best fit to the data. Any
adjustment to the mass (strictly the GM product) for
the Sun would have an effect that varied as the
inverse square of the distance instead of proportional
to distance which is what is observed.
George
John C. Polasek
Oh the speed of light does change. It's the idea that time can be
stretched or squashed that's wacky.
JP
Yslsl
> matter within the sun and the planets. Since the sun conntains the greatest
> concentration of dark matter that's why the probes are found to be
> accelerating toward to the sun. The following link describes this effect in
> details (pages 14 and 15):
> http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
The dark matter hypothesis sounds reasonable to me.
While the nature of dark matter remains unknown (at least to my
knowledge), there is growing evidence for its existance and little
doubt that it clumps in gravitational fields. And the amount of dark
matter out there is huge - it accounts for a substantial part of the
galaxys total mass. When leaving a cloud of the dark matter without
being aware of it, you'd experience an unexpected slowing force
starting at its border. This force is not present as long as you'd be
within a more or less homogenuous dark matter field.
Is there any hypothesis on the spread of the suns or a planets dark
matter halo, maybe derived from other galaxys rotational curves?
George Dishman
"Yslsl" <thomas...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150632510....@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> The paths of Pioneer 10 and 11 are affected by the concentrations of dark
>> matter within the sun and the planets. Since the sun conntains the
>> greatest
>> concentration of dark matter that's why the probes are found to be
>> accelerating toward to the sun. The following link describes this effect
>> in
>> details (pages 14 and 15):
>> http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
>
> The dark matter hypothesis sounds reasonable to me.
The usual problem applies though, why does the
gravitational effect of the DM affect the craft
but not the planets, moons, asteroids etc.? Such
simple explanations don't work.
George
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e73tv1$g2h$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "Yslsl" <thomas...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1150632510....@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
...
>> The dark matter hypothesis sounds reasonable to me.
>
> The usual problem applies though, why does the
> gravitational effect of the DM affect the craft
> but not the planets, moons, asteroids etc.? Such
> simple explanations don't work.
I'll attempt an argument at why this is so. If Dark Matter were
located within some shell* that the Pioneers (and others)
crossed, then the period of the planets would be too slow for the
radius of their orbit. The period is inclusive of both the
orbitting body's mass, and the mass of every other body within
its orbit.
[*] the "shell" would not have to be spherical. It could be a
toroid, or even some of the odd shapes of atomic p, d, etc
orbitals.
David A. Smith
George Dishman
> Dear George Dishman:
>
> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:e73tv1$g2h$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>
>> "Yslsl" <thomas...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1150632510....@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> ...
>>> The dark matter hypothesis sounds reasonable to me.
>>
>> The usual problem applies though, why does the
>> gravitational effect of the DM affect the craft
>> but not the planets, moons, asteroids etc.? Such
>> simple explanations don't work.
>
> I'll attempt an argument at why this is so. If Dark Matter were located
> within some shell* that the Pioneers (and others) crossed, then the period
> of the planets would be too slow for the radius of their orbit.
Assuming we calculated GM from the inner planets,
wouldn't the period for the outer planets be too
short? Anyway, again the key question is why
aren't the periods wrong in realtion to the
radius?
> The period is inclusive of both the orbitting body's mass, and the mass of
> every other body within its orbit.
Does the period of Pluto's orbit change when it
crosses the orbit of Neptune if they are on
opposite sides of the solar system at the time?
> [*] the "shell" would not have to be spherical. It could be a toroid, or
> even some of the odd shapes of atomic p, d, etc orbitals.
Starting with the idea of a uniform spherical shell,
the orbits of those planets inside would show one
value for GM of the Sun while those outside would
have a slightly higher value since the shell is
equivalent to a point mass at the centre. Pioneer
would switch from one value to the other giving an
inverse square error starting as it passed through
the shell.
Other shapes would produce similar results expect
possibly close to the shell. To get an anomaly in
the form of a constant acceleration, you need an
ever-increasing mass inside the craft's location.
It should be possible to find a function for mean
density versus radius that would produce the
observed anomaly. The question then is whether
credible rules for the gravitational interaction
of DM particles with each other and with the mass
of the Sun could result in such a distribution.
George
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e7473g$lh7$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com>
> wrote in message news:sFflg.13$6w.8@fed1read11...
>> Dear George Dishman:
>>
>> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:e73tv1$g2h$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>>
>>> "Yslsl" <thomas...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1150632510....@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> ...
>>>> The dark matter hypothesis sounds reasonable to me.
>>>
>>> The usual problem applies though, why does the
>>> gravitational effect of the DM affect the craft
>>> but not the planets, moons, asteroids etc.? Such
>>> simple explanations don't work.
>>
>> I'll attempt an argument at why this is so. If Dark
>> Matter were located within some shell* that the
>> Pioneers (and others) crossed, then the period of the planets
>> would be too slow for the radius of
>> their orbit.
>
> Assuming we calculated GM from the inner planets,
> wouldn't the period for the outer planets be too
> short?
If the mass within their orbit were higher, the period *should*
be shorter, given the observed radius of their orbits. The
period observed is longer than this, or in agreement with there
not being additional mass in the solar system.
> Anyway, again the key question is why
> aren't the periods wrong in realtion to the
> radius?
Because there is no Dark Matter in the solar system. That isn't
(essentially) co-located with known bodies.
>> The period is inclusive of both the orbitting body's
>> mass, and the mass of every other body within its
>> orbit.
>
> Does the period of Pluto's orbit change when it
> crosses the orbit of Neptune if they are on
> opposite sides of the solar system at the time?
It should. But then with an elliptical orbit, the highest speeds
occur on perihelion. It should be a tiny bit slower if Neptune
is located on the same side of the Sun as Pluto passes
"inside"...
>> [*] the "shell" would not have to be spherical. It could
>> be a toroid, or even some of the odd shapes of atomic
>> p, d, etc orbitals.
>
> Starting with the idea of a uniform spherical shell,
> the orbits of those planets inside would show one
> value for GM of the Sun while those outside would
> have a slightly higher value since the shell is
> equivalent to a point mass at the centre. Pioneer
> would switch from one value to the other giving an
> inverse square error starting as it passed through
> the shell.
>
> Other shapes would produce similar results expect
> possibly close to the shell. To get an anomaly in
> the form of a constant acceleration, you need an
> ever-increasing mass inside the craft's location.
Why "ever increasing"? If there were a single "step" in GM...
> It should be possible to find a function for mean
> density versus radius that would produce the
> observed anomaly. The question then is whether
> credible rules for the gravitational interaction
> of DM particles with each other and with the mass
> of the Sun could result in such a distribution.
The problem is, the anomalous acceleration is different values
for different (types of) craft, and started at different
distances from the Sun. Now a moving DM could do that, but not
yield a constant anomalous acceleration on its own.
David A. Smith
Joe Jakarta
Just for the record. Are there *wacky* ideas about the speed of light
changing, and *sensible* ideas about the speed of light changing?
Joe Jakarta
EM waves vary according to an inverse-first-power law.
Joe Jakarta
Martin Hogbin wrote:
> "Joe Jakarta" <bright...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1150370385.3...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> > http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000BB6BE-A7BA-1330-A54583414B7F0000
>
>
> My money is still on something in the spacecraft.
>
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Joe Jakarta" <bright...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1150715314.5...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> CWatters wrote:
...
>> Can the "no effect on planets" argument also be used
>> to rule out wacky ideas about the speed of light changing?
>
> Just for the record. Are there *wacky* ideas about the
> speed of light changing, and *sensible* ideas about the
> speed of light changing?
Yes. Search the archives for "variable light speed cosmologies".
In general, c can be made any value necessary to create
homogeneity in the Universe, but if has to be c before the matter
that created the CMBR cooled. And this only makes it something
other than wacky, but still NOT mainstream.
David A. Smith
kenseto
dark
> > matter within the sun and the planets. Since the sun conntains the
greatest
> > concentration of dark matter that's why the probes are found to be
> > accelerating toward to the sun. The following link describes this effect
in
> > details (pages 14 and 15):
> > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
>
> The dark matter hypothesis sounds reasonable to me.
> While the nature of dark matter remains unknown (at least to my
> knowledge), there is growing evidence for its existance and little
> doubt that it clumps in gravitational fields.
dark matter in my theory is the free S-Particles (non-orbiting S-Particles)
described in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Ken Seto
kenseto
"George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e73tv1$g2h$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
The sun, the planets, the moon and the asteriod etc each contains an amount
of DM directly proportional to its observable mass. Therefore the DM has no
effect on the observed motions of these objects. However, the Poioneer 10
and 11 contain no DM and therefore the DM in the sun will affect the paths
of travel of these spacecrafts.
Ken Seto
Craig Markwardt
Your statement is nonsensical. Dark matter is still by definition a
source of gravity. If dark matter were invoked to explain the Pioneer
anomaly, then it would also affect the planetary orbits in a way that
is not observed. The orbit propagation model for Pioneer already uses
the solar system body masses which match solar system body
observations. If the individual solar system bodies had "extra" mass
beyond their baryonic content, that would be accounted for by any of
the modern ephemerides.
CM
George Dishman
That's the amplitude, what is measured is the
frequency which is unaffected by distance.
George
George Dishman
He might have a very long piece of string.
George
George Dishman
>
...
>> Can the "no effect on planets" argument also be used to rule out wacky
>> ideas
>> about the speed of light changing?
>
> Just for the record. Are there *wacky* ideas about the speed of light
> changing, and *sensible* ideas about the speed of light changing?
All things in science are subject to confirmation by
observation. The possibility that what we take as
constants might actually change very slowly is no
exception. Ned Wright's news page mentions a new
measurement from late last year:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#13Dec05
Click the graph at the right hand side. The new result
places a tighter constraint on any variation but of
course no matter how well we measure, we can never rule
out a change slightly less than we can detect.
George
Richard Saam
> "Richard Saam" <rds...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:g_dkg.28280$mF2....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Summary Motion data:
>
>>Pioneer 10 about 28,000 mph 1,250,000 cm/sec (sun reference)
>>Pioneer 11 about 26,000 mph 1,160,000 cm/sec (sun reference)
>>with deceleration for both at (8.74 Ä… 1.33) x 10^(-8) cm/sec2
>>(5.99 Ä… 0.01) x 10^(-9) Hz/s
>>and the pioneer spacecraft rotational spin rates
>>Pioneer 10 about 4 rpm (2,581 cm/sec tip speed)
>>Pioneer 11 about 7 rpm (4,517 cm/sec tip speed)
>>with deceleration for both at .0067 rpm/year
>>Moment of inertia = 5.88E9 g cm^2
>>Mass = 241,000 gram
>>Area = 58,965 cm2
>>
>>
>>Logically
>>It can be concluded that
>>deceleration is independent of observation coordinate
>
>
> Ok so I've no idea what I'm talking about really but....
>
> each quantum "position"?
Yes
and each cobblestone of potential energy = mc^2 imparted to moving objects
like the reverse engine thrust action on landing aircraft
Could that be the cause... a bit like driving over
> a cobbled road? Would that explain why the effect is independant of the
> coordinate system?
Yes - the c^2 provides the constancy to the concept.
And objects with large area to mass ratios (dust)
would be much affected (measurably decelerated)
and objects with small area to mass ratios (planets)
would be much less affected (immeasurably decelerated).
>
It would also explain clumps of galactic dark matter
as dust clouds hung up in this vast array of quantum cobblestones
gravitationally affecting rotational movements of galactic star systems
by their presence.
This a good conceptual idea.
Richard
CWatters
> And objects with large area to mass ratios (dust)
> would be much affected (measurably decelerated)
> and objects with small area to mass ratios (planets)
> would be much less affected (immeasurably decelerated).
So probably wouldn't effect a dense object like a spaceship?
If it did would we learn anything by comparing the effect on an objects
rotation with the effect on it's translation?
Richard Saam
> "Richard Saam" <rds...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:T9Dlg.216019$Fs1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>And objects with large area to mass ratios (dust)
>>would be much affected (measurably decelerated)
>>and objects with small area to mass ratios (planets)
>>would be much less affected (immeasurably decelerated).
>
>
> So probably wouldn't effect a dense object like a spaceship?
>
Probably not detectable for something large enough to support man.
> If it did would we learn anything by comparing the effect on an objects
> rotation with the effect on it's translation?
>
>
Generally, it would anticipated that if translation is affected
then rotation would be affected
but the numbered relationship could vary considerably.
Assuming the Pioneer was just on the border
Moment of inertia (MOI) = 5.88E9 g cm2
Mass (M) = 241,000 gram
Area (A) = 58,965 cm2
of detecting this deceleration anomaly
translational (8.74 Ä… 1.33) x 10^(-8) cm/sec2
rotational .0067 rpm/year,
I would like to see spacecraft launched to > 10 AU
Moment of inertia (MOI) = <5.88E9 g cm2
Mass (M) = <241,000 gram
Area (A) = >58,965 cm2
in order to perhaps observe a more pronounced deceleration affect.
Now for your question:
>
> If it did would we learn anything by comparing the effect on an objects
> rotation with the effect on it's translation?
Assume a spacecraft designed like a spinning top
small enough to encounter deceleration affect.
I would anticipate that spinning deceleration would be constant
from any spinning top viewing angle.
Translational deceleration would be proportional to the projected area viewed
or in other words
it would be greater when viewed parallel to spin axis
(large projected area viewed)
than when viewed 90 degrees from spin axis
(small projected area viewed)
In general,it would be good to have a range of spacecraft
launched to >10 AU
at varied declination and hour angle to celestial sphere
with a spectrum of MOI's, M's and A's
(with potentially interfering transmitted EM radiation minimized)
to test this Anomaly.
Richard
GSS
I understand that very many alternatives are being explored to find
some acceptable explanation for the observed Pioneer Anomaly.
The main obsevational data for Pioneer -10 consists of Doppler
frequency record from which we can compute the spacecraft velocity data
and hence range data.
May I request the learned readers to kindly explain (if possible) how
exactly did we come to the conclusion from the available Doppler data
that the Anomaly exists? More precisely, how do we compute the
Anomalous acceleration from the available Doppler data?
GSS
George Dishman
"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151215680....@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I understand that very many alternatives are being explored to find
> some acceptable explanation for the observed Pioneer Anomaly.
>
> The main obsevational data for Pioneer -10 consists of Doppler
> frequency record from which we can compute the spacecraft velocity data
> and hence range data.
Measured range data per se was not available for the
majority of the period examined for Pioneer 10. Range
can be inferred by integrating velocity but it cannot
be confirmed.
> May I request the learned readers to kindly explain (if possible) how
> exactly did we come to the conclusion from the available Doppler data
> that the Anomaly exists? More precisely, how do we compute the
> Anomalous acceleration from the available Doppler data?
Crudely: the overall trajectory of the craft can be
determined by six starting parameters, three to define
the location of the craft and three to define its
velocity at some initial instant. After that, the
motion should be entirely defined by the acceleration
due to the gravitational effect of the planets and
other large bodies.
When those six values are optimised to find the best
fit to the data, there remains an error. Adding a
constant acceleration towards the Sun removes that
error.
There are a lot of other factors to consider, notably
the effect of "CONSCAN" manoeuvres which maintained
alignment of the antenna beam with the Earth using
thrusters.
HTH
George
Sorcerer
Doppler's equation:
c+u
f' = f ----------
c+v
Einstein's equation:
1+v/c
f' = f sqrt[-------------]
1-v/c
To be more precise,
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm
They are slightly different... the anomaly simply shows the wrong equation
was used. It's no good applying real data to Einstein's fairy tale or you'll
get anomalous results.
Androcles
John C. Polasek
wrote:
Now that you ask, the discovery has nothing to do with the Doppler
effect, which is the change in frequency corresponding to Pioneer's
velocity, during a round trip to the target satellite.
It comes from integration of an accurate model for predicted frequency
over years of time, during which it was found that the station
frequency consistently and secularly exceeded the frequency predicted
by the model. Over a much studied 8 year period, it amounted to 1.5 Hz
out of 2,922,000,000 Hz.
The difference would be essentially the same if you used the station
frequency or the reflected frequency, the latter contributing an
anomaly equal to only Ap/25,000, where V/c = 1/25000.
There is every indication the causeof this drift is the secular
increase of all atomic clocks at Hubble rate of 2.6e-18/sec, while the
model perforce used the established frequency of 2.292GHz m/l.
John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net.
Craig Markwardt
"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> May I request the learned readers to kindly explain (if possible) how
> exactly did we come to the conclusion from the available Doppler data
> that the Anomaly exists? More precisely, how do we compute the
> Anomalous acceleration from the available Doppler data?
>
In short, there is a model of the forces on the spacecraft and the
physical effects on the radio waves in the solar system. After
solving for the trajectory of the spacecraft by adjusting the initial
conditions, there still remains a residual which cannot be accounted
for by known physics. Hence, the "anomaly."
Why not read more here?
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0104064 Anderson et al.
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0208046 Markwardt
Craig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig B. Markwardt, Ph.D. EMAIL: crai...@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu
Astrophysics, IDL, Finance, Derivatives | Remove "net" for better response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Markwardt
John C. Polasek <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> writes:
[ ... ]
> Now that you ask, the discovery has nothing to do with the Doppler
> effect, which is the change in frequency corresponding to Pioneer's
> velocity, during a round trip to the target satellite.
This is unsubstantiated.
> It comes from integration of an accurate model for predicted frequency
> over years of time, during which it was found that the station
> frequency consistently and secularly exceeded the frequency predicted
> by the model.
Incorrect. First, at no point was an "accurate model for predicted
frequency" integrated. In fact, a frequency model was computed based
on the best-fit trajectory. This was compared to the observations,
and the resulting residuals have a linear trend with time.
Second, and more importantly, it was *not* found that the station
frequency changed. [ This is your own erroneous assertion. ]
As I already noted on June 18th,
[ Markwardt, <on1wtms...@cow.physics.wisc.edu> ]
: However, what you are not grasping is that *both* the "model" and
: "observed" frequencies also depend on the *transmitted* frequency at
: the time of the tracking session. Even if all frequencies drifted as
: you suppose, so would the transmitted uplink frequency. Any drift
: would appear in both "model" and "observed," and therefore subtract
: away to zero. Once again, there is no special frequency of 1987
: stored in the analysis program.
So even if you were "right" you would be wrong.
...
> There is every indication the causeof this drift is the secular
> increase of all atomic clocks at Hubble rate of 2.6e-18/sec, while the
> model perforce used the established frequency of 2.292GHz m/l.
Actually, there is no indication of drifting clocks, as noted in
detail by Anderson et al (2002).
CM
George Dishman
"John C. Polasek" <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9vft92t9q78hlc8ka...@4ax.com...
> There is every indication the causeof this drift is the secular
> increase of all atomic clocks at Hubble rate of 2.6e-18/sec,
This is completely incorrect. Anderson et al include a
detailed discussion of the possibility of clocks drifting
and note that it would require a quadratic drift to explain
the anomaly, i.e. a rate that depended on t^2.
Joe, in case John's reply leads you to think of
the cosmological ('Hubble') redshift, just note
that it has frequently been brought up and
dismissed, it produces an effect about 10,000
times too small.
> while the
> model perforce used the established frequency of 2.292GHz m/l.
As has been pointed out to you several times John,
each contact analysed used the appropriate recorded
transmitted frequency since it was necessary to
change it almost daily to compensate for the Doppler
caused by the Earth's orbital speed. Please don't
mislead people asking for simple factual answers
with this sort of mis-information.
George
John C. Polasek
<crai...@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> May I request the learned readers to kindly explain (if possible) how
>> exactly did we come to the conclusion from the available Doppler data
>> that the Anomaly exists? More precisely, how do we compute the
>> Anomalous acceleration from the available Doppler data?
>>
>
>In short, there is a model of the forces on the spacecraft and the
>physical effects on the radio waves in the solar system. After
>solving for the trajectory of the spacecraft by adjusting the initial
>conditions, there still remains a residual which cannot be accounted
>for by known physics. Hence, the "anomaly."
>
>Why not read more here?
> http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0104064 Anderson et al.
> http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0208046 Markwardt
>
>Craig
Gentlemen, I have made a thorough effort to take account of all
factors in the Pioneer 10 affair. To that end I have posted on my
website an analysis including a signal flow graph that attempts to
diagram the whole procedure. I have made an effort to get it all
right, but will listen to any suggestions. After all I was not first
hand on the job.
The signal flowgraph is a handy substitute for a block diagram as you
will understand by a bit of study. At least it presents specifics
which can aid in any discussion.
I have evidence of secular advance of atomic clocks, and am quite sure
you will agree with me that there is no way to argue that the model
contained anything resembling such a rate, hence the anomaly.
See the first document mentioned on the website, a .pdf 4 page item.
John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
GSS
Craig Markwardt wrote:
> "GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> May I request the learned readers to kindly explain (if possible) how
>> exactly did we come to the conclusion from the available Doppler data
>> that the Anomaly exists? More precisely, how do we compute the
>> Anomalous acceleration from the available Doppler data?
>>
>
> In short, there is a model of the forces on the spacecraft and the
> physical effects on the radio waves in the solar system. After
> solving for the trajectory of the spacecraft by adjusting the initial
> conditions, there still remains a residual which cannot be accounted
> for by known physics. Hence, the "anomaly."
>
> Why not read more here?
> http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0104064 Anderson et al.
> http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0208046 Markwardt
>
> Craig
Let me include a few relations from the above quoted reference for
subsequent discussion.
Let D represent delta, v_mod represent the outward velocity of the
spacecraft at the given instant t as used in the comprehensive
trajectory model and v_obs represent the corresponding velocity as
derived from the observed Doppler frequency Nu_obs.
Nu_mod = Nu_0 [1-(2.v_mod/c)] ..... (1)
DNu_mod = Nu_0 - Nu_mod ..... (2)
DNu_obs = Nu_0 - Nu_obs ..... (3)
>From (1)
DNu_mod/Nu_0 = 2 v_mod/c ..... (4)
And
2 v_obs/c = DNu_obs/Nu_0 ..... (5)
It has been observed from the Pioneer-10 Doppler data that over a long
period of time the Doppler Residuals given by [DNu_obs-DNu_mod] or by
[v_obs-v_mod] showed a continuous decreasing trend. This has been found
to be an Anomalous effect. This anomalous effect has been modeled by an
anomalous acceleration term a_p directed towards sun/earth.
DNu_obs/Nu_0 - DNu_mod/Nu_0 = 2.a_p.t/c .... (6)
Tremendous efforts have been put in for finding some acceptable
satisfactory explanation for this anomaly and too many weird proposals
have been put forward for resolving it but without success. In the
process all aspects of the comprehensive trajectory model have been
thoroughly analyzed.
It has been mentioned in the above quoted reference that *all
relativistic corrections* have been incorporated in the model. In this
regard kindly give your opinion whether it is possible that the so
called relativistic corrections themselves could be the source of the
Anomalous effect??
And is it also possible that some theoretical error in the Doppler
relations (4) and (5) could lead to the observed Anomalous effect?
GSS
Craig Markwardt
"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> writes:
...
> DNu_mod/Nu_0 = 2 v_mod/c ..... (4)
> And
> 2 v_obs/c = DNu_obs/Nu_0 ..... (5)
>
> It has been mentioned in the above quoted reference that *all
> relativistic corrections* have been incorporated in the model. In this
> regard kindly give your opinion whether it is possible that the so
> called relativistic corrections themselves could be the source of the
> Anomalous effect??
No. Switching from relativistic to classical physics only worsens the
solution, not improves.
> And is it also possible that some theoretical error in the Doppler
> relations (4) and (5) could lead to the observed Anomalous effect?
Relations 4 and 5 are inexact representations of the Doppler shift.
The exact relativistic formulation improves the solution.
George Dishman
> On 25 Jun 2006 13:29:43 -0500, Craig Markwardt
> <crai...@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>> May I request the learned readers to kindly explain (if possible) how
>>> exactly did we come to the conclusion from the available Doppler data
>>> that the Anomaly exists? More precisely, how do we compute the
>>> Anomalous acceleration from the available Doppler data?
>>>
>>
>>In short, there is a model of the forces on the spacecraft and the
>>physical effects on the radio waves in the solar system. After
>>solving for the trajectory of the spacecraft by adjusting the initial
>>conditions, there still remains a residual which cannot be accounted
>>for by known physics. Hence, the "anomaly."
>>
>>Why not read more here?
>> http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0104064 Anderson et al.
>> http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0208046 Markwardt
>>
>>Craig
> Gentlemen, I have made a thorough effort to take account of all
> factors in the Pioneer 10 affair. To that end I have posted on my
> website an analysis including a signal flow graph that attempts to
> diagram the whole procedure. I have made an effort to get it all
> right, but will listen to any suggestions. After all I was not first
> hand on the job.
In that case you should listen carefully to Craig since
his knowledge is first hand, he did a complete analysis
from the raw data and can tell you precisely how he did
that.
> The signal flowgraph is a handy substitute for a block diagram as you
> will understand by a bit of study. At least it presents specifics
> which can aid in any discussion.
It needs a lot more explanation of what each of the items
represents, as it stands it is very difficult to follow.
It would be aprticularly useful if you could relate it
to the blobk diagram on page 8 of gr-qc/0104064 and the
discussion of the FTS. You are I believe suggesting that
the hydrogen maser in the FTS is drifting and it isn't
clear how that can produce an error of 3Hz over a period
of ~ 20 hours at the end of the period being analysed
when there was no error in 1987.
> I have evidence of secular advance of atomic clocks, and am quite sure
> you will agree with me that there is no way to argue that the model
> contained anything resembling such a rate, hence the anomaly.
On the contrary, it has been pointed out that Anderson's
team described this in the section entitled "Phenomenological
time models". See page 46 of the above paper.
George
John C. Polasek
wrote:
I tried to show you in my flowgraph paper on my website, that Doppler
isn't even in it. The round trip times are too small.
Even for a 20 hr. round trip the Doppler change in beat is a
fractional change df/f0 = 2e-13 or 4.8e-4Hz, and after 8 years (the
other end of the chart) you have the same values 2e-13 and 4.8e-4Hz.
There would be nothing to plot.
The chart shown would be the same if you used the station clock,
without the Doppler returned signal. The only thing that can
reasonably cause that is a continuously increasing station clock rate
or a mystery acceleration which we can rule out.
John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
George Dishman
>
> I tried to show you in my flowgraph paper on my website, that Doppler
> isn't even in it. The round trip times are too small.
>
> Even for a 20 hr. round trip the Doppler change in beat is a
> fractional change df/f0 = 2e-13 or 4.8e-4Hz, and after 8 years (the
> other end of the chart) you have the same values 2e-13 and 4.8e-4Hz.
> There would be nothing to plot.
>
> The chart shown would be the same if you used the station clock,
> without the Doppler returned signal. The only thing that can
> reasonably cause that is a continuously increasing station clock rate
> or a mystery acceleration which we can rule out.
John, it isn't that simple. A linear increase in the
station maser clock rate would cause an increase in
the transmitted frequency in 1994 compared to 1987
and that would in turn cause an equal fractional
increase in the returned frequency. The measured
value is the difference between that and a reference
also generated from the maser (albeit at another
site[*]) but that difference is then measured using
a timebase derived from the same maser.
What that means is that a simple change of rate
cancels out. I don't think your flowchart illustrates
that point and it is very important in any consideration
of clock rate variation.
George
[*] The secular rates will be matched via synchronisation
to the international standard.
John C. Polasek
<geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>John C. Polasek wrote:
>>
>> I tried to show you in my flowgraph paper on my website, that Doppler
>> isn't even in it. The round trip times are too small.
>>
>> Even for a 20 hr. round trip the Doppler change in beat is a
>> fractional change df/f0 = 2e-13 or 4.8e-4Hz, and after 8 years (the
>> other end of the chart) you have the same values 2e-13 and 4.8e-4Hz.
>> There would be nothing to plot.
>>
>> The chart shown would be the same if you used the station clock,
>> without the Doppler returned signal. The only thing that can
>> reasonably cause that is a continuously increasing station clock rate
>> or a mystery acceleration which we can rule out.
>
>John, it isn't that simple. A linear increase in the
>station maser clock rate would cause an increase in
>the transmitted frequency in 1994 compared to 1987
>and that would in turn cause an equal fractional
>increase in the returned frequency. The measured
>value is the difference between that and a reference
>also generated from the maser (albeit at another
>site[*]) but that difference is then measured using
>a timebase derived from the same maser.
I think you are talking aboug deltaF on the graph, and we both agree
it's negligible. My argument is that the station or returned (either)
frequency vs the synthetic frequency in the model that makes the
anomaly.
>What that means is that a simple change of rate
>cancels out. I don't think your flowchart illustrates
>that point and it is very important in any consideration
>of clock rate variation.
>
>George
>[*] The secular rates will be matched via synchronisation
> to the international standard.
How can I say it again without being repetitious? Of course the return
frequency is bootstrapped off the station clock and their difference
essentially nulls out. I just pointed that out above, to the effect
that the return differences are just so much noise, in the big
picture.
You must know that I am talking about all real, maser-verfiied clocks
that accelerate compared to the artificial clock in the model which
for several reasons must have a constant value. The result is the ramp
function on the chart.
I went on at some length about how the fictional clock can only have
one proper book value. Even today it would be assigned the same
value, just as Cs33 would still have 9,192,731,770 to define one
second. What is there to check against?
In other words, as shown on the graph, the model's frequency is f0 and
the station clock's is f0 plus f0*H*t, leaving f0*H*t as the input to
the graph. .
John P
Craig Markwardt
John C. Polasek <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> writes:
For the third time, as I already noted on June 18th,
[ Markwardt, <on1wtms0oi....@cow.physics.wisc.edu> ]
: However, what you are not grasping is that *both* the "model" and
: "observed" frequencies also depend on the *transmitted* frequency at
: the time of the tracking session. Even if all frequencies drifted as
: you suppose, so would the transmitted uplink frequency. Any drift
: would appear in both "model" and "observed," and therefore subtract
: away to zero. Once again, there is no special frequency of 1987
: stored in the analysis program.
So even if you were "right" you would be wrong.
> I have evidence of secular advance of atomic clocks, and am quite sure
> you will agree with me that there is no way to argue that the model
> contained anything resembling such a rate, hence the anomaly.
And for the second time,
: Actually, there is no indication of drifting clocks, as noted in
: detail by Anderson et al (2002).
Why do you keep ignoring valid criticism, and instead continuously
repeating your erroneous and unsubstantiated claims?
CM
George Dishman
John C. Polasek wrote:
> On 27 Jun 2006 01:11:49 -0700, "George Dishman"
> <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >John C. Polasek wrote:
> >>
> >> I tried to show you in my flowgraph paper on my website, that Doppler
> >> isn't even in it. The round trip times are too small.
> >>
> >> Even for a 20 hr. round trip the Doppler change in beat is a
> >> fractional change df/f0 = 2e-13 or 4.8e-4Hz, and after 8 years (the
> >> other end of the chart) you have the same values 2e-13 and 4.8e-4Hz.
> >> There would be nothing to plot.
> >>
> >> The chart shown would be the same if you used the station clock,
> >> without the Doppler returned signal. The only thing that can
> >> reasonably cause that is a continuously increasing station clock rate
> >> or a mystery acceleration which we can rule out.
> >
> >John, it isn't that simple. A linear increase in the
> >station maser clock rate would cause an increase in
> >the transmitted frequency in 1994 compared to 1987
> >and that would in turn cause an equal fractional
> >increase in the returned frequency. The measured
> >value is the difference between that and a reference
> >also generated from the maser (albeit at another
> >site[*]) but that difference is then measured using
> >a timebase derived from the same maser.
>
> I think you are talking aboug deltaF on the graph,
No, I understand your graph to show the difference
between measured Doppler and the Doppler predicted
based on the modelled speed of the craft. I don't have
an issue with that, I think you have it right. What I am
talking about is the method used to make the
measurement and how it would be affecte by clock
drift.
> and we both agree
> it's negligible. My argument is that the station or returned (either)
> frequency vs the synthetic frequency in the model that makes the
> anomaly.
There is no "synthetic frequency" in the model. The
expected shift is calculated from the modelled craft
speed and the measured transmit frequency.
> >What that means is that a simple change of rate
> >cancels out. I don't think your flowchart illustrates
> >that point and it is very important in any consideration
> >of clock rate variation.
> >
> >George
> >[*] The secular rates will be matched via synchronisation
> > to the international standard.
>
> How can I say it again without being repetitious? Of course the return
> frequency is bootstrapped off the station clock and their difference
> essentially nulls out. I just pointed that out above, to the effect
> that the return differences are just so much noise, in the big
> picture.
>
> You must know that I am talking about all real, maser-verfiied clocks
> that accelerate compared to the artificial clock in the model which
> for several reasons must have a constant value.
The point I am drawing your attention to is that there is
no "artificial clock" in the model, the speed is applied to
the transmit frequency which is measured/generated
against the maser at most 20 hours before reception.
> The result is the ramp
> function on the chart.
>
> I went on at some length about how the fictional clock can only have
> one proper book value. Even today it would be assigned the same
> value, just as Cs33 would still have 9,192,731,770 to define one
> second. What is there to check against?
>
> In other words, as shown on the graph, the model's frequency is f0 and
> the station clock's is f0 plus f0*H*t, leaving f0*H*t as the input to
> the graph. .
If the station clock is [f0 plus f0*H*t] at the time of reception
then it is compared against [f0 plus f0*H*(t-tr)] where tr is the
round-trip time, not f0 as you seem to be suggesting.
George
Craig Markwardt
> You must know that I am talking about all real, maser-verfiied clocks
> that accelerate compared to the artificial clock in the model which
> for several reasons must have a constant value. The result is the ramp
> function on the chart.
For the nth time, there is no "artificial clock" in the model. The
station clock at the time of the tracking session is used in the
model. If you continue with your fiction, I can only assume that you
are not interested in substantiated debate.
CM
GSS
I appreciate your efforts for putting up a new proposal under the
'banner' of 'New Physics'. Exploring all possibilities is the normal
scientific approach.
However, I am sorry, I cannot agree to your proposal.
Trouble is that I cannot agree to your fundamental assumption of an
expanding space. Hence your argument of 'continuously increasing
station clock rate' is not convincing even if you believe that it can
explain the anomaly.
GSS
GSS
> "GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> writes:
> ...
> > DNu_mod/Nu_0 = 2 v_mod/c ..... (4)
> > And
> > 2 v_obs/c = DNu_obs/Nu_0 ..... (5)
> ...
> >
> > It has been mentioned in the above quoted reference that *all
> > relativistic corrections* have been incorporated in the model. In this
> > regard kindly give your opinion whether it is possible that the so
> > called relativistic corrections themselves could be the source of the
> > Anomalous effect??
>
> No. Switching from relativistic to classical physics only worsens the
> solution, not improves.
Has this been tried out? If so by whom and what is the quantitative
difference in the Anomalous effect?
>From the above quoted reference [arXiv:gr-qc/0104064 v5] it appears
that the Relativity corrections have been used both for improving
accuracy of the model and to use such an improved model for testing the
Relativity Theories. Quoting from pages 12 and 14 of this reference -
"Responding to the increasing demand of the navigational accuracy, the
gravitational field in the solar system is modeled to include a number
of relativistic effects that are predicted by the different metric
theories of gravity. Thus, within the accuracy of modern experimental
techniques, the parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) approximation of
modern theories of gravity provides a useful starting point not only
for testing these predictions, but also for describing the motion of
selfgravitating bodies and test particles."
"Indeed, this dynamical model has been good enough to perform tests of
general relativity."
Doesn't it appear to be fundamentally illogical to first use Relativity
to perfect the model and then to use that model to test Relativity. If
the Relativity does need to be tested then why use it till its
clearance through authentic testing?
> > And is it also possible that some theoretical error in the Doppler
> > relations (4) and (5) could lead to the observed Anomalous effect?
> Relations 4 and 5 are inexact representations of the Doppler shift.
> The exact relativistic formulation improves the solution.
>
> Craig
Kindly provide the ' exact relativistic formulation ' in place of
relations (4) and (5) or atleast provide a reference for the same.
GSS
John C. Polasek
wrote:
How far can we get if you equate expanding clock rate with expanding
space? Dual Space is a large theory replacing relativity and the BB
and it explains why clock rates are changing.
Look at my Gravity paper (#2) on my website and see Eq. 1, the Navier
Stokes equation that explains gravity as being the consequence of the
removal of that which was created out of the pair-space substance.
Eq. 1c has the development cdc/dr = MG/r^2, where it turns out dc/dr
is the Hubble constant, which equals Ap for proper M and r, the mass
of the universe and its radius.
The chapter is about showing how the results of GR are achieved in
cartesian space after separating space and time. The GPS example is a
nice test case.
It is quite plain that relativity and space-time have nothing useful
to say in regard to the Pioneer 10 nor even the Michelson Morley null
which is explained in Fig. 7.
John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
John C. Polasek
<crai...@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote:
I may be misinterpreting what is in the model, but what I have tried
to represent in the upper model leg is a digital differential analyzer
doing numerical integration on data taken from the ephemeris and
double integrating it for range that would then update the ephemeris.
In so doing only the constant G is involved, and it's all
mathematical.
Then to produce anything resembling frequency, for later comparison
with the real hardware, from the point V(t), one must introduce the
multiplier -f0/c. In this regard I would expect that the multiplier is
a mathematic constant being 1/WL.
If this is wrong, just say so and I can modify my model, but then tell
me how this coefficient -f0/c is brought up to date with the
transmitting clock. With an analog computer, yes, or using the station
clock to drive the DDA, but that looks like a nullity also.
It is clear there is substantial misunderstanding somewhere.
John P
Richard Saam
"HUBBLE REVEALS TWO DUST DISKS AROUND NEARBY STAR (STScI-PR06-25)"
prompted a look at this site:
http://www.solstation.com/stars2/beta-pic.htm
and thought it appropriate to the discussion.
It identifies a star 'Beta Pictoris'
'only 20 to 200 million years old at most'
with two dust discs as observed by the Hubble telescope.
*******************
Beta Pictoris is a bluish white main sequence dwarf star of spectral and
luminosity type A5 V, but has been previously classified as A3. It is also
classified as a "shell star" because it is surrounded by a shell of mostly
hydrogen gas. The star may have about 1.75 times Sol's mass, 1.4 times its
diameter, and 8.7 times its luminosity. The star may be as enriched than Sol
with elements heavier than hydrogen ("metallicity"), based on its abundance of
iron (Heap et al, 1995). It appears to be only 20 to 200 million years old at most.
*******************
Much older stars such as our own do not have this dust disc character.
Could it be that the dust particles
(with their large area to mass ratios as compared to planetary objects)
experience the anomalous deceleration in a more pronounced manner than
the Pioneer spacecraft and consequently spin into the star or orbiting planets.
Our solar system is essentially dust free.
Perhaps, it did not have to be that way
but for the anomalous deceleration effect.
No doppler effects are noted from the spinning 'Beta Pictoris' dust disc.
I wonder if such data is obtainable.
Could the dust anomalous deceleration be observed directly
as observed by doppler shift of reflected light
as compared to calculated gravitational trajectory?
Richard
Craig Markwardt
"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Craig Markwardt wrote:
> > "GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > ...
> > > DNu_mod/Nu_0 = 2 v_mod/c ..... (4)
> > > And
> > > 2 v_obs/c = DNu_obs/Nu_0 ..... (5)
> > ...
> > >
> > > It has been mentioned in the above quoted reference that *all
> > > relativistic corrections* have been incorporated in the model. In this
> > > regard kindly give your opinion whether it is possible that the so
> > > called relativistic corrections themselves could be the source of the
> > > Anomalous effect??
> >
> > No. Switching from relativistic to classical physics only worsens the
> > solution, not improves.
>
> Has this been tried out? If so by whom and what is the quantitative
> difference in the Anomalous effect?
Yes, by me. Changing from relativistic to classical Doppler shifts
essentially adds noise to the solution, which is of order a few Hz.
This is appropriate since the difference between the two kinds of
Doppler shifts occurs at second order in (v/c). It's also
understandable since the dominant Doppler shifts are the earth's
motion and rotation (factor of 2-3 times larger than the spacecraft
speed w.r.t. the sun). The anomaly itself is still present with both
methods, just noisier with classical Doppler shifts.
> >From the above quoted reference [arXiv:gr-qc/0104064 v5] it appears
> that the Relativity corrections have been used both for improving
> accuracy of the model and to use such an improved model for testing the
> Relativity Theories. Quoting from pages 12 and 14 of this reference -
>
> "Responding to the increasing demand of the navigational accuracy, the
> gravitational field in the solar system is modeled to include a number
> of relativistic effects that are predicted by the different metric
> theories of gravity. Thus, within the accuracy of modern experimental
> techniques, the parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) approximation of
> modern theories of gravity provides a useful starting point not only
> for testing these predictions, but also for describing the motion of
> selfgravitating bodies and test particles."
>
> "Indeed, this dynamical model has been good enough to perform tests of
> general relativity."
Or, from the above quoted reference [arxiv.org/gr-qc/0208046],
"The equations of motion I used [... included ... ] aN ... due to
Newtonian gravity"
and
"[Anderson et al 2002] considers additional terms for the
acceleration which allow for alternate theories of gravity (their
equation 3). I find that over the span of the data, these terms are
always smaller than 3x10^{-12} cm/s^2 and thus I neglect them for
the purposes of Doppler tracking analysis.
So, despite using Newtonian gravity, the anomaly was the same. Adding
the relativistic terms to the equation of motion did not change the
solution appreciably.
> Doesn't it appear to be fundamentally illogical to first use Relativity
> to perfect the model and then to use that model to test Relativity. If
> the Relativity does need to be tested then why use it till its
> clearance through authentic testing?
Ignoring for the moment that your question is moot -- given the above
description -- the first "P" in the PPN theory of gravity is
"parameterized." The PPN theory is parameterized family of gravity
models, *not* just GR.
> > > And is it also possible that some theoretical error in the Doppler
> > > relations (4) and (5) could lead to the observed Anomalous effect?
>
> > Relations 4 and 5 are inexact representations of the Doppler shift.
> > The exact relativistic formulation improves the solution.
> >
> > Craig
>
> Kindly provide the ' exact relativistic formulation ' in place of
> relations (4) and (5) or atleast provide a reference for the same.
Kindly consult the referred-to papers, for example, gr-qc/0208046 eq 2.
CM
Sorcerer
I wonder why?
ROFLMAO!
| I wonder if such data is obtainable.
| Could the dust anomalous deceleration be observed directly
| as observed by doppler shift of reflected light
| as compared to calculated gravitational trajectory?
|
| Richard
You may catch on someday, Richard, but it will take a lot of research
and an old, long forgotten paradigm.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
This is the story of a scientific crime. I mean a crime committed by a
scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics
and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of
fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.
Einstein developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it
is a crime against science and scholarship.
Androcles
Richard Saam
One would need a time (or frequency) standard
related to a particular atomic quantum transition in 'Beta Pictoris' dust disc
compared to a duplicate atomic quantum transition here on earth.
Is there anything in reflected light to do this?
Richard
Sorcerer
Oh look, you want the play the game of [snip]. Ok, I'll play... SNAP!
GSS
Thanks for the clarification.
>> Doesn't it appear to be fundamentally illogical to first use Relativity
>> to perfect the model and then to use that model to test Relativity. If
>> the Relativity does need to be tested then why use it till its
>> clearance through authentic testing?
>
> Ignoring for the moment that your question is moot -- given the above
> description -- the first "P" in the PPN theory of gravity is
> "parameterized." The PPN theory is parameterized family of gravity
> models, *not* just GR.
>>>> And is it also possible that some theoretical error in the Doppler
>>>> relations (4) and (5) could lead to the observed Anomalous effect?
>>> Relations 4 and 5 are inexact representations of the Doppler shift.
>>> The exact relativistic formulation improves the solution.
>>>
>>> Craig
>> Kindly provide the ' exact relativistic formulation ' in place of
>> relations (4) and (5) or atleast provide a reference for the same.
> Kindly consult the referred-to papers, for example, gr-qc/0208046 eq 2.
>
> CM
Let me try to reproduce equation 2 from your paper gr-qc/0208046 since
I intend to have a detailed discussion on this issue.
d_12 = {sqrt[1 - |v1|^2/c^2]/sqrt[1 - |v2|^2/c^2]} .
[(1 - ˆr12 · v2/c^2)/(1 - ˆr12 · v1/c^2)] ............. (2)
The unit vector ˆr12 points from the transmitting station to the
spacecraft,
i.e., ˆr12 = r12/r12.
This equation appears to be wrong since it is not dimensionally
balanced. Perhaps it should have been as given below.
d_12 = {sqrt[1 - |v1|^2/c^2]/sqrt[1 - |v2|^2/c^2]} .
[(1 - ˆr12 · v2/c)/(1 - ˆr12 · v1/c)] ............. (2')
Kindly confirm.
GSS
Craig Markwardt
A typo.
> This equation appears to be wrong since it is not dimensionally
> balanced. Perhaps it should have been as given below.
>
> d_12 = {sqrt[1 - |v1|^2/c^2]/sqrt[1 - |v2|^2/c^2]} .
> [(1 - ˆr12 · v2/c)/(1 - ˆr12 · v1/c)] ............. (2')
>
> Kindly confirm.
Confirmed.
CM
Craig Markwardt
Yes, you have a problem. Why don't you start to fix it by reading the
referred-to papers, or George or my previous posts, which you seem to
be conveniently ignoring?
CM
Aleksandr Timofeev
Dear Craig Markwardt, please, look at:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/9a96b538d2852019?dmode=source&hl=en
My arguments and interpretation of anomaly of "Pioneers" can change
your approach to interpretation of the problem.
John C. Polasek
<crai...@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>John C. Polasek <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> writes:
>> On 27 Jun 2006 10:46:22 -0500, Craig Markwardt
>> <crai...@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John C. Polasek <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> writes:
>> >...
>> >> You must know that I am talking about all real, maser-verfiied clocks
>> >> that accelerate compared to the artificial clock in the model which
>> >> for several reasons must have a constant value. The result is the ramp
>> >> function on the chart.
>> >...
>> >
>> >CM
>> I may be misinterpreting what is in the model, but what I have tried
>> to represent in the upper model leg is a digital differential analyzer
>> doing numerical integration on data taken from the ephemeris and
>> double integrating it for range that would then update the ephemeris.
>> In so doing only the constant G is involved, and it's all
>> mathematical.
>>
>> Then to produce anything resembling frequency, for later comparison
>> with the real hardware, from the point V(t), one must introduce the
>> multiplier -f0/c. In this regard I would expect that the multiplier is
>> a mathematic constant being 1/WL.
>>
>> If this is wrong, just say so and I can modify my model, but then tell
>> me how this coefficient -f0/c is brought up to date with the
>> transmitting clock. With an analog computer, yes, or using the station
>> clock to drive the DDA, but that looks like a nullity also.
>>
>> It is clear there is substantial misunderstanding somewhere.
>
>Yes, you have a problem. Why don't you start to fix it by reading the
>referred-to papers, or George or my previous posts, which you seem to
>be conveniently ignoring?
I see where I muddied the waters by talking about -f0/c. I should have
said f0:
The model is totally artificial, a mathematical construct, and it
requires 3 prescribed numerical coefficients G, -f0/c and finally f0.
The important one is f0 which I say retains a constant prescribed
value, while the real clocks run away from it by Hubble acceleration.
(The part depending on -f0/c is as I have said, a negligible
contributor.)
The additive f0 in my flowgraph has to be a constant with the same
value today as it had 20 years ago, or show me how, and why, it has
been altered.
You say "the station clock at the time of the tracking session is used
in the model". Please tell veryspecifically how this can be done. (We
are looking for nothing more nor less than a new NUMERICAL value of f0
to go into the model). (As can be seen from the graph a new offset to
f0 would simply offset the graph).
To be facetious, (or realistic) what would cause the technician, who
has just turned on the station clock, to call up the computer room and
announce a new number for f0?
Checking the frequency with NIST would be simplest. You can update an
atomic clock over the telephone. Their site has a sample daily record
of a clock being checked, that shows infinitesimal *random* daily
changes about +-2e-13 which is nothing.
Remember that by hypothesis, NIST's masers have advanced by exactly
the same fraction as the statioin clock, so they all march together.
But f0 in the model is stuck in the past.
Tell me how the number f0 is custom adjusted to the station clock's
frequency, when there is no way of determining its frequency in the
first place.
My argument is simply that f0 is set in stone, and by hypothesis, all
atomic real clocks are secularly advancing, leading to the 1.5/8
discrepancy. It simply accounts for the anomaly.
>CM
>
John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
GSS
Craig Markwardt wrote:
> "GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Craig Markwardt wrote:
>>> "GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> So, despite using Newtonian gravity, the anomaly was the same. Adding
>>> the relativistic terms to the equation of motion did not change the
>>> solution appreciably.
>> Thanks for the clarification.
.....
>> Let me try to reproduce equation 2 from your paper gr-qc/0208046 since
>> I intend to have a detailed discussion on this issue.
>>
>> d_12 = {sqrt[1 - |v1|^2/c^2]/sqrt[1 - |v2|^2/c^2]} .
>> [(1 - ^r12 · v2/c^2)/(1 - ^r12 · v1/c^2)] ............. (2)
>> The unit vector ^r12 points from the transmitting station to the
>> spacecraft,
>> i.e., ^r12 = r12/r12.
>
> A typo.
>
>> This equation appears to be wrong since it is not dimensionally
>> balanced. Perhaps it should have been as given below.
>>
>> d_12 = {sqrt[1 - |v1|^2/c^2]/sqrt[1 - |v2|^2/c^2]} .
>> [(1 - ^r12 · v2/c)/(1 - ^r12 · v1/c)] ............. (2')
>>
>> Kindly confirm.
> Confirmed.
> CM
Again quoting from page 4 of your paper,
"The epoch of transmission from the Earth is t1, the epoch of
interaction of the signal with the Pioneer 10 spacecraft is t2, and the
epoch of reception back at the Earth is t3. All of these times are
referred to the Barycentric Dynamical Timescale (TDB), which is a
coordinate time at the solar system barycenter. TDB is also the
effective argument of the JPL planetary ephemerides. The 3-vectors r1,
r2, and r3 represent the positions of the corresponding antenna at the
corresponding epoch, and v1, v2, and v3 represent the velocities. *The
vector difference, r12, is defined as r1 - r2.* These vector
quantities are measured in the solar system barycenter frame."
Perhaps the vector difference, r12, should have been defined as r2 -
r1.
Further,
-----------------
"The final term in equation 1, DNu_path, represents additional Doppler
effects caused by small effective path length changes, aside from those
due to geometric antenna motions. Generally speaking, this term can be
written as,
DNu_path = -2 dl/dt.Nu_0/c,
where dl/dt is the time rate of change of effective photon trajectory
path length along the line of sight. The factor of 2 comes from the two
legs of the round trip path. In this paper I consider the effective
path length due to the "Shapiro" delay. The Shapiro delay reflects the
extra proper distance traveled by a photon, beyond the classical
geometric distance, in the Sun's gravitational potential, as predicted
by general relativity,"
" l_shap = 2.(GM/c^2).ln[(r1+r2+r12)/(r1+r2-r12)] ..... (3)"
"On an annual timescale, the impact parameter of the photon trajectory
increases and decreases, with a minimum distance of about 8×106 km.
Conversion to a Doppler shift is achieved by numerically
differentiating equation (3), which yields an annual signal with
amplitude ±150 mHz."
----------------------
During the period of your analysis (1987-1994), r2>>r1. Therefore,
apart from a cyclic term given by annual variation of r1 in equation
(3), we get a dominant, steadily varying term dependent on steadily
increasing r2 as,
l_shap = 2.(GM/c^2).ln[r2/r1] ..... (4)
This yields (approximately),
DNu_path/Nu_0 = -4(GM/c^2).(1/r2).(v2/c) .... (5)
This is the term which is expected to make a significant contribution
to the Doppler residuals apart from a cyclic term dependent on annual
variation of r1. Can you kindly give some quantitative figures for this
contribution to the Doppler residuals during the period of your
analysis?
GSS
Craig Markwardt
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> writes:
The principle of equivalence has been tested quite narrow tolerances
in the solar system already (Williams et al 1996), so your supposition
will probably not be fruitful.
CM
References
Williams, Newhall & Dickey 1996, Phys Rev D, 53, 6730
Craig Markwardt
"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> " l_shap = 2.(GM/c^2).ln[(r1+r2+r12)/(r1+r2-r12)] ..... (3)"
>
> "On an annual timescale, the impact parameter of the photon trajectory
> Conversion to a Doppler shift is achieved by numerically
> differentiating equation (3), which yields an annual signal with
> ----------------------
> During the period of your analysis (1987-1994), r2>>r1. Therefore,
> apart from a cyclic term given by annual variation of r1 in equation
> (3), we get a dominant, steadily varying term dependent on steadily
> increasing r2 as,
>
> l_shap = 2.(GM/c^2).ln[r2/r1] ..... (4)
> This yields (approximately),
> DNu_path/Nu_0 = -4(GM/c^2).(1/r2).(v2/c) .... (5)
>
> This is the term which is expected to make a significant contribution
> to the Doppler residuals apart from a cyclic term dependent on annual
> variation of r1. Can you kindly give some quantitative figures for this
> contribution to the Doppler residuals during the period of your
> analysis?
You are welcome to estimate it yourself, but they are negligible. The
"Shapiro effect" is very strongly detected; one can't simply ignore
some terms and accept other terms as you have done.
CM
George Dishman
...
> >> I may be misinterpreting what is in the model, but what I have tried
> >> to represent in the upper model leg is a digital differential analyzer
> >> doing numerical integration on data taken from the ephemeris and
> >> double integrating it for range that would then update the ephemeris.
> >> In so doing only the constant G is involved, and it's all
> >> mathematical.
> >>
> >> Then to produce anything resembling frequency, for later comparison
> >> with the real hardware, from the point V(t), one must introduce the
> >> multiplier -f0/c. In this regard I would expect that the multiplier is
> >> a mathematic constant being 1/WL.
> >>
> >> If this is wrong, just say so and I can modify my model,
It is wrong. The model integrates a mathematical representation
of the initial location and motion of the craft with all subsequent
gravitational accelerations and specific manoeuvre effects to
model the velocity at any time which is pretty much what you
say in the first paragraph.
At that point, the relativistic Doppler equation is applied to the
recorded transmit frequency to predict the modelled receive
frequency for comparison against the actual receive frequency
recorded from the hardware.
> >> but then tell
> >> me how this coefficient -f0/c is brought up to date with the
> >> transmitting clock. With an analog computer, yes, or using the station
> >> clock to drive the DDA, but that looks like a nullity also.
The latter, the station clock is used to drive the exciter to
produce a frequency which is a known multiple of the clock
reference frequency. I suspect they would have used a
synthesiser just like the transponder on the craft so that the
exciter was locked to the station clock.
In th following, the capital "F" indicates a frequency which is
a number. The number on transmit is loaded into the hardware
and governs the ratio of the transmitted frequency to the station
clock. On receive the number fed into the synthesiser (DDS)
F_het is chosen to be slightly offset from the expected receive
frequency and the actaul signal shown as f_het is heterodyned
with the signal from the low noise amp (LNA). The difference is
then measured again using the station clock as a reference so
that the number F_rx written into the files is the ratio of the
actual receive frequency f_rx to the actual clock frequency f_ref.
Configuration during transmission
Exciter
_________________
f_ref / f_tx \
station ---->---- DDS ---->---- Amp ---->---- to dish
clock ^
|
F_tx ---->---- Written to data file
Configuration during reception
Exciter
_________________
f_ref / f_het \
station -->-+---- DDS -->-+---- Amp ... not used
clock | ^ |
| | | f_het
| F_het |
| |
| | f_rx
| mixer (*)----<---- from dish / LNA
| |
| | f_if
| |
----->--- counter
f_ref |
| F_if
|
v
Sum of measured value F_if
and F_het written to data
file: F_rx = F_het + F_if
f_* indicates the frequency of an electrical signal
F_* indicates a frequency in the form of a number
> >> It is clear there is substantial misunderstanding somewhere.
> >
> >Yes, you have a problem. Why don't you start to fix it by reading the
> >referred-to papers, or George or my previous posts, which you seem to
> >be conveniently ignoring?
> You say "the station clock at the time of the tracking session is used
> in the model". Please tell very specifically how this can be done.
The diagrams above attempt to do that.
> Checking the frequency with NIST would be simplest. You can update an
> atomic clock over the telephone.
Today we use GPS to lock our company clock to the
international standard. I don't know what method was in
use at the time of the Pioneer mission but there would
have been an equivalent. The station 'clock' was a
hydrogen maser which ran continuously producing a
10MHz reference frequency to which all the instruments
are locked.
> Their site has a sample daily record
> of a clock being checked, that shows infinitesimal *random* daily
> changes about +-2e-13 which is nothing.
> Remember that by hypothesis, NIST's masers have advanced by exactly
> the same fraction as the statioin clock, so they all march together.
Yes.
> But f0 in the model is stuck in the past.
No, f_tx must be derived from the station clock at the time
of transmission since it was an actual electrical signal.
Similatrly f_rx was compared against the station clock at
the time of reception to get the number F_rx. Both numbers
were written to the data files which we can now use.
> Tell me how the number f0 is custom adjusted to the station clock's
> frequency, when there is no way of determining its frequency in the
> first place.
In the actual hardware, f0 (which I think corresponds to f_het
in my terminology, local oscillator for the heterodyne receiver)
is produced directly from the station clock by the synthesiser
in the exciter assembly.
> My argument is simply that f0 is set in stone, ...
You can make a battery that produces a reference voltage
for calibration purposes, but you cannot keep a sample of
a frequency in a bottle in that way and use it later. The
reference frequency signal is what is produced by the
maser at the time.
George
Joe Jakarta
Craig Markwardt wrote:
[...]
> The principle of equivalence has been tested quite narrow tolerances
> in the solar system already (Williams et al 1996), so your supposition
> will probably not be fruitful.
I wonder how the anomalous Pioneer blue-drift compares for size with GR
one due to the Sun's gravity?
Craig Markwardt
Do you mean the difference gravitational redshift between the earth
and the spacecraft? Since the spacecraft re-transmits the uplink
signal on the downlink channel, including the same frequency and
phase, any redshift of the signal on the uplink leg is cancelled by
an equal blueshift on the downlink leg.
CM
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig B. Markwardt, Ph.D. EMAIL: crai...@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu
Astrophysics, IDL, Finance, Derivatives | Remove "net" for better response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Markwardt
John C. Polasek <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> writes:
> I see where I muddied the waters by talking about -f0/c. I should have
> said f0:
> The model is totally artificial, a mathematical construct, and it
> requires 3 prescribed numerical coefficients G, -f0/c and finally f0.
> The important one is f0 which I say retains a constant prescribed
> value, while the real clocks run away from it by Hubble acceleration.
> (The part depending on -f0/c is as I have said, a negligible
> contributor.)
>
> The additive f0 in my flowgraph has to be a constant with the same
> value today as it had 20 years ago, or show me how, and why, it has
> been altered.
Your model description is not reflective of reality, therefore it is
irrelevant.
> You say "the station clock at the time of the tracking session is used
> in the model". Please tell veryspecifically how this can be done.
It's easy. The transmission frequency was *recorded* at that time,
thus it is available to be used in the model.
> ... (We
> are looking for nothing more nor less than a new NUMERICAL value of f0
> to go into the model).
There is no f0. Every tracking session contains its own record of the
frequency used *at that time*. Those frequencies are used in the
model. THERE IS NO "F0" FROM 1987 STORED IN THE MODEL. When will you
get this?
> ...(As can be seen from the graph a new offset to
> f0 would simply offset the graph).
> To be facetious, (or realistic) what would cause the technician, who
> has just turned on the station clock, to call up the computer room and
> announce a new number for f0?
Actually, the uplink frequency for a given session is crudely adjusted
so that when the signal arrives at the spacecraft, it will be within
the spacecraft receiver's bandpass. So the uplink frequency for each
tracking session is customized to the conditions.
...
> My argument is simply that f0 is set in stone, and by hypothesis, all
> atomic real clocks are secularly advancing, leading to the 1.5/8
> discrepancy. It simply accounts for the anomaly.
Since your argument is erroneous, your conclusions are irrelevant.
CM
GSS
Craig Markwardt wrote:
> "GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > " l_shap = 2.(GM/c^2).ln[(r1+r2+r12)/(r1+r2-r12)] ..... (3)"
> >
> > "On an annual timescale, the impact parameter of the photon trajectory
> > Conversion to a Doppler shift is achieved by numerically
> > differentiating equation (3), which yields an annual signal with
> > ----------------------
> > During the period of your analysis (1987-1994), r2>>r1. Therefore,
> > apart from a cyclic term given by annual variation of r1 in equation
> > (3), we get a dominant, steadily varying term dependent on steadily
> > increasing r2 as,
> >
> > l_shap = 2.(GM/c^2).ln[r2/r1] ..... (4)
> > This yields (approximately),
> > DNu_path/Nu_0 = -4(GM/c^2).(1/r2).(v2/c) .... (5)
> >
> > This is the term which is expected to make a significant contribution
> > to the Doppler residuals apart from a cyclic term dependent on annual
> > variation of r1. Can you kindly give some quantitative figures for this
> > contribution to the Doppler residuals during the period of your
> > analysis?
> You are welcome to estimate it yourself, but they are negligible.
We need not bother about the actual values as long as these are
negligible and do not contribute to the Anomalous effect either way.
> The "Shapiro effect" is very strongly detected; one can't simply
> ignore some terms and accept other terms as you have done.
>
> CM
I just wanted to highlight that the Doppler shift contribution of the
"Shapiro effect" cannot only be an oscillatory term (contributed by the
annual variation of vector r1) as remarked by you; it also has to
contain a steadily varying (mean) term contributed by steadily
increasing r2.
I don't think "Shapiro effect" can have any significant effect in the
Pioneer-10 case. That is because firstly more than 90 percent of the
signal path is in the negligible gravitational potential of the sun and
secondly the signal path is nearly along the radial direction from the
sun.
However, since you have already confirmed that the overall effect of
the DNu_path term is negligible and does not contribute to the
Anomalous effect, we can discard this term from your equation (1) for
the purpose of further exploring the Anomalous effect. I hope you
agree.
For further exploring the Anomalous effect, I think we can regard the
recorded Pioneer-10 Doppler data as correct. As pointed out earlier,
the Doppler residuals consist of a difference of two terms,
DNu_obs/Nu_0 - DNu_mod/Nu_0 = Doppler residuals
Ideally they should average out to zero. Since in Pioneer-10 case they
do not average out to zero, they are giving rise to the Anomalous
effect. Here the first term represents the observed or the recorded
Doppler data which we agree to take it as correct. So the only term we
need to examine critically to resolve the Anomalous effect is the
second term DNu_mod/Nu_0 or more specifically just DNu_mod.
Now there are two distinct steps involved in the critical examination
of DNu_mod. First step is the critical examination of the Doppler
relationship between the modeled velocity (v_mod) of the spacecraft and
the signal Doppler frequency. Second step is the critical examination
of the detailed trajectory model of the spacecraft such that after
accounting for the influence of all physical phenomena, the modeled
velocity v_mod of the spacecraft comes to match with the observed
velocity v_obs obtained from the recorded Doppler data. I wish to focus
on the first step during our further discussions on the subject. I hope
you have no objection to these discussions.
GSS
John C. Polasek
<geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>John C. Polasek wrote:
>...
>> >> I may be misinterpreting what is in the model, but what I have tried
>> >> to represent in the upper model leg is a digital differential analyzer
>> >> doing numerical integration on data taken from the ephemeris and
>> >> double integrating it for range that would then update the ephemeris.
>> >> In so doing only the constant G is involved, and it's all
>> >> mathematical.
>> >>
>> >> Then to produce anything resembling frequency, for later comparison
>> >> with the real hardware, from the point V(t), one must introduce the
>> >> multiplier -f0/c. In this regard I would expect that the multiplier is
>> >> a mathematic constant being 1/WL.sphone
>> >>
>> >> If this is wrong, just say so and I can modify my model,
>
>It is wrong. The model integrates a mathematical representation
>of the initial location and motion of the craft with all subsequent
>gravitational accelerations and specific manoeuvre effects to
>model the velocity at any time which is pretty much what you
>say in the first paragraph.
George, I appreciate your efforts to produce an ASCII style diagram,
but it defines in detail only the hardware that is the lower left half
of my diagram (I have improved the diagram; take a look at the
website). The hardware is 100%. In fact, I agree that aside from
A_radio, both model and hardware arrive at the same velocities.
But you are not addressing the frequency problem in the model , the
top right half of the diagram. It is this: if you checked with NIST in
1987 you would get a frequency 2.292......, and called NIST today you
would get exactly the same number 2.292....... I call this f87 in the
diagram. This is would be true if all atomic clocks, the station
clock, the maser standard, accelerated alike.
You can see how this would qualify f87 as a constant if it has the
same value that it was assigned 20 years earlier. So the original
numeric F87 is a constant in the model that has no way of tracking
acceleration.
And, unfortunately there is no accurate way of determining *true*
frequency, of if clock frequency is actually increasing, since the
easiest recourse is to cause the best possible atomic reference to
make a one second gate, whereupon the station clock counter would let
through 2.292.... cycles.
>At that point, the relativistic Doppler equation is applied to the
>recorded transmit frequency to predict the modelled receive
>frequency for comparison against the actual receive frequency
>recorded from the hardware.
>
>> >> but then tell
>> >> me how this coefficient -f0/c is brought up to date with the
>> >> transmitting clock. With an analog computer, yes, or using the station
>> >> clock to drive the DDA, but that looks like a nullity also.
I take back f0/c, the villain is f0.
>The latter, the station clock is used to drive the exciter to
>produce a frequency which is a known multiple of the clock
>reference frequency. I suspect they would have used a
>synthesiser just like the transponder on the craft so that the
>exciter was locked to the station clock.
This is hardware
The hardware on the Pioneer is 100%
>> >Yes, you have a problem. Why don't you start to fix it by reading the
>> >referred-to papers, or George or my previous posts, which you seem to
>> >be conveniently ignoring?
>
>> You say "the station clock at the time of the tracking session is used
>> in the model". Please tell very specifically how this can be done.
>
>The diagrams above attempt to do that.
>
>> Checking the frequency with NIST would be simplest. You can update an
>> atomic clock over the telephone.
>
>Today we use GPS to lock our company clock to the
>international standard. I don't know what method was in
>use at the time of the Pioneer mission but there would
>have been an equivalent. The station 'clock' was a
>hydrogen maser which ran continuously producing a
>10MHz reference frequency to which all the instruments
>are locked.
It's hardware
>> Their site has a sample daily record
>> of a clock being checked, that shows infinitesimal *random* daily
>> changes about +-2e-13 which is nothing.
>> Remember that by hypothesis, NIST's masers have advanced by exactly
>> the same fraction as the statioin clock, so they all march together.
>
>Yes.
>
>> But f0 in the model is stuck in the past.
We need to discuss f0 in the model.
>No, f_tx must be derived from the station clock at the time
>of transmission since it was an actual electrical signal.
>Similatrly f_rx was compared against the station clock at
>the time of reception to get the number F_rx. Both numbers
>were written to the data files which we can now use.
but this is hardware, not model
>> Tell me how the number f0 is custom adjusted to the station clock's
>> frequency, when there is no way of determining its frequency in the
>> first place.
>
>In the actual hardware, f0 (which I think corresponds to f_het
>in my terminology, local oscillator for the heterodyne receiver)
>is produced directly from the station clock by the synthesiser
>in the exciter assembly.
still hardware
>> My argument is simply that f0 is set in stone, ...
>
>You can make a battery that produces a reference voltage
>for calibration purposes, but you cannot keep a sample of
>a frequency in a bottle in that way and use it later. The
>reference frequency signal is what is produced by the
>maser at the time.
>
>George
John P
George Dishman
"John C. Polasek" <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:86pba2dfn91nktdv9...@4ax.com...
It is still lacking a clear description of what the symbols
mean and each stage of the process. It really isn't much use
at all at present but if you add some explanations it could
be very helpful. An example is:
> The hardware is 100%. In fact, I agree that aside from
> A_radio, both model and hardware arrive at the same velocities.
The term "A_radio" is not explained anywhere in the text
though it appears in your diagram. I would normally assume
the usual radio convention that "A" stands for Amplitude
so A_radio is the transmitter power of 250kW but that makes
no sense. Plaese explain your terms in the paper.
> But you are not addressing the frequency problem in the model , the
> top right half of the diagram. It is this: if you checked with NIST in
> 1987 you would get a frequency 2.292......, and called NIST today you
> would get exactly the same number 2.292....... I call this f87 in the
> diagram. This is would be true if all atomic clocks, the station
> clock, the maser standard, accelerated alike.
Since the speed of the craft is determined from the ratio
F_rx/F_tx, only the clock change between the time of
transmission and time of reception matters. For example
consider a slight alternative where all terrestrial clocks
were stable in 1987 so the Tx signal was at 2.292GHz exactly
but the clocks doubled in frequency in the intervening years
so the Tx signal was stable but at 4.584GHz when a later
reading was taken. The returned frequency would also be
doubled (ignoring hardware limitations) so the ratio
F_rx/F_tx would be unaffected and the derived speed would
be correct. What that means is that your "f87" doesn't exist.
> You can see how this would qualify f87 as a constant if it has the
> same value that it was assigned 20 years earlier. So the original
> numeric F87 is a constant in the model that has no way of tracking
> acceleration.
> And, unfortunately there is no accurate way of determining *true*
> frequency,
You don't need to know the "true" frequency, the only
thing used is the ratio.
> of if clock frequency is actually increasing, since the
> easiest recourse is to cause the best possible atomic reference to
> make a one second gate, whereupon the station clock counter would let
> through 2.292.... cycles.
>
>
>>At that point, the relativistic Doppler equation is applied to the
>>recorded transmit frequency to predict the modelled receive
>>frequency for comparison against the actual receive frequency
>>recorded from the hardware.
>>
>>> >> but then tell
>>> >> me how this coefficient -f0/c is brought up to date with the
>>> >> transmitting clock. With an analog computer, yes, or using the
>>> >> station
>>> >> clock to drive the DDA, but that looks like a nullity also.
>
> I take back f0/c, the villain is f0.
There is no such thing as "f0" in the model.
>>The latter, the station clock is used to drive the exciter to
>>produce a frequency which is a known multiple of the clock
>>reference frequency. I suspect they would have used a
>>synthesiser just like the transponder on the craft so that the
>>exciter was locked to the station clock.
>
> This is hardware
Yes, but focus on the values written to the files, F_tx
and F_rx. Those are what must be used as the data input
to the model.
The hardware on the Pioneer is not shown above, only
the ground segment, but I don't think the craft end
is contentious.
>>> Checking the frequency with NIST would be simplest. You can update an
>>> atomic clock over the telephone.
>>
>>Today we use GPS to lock our company clock to the
>>international standard. I don't know what method was in
>>use at the time of the Pioneer mission but there would
>>have been an equivalent. The station 'clock' was a
>>hydrogen maser which ran continuously producing a
>>10MHz reference frequency to which all the instruments
>>are locked.
>
> It's hardware
So here's the next stage:
F_tx(t1) \
V_dsn_t(t1) --> Doppler --> F_cr(t2)
V_cr(t2) /
where F_cr(t) is the frequency received at the craft
at time t (one can subsume the 240/221 fixed turnround
ratio), V_cr(t) is the velocity of the craft at time t
and V_dsn_t(t) is the velocity of the DSN transmit site
at time t which is known from the ephemeris and Earth
rotation data. Then:
F_cr(t2) \
V_dsn_r(t3) --> Doppler --> F_model(t3)
V_cr(t2) /
Where F_model(t) is the receive frequency predicted by
the model for reception at time t and V_dsn_r is the
velocity of the DSN receive site at time t. The times
are:
t1: time of transmission
t2: time when the signal is transponded by the craft
t3: time of reception
t3 is as recorded in the data files but since the
propagation time depends on the range, t2 and then t1
have to be calculated using the modelled location at
time t2. The transmit frequency was generally constant
through any contact period but the times are needed to
apply the ephemeris and Earth rotation Doppler effects.
The resulting receive frequency predictions are then
compared with the actual received values F_rx(t3) and
the model parameters adjusted to minimise the error.
Notice the key point, only the logged values F_tx and
F_rx are used and then only as a ratio, so any error
in the station clock which was common to both times
cancels out. The only discrepancy that gets through
is the amount the station clock drifted between time
t1 and time t3. Note also that clocks were at different
sites.
Bottom line: there is no "f0" or "f87" in the model,
the role is fulfilled by the recorded values of
F_tx(t).
George
John C. Polasek
<geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Yes A_radio is the 1.1x10^-10m/ss given as the radiative effect of 8
watts continuously on, pushing us awayfrom the earth, which when
lumped with others for a bias of .9 units that make an observed 7.8
units go to 8.7 units.
George, look at it this way. The station and the model each have
"carrier" frequencies that are "modulated" additively by the craft
velocity as df = -dv/lambda. Each modulation is summed up as Df in the
diagram. Let's agree that the Df's are perfectly equal. Their
difference would therefore contribute zero to the output and the
entire left half of the graph including Df's would no longer be
interesting.
However, the velocities are modulating two different frequencies, f0
in the model and f0(1+Ht) in the real system. The output difference,
therefore, absent the modulation noise, is f0Ht.
If one were to conduct the Pioneer experiment today, one might
initialize by tinkering with velocities and ranges using the standard
f0, but now with prior knowledge, I would have them first increase f0
by about 4 hz if it was last set 20 years ago. (1.5Hz/8yrs) and then
tinker with velocity.
Would you agree, that just in general, if f0 really increased at
Hubble rate, while the copybook frequency f0 which obviously has no
aegis for alteration, that a comparison of some sort would yield the
linear plot we have today?
John P
George Dishman
Much trimmed as not contentious:
>>The term "A_radio" is not explained anywhere in the text
>>though it appears in your diagram. I would normally assume
>>the usual radio convention that "A" stands for Amplitude
>>so A_radio is the transmitter power of 250kW but that makes
>>no sense. Plaese explain your terms in the paper.
>
> Yes A_radio is the 1.1x10^-10m/ss given as the radiative effect of 8
> watts continuously on, pushing us awayfrom the earth, which when
> lumped with others for a bias of .9 units that make an observed 7.8
> units go to 8.7 units.
OK, that's clear. There's no way I would have
guessed that from your paper.
> George, look at it this way. The station and the model each have
> "carrier" frequencies that are "modulated" additively by the craft
> velocity as df = -dv/lambda.
I'm not sure what you mean by "additively", the effect
of Doppler is multiplicative. The received frequency
is the product of the transmitted frequency and the
speed-dependent factor. That is important. Anyway the
key point is that what is modulated is the carrier
that was sent to the craft a few hours before, not a
signal transmitted in 1987.
> Each modulation is summed up as Df in the
> diagram. Let's agree that the Df's are perfectly equal. Their
> difference would therefore contribute zero to the output and the
> entire left half of the graph including Df's would no longer be
> interesting.
>
> However, the velocities are modulating two different frequencies, f0
> in the model and f0(1+Ht) in the real system.
No, f_tx(t1 + H*(t3-t1)) in reality and f_tx(t1) in
the model. See above for the definition of t1 and t3.
> The output difference,
> therefore, absent the modulation noise, is f0Ht.
Since Doppler is multiplicative, you need to consider
the error in the ratio, not the difference. The key
though is that it applies only over the propagation
time.
> Would you agree, that just in general, if f0 really increased at
> Hubble rate, while the copybook frequency f0 which obviously has no
> aegis for alteration, that a comparison of some sort would yield the
> linear plot we have today?
The plot would be nearly linear because the round trip
propagation time increased nearly linearly over the
mission period, but since the Hubble term only
applies for a few hours and not the 8 years you are
assuming, it would be about 10,000 times smaller
than is observed.
George
John C. Polasek
<geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
The velocity of the target produces df = -vf0/c and yes, that's
multiplicative. But that's the Doppler part which is down 25,000: 1 or
88db and is negligible and amounts to noise.
The chart itself is a plot of the difference between the "whole
frequencies" f0, a constant, and f0(1+Ht) over a substantial period
of years. I tried to "make it happen" during flight time and arrived
at the 1/25,000 ratio. It's all the difference in the carriers, f0
definitely constant, and freal very likely advancing, but no easy way
to prove it except for the Pioneer test.
> Anyway the
>key point is that what is modulated is the carrier
>that was sent to the craft a few hours before, not a
>signal transmitted in 1987.
Remember back ( in 1983 I think), it was decreed and "it is so
written" that the 133Cs maser delivers 9+ gigacycles in one second
which at once compromised both the frequency and the second. The
station clock will read today the same as 20 years ago, by comparison
with that clock. But that's not to say that it isn't running faster.
There is no way to assess whether the frequency has indeed increased,
certainly not with that method of comparison.
The frequency increase, which I put as only a hypothesis, is "proved"
in my theory: our universe is moving at the speed of light away from
its center of mass and the clocks are speeding up as is the speed of
light. I added a new term to Newton's
-g = MG/r^2 = cdc/dr (= Hc) etc. etc.
that shows the expansion effect.
John P