Re: P10 Acceleration: Light Speed Doesn't Extrapolate

From: Ralph Sansbury (r9ns_at_bestweb.net)
Date: 08/12/04

  • Next message: Nightingale: "Re: How to describe autism?" 
    Date: 11 Aug 2004 20:16:57 -0700

    Craig Markwardt <craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<onoeli9ga4.fsf@cow.physics.wisc.edu>...
      Sansbury <r9ns@bestweb.net writes

      
      
       The questions Marquardt you have avoided answering directly are
    1)Are the heights, somehow(?) associated with various pixels in the
    image of Venus, with radar frequencies received from whatever
    scatterers between the earth source and Venus when the received
    frequencies are expected according to the conventional model, are
    these various heights significantly different from each other?
    2)How do you know the frequencies received that are larger than the
    background noise at this range of frequency, were reflections sent
    two light time distances to Venus earlier and not a second earlier
    etc..(Obviously some of the noise is going to be many standard
    deviations from the mean noise and that may be a statistically
    significant 'feature' but of what?) Feel free to quote Carpenter
    and Pettingill at length (and not so short as to give a false
    impression of what they said or the adequacy of their reasons)

    3)How do you explain the following that shows the difference between
    Doppler counts, the down converted frequencies, have differences that
    correlate with the the differences between the positively shifted
    frequencies due to the earthsite motions as given by the ephemeris a
    minute earlier so as to adjust the CT to GMT time difference?

       
        We can change the craft trajectory starting at any point in time
     assuming tentatively that the craft is at the same distance,R*, from
     the earth and R from the sun, R(21:27)= 2684810625, but at a possibly
     different angle to the craft-earthsite line etc so that the predicted
     frequencies match the observed frequencies according to the nearly
     instantaneous model transmitter earthsite motions.
        And if our initial assumption of R needs to be adjusted to
    produce
     the proper motions of the craft toward the earth(less than the
     constant motion of the craft away from the earth) so as to produce a
     match between the radar and predicted frequencies, then we can do so
     later as shown below.
        To see this, we note first that the observed Doppler count
     frequency subtracted from 1MHz, a so called bias, decreases minute by
     minute starting at 21:27(row14) by 12Hz per minute but that if we do
     not do this subtraction, the observed Doppler count frequency
     increases minute by minute by, initially, 12Hz. increasing to
     16Hz/minute, 78minutes later which correlates with the successive
     increases, 1m/s to= .6m/s increase in the earth motion toward the
     craft minute by minute. How to make the correlation perfect?
     
        Note, (1+.33(10^-8))T = T+7.66Hz corresponds to 1m/s when the
     transmitter frequency is at is here T=2.291944138GHz . If the
     direction to the craft was the same as the direction of the 1m/s
     velocity of the earth, then an uplink and same downlink velocity
    total
     of 2m/s would produce a shift of twice 7.66=15.32 Hz in the radar
        The observed increase in frequency of 12Hz from 21:27 to 21:28 is
     associated with a velocity difference of 12/7.66=1.5666 m/s. This
     could be caused by a motion of the earth toward the craft of half
    this
     on the uplink,.7833m/s and .7833 m/s again on the downlink during the
     same minute according to the nearly instantaneous model.
       But we must allow for the increase of the total uplink and
    downlink
     velocity caused by the slowing down of the craft due to the
     gravitational effect of the sun,( a = kM/R^2, (a)(t2-t1)/2 =.1m/s for
     the assumed R. That is, .1m/s must be subtracted from the uplink and
     from the downlink to find out how much of the actual difference in
     velocity must be projected onto the earthsite-craft line. Thus .6833
     m/s is the difference we require and the actual ephemeris difference
     is 1m/s so we have to multiply .6833 times the ephemeris velocity
     value for 21:27 and the value for 10:28. This means projecting the
     earthsite velocity line through an angle, arccos(.6833)=46.91deg
    thus
     determining the new craft position.
         (If the craft was at only .46R of the assumed distance from the
     sun, the velocity to the earth due to this implied acceleration
    would
     be 2 times .2285m/s=.457m/s. so .7833-.2285= .5548 is the the
     difference we require and so we have to multiply .5548 times the
     ephemeris value of 1m/s. This means projecting the earthsite velocity
     lines through and angle arccos(.5548)=56.30deg )
     
        An hour and 15 minutes later, from 22:43 to 22:44 the earthsite
     velocity increases 30.09135 to 30.09194 or .59m/s or 4.52Hz to which
     we must add 3.48Hz to get half of 16Hz radar difference observed. If
    the craft
     acceleration and so velocity to the earth was increased to 3.498Hz or
     .457m/s by reducing the assumed distance R to .46R and the
     craft-earthsite angle to the earthsite velocity was reduced to zero
     then we would have a perfect match.
        Of course we should look at later received radar frequencies to
    see
     if the pattern of increasing frequency and differences stops and a
    pattern of
     decreasing frequency and differences begins.
        Also we now have to increase the initial angle as was shown above
     to be 57.55deg and over the 78 minutes from 21:27 to 22:45, the angle
     decreases continuously by .738 degrees per minute.
     
     Thus the instantaneous model leads to a more accurate trajectory than
     the conventional model without the need for an anomalous
    acceleration-
     at least for this 78 minutes.

  • Next message: Nightingale: "Re: How to describe autism?"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: P10 Acceleration: Light Speed Doesnt Extrapolate
      ... >>scattering etc and the radar reflections from Venus etc supposedly ... That is the craft is placed ... the earth and R from the sun= 2684810625, ... velocity of the earth, then an uplink and same downlink velocity total ...
      (sci.optics)
    • Re: P10 Acceleration: Light Speed Doesnt Extrapolate
      ... >>scattering etc and the radar reflections from Venus etc supposedly ... That is the craft is placed ... the earth and R from the sun= 2684810625, ... velocity of the earth, then an uplink and same downlink velocity total ...
      (sci.astro)
    • Re: Pioneer 10 test of light speed delay
      ... >> the sun and Jupiter etc to determine subsequent craft positions. ... >> time by adjusting the position data so that the received frequencies ... assuming the transmission earth motion is suddenly ... >> vector though small compared to the orbital velocity component are ...
      (sci.astro)
    • Re: Pioneer 10 test of light speed delay
      ... > frequencies could not have been transmitted a few seconds before from ... > the context to the difference in angle between the line from the ... > craft or its velocity at any one point and a line to the sun or to the ...
      (sci.astro)
    • Re: P10 Acceleration: Light Speed Doesnt Extrapolate
      ... so even if the earth transmitter is off the receiver ... That is the craft is placed ... line etc so that the predicted frequencies match the observed ... craft was the same as the direction of the 1m/sec velocity of the ...
      (sci.optics)
    • Quantcast