Re: Pioneer 10 test of light speed delay

From: George Dishman (george_at_briar.demon.co.uk)
Date: 11/02/04 

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 22:55:45 -0000

"r9ns" <r9ns@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:30e10dee.0411021148.6e744250@posting.google.com...
> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<1099353809.11796.0@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net>...
> > "r9ns" <r9ns@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:30e10dee.0411010511.6799f3bb@posting.google.com...
> > > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:<1099235806.27439.0@despina.uk.clara.net>...
> > > > "r9ns" <r9ns@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:30e10dee.0410310529.128ced56@posting.google.com...
> >
>
> <snip>

I wrote:

> > The general
> > pattern is part of a sine wave and the received
> > frequency is at its maximum as the craft rises and
> > lowest as it sets. The shift is the same as at the
> > pole at the moment when the site motion is
> > perpendicular to the Earth-craft line.
> >
> > Do you agree with this general plot:
> >
> > http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Ralph/Generic.gif
> >
> > By finding the point where the slope is steepest,
> > it tells us the time when the site crosses the line
> > between the Earth's axis and the craft because at
> > that time the spin motion is perpendicular so there
> > is no contribution to the shift.
> >
> > ... If you understand the diagram above, the next
> > post should wrap up the method with some geometry.

You replied:

> I thought it was clear in the previous post that I understand what
> you are saying

I will take that as confirmation that you agree
the diagram. Now we can finally wrap this up.

This is a plot of the rate of change of received
frequency against the Julian date. It covers the
usual two contacts on the 6th and 7th March, 1988.

http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Ralph/RateOfChange.gif

You can check for yourself that the greatest rate of
change (steepest slope) occurs at 18:51 at Madrid on
the 6th (JD 2447227.2857) and at 06:53 on the 7th
(JD 2447227.7871) in Canberra. The time between those
is 12h 2m and the Earth turns by 181 degrees in that
time. The longitude of DSS63 is 355.752E (4.25W) and
that of DSS43 is 148.98E.

The upper diagram in the following diagram shows
the direction to the craft indicated by the Madrid
contact at 1851 on the 6th while the lower diagram
shows the situation the following morning at 06:51
with the direction of the craft indicated by the
Canberra contact.

http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Ralph/Discrepancy.gif

As you can see, the direction to the craft differs
by 25.77 degrees. Your suggestion that the received
signal was sent from the receiving site a few seconds
earlier produces a contradictory location for the
craft and is clearly incorrect. That is my argument.

You started discussion this by writing the following:

  "Dishman and Markwardt, mistakenly claimed that
   1) the approximate agreement of the results of
      this procedure with the NASA ephemeris, and
   2) the lack of agreement of these results with
      the assumption of some other light speed
      delay assumption proved the validity of the
      conventional light speed delay assumption"

in this document:

http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/spacecraftdoppler.doc

and posting the same text to this group.

What you say is untrue, the argument I have presented
has _always_ been based on the phase of the diurnal
component. You claim you now understand this method
and the geometry above is straightforward so I am
asking you to correct your misrepresentation. You
are welcome to paraphrase the argument provided you
represent it accurately.

> and now the problem is for you to convince yourself
> that this method in conjunction with the equation and data below gives
> an exact match between the received frequency and the predicted
> frequency assuming that light speed delay does not exceed a second.

Further equations are unnecessary, the method above
is alone sufficient to demonstrate that your model
is wrong with no prior assumptions about the
trajectory.

George

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Pioneer 10 test of light speed delay
    ... >> while sx and vx etc refer to the craft position and velocity ... graphs used on the page. ... The second chart shows the exciter frequency used at the ... receiving site to provide the reference for the receiver. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Pioneer 10 test of light speed delay
    ... > orbital motion projected onto the earth spin vector at the receiving ... successive minutes but not knowing the craft position,we find this ... the sum of the orbital and spin velocity ... condition say when the received frequency data starts to become ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Pioneer Acceleration Implies Light Speed Delay < 1 Second
    ... the transmitting station so check the longitude. ... While often the receiving site would also ... > materials about P10 that you sent to me, say that the craft was always ... > that the receiver could not have been receiving signals sent directly ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Pioneer Acceleration Implies Light Speed Delay < 1 Second
    ... To see that the Anderson et al claim of anomalous accleration could ... the earth site wrt the sun and the line to the craft from the receiver ... the transmitting site was hidden by the ... While often the receiving site would also ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Pioneer Acceleration Implies Light Speed Delay < 1 Second
    ... To see that the Anderson et al claim of anomalous accleration could ... the earth site wrt the sun and the line to the craft from the receiver ... the transmitting site was hidden by the ... While often the receiving site would also ...
    (sci.optics)