Re: Pioneer Anomoly

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 19:31:41 +0100, "George Dishman"
<george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:ldn8j1pv15rp9hnvjhc188odui78djfjfb@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>Hi John.
>
>> George, I have posted my latest version of the Pioneer anomaly on my
>> website, #4 paper. It is a fair amount to study, trying to explain the
>> Dual Space theory. It is a clock effect.
>
>First a writing tip: there is a lot in the paper that
>isn't related to Pioneer and a bit more on the subject
>would help but Fig. 4 pretty well explains it.
>
>What you say next is about the reason for using a
>transponder is correct Also the uplink can be FM
>modulated and the time for the modulation to return
>measured to get range. Sadly that wasn't usable for
>Pioneer.
>
>> If you think about it a bit, you will realize that the Pioneer
>> apparatus with coherent retransmission was just a good way to preserve
>> the transmitted frequency (as if in amber) and get it back for
>> convenient comparison 20 hours later, at which time the transmitter
>> would be that much faster (Fig. 4) leading to a blue shift.
>
>Unfortunately that's where you appear to have an
>error. You seem to be saying that, at the time of
>reception, the clock was running faster than at the
>time of transmission. That is borne out by your text
>which says "The clock at Sta. 2 being further out of
>the gravity-well will be running faster (by rule 5),
>compared to the frequency it had 20 hours earlier".
>If that is the case then the receive clock will
>count fewer cycles of the received signal, which
>preserves the earlier transmitted frequency, than
>it would if there were no clock effect. In other
>words your description suggests a red shift rather
>than a blue shift.
>
>For comparison think of the phrase "gravitational
>red shift" which describes the reduced frequency
>measured for a source deeper into a gravitational
>well, and the Pound-Rebka experiment.
>
>> I think I have proved that the GR metric tensor is defective which
>> leads back to a 3D+T construction of the universe just as I use. See
>> my debates with Hobba under "Have space time and the metric tensor run
>> their course?" in s.p.astro.
>
>Do you mean s.p.relativity? I am only reading
>sci.astro, I don't think there is an "s.p.astro".
>
>George
>
You're right about it's being viewed as a redshift. The "old"
frequency is lower and shows up lower N hours later, giving the effect
of a receding acceleration. But that's exactly how it does work.

There is some fuzz on this in the literature to wit:
You recall that from The Apparent Anomalous etc. by Turyshev et al 9
Mar 1999 where in the footnote on page 3 they say Dnu=nu - nu0 where
nu is the measured (rec'd?) frequency and nu0 the reference and cite
the value -6x10^-9Hz one way. In my case nu = low and nu0 would be
high so I get a negative result to agree with theirs. Then they put in
the questionable remark m/l saying would be negative for a station
approaching the station (blue shift) JUST THE OPPOSITE OF THE USUAL
CONVENTION.
I get the idea they had in their mind some extra gravity from the Sun
as the cause, and adopted this backward convention.
No there is a valid new gravitational law
cdc/dr = MG/r^2 = -Ap,
and divide by lambda for the frequency effect as I have done in the
paper. dc/dr turns out to be the Hubble constant.
This problem can only be solved with the 3D + T universe I showed in
the paper.

In the paper "Have space-time and the metric tensor run their full
course?" there is also a copy here on sci.astro at 9/21 at 8:51 Pm. In
it I try to show that the GR metric tensor is flawed, and if properly
done would have resulted in 3D + T rather than the diaphonous 4D
space-time continuum.

Thank you for taking the time to look at my paper.

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
.