Re: Pioneer anomaly engineering questions

FrediFizzx a écrit :
"srp" <srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4447B425.8080208@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

FrediFizzx a écrit :

"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8jqd4217kd6a7mqj48484sngq9md1sknnr@xxxxxxxxxx


On 19 Apr 2006 18:31:34 -0700, "Mark" <makolber@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Pioneer anomaly engineering questions

I'd like to ask some basic radio engineering questions about the
Pioneer Anomaly. I'm not asking about the physics or relativity,

just


some basic radio engineering questions about how the anomaly is
observed and what are the limitations of the measurement.
I am not asking about possible causes of the anomaly.

I assume the basic parameter that is being measured is the carrier
frequency of the radio transmission from Pioneer?

Lets assume the designed transmitter carrier frequency is 1.23000

GHz

for example.

The "expected" spacecraft velocity is known, lets call it 10

miles

per second or 36,000 miles per hour just for example.

The Doppler shift for this velocity can be calculated as about
-66.0293224 kHz so the carrier frequency is expected to arrive as
1.22993397... GHz.

Putting it another way, every 1 MPH corresponds to about 1.8 Hz

change


in the received carrier frequency or about 1.5E-9. parts.

What is the accuracy of the frequency standard used on the Pioneer?

Let me assume it is a Rubidium standard and let me assume that the
accuracy is on the order of 1E-12. I will also assume the

accuracy

of


the Earth based measurement is not a limitation. So the system

error

is on the order of 1E-12 or about 0.001 MPH or 0.0045 m/s.

Is this basically correct?

What is the magnitude of the Pioneer anomaly compared to these
numbers?

thanks

Mark


The Doppler radar was at 2.292 Ghz, velocity was m/l constant at 12
km/s, range up to 70AU or 10x10^9 km. The anomaly was what was
residual after the model accounted for all gravities from the solar
system and velocities.
The beat frequency anomaly rate (increase) was 1.5 Hz in 7.5 years,
which they reliably detected. They did this by phase lock methods,
with a phase slippage of about 1 cycle/1.2 hours.
At 70 AU the fictitious slip velocity amounted to 3e-5 m/s vs 12000
m/s coasting velocity.
Clock instability is not in it. In fact most of the time with a

round

trip of 10 to 20 hours for the signal, it was received by another
station on the other side of the earth.
I have the solution to this problem, but can't post it to the arXiv
without an endorser. There are no "peers". 17 papers and not one yet
came close. My earlier paper was in error.

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net


Why do you need for it to be on arXiv? You have it on your web

site.

You will never find an endorser until you show how your theory can
reproduce GR. Show that GR is emergent from your concepts and you

will

be "in". Automatically.

There is a big problem with such a requirement. If GR simply _can't_
be adapted to account for the anomaly, this means that a theory
that would satisfy the anomaly plus all other observed phenomena
accounted for by GR could simply not be spread through formal
channels.


Hi André,

Hmm... I am not sure why you would think that.

Hi Fred

Well, as you know, pretty much every avenue has been explored to
adapt GR however slightly since it was completely described with
the complementary contributions of other legendary contributors
like Gamov and some others in the first part of last century, and
the conclusion always was that it can't really be changed.

Since the Pioneer case came to light, no amount of scrutiny,
even under GR's diaper ;-) even dented that conclusion.

The fact is that if GR is to be modified in any way, SR needs
to be changed first, since GR is sitting squarely on it, and
I saw no attempts at even considering the option.

John's concept is
basically equivalent to a partially hidden relativistic medium scenario.
If you have a broader theory in which GR is a subset of or emergent
from, then I certainly don't think it would hurt to follow that line of
exposition to get your broader theory noticed.

Yes, I agree, but I think John's model is an alternate theory, not
one from which GR can be a subset or emergent from, and the same
for mine in fact.

He would rather go
around slamming GR instead of using it to his advantage. Which IMHO, he definitely could use it to his advantage to get the broader concept
noticed. Well... If he doesn't do it, I am going to do it anywise
someday.

That would definitely put things in perspective as far as John's model
and GR is concerned.

I started a paper last November "Gravity is Emergent from
Quantum Vacuum Charge" but got severely side-tracked by another paper
and other things. ;-) It uses John's dual space concept (really a
modified Dirac Sea) only much more detailed and also coupled with the
Randall-Sundrum RS-1 concept but modified a "tad". ;-)

Looking forward to that piece of work.

So John, like all other researchers out of the fold, has no choice
but to try spreading it otherwise.

Well, he has his own website for self publishing but his papers on there
need more "polishing". If you want to get physicists' attention, you
need to talk their "lingo" more.

Absolutely. But that is far from enough. I have come to understand
that even if one physicist comes to find valuable any out of the
fold idea, none will stick their neck out to face the unswervingly
GR bent community to either promote or even comment or defend it.
Courage is not a very common commodity.

My own angle has been to introduce my own ideas right into
institutions' physics labs, where teachers are not as involved
into peer socializing, and consequently are less sensitive to
such negative peer pressure. I have been at it for years.

But in "our cases" we have to present a *complete* consistent picture with enough predictions to make it very testable. As you know, that gets harder and harder as we know more.

Definitely. On my side, I just finished integrating LC oscillation
to the model. As already mentioned, my specific problem has
been switching to distance based math with as an only reference
the traditional time based math, on top of adapting that math to
my model. Getting easier now.

Regards

André Michaud


FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps

http://www.vacuum-physics.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: does light travel at a straight line?
    ... of the physics community. ... The "so-called" anomaly of the Pioneer 10 and 11 crafts on their ... Because the outer planets are not on hyperbolic escape trajectories, ... work (no expenditure of energy). ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: does light travel at a straight line?
    ... of the physics community. ... So did CM before relativity became popular. ... The "so-called" anomaly of the Pioneer 10 and 11 crafts on their ... Because the outer planets are not on hyperbolic escape trajectories, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Pioneer 10 & 11 deceleration implications?
    ... >>physicist does not pick up on this Pioneer deceleration ... >>phenomenon as something revolutionary to physics ... "Because the cosmological constant term is proportional ... Richard Saam ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: does light travel at a straight line?
    ... of the physics community. ... So did CM before relativity became popular. ... the only type of inertial trajectories that could not be studied ... containing the Pioneer flight data just before it was about to be destroyed. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... >> By thesame tokem since special relativity reduces to newtonian ... 2AB/= c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty ... > interesting to hear why in physics things are what they are, ... > constant c and their dependence of Aether energy density u. ...
    (sci.physics)