Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
Since then Craig Markwardt has independently processed
the raw data using IDL software and has confirmed both
the sense and magnitude of the anomaly:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208046

George

Yes, I know. He made a very nice job. However: my interpretation
is the correct one: the collected residual is the cumulative
Hubble redshift for the distance of signal travel. Also, it verifies
the value of independently calculated theoretical Hubble wavelength
doubling time constant at Hd=4.234 billion years.

Your statements are incorrect. None of my plots or conclusions are
based on accumulation of frequencies or times. In particular, Figure
3 of my paper shows the observed minus calculated frequency for a
*single* round trip for a transmission on a particular calendar date.
The residuals reflect that the received frequency is slightly higher
than expected (ie, a slight blue shift).

Therefore, your conclusions associating the Pioneer effect with the
Hubble recession are unsubstantiated and irrelevant.

CM

You are using data provided to you. We were talking about beat
frequencies as I recall. I really would like to get to the end of this
issue, but 'somehow' it does not seem possible without a new
experiment. Which is proposed by JPL...

You have not provided any substantial criticism of my analysis, only
innuendo. On the other hand, I can claim that my analysis included
all major effects including spacecraft motion, earth motion, earth
rotation, precession, nutation, polar motion, and (optionally)
tectonic drift. All of these effects are clearly detectable in the
Doppler signal, and thus verify that the analysis was performed
correctly.

What I suspect: the data is already a cumulative sum of residuals,
presented as a function of accumulated light time. You - all NASA related
parties - use this data to present it as a calendar day related data.
It is simply not true, but you get the verification of your bigbangology.
Which is the object of the exercise.



I think so, you are not in position to define the validity of my
conclusions. Nobody is.

You are making unsubstantiated and incorrect claims about work that I
have done myself.

No, I'm not.

The magnitude of the Pioneer anomaly is too large
by many orders of magnitude to be the Hubble effect, and it is
apparent as a slight *increase* in frequency compared to the expected
Doppler frequency.

PLease check it: if you take the 'calendar time' for the 'signal travel
time' you get the magnitude just perfect for the Hubble effect. Also,
since the record is beat frequency - and the insinuation of sign
convention - the (*increase*) of frequency means *decrease* of really
observed frequency - as it been reported in the early days.

I leave no ambiguity in my paper, and further I
fully agree with the Anderson (2002) result, in terms of magnitude and
sign.

CM

I agree with that. You made a very nice verification: the effect is really
there! HOwever, you just don't have the clear picture what's really there.

And I agree with Anderson at al.: it is necessary to make dedicated
experiments to find out.

That's all!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com