Physics Banter - View Single Post - where did the dark matter that causes flat rotation curves in gal

**Craig Markwardt**

(Aladar) writes:

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
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.

This conclusion is unsubstantiated. None of the effects of earth
motion, earth rotation, precession, nutation or polar motion are
cumulative in any fashion, and neither is the anomalous Pioneer
acceleration. The "calendar day" is quite simply the date of
observation, no "accumulation" was performed or required.

However, the Doppler data is 'averaged' - which I suspect is the
accumulation, adding the residuals and adding the light times, signal
travel times to match the assigned timetags. This conclusion was
substantiated by the response to my very first question, related to
the Pioneer 10 anomalous Doppler observations.

Your suspicion about the "accumulation" of light travel times is
incorrect. I performed no such accumulation. None of the earth
motion or rotation effects were accumulated. You are simply wrong.

[ Markwardt: ]
I am not insinuating any sign. I am declaring explicitly that the
received frequency was slightly higher than expected. A putative sign
error would have been hideously obvious, since all the other Doppler
terms are very strongly imprinted in the signal. Therefore your
claims are unsubstantiated, and your conclusions are irrelevant.

CM

But again: how to explain than the proposed test, made by the
authors?!

Is there a clearly defined 1. we sent this frequency, 2. we should get
this frequency and 3. we got as much higher then expected frequency -
unexplained but at least clear picture as you are trying to suggest?

Markwardt, gr-qc/0208046:
By the end of the data span in 1994, the frequency of the received
Doppler signal is higher than expected by approximately +2.7 Hz in a
single round trip.

Are you really saying that the error in JPL location determination - as
a result of cummulative error in the velocity determination - is in
order of light seconds?!

You erroneously presuppose that the change in light travel time would
be of order light seconds. There is no observational range data for
Pioneer 10, so the light travel cannot be constrained well. In fact,
the effect of 0.5 * a_P * t^2, over the 7 year time span of my
analysis would be of order 0.05 lt sec; and over the 11 year span of
the Anderson paper would be 0.1 lt sec. This level of change is not
distinguishable in the Doppler residuals, compared to other sources of
Doppler measurement error.

CM