Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
(Aladar) writes:
Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
(Aladar) writes:

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.


I am the only person here who can do forensics on your highly flawed
analysis,you are all over the place with some effects and do not
mention the major one - i.e. the outward trajectory of the Pioneer
spacecraft against the annual orbital rotation of the Earth which
generates a net cyclical 'acceleration' effect due to the
observational limitation of finite light distance,the conclusion being
that the correct solution for Pioneer's motion is strictly
nonlocal.The correct solution is the cyclical variation in the
distance between Earth and Pioneer and the bi-annual 'accelerative'
drift due to the approach of the trajectory of the earth against the
outward trajectory of the spacecraft.

Claiming things is fine among poor opposition but including polar
motion and precession as two different things or your lack of
precision in defining earth motion (you should specify elliptical
rotation) and earth rotation that conditions all geocentric
observations and constitutes the constant day against the variable day
makes your impressive list an astronomical mess.Until you stop your
linguistic dithering your paper is worthless except for relativistic
thumbsucking purposes,otoh,if you wish to go through the motions of
the earth and work on what is valid and what is not,feel free to
discuss the matter.









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

CM

(Oriel36) writes:

A good start is to look at how Ole Roemer made good use of positional
displacement or the seasonal anomalous acceleration and decceleration
in the orbit of Io.If you are in any way intelligent you will realise
that pioneer has an outward trajectory whereas Jupiter has a cyclical
orbital trajectory,the upshot is that pioneer will always appear to
have a net acceleration against the annual orbit of the Earth,again I
will explain the details when you grasp the composite rotations of the
Earth summed up by the Equation of Time or what amounts to the same
thing,the difference between absolute time and relative time.

Your comments are apparently irrelevant. Of course the fact that
Pioneer has an outward trajectory was taken into account. All known
forces on the spacecraft were taken into account. The "anomaly" is
that a residual acceleration remained.


For goodness sake drop this notion that the sun has a different motion
than the local stars or what is known as the sidereal day,when the
author of spacetime modelled the motion of Mercury he attached the sun
to sidereal motion,an extraordinary feat of ineptitude.

You can't be serious. Of course the sun has a different apparent
motion than the stars. There's no other way for the different signs
of the zodiac to be visible through the seasons.


Precession (and nutation) refer to the pole of the celestial sphere.
Polar motion refers to the terestrial point where that pole intersects
with the earth. The two are different.


Now you are just reaching,if you wish to discover how precession
affects observation check out the comments of the astronomer
royal,Nevil Maskelyne and we can discuss the Equation of Time
together,he even uses Absolute time in his comments which refers to
the particular alignment of diurnal rotation against annual
elliptical.

Your comments are irrelevant. Of course precession and nutation of
the equinox are taken into account, in a manner compatible with that
described by Maskelyne. Polar motion (Chandler wobble) has been known
for more than a century, since it changes the latitude of earth
stations.


CM