The Pioneer 10 anomaly is a problem that is far from settled, but the
question of red shift or blue shift remains. I try to show that the
phenomenon is a red shift, acceleration away from the sun. This is a
matter that should be cleared up.

It seems pretty clear from close analysis of [1] Anderson's et al
paper Oct. 98 and [2] Turyshev Mar. 99 that the Pioneer acceleration
should be defined as a red shift, not blue, a very important
difference. The claimed blue shift would have the acceleration toward
the sun for Pioneer 10 and P11 which were on opposite sides of the
sun.
However, just the opposite (red shift) seems to be the case as a
result of detecting some questionable algebra where a sign was
switched.

Ref. [2] defines the Doppler frequency shift or beat as the received
frequency vs standard:
(1) dF = F - F0

Clearly if the craft is leaving the sun, rdot0, and dF0, the usual
redshift condition causing a lower received frequency. Conversely,
while nearing the sun, the opposites are true but in either case, dR
and rdot are of opposite polarity so
(2) dF = -rdot*F/c defines the relationship. For acceleration r",
(3) dF/dt = -r"F/c
It is repeatedly stated in [1] and [2] that the observed frequency
drift over a 20 year period was always negative with the value:
(4) dF/dt = -6x10^-9Hz/sec (-1.5 Hz in 8 years)

It is at this point that a polarity-switch occurred when following the
statement defined the (negative!) clock acceleration of dF/Fdt as
(5) -A_t = -2.x10^-18s/s^2 instead of
(6) A_t = -2.x10^-18s/s^2
so that by incorporating two negatives we get the incorrect
(8X) A_p = A_t*c with the result that a negative A_t incorrectly
forces a negative acceleration of -8.5e-8cm/s^. The true value should
be positive:
(8) A_p = -A_t*c = +8.5 x 10^-8 cm/s^2, positive acceleration not
negative. There seems little latitude for interpretation.

There is a curious footnote in [2] pg.3 that says dF "is positive for
a spacecraft receding from the tracking station (red shift), negative
for approaching" (Note: both interpretations are wrong) "just the
opposite of the usual convention". The last remark does nothing to
clarify the situation, but it seems algebraically impossible to
interpret the negatively increasing dF/dt as an indication of negative
acceleration.

This topic was discussed before but I bring it up again, so we can
finally settle it. It is natural to "want" some kind of sun gravity,
and certainly not sun repulsion, but a hard look at the algebra raises
serious questions. In my and others' analysis, the sun has no part in
the phenomenon and there's no need to "make nice" with the sun.

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net

John,

I think the problem is merely one of unfortunate and misleading
notation rather than a genuine error:

if you look at footnote #38 in Anderson et al. 2002
(http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064 ) it is clear that
the basic frequency difference is actually defined as f0-f rather than
f-f0 (where f0 is the transmitted frequency and f the received
frequency). Note that this frequency difference is positive for a
redshift (ff0).
Now the (two-way) difference between the observed frequency difference
f0-f and the theoretical frequency difference f0-f' is then related to
the excess accelaration 'a' by

(1) (f0-f)-(f0-f') = -2*f0*t/c*a

or

(2) f'-f = -2*f0*t/c*a

The acceleration 'a' is defined such that it is positive if directed
towards the sun, so in this case the right hand side is negative and
hence it is required that ff' on the left hand side, which corresponds
to an excess blue-shift (which is consistent with the assumption that
the acceleration is towards the sun). In Eq.(15) in the above mentioned
paper they write f-f' rather than f'-f, so this may be a typo or
(probably more likely) just an unfortunate notation as they actually
were referring to (1) rather than (2) (i.e. to df-df' rather than
f'-f).

It is rather annoying that at this level they can't even manage to
produce a consistent notation throughout the paper, but I think the
problem here is just this and has nothing to do with a sign switch in
the data analyis itself.



There are in my opinion actually more important inconsistencies in
statements made in these papers, which suggest that the theoretical
modelling of the data is actually anything but clear-cut. At the
beginning of chapter 2.1 of the Turyshev paper
(http://xxx.sf.nchc.gov.tw/abs/gr-qc/9903024 ) they give the
acceleration due to radiation pressure at 20 AU as 5*10^-8 cm/sec^2 ( a
value which is also mentioned in the Anderson paper), but towards the
bottom of the same chapter it suddenly says that 'at distances 10-15
AU it (the radiation pressure) produces an acceleration that is much
less then 8*10^-8 cm/sec^2'. Now, 5 is certainly not much less then 8,
and taking also into account that the statistical error of the data is
about 2*10^-8 cm/sec^2 (as mentioned in the Anderson paper), this means
that errors in the modelling of the radiation pressure force could
completely alter the data. Additionally, as I have pointed out on my
webpage http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/pioneer.htm , signal propagation
effects (due to an incorrect application of the principle of the
invariance of the speed of light) would also lead to a contribution of
the same order of magnitude. A combination of all these factors could
well explain the data.

Thomas

John C. Polasek wrote:
The Pioneer 10 anomaly is a problem that is far from settled, but the
question of red shift or blue shift remains. I try to show that the
phenomenon is a red shift, acceleration away from the sun. This is a
matter that should be cleared up.

I think you make an excellent and very significant claim the the
Pioneer 10 anomaly is actually a red-shift instead of the usually
claimed blue shift. I was wondering if you have compared the Pioneer
red-shift with the red-shift associated with the expanding universe.

If we are observing red-shift, then there could be 1 of 2 causes.
Either the spacecraft is accelerating away faster than we expect (the
normally accepted explanation) or there is something intrinsic about
space which is causing the signal to become red-shifted as it travels
through space and Pioneer 10 is exactly where it is supposed to be.

This might lend some credibility to the "tired light" hypothesis if the
rates of red-shift for Pioneer 10 just happened to line up with the
red-shift observed from distant stars. Such a correlation would be
evidence that the red shift is not caused by an expanding universe, but
rather, some unexplained intrinsic property of space.

I had previously thought about how the Pioneer 10 anomoly might be used
to help test the tired light hypothesis, but I had initialy ruled it
out since the anomaly appeared to be a blue-shift instead of the
expected red-shift. But your reasoning puts it back as a red-shift
which makes the test viable.

If anybody has a comparison of Pioneer 10 red-shift compared to
galactic red-shift caused by the expansion of the universe, that would
be interesting to see.
fhuredshift

wrote in message
oups.com...

John C. Polasek wrote:
The Pioneer 10 anomaly is a problem that is far from settled, but the
question of red shift or blue shift remains. I try to show that the
phenomenon is a red shift, acceleration away from the sun. This is a
matter that should be cleared up.

I think you make an excellent and very significant claim the the
Pioneer 10 anomaly is actually a red-shift instead of the usually
claimed blue shift. I was wondering if you have compared the Pioneer
red-shift with the red-shift associated with the expanding universe.

If we are observing red-shift, then there could be 1 of 2 causes.
Either the spacecraft is accelerating away faster than we expect (the
normally accepted explanation) or there is something intrinsic about
space which is causing the signal to become red-shifted as it travels
through space and Pioneer 10 is exactly where it is supposed to be.

This might lend some credibility to the "tired light" hypothesis if the
rates of red-shift for Pioneer 10 just happened to line up with the
red-shift observed from distant stars. Such a correlation would be
evidence that the red shift is not caused by an expanding universe, but
rather, some unexplained intrinsic property of space.

I had previously thought about how the Pioneer 10 anomoly might be used
to help test the tired light hypothesis, but I had initialy ruled it
out since the anomaly appeared to be a blue-shift instead of the
expected red-shift. But your reasoning puts it back as a red-shift
which makes the test viable.

John is wrong it is a blue shift. Look at the graph showing the
sum of the anomaly and the solar radiation pressure. Solar
radiation pushes the craft away from the sun adding a red shift,
but the total of that and the anomaly goes through zero showing
the anomaly is a blue shift. This was also confirmed by Craig
Markwardt who re-analysed the data from scratch and found the
same result, the frequency is higher than expected.

If anybody has a comparison of Pioneer 10 red-shift compared to
galactic red-shift caused by the expansion of the universe, that would
be interesting to see.

This was done to death in the group a few years ago. Numerically
the acceleration appears close to the Hubble value.

a_p ~ c H

However, tired light says the red shift depends on distance so the
key question is the rate at which the distance is increasing. The
formula is then

a_tl = 2 v H

where v is the speed of the craft and the factor of 2 is because
the shift applies on both uplink and downlink.

Bottom line is that the anomaly is about four orders of magnitude
larger than tired light as well as being in the wrong direction.

George

George Dishman wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

John C. Polasek wrote:
The Pioneer 10 anomaly is a problem that is far from settled, but the
question of red shift or blue shift remains. I try to show that the
phenomenon is a red shift, acceleration away from the sun. This is a
matter that should be cleared up.
John is wrong it is a blue shift. Look at the graph showing the
sum of the anomaly and the solar radiation pressure. Solar
radiation pushes the craft away from the sun adding a red shift,
but the total of that and the anomaly goes through zero showing
the anomaly is a blue shift. This was also confirmed by Craig
Markwardt who re-analysed the data from scratch and found the
same result, the frequency is higher than expected.

If anybody has a comparison of Pioneer 10 red-shift compared to
galactic red-shift caused by the expansion of the universe, that would
be interesting to see.

This was done to death in the group a few years ago...
Blue shift- that means Pioneer is coming back ?
Hero

wrote:
George Dishman wrote:
... the anomaly is a blue shift. This was also confirmed by Craig
Markwardt who re-analysed the data from scratch and found the
same result, the frequency is higher than expected.

Blue shift- that means Pioneer is coming back ?

The anomaly is a blue shift. It suggests the craft is being
slowed with constant acceleration. The cumulative loss of
speed was around 100 mm/s over 8 years.

Overall, the shift is mostly red. The craft is leaving the
Solar system at about 12 km/s but the Earth's speed in orbit
is around 30 km/s so when we are moving towards it the shift
is blue (for about 19 weeks, up to 18 km/s) and when Earth is
moving the other way it is red (up to 42 km/s).

George

Hero wrote:

Blue shift- that means Pioneer is coming back ?
Hero

Not quite :j

Spud

wrote:
George Dishman wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

John C. Polasek wrote:
The Pioneer 10 anomaly is a problem that is far from settled, but the
question of red shift or blue shift remains. I try to show that the
phenomenon is a red shift, acceleration away from the sun. This is a
matter that should be cleared up.
John is wrong it is a blue shift. Look at the graph showing the
sum of the anomaly and the solar radiation pressure. Solar
radiation pushes the craft away from the sun adding a red shift,
but the total of that and the anomaly goes through zero showing
the anomaly is a blue shift. This was also confirmed by Craig
Markwardt who re-analysed the data from scratch and found the
same result, the frequency is higher than expected.

If anybody has a comparison of Pioneer 10 red-shift compared to
galactic red-shift caused by the expansion of the universe, that would
be interesting to see.

This was done to death in the group a few years ago...
Blue shift- that means Pioneer is coming back ?
Hero

No, it's a tiny unexpected blue shift added to the much bigger expected
red shift. So the net result is still a red shift, the Pioneers are not
coming back. The blue shift is said to be "unmodeled".

Chris

Dishman wrote:
wrote:
George Dishman wrote:
... the anomaly is a blue shift.
Blue shift- that means Pioneer is coming back ?

The anomaly is a blue shift. It suggests the craft is being
slowed with constant acceleration. The cumulative loss of
speed was around 100 mm/s over 8 years.

Overall, the shift is mostly red. The craft is leaving the
Solar system at about 12 km/s but the Earth's speed in orbit
is around 30 km/s so when we are moving towards it the shift
is blue (for about 19 weeks, up to 18 km/s) and when Earth is
moving the other way it is red (up to 42 km/s).

Okay, i've got it. So when earth moves at right angles to the direction
of pioneer, we observe red-shift. But it is a little bit less, what
could be calculated from the continuation of an undisturbed hyperbolic
orbit.
But, we have this right angle movement twice a year, with a distance of
14 light-minutes = two astronomical units in between, and that means a
lot of radiation from sun in between. This should shift the frequency
too (isn't it?) and what is observed in this aspect?
Thanks
Hero
PS. Posting with google-usenet claims, that my message will appear in
the unmoderated groups momentarily and in
sci.physics.research may be later.
But already twice it didn't appear in the unmoderated groups, so now i
took sci.physics reasearch out of the adress.

On a sunny day (25 Oct 2005 06:41:46 -0700) it happened
wrote in
.com:

But, we have this right angle movement twice a year, with a distance of
14 light-minutes = two astronomical units in between, and that means a
lot of radiation from sun in between. This should shift the frequency
too (isn't it?)
One EM frequency does not affect an other.
One radio station at a specific frequency will NOT change frequency if
an other one comes on line, or noise is present.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account