How strong was the diurnal and seasonal variations of the Pionner Anomaly (?

[Bjarne]

Read my last reply you literally asked a question in your OP that is impossible to answer on a forum.

 

On any forum as we simply do not know the location of the satelite when you wish to calculate the frequency from the cm/s value. It will not stay consistent but will literally be a wavefunction over time.

 

Do not pretend to know what you are talking about when you already admitted you have never worked with the Doppler formulas.

 

Take some time and practice some calcs you will see precisely what I mean.

 

Those values above are mean averages

I never asked about the location. I know what doppler is , but have never calculated such (which also not have much with the question to do) , I assume it’s simple, - just v relative to c, in this case, but still the problem is rather no questions have been answered, notice my previous post above have been updated, after you wrote your last post.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Bjarne

[Mordred]

The problem is you need the relevant angles for the transverse.

 

You were already provided the mean average frequency for the a_p value above.

 

Which is [latex] 5.99*10^{-9}[/latex] hertz/s.

 

Perhaps you need to see the formula for the diurnal velocity error margin. Let me dig it up.

 

Here see section 50 but note all acceleration values are weighted average values as mentioned numerous times in this article.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064&ved=0ahUKEwia5Y2Uy7bUAhUC6GMKHW4pBNwQFggdMAA&usg=AFQjCNEs949Tk1b1iYg4EEXv_ChHnPTRtA&sig2=3XHWC131R8ZIgTDvsaq3Ew

 

I had to track this paper down via the citations from other articles. As far as I can tell it has highest citations specific to the diurnal variations.

 

(hopefully you will see just how complex the averaging gets in these types of datasets) particularly many of the values you see in most papers are under schotastic treatments.

 

Your going to need some very serious computing power to come up with better than already researched on the last few decades of extensive research.

 

(lol hope you plan on dedicating a decade or so of your time to this problem)

Edited June 12, 2017 by Mordred

[Strange]

.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Strange

[Mordred]

Roflmao I particularly like equation 3 for [latex] i [/latex]th planetary bodies in system. The article has a decent list of relevant studies.

 

No fault to the posting the topic, not many would pick up the detail "schotastic acceleration" for [latex] a_p[/latex]

 

As a side note any estimates based on the transverse formula over time we could make. Without a decent range of datasets would most likely be more in error than the error margin were to calculate lol.

 

As schotastic accelerations would be involved. Here is a decent study on orbital Schotastic doppler.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://ipnpr.jpl.nasa.gov/progress_report/42-146/146D.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwijyJb8nrfUAhWQ0YMKHRASC1UQFggrMAQ&usg=AFQjCNGBCCEmknQOV54gyyX4W2pi8rcDlA&sig2=cTNGu-a4pz-cdcIk82pzRA

 

It has a good coverage of how to determine [latex]a_p[/latex]

 

It should illustrate the complexity involved under Schotastic treatment. Come to think of it of these treatmemts could come in handy for my notes.

I always like tracking different derivitaves and their causes and mathematical methods to compensate involving all three types of redshift.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Mordred

[Bjarne]

 

 

I guess you once was in the same situation, instead of showing you a ridiculous photo to you, I guess you have got all the help you asked for, ,

The doppler equation itself is a piece of cake. The only problem is I am not sure which data to pull out of the paper and use . Its so simple specific to teach me excactly that.

it is not a shame that I have to lean it , and it does not mean I am born stupid, it is rather the arrogant image you have chosen to show, that is a shame.

The problem is you need the relevant angles for the transverse.

 

You were already provided the mean average frequency for the a_p value above.

 

Which is [latex] 5.99*10^{-9}[/latex] hertz/s.

 

Perhaps you need to see the formula for the diurnal velocity error margin. Let me dig it up.

 

Here see section 50 but note all acceleration values are weighted average values as mentioned numerous times in this article.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064&ved=0ahUKEwia5Y2Uy7bUAhUC6GMKHW4pBNwQFggdMAA&usg=AFQjCNEs949Tk1b1iYg4EEXv_ChHnPTRtA&sig2=3XHWC131R8ZIgTDvsaq3Ew

 

I had to track this paper down via the citations from other articles. As far as I can tell it has highest citations specific to the diurnal variations.

 

(hopefully you will see just how complex the averaging gets in these types of datasets) particularly many of the values you see in most papers are under schotastic treatments.

 

Your going to need some very serious computing power to come up with better than already researched on the last few decades of extensive research.

 

(lol hope you plan on dedicating a decade or so of your time to this problem)

Off course the angle and the speed of the earth ‘relative to the probe is also important, - but can we now take this from the very beginning. Let just for simplicity reason ignore the angle, - that can be taken into account later.

 

Try to extract the addition, / reduce speed ( and /or frequency) the annual anomaly, (and only that) represent - (it can be included noise) .

How will you do it’

I have ask many time whether the image above illustrate the interval wherein the anomaly is hidden, or in other words is the magnitude of the peaking annual anomaly within the range -/+ 20 Hz. – Its very simple to answer yes or no to that question.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Bjarne

[Mordred]

recall the reference I mentioned above section 50. Your formulas are there.

 

Recall the paper where got the graph above from. Specific quote.

 

"The presence of diurnal and seasonal variations in the residuals has also been

reported by Anderson et al. (Anderson et al., 2002). It has to be noted that

these specific periods are unlikely to be due to anything related to the spacecraft

or its environment."

 

That is the paper I stated see section 50 for the related formulas. In other words the paper you got that graph from references the paper I provided.

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064

 

on laptop now may as well link the arxiv link

Edited June 12, 2017 by Mordred

[Bjarne]

recall the reference I mentioned above section 50. Your formulas are there.

 

Recall the paper where got the graph above from. Specific quote.

 

"The presence of diurnal and seasonal variations in the residuals has also been

reported by Anderson et al. (Anderson et al., 2002). It has to be noted that

these specific periods are unlikely to be due to anything related to the spacecraft

or its environment."

 

That is the paper I stated see section 50 for the related formulas. In other words the paper you got that graph from references the paper I provided.

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064

 

on laptop now may as well link the arxiv link

Much in these papers are above my head.

It does not matter what causes the annual anomaly, - I still only want to know the magnitude, - or the data necessary to calculate the annual anomaly.

I think you too cannot extract the necessary data can you ?

 

And you can also not answer the following question can you ? s the magnitude of the peaking annual anomaly within the range -/+ 20 Hz.

If so you know a blind man cannot lead another blind man

[Mordred]

Your right I can't you require a computer program designed to do so. That has been the point all along. Its not as simple as plug in single point values but a time average of values for some mean baseline depending on the fourier transformations of the graph/plot you are dealing with.

 

However I am aware of the types of equations involved. Which I took the time to find decent references to them to show the complexity involved.

 

see section 50 that is the best answer I can give you. The thing is when you are trying to establish a mean average of a waveform your stepping into a whole series of calcs. (corresponding to the number of sample points) Not just a simple application such as the basic Dopplers I posted above.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Mordred

[Bjarne]

Even without a computer program, it must be possible to approximate the range of the annual anomaly

 

Computer software analyses has been done already https://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.2682.pdf

[Mordred]

Yeeah its been done for good reason. Sheer complexity on number of calculations to get an accurate mean average.

 

In case you haven't noticed every single paper we posted. References some piece of simulation software....

Edited June 12, 2017 by Mordred

[Bjarne]

Even without a computer program, it must be possible to approximate the range of the annual anomaly

 

Computer software analyses has been done already https://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.2682.pdf

So the the magnitude of the peaking annual anomaly within the range -/+ 20 Hz.

 

[Mordred]

Right then

 

Count up the graph locations of every single blue pixel in that graph. As it is already in hertz on the vertical. You average each data point frequency to the time. Accuracy will depend on interpreted points via that graph and number of sample points. This degree of accuracy will increase in error margin at each stage of calculations ( extra number of samples helps reduce)

 

After all it is already hertz over time get to it. Don't forget to denote the ones in the + or - 20 hertz range.

 

We don't have the recorded data files 😉

 

We don't have telemetary so we can't use transverse doppler for corrections. You can bulldoze your way through using the first doppler equation on the above then average them. Of course it won't be accurate either lol.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Mordred

[Bjarne]

Ok thanks for now