FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 13 [186 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 11, 12, 13 Next
Author Message
DontBother@nowhere.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 114

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

On 19 Jul 2006 23:05:49 -0700, "George Dishman"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

Lester Zick wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:51:32 +0100, "George Dishman"
george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:


"Lester Zick" <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:9jrsb2t4ld5eodrnlk3e2ghp71i0dn3tg5@4ax.com...
On 19 Jul 2006 02:04:43 -0700, "George Dishman"
george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:


Lester Zick wrote:
...
Certain latency mods to Newtonian gravitation can in fact adequately
explain ... the Pioneer anomaly ...

I don't believe you, please show your calculations.

Are you a publication of record, George?

Nope, just someone who considers you to be making a
claim you cannot back up by showing your derivation
of a_P based on the addition of "certain latency
mods to Newtonian gravitation". Of course if you have
already published them in a publication of record, I
will apologise.

So if I'm correct but haven't published you won't apologize? Not sure
that offers much incentive.

Not at all, I thought you were implying you had. If
you can show the modified Newtonian equation and
then show your calculations that match Pioneer,
then I still owe you that apology. I'm a reasonable
chap as many in the group will tell you.

Let me tell you a brief story. In 89 as an offer of good faith to the
editor of a revisionist magazine to show I had some interesting ideas
in astrophysics, I explained that globular clusters surrounding the
Milky Way were the youngest not the oldest objects in the galaxy as
was commonly thought at the time. Needless to say five years or so
later the astrophysical community was astounded to learn they had been
completely mistaken. Once burned twice shy.

Globular clusters are still known to be very old

Decades old conventional wisdom based on a supposition that globular
clusters had blown away all their interstellar dust. I don't know what
the new evidence for their actual youth consisted of but I distinctly
remember reading about it. My inference was based on the idea that
stars in the globular cluster had not yet collapsed into a rotating
disk analogous to the Milky Way and had not had time to produce a
significant amount of interstellar dust. Just annoying.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_cluster#Globular_clusters

Are you perhaps thinking of open clusters?

Don't think so. It was only a casual aside to the editor of that
magazine in any event. But the subject was definitely the halo of
globular clusters surrounding the Milky Way.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_cluster

My calculation in the case of Pioneer 11 works out within 2% according
to the rough figures available in the column 1 article in the L.A.
Times of 12/21/04 as I recall. I emailed the subject of the article
c/o JPL and the Times to the discoverer but predictably got no reply.

Depending on what figures you need, you can get the
basic trajectory values from the JPL Horizons system.

Oh well 2% is close enough for government work I expect. It's the
mechanical principle involved that's interesting. It turns out to be a
trivial calculation in the case of Pioneer 11. Considerably less so in
the case of Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance. I didn't even
bother with it until a couple months ago.

Quote:
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi

HTH
George

~v~~
Back to top
Richard Herring
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 194

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:35 am    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

In message <0d9tb2pq76pm23t1cgivp9g6sssautatk0@4ax.com>, Lester Zick
<DontBother@nowhere.net> writes
Quote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:51:32 +0100, "George Dishman"
george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:


"Lester Zick" <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:9jrsb2t4ld5eodrnlk3e2ghp71i0dn3tg5@4ax.com...
On 19 Jul 2006 02:04:43 -0700, "George Dishman"
george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:


Lester Zick wrote:
...
Certain latency mods to Newtonian gravitation can in fact adequately
explain ... the Pioneer anomaly ...

I don't believe you, please show your calculations.

Are you a publication of record, George?

Nope, just someone who considers you to be making a
claim you cannot back up by showing your derivation
of a_P based on the addition of "certain latency
mods to Newtonian gravitation". Of course if you have
already published them in a publication of record, I
will apologise.

So if I'm correct but haven't published you won't apologize? Not sure
that offers much incentive.

Let me tell you a brief story. In 89 as an offer of good faith to the
editor of a revisionist magazine to show I had some interesting ideas
in astrophysics, I explained that globular clusters surrounding the
Milky Way were the youngest not the oldest objects in the galaxy as
was commonly thought at the time. Needless to say five years or so
later the astrophysical community was astounded to learn they had been
completely mistaken. Once burned twice shy.

Pretty good work for somebody who doesn't understand the difference
between angular momentum and action.

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=action&num=10&scoring=r&hl=en&as_epq
=angular+momentum&as_uauthors=zick

--
Richard Herring
Back to top
George Dishman
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 963

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:05 am    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

Lester Zick wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:51:32 +0100, "George Dishman"
george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:


"Lester Zick" <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:9jrsb2t4ld5eodrnlk3e2ghp71i0dn3tg5@4ax.com...
On 19 Jul 2006 02:04:43 -0700, "George Dishman"
george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:


Lester Zick wrote:
...
Certain latency mods to Newtonian gravitation can in fact adequately
explain ... the Pioneer anomaly ...

I don't believe you, please show your calculations.

Are you a publication of record, George?

Nope, just someone who considers you to be making a
claim you cannot back up by showing your derivation
of a_P based on the addition of "certain latency
mods to Newtonian gravitation". Of course if you have
already published them in a publication of record, I
will apologise.

So if I'm correct but haven't published you won't apologize? Not sure
that offers much incentive.

Not at all, I thought you were implying you had. If
you can show the modified Newtonian equation and
then show your calculations that match Pioneer,
then I still owe you that apology. I'm a reasonable
chap as many in the group will tell you.

Quote:
Let me tell you a brief story. In 89 as an offer of good faith to the
editor of a revisionist magazine to show I had some interesting ideas
in astrophysics, I explained that globular clusters surrounding the
Milky Way were the youngest not the oldest objects in the galaxy as
was commonly thought at the time. Needless to say five years or so
later the astrophysical community was astounded to learn they had been
completely mistaken. Once burned twice shy.

Globular clusters are still known to be very old

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_cluster#Globular_clusters

Are you perhaps thinking of open clusters?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_cluster

Quote:
My calculation in the case of Pioneer 11 works out within 2% according
to the rough figures available in the column 1 article in the L.A.
Times of 12/21/04 as I recall. I emailed the subject of the article
c/o JPL and the Times to the discoverer but predictably got no reply.

Depending on what figures you need, you can get the
basic trajectory values from the JPL Horizons system.

http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi

HTH
George
Back to top
DontBother@nowhere.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 114

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:51:32 +0100, "George Dishman"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

"Lester Zick" <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:9jrsb2t4ld5eodrnlk3e2ghp71i0dn3tg5@4ax.com...
On 19 Jul 2006 02:04:43 -0700, "George Dishman"
george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:


Lester Zick wrote:
...
Certain latency mods to Newtonian gravitation can in fact adequately
explain ... the Pioneer anomaly ...

I don't believe you, please show your calculations.

Are you a publication of record, George?

Nope, just someone who considers you to be making a
claim you cannot back up by showing your derivation
of a_P based on the addition of "certain latency
mods to Newtonian gravitation". Of course if you have
already published them in a publication of record, I
will apologise.

So if I'm correct but haven't published you won't apologize? Not sure
that offers much incentive.

Let me tell you a brief story. In 89 as an offer of good faith to the
editor of a revisionist magazine to show I had some interesting ideas
in astrophysics, I explained that globular clusters surrounding the
Milky Way were the youngest not the oldest objects in the galaxy as
was commonly thought at the time. Needless to say five years or so
later the astrophysical community was astounded to learn they had been
completely mistaken. Once burned twice shy.

My calculation in the case of Pioneer 11 works out within 2% according
to the rough figures available in the column 1 article in the L.A.
Times of 12/21/04 as I recall. I emailed the subject of the article
c/o JPL and the Times to the discoverer but predictably got no reply.

~v~~
Back to top
George Dishman
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 963

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

"Lester Zick" <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:9jrsb2t4ld5eodrnlk3e2ghp71i0dn3tg5@4ax.com...
Quote:
On 19 Jul 2006 02:04:43 -0700, "George Dishman"
george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:


Lester Zick wrote:
...
Certain latency mods to Newtonian gravitation can in fact adequately
explain ... the Pioneer anomaly ...

I don't believe you, please show your calculations.

Are you a publication of record, George?

Nope, just someone who considers you to be making a
claim you cannot back up by showing your derivation
of a_P based on the addition of "certain latency
mods to Newtonian gravitation". Of course if you have
already published them in a publication of record, I
will apologise.

George
Back to top
DontBother@nowhere.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 114

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

On 19 Jul 2006 02:04:43 -0700, "George Dishman"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

Lester Zick wrote:
...
Certain latency mods to Newtonian gravitation can in fact adequately
explain ... the Pioneer anomaly ...

I don't believe you, please show your calculations.

Are you a publication of record, George?

~v~~
Back to top
Aleksandr Timofeev
science forum beginner


Joined: 14 Apr 2005
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
Quote:
Craig Markwardt писал(а):

"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> writes:

Craig Markwardt wrote:
[snip]
You were in error. First,
your mass values were incorrect (see above). Second, you neglected to
consider the measurement uncertainties. When both of those factors
are properly reconsidered, one finds that the masses are *not*
significantly different between the two epochs. And thus my claim
that, regardless of measurement time or technique (1976 vs. 2003), the
mass of Jupiter is consistent.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1965IAUS...21..269B&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=43f9adc88415739

"Title: Astronomical Constants; A Survey of Determined Values
Authors: Böhme, S.; Fricke, W.
Publication: In: The System of Astronomical Constants, Proc. IAU Symp.
21, Paris, France, 27-31 May 1963; J. Kovalevsky (ed.), Bull. Astron.
XXV, 269-293
Publication Date: 00/1965
Origin: ARI
Comment: ARIPRINT Id. #mha026
Bibliographic Code: 1965IAUS...21..269B

Abstract
The authors give the main relations between fundamental and derived
constants in analytical and numerical forms. Then, they enumerate and
comment results of determinations of parameters of the figure and
gravity field of the Earth, solar parallax, constant of lunar equation,


the masses of planets,

the constants of aberration, of nutation and of precession and give an
extensive list of references. "

S. Bohme & W. Fricke 1965 table VIII conventional "the masses of
planets" values used in the computation of ephemerides.


S. BOHME AND W. FRICKE 1965

ASTRONOMICAL CONSTANTS. 280
TABLE VIII.
Reciprocal masses of the planets.
No. m^-1. p. e. Author. Method and
observations.

Mercury : 6 000 000 (conventional value).
1 6 120 000 ± 43 000 Rabe [36] Eros (1926-1945)
2 5 970 000 ± 455 000 Duncoinbe [52] Venus (1750-1949)
3 5 980 000 ± 170 000 Makover, Bokhan [53] Comet Encke
(1898-1954)
Venus : 408 000 (conventional value).
4 404 700 ± 800 Spencer Jones [54] Sun (1836-1923)
5 407 000 ± 500 Morgan, Scott [49] Sun (1900-1937)
6 409 300 ± 1 400 Clemence [55] Mercury (1765-1937)
7 408 645 ± 208 Rabe [36] Eros (1926-1945)
Earth-Moon : 329 390 (conventional value).
8 328 390 ± 69 Witt [33] Eros (1893-1931)
9 328 452 ± 43 Rabe [36] Eros (1926-1945)
Mars : 3 093 500 (conventional value).
10 3 088 000 ± 5 000 van den Bosch [56]
Satellites (1877-1909)
11 3 110 000 ± 7 700 Rabe [36] Eros (1926-1945)
12 3 088 000 ± 3 000 Clemence [57] Satellites (since
1877)
Jupiter : 1 047.355 (conventional value).
13 1 047.40 ± 0.03 de Siller [58] Satellites, min.
planets
14 1 047.4 ± 0.4 D. K. Kulikov [59] Jupiter VIII
(1908-1946)
15 1 047.39 ± 0.03 Clemence [57] Newcomb's material
Saturn : 3 501.6 (conventional value).
16 3 497.64 ± 0.27 Hertz [60] Jupiter (1884-1948)
17 3 494.8 ± 1.3 Jeffreys [61] Satellites (1924-1937)
18 3 499.7 ± 0.4 Clemence [62] Jupiter (1779-1941)
Uranus : 22869 (conventional value).
19 22934 ± 6 Harris Satellites
Neptune : 19 314 (*) (conventional value).
20 19 094 ± 22 Gaillot [63] Uranus (1690-1903)
21 18 889 ± 62 van Biesbroeck [64] Nereid (1949-1955)
Pluto : 360 000 (conventional value).
22 400 000 ± 40 000 Brouwer [65] Uranus, Neptune (1712-1941)

(*) In Newcomb’s Tables of Uranus and In the “ integration orbits
“ of Jupiter to Pluto; the value 19 700 in the other tables.
Remarks to table VIII :
1. Perturbations of Mercury on Eros.
2. Periodic perturbations of Mercury on Venus.
3. Perturbations of Mercury on Comet Encke.
4, 5. Periodic perturbations of Venus on Earth-Moon.
6. Periodic perturbations of Venus on Mercury.
7. Perturbations of Venus on Eros.
8, 9. Perturbations of Earth-Moon on Eros.
10. Result of the discussion of 27 determinations.
11. Perturbations of Mars on Eros.
12. No details published; the result includes more recent observational
material than was available to van den Bosch.
13. Heliometer observations of satellites and Newcomb's material after
rejecting observations
of comets and the older observations of satellites.
15. With revised weights; no details published.
16. Perturbations of Saturn on Jupiter by adjustment of the "
integration
orbit "; 3 996.98 ± 0.28 by adjustment of Hill's theory.
20. Perturbations of Saturn on Jupiter by adjustment of the “
integration orbit “.
20. No details published (cf. Clemence [57]); based on photographic
observations.
20. Perturbations of Neptune on Uranus.
22. 450 000 ± 90 000 from longitudes alone.

Quote:


http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/astro_constants.html :

IERS (2003) IAU 1965
modern S. Bohme & W. Fricke

Sun / Mercury 6023600. ± 250. 6000000.0

Sun / Venus 408523.71 ± 0.06 408000.0

Sun / (Earth+Moon) 328900.56 ± 0.02 329390.0

Sun / (Mars system) 3098708. ± 9. 3093500.0

Sun / (Jupiter system) 1047.3486 ± 0.0008 1047.355

Sun / (Saturn system) 3497.898 ± 0.018 3501.6

Sun / (Uranus system) 22902.98 ± 0.03 22869.0

Sun / (Neptune system) 19412.24 ± 0.04 19314.0

Sun / (Pluto system) 1.35 ± 0.07 * 10^8 360000.0


http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/elem_planets.html

S. Bohme & W. Fricke indicate a method and observation!
Back to top
George Dishman
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 963

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:04 am    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

Lester Zick wrote:
....
Quote:
Certain latency mods to Newtonian gravitation can in fact adequately
explain ... the Pioneer anomaly ...

I don't believe you, please show your calculations.

George
Back to top
DontBother@nowhere.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 114

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:07:59 +0100, "George Dishman"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

"The Real Chris" <me@myself.com> wrote in message
news:9R3vg.3210$gW6.199@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
The mathemeticians got their sums wrong they forget the solar system is a
disk and not a sphere. The newtonian theory of "uniform graviting
spherical shells" only applies to sherical shells that are uniform and the
solar disk is not a sphere and it is not uniform.

Utter crap, the craft are tens of AU from the
Sun so the effects of its slight oblateness
are completely negligible.

There is nothing anomolus about pioneer at all. Perfectly normal newton.

Newton couldn't even get the planet Mercury
right. The analyses include the proper
relativistic corrections.

Just get you sums right.

The sums have been independently checked and
are right.

Newton always got it right,

Apart from Mercury, and gravitational bending
of light and gravitational radiation and time
dilation and the Doppler equation and .......

Certain latency mods to Newtonian gravitation can in fact adequately
explain both Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance, the Pioneer
anomaly and other gravitational anomalies not explained by GR.

~v~~
Back to top
Aleksandr Timofeev
science forum beginner


Joined: 14 Apr 2005
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:33 pm    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

Craig Markwardt писал(а):

Quote:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> writes:

Craig Markwardt wrote:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> writes:

Craig Markwardt wrote:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> writes:


Craig Markwardt wrote:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_timofeev@my-deja.com> writes:

Craig Markwardt wrote:
[snip]
Dear Craig Markwardt, please, look at:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/9a96b538d2852019?dmode=source&hl=en

My arguments and interpretation of anomaly of "Pioneers" can change
your approach to interpretation of the problem.

The principle of equivalence has been tested quite narrow tolerances
in the solar system already (Williams et al 1996), so your supposition
will probably not be fruitful.

CM

References
Williams, Newhall & Dickey 1996, Phys Rev D, 53, 6730

I do not believe in Williams, Newhall & Dickey interpretation of
experimental data absolutely.

Please, try to explain a difference between measurements of values
of masses of Jove and Saturn by two different measurement methods
of masses of planets in two epoch distant from each other by interval
of time per 25 years:

Your reference to Jupiter and Saturn is irrelevant, since the
equivalence test in Williams Newhall & Dickey (1996), regarded the
independent accelerations of the *earth and moon* toward the sun. The
accelerations match to with one part in 5 x 10^{-13}, even though the
two bodies have a factor ~80 difference in mass.


I note no response.

Well... If the satellites of Jove had average acceleration in relation

to the Sun distinguished from average acceleration of Jove in relation
to the Sun...,
what do you think concerning duration of existence of a satellite
system of Jove?

The same thing that would have happened to the Earth-Moon system if
there were such an effect (so-called orbit "polarization"). However,
the Earth-Moon system is a much more stringent test of equivalence
test. At least, that's been true since it was recognized by Laplace.
[ Damour & Vokrouhlicky, 1996, Phys Rev D, 53, 4177, and ref. 5 therein. ]
Since that time, the upper limit on equivalence principle
violations has become much more stringent. [ Williams, Newhall &
Dickey 1996, Phys Rev D, 53, 6730 ]

Your fixation on Jupiter is unwarranted.


Furthermore, your calculation,
Jove was 317.735 in 1970 and has become 317.89 in 1990
Saturn was 95.147 in 1970 and has become 95.168 in 1990
is both in error and does not account for measurement uncertainties.

Assuming measurement uncertainties in the final IAU 1976 values,
one obtains,
IAU 1976 IERS (2003)
M_jupiter / M_earth = 317.89(1) 317.8942(1)
M_saturn / M_earth = 95.17(1) 95.185(2)

Whether you can point out the method of measurement of values of
planetary masses?
( Accordingly for IAU 1976 and for IERS (2003))?


The method of measurement is irrelevant.

It is methodologicalally doubtful assertion,
"therefore your original premise is erroneous."
Ideal precision physical measurings of physical quantities are
considered reliable, if these quantities coincide, when they are
obtained by Different physical Methods.


It was *you* that claimed that there was a significant
difference in the mass of Jupiter based on two time periods and two
different measurement methods.

Really?

Quote:
You were in error. First,
your mass values were incorrect (see above). Second, you neglected to
consider the measurement uncertainties. When both of those factors
are properly reconsidered, one finds that the masses are *not*
significantly different between the two epochs. And thus my claim
that, regardless of measurement time or technique (1976 vs. 2003), the
mass of Jupiter is consistent.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1965IAUS...21..269B&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=43f9adc88415739

"Title: Astronomical Constants; A Survey of Determined Values
Authors: Böhme, S.; Fricke, W.
Publication: In: The System of Astronomical Constants, Proc. IAU Symp.
21, Paris, France, 27-31 May 1963; J. Kovalevsky (ed.), Bull. Astron.
XXV, 269-293
Publication Date: 00/1965
Origin: ARI
Comment: ARIPRINT Id. #mha026
Bibliographic Code: 1965IAUS...21..269B

Abstract
The authors give the main relations between fundamental and derived
constants in analytical and numerical forms. Then, they enumerate and
comment results of determinations of parameters of the figure and
gravity field of the Earth, solar parallax, constant of lunar equation,


the masses of planets,

the constants of aberration, of nutation and of precession and give an
extensive list of references. "

S. Bohme & W. Fricke 1965 table VIII conventional "the masses of
planets" values used in the computation of ephemerides.


http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/astro_constants.html :

IERS (2003) IAU 1965
modern S. Bohme & W. Fricke

Sun / Mercury 6023600. ± 250. 6000000.0

Sun / Venus 408523.71 ± 0.06 408000.0

Sun / (Earth+Moon) 328900.56 ± 0.02 329390.0

Sun / (Mars system) 3098708. ± 9. 3093500.0

Sun / (Jupiter system) 1047.3486 ± 0.0008 1047.355

Sun / (Saturn system) 3497.898 ± 0.018 3501.6

Sun / (Uranus system) 22902.98 ± 0.03 22869.0

Sun / (Neptune system) 19412.24 ± 0.04 19314.0

Sun / (Pluto system) 1.35 ± 0.07 * 10^8 360000.0


http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/elem_planets.html

S. Bohme & W. Fricke indicate a method and observation!


Quote:

However, as noted above, this fixation on Jupiter is irrelevant. The
earth-moon system is far more sensitive to human measurements of
equivalence principle violations.


As pointed out, the two
measurements are consistent to within the estimated uncertainties, and
therefore your original premise is erroneous.

Indicated by you, the estimates of errors of measurings are interior
estimates of errors of measurings of the given concrete theory or
method.
The objective method of an estimation of errors of measurings demands
usage physically of different measurement methods basically.

Quote:

The quantities, indicated by you, are measured by the same method
with usage of spacecrafts. From a methodological point of view, it is a
tautology.

It is interesting that it was *you* that claimed,
[ Timofeev, 6 Jul 2006: ]
Each of these epochs used in essence, different methods of measurement.
I note your self-contradiction. It was *you* that picked the two
different time frames because they embodied "different methods of
measurement." Are you really now claiming that the 1976 IAU planetary
masses are based on spacecraft tracking data?

Yes...
S. Bohme & W. Fricke was pointed out "the old school" methods...

Quote:

...
CM

CM


...
Reference
McCarthy & Petit, IERS Conventions, IERS Technical Note No. 32
http://tai.bipm.org/iers/conv2003/conv2003.html
(number in parenthesis is estimated uncertainty in final digit)

IAU (1976)
M_moon / M_earth = 0.01230002
M_sun / (M_earth + M_moon) = 328900.5(1)
M_sun / M_jupiter = 1047.355(1)
M_sun / M_saturn = 3498.5(2)

M_jupiter / M_earth = 317.89(1)
M_saturn / M_earth = 95.17(1)


IERS (2003)
M_moon / M_earth = 0.0123000383(1)
M_sun / (M_earth + M_moon) = 328900.561400(1)
M_sun / M_jupiter = 1047.3486(Cool
M_sun / M_saturn = 3497.898(18)

M_jupiter / M_earth = 317.8942(1)
M_saturn / M_earth = 95.185(2)

Back to top
George Dishman
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 963

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:57 am    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

"The Real Chris" <me@myself.com> wrote in message
news:9R3vg.3210$gW6.199@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Quote:
The mathemeticians got their sums wrong they forget the solar system is a
disk and not a sphere. The newtonian theory of "uniform graviting
spherical shells" only applies to sherical shells that are uniform and the
solar disk is not a sphere and it is not uniform.

Utter crap, the craft are tens of AU from the
Sun so the effects of its slight oblateness
are completely negligible.

Quote:
There is nothing anomolus about pioneer at all. Perfectly normal newton.

Newton couldn't even get the planet Mercury
right. The analyses include the proper
relativistic corrections.

Quote:
Just get you sums right.

The sums have been independently checked and
are right.

Quote:
Newton always got it right,

Apart from Mercury, and gravitational bending
of light and gravitational radiation and time
dilation and the Doppler equation and .......

George
Back to top
The Real Chris
science forum addict


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:45 am    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

The mathemeticians got their sums wrong they forget the solar system is a
disk and not a sphere. The newtonian theory of "uniform graviting spherical
shells" only applies to sherical shells that are uniform and the solar disk
is not a sphere and it is not uniform. There is nothing anomolus about
pioneer at all. Perfectly normal newton. Just get you sums right. Newton
always got it right, its you lot...

Quite a lot of science is like that - even einstien (nearly right: evertyone
else 1/2 right)

Chris.

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e9dkkn$j5j$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
Quote:

"uri" <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:1153044123.780686.33590@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The point is that things cannot be looked at in isolation, only as
connected.

That may have some relevance in soft sciences but
when you are talking of the motion of a spacecraft
over 20 AU from the Sun, it is about as isolated
an experiment as you can get.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science

Also known as defeatism. If you cannot get the right
answer from real science, pretend the scientific
method breaks down rather than solve the problem.
The idea might have some validity in 'cognitive
science' or artificial intelligence but not in this
context.

The challenge remains, you claimed "Network theory
is better to deal with this kind of problems." so
go ahead and show how the maths of the internet is
better at calculating the trajectory of a space
craft than general relativity. I think you are
talking utter crap, but you have the opportunity
to prove me wrong.

George

Back to top
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

Dear RadicalLibertarian:

<RadicalLibertarian@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153021544.972581.293700@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
....
My money's on wave-particle duality of gravity.

Be prepared to lose.

The wave portion of a particle's existence/
behavior is its interaction with "the field". If you
divorce gravitation from "the field", there is no
gravitation. Nothing to curve, no path.

And so the double-slit tells us - something
about fields ?

No, it tells us something about "the field". The place that
light passes through (the field) has/is evidence of everything,
no matter where it is. (No pun intended.)

Quote:
Gravitation is a warping of dimensional fabric.
No field needed.

"Dimensional fabric" cannot be divorced from the matter and
energy that caused it to exist. "The field" and "dimensional
fabric" are synonymous. Gravitation occurs across the same
"place" that self-interference does.

Quote:
I will place my money on gravitons being as
necessary to Nature as magnetic monopoles.
In other words, "it will be really simple if..."
but always non-detect.

And gravitons, if they exist, you would expect
them to be particles

By definition, yes. But then spacetime is meaningless at the
quantum level, so does "curvature of meaningless" require a
quantum actor?

David A. Smith
Back to top
George Dishman
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 963

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:07 pm    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

"uri" <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:1153044123.780686.33590@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
The point is that things cannot be looked at in isolation, only as
connected.

That may have some relevance in soft sciences but
when you are talking of the motion of a spacecraft
over 20 AU from the Sun, it is about as isolated
an experiment as you can get.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science

Also known as defeatism. If you cannot get the right
answer from real science, pretend the scientific
method breaks down rather than solve the problem.
The idea might have some validity in 'cognitive
science' or artificial intelligence but not in this
context.

The challenge remains, you claimed "Network theory
is better to deal with this kind of problems." so
go ahead and show how the maths of the internet is
better at calculating the trajectory of a space
craft than general relativity. I think you are
talking utter crap, but you have the opportunity
to prove me wrong.

George
Back to top
Orion
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Posts: 115

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:02 am    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

The point is that things cannot be looked at in isolation, only as
connected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 13 [186 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 11, 12, 13 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Mon Oct 19, 2015 5:27 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Can somebody explain the conformal anomaly? Heinrich Neumaier Strings 1 Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:52 am
No new posts Voyager spacecraft anomaly Prometheus Relativity 6 Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:30 pm
No new posts Ranging and Pioneer Oh No Research 20 Sat Jul 01, 2006 1:19 pm
No new posts Neptune anomaly I.Vecchi Research 3 Sun May 28, 2006 10:29 pm
No new posts Acceleration Anomaly NovaWatcher New Theories 1 Sun May 21, 2006 3:23 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0860s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0364s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]