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 12 of 13 [186 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 10, 11, 12, 13 Next
Author Message
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
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 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: 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
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
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
DontBother@nowhere.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 114

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:35:21 +0100, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote:

Quote:
In message <0d9tb2pq76pm23t1cgivp9g6sssautatk0@4ax.com>, Lester Zick
DontBother@nowhere.net> writes
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

Thanks, Red. I'm just chock full of surprises.

Quote:
for somebody who doesn't understand the difference
between angular momentum and action.

Well at least I understand action at a distance, how to take dL and
analyze quantum effects correctly, Red, which is considerably more
than anyone can say for mathematikers. Fortunately the explanation for
the Pioneer anomaly doesn't depend on angular mechanics so we don't
have a problem.

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

I'm impressed, Red, that you actually take the time to catalog my
posts. I guess that makes you my amanuensis.

~v~~
Back to top
Orion
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Posts: 115

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:07 pm    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

The best explanation for the sunward acceleration is ionized hydrogen.
It's well known that the sun is a plasma.
Back to top
Richard Herring
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 194

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

In message <6t9vb2tejnsf3tg823tpkgqnb3b7mhf9qf@4ax.com>, Lester Zick
<DontBother@nowhere.net> writes
Quote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:35:21 +0100, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]
wrote:

In message <0d9tb2pq76pm23t1cgivp9g6sssautatk0@4ax.com>, Lester Zick
DontBother@nowhere.net> writes
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

Thanks, Red. I'm just chock full of surprises.

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

Well at least I understand action at a distance, how to take dL and
analyze quantum effects correctly,

<splork>

Quote:
Red, which is considerably more
than anyone can say for mathematikers.

whoever they may be.

Quote:
Fortunately the explanation for
the Pioneer anomaly doesn't depend on angular mechanics so we don't
have a problem.

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

I'm impressed, Red, that you actually take the time to catalog my
posts.

No, Lester, that would be Google. I just type the name and subject, and
look at what pops up.

Quote:
I guess that makes you my amanuensis.

Keep guessing.
--
Richard Herring
Back to top
George Dishman
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 963

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:29 pm    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

"uri" <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:1153411626.647260.65600@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
The best explanation for the sunward acceleration is ionized hydrogen.
It's well known that the sun is a plasma.

Indeed, but a large part of the paper is devoted to
analysis of the effects of the plasma on the radio
signal. If you mean drag, the solar wind is moving
outward about 30 times faster than the craft so
should accelerate them away from the Sun. However
that effect is much smaller than the solar radiation
pressure (about 100,000 times smaller) and you can
see from figure 6 that the radiation pressure becomes
comparable to the anomaly around 20AU. Maybe you
should read the paper before re-inventing the wheel:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064

George
Back to top
The Real Chris
science forum addict


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

Nothing to do with the sun, its the solar nebula. Remember Zodiac light?

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e9ii89$q6f$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
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 .......

George

Back to top
George Dishman
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 963

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

"Lester Zick" <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:qp8vb2p49j6d4vntk32a8ft1mtmp5a5mg2@4ax.com...
Quote:
On 19 Jul 2006 23:05:49 -0700, "George Dishman"
george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:


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.

No, based on mass distributions I believe. Only
small stars left since the large ones have long
since burnt out.

Quote:
I don't know what
the new evidence for their actual youth consisted of but I distinctly
remember reading about it.

I can find nothing to support that, but I'm not
a professional.

Quote:
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.

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.

I think you just picked up some article incorrectly.
Anyway, that's not the topic.

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.

Horizons is an easy interface for a cursory look. If
you really want to have a go, the limited data set
used for the initial studies is freely available but
processing it isn't trivial:

http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/users/craigm/atdf/

There's a lot of helpful information on Craig's page
and the raw data files are available at the bottom,
about 400Mb altogether. The extended data recently
recovered probably won't be available for some time.

Quote:
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.

So let's see your calculation.

George
Back to top
George Dishman
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 963

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

"The Real Chris" <me@myself.com> wrote in message
news:nhPvg.3088$Q9.302@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Quote:

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e9ii89$q6f$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"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 .......


Quote:
Nothing to do with the sun, its the solar nebula. Remember Zodiac light?


The mass of the interplanetary dust is too small to
account for the anomaly, the authors deal with that
of the Kuiper belt in particular in section VII, E
on page 30 and with interplanetary material in
general in section XI, A on page 43. You too could
benefit from reading the paper:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064

George
Back to top
George Dishman
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 963

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

"sean" <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152887411.286142.124170@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
George Dishman wrote:

The question is, can he apply network theory to calculate
the magnitude and direction of the Pioneer anomaly, that's
what this thread is about. I very much doubt it.

Ive copied these 2 quotes from old posts I was wondering if you could
comment.
George..
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).

That is correct.

Quote:
Chris..
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

Note it is c*H, not just H

Quote:
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".


I was wondering ..re Chris` quote when he says the anomaly
accelleration
is close to the Hubble value. Does this mean that the anomaly
acceleration is equal (close to) but opposite to the doppler effect
redshift on the signal?

Numerically, the acceleration is close to the
Hubble constant multiplied by the speed of light.
The speed factor is important.

Quote:
Im not sure if Ive got this calculation right but...
.000085 km/s(anomaly) * 299,700km/s = ~25 km/s.

No, the anomaly is a_P = 8.74 * 10^-10 m/s^2

The Hubble constant is 70km/s per MPc or 2.3*10^-18 s^-1

c = 3*10^8 m/s

so

c*H = 6.9 * 10^-10 m/s^2

Quote:
Which is double that of the pioneer speed out of the system
so presumably thats because its effecting 2*v as its happening at
uplink
and downlink?

It does affect both links so there is a factor
of 2. What that means is that if this were just
the Hubble redshift then you would have:

2v = c

or the craft would be moving at half the speed
of light!

Quote:
Anyways to me that seems like its double the doppler shift
from the receding craft which isnt what Chris says above.His quote
suggests the anomaly is smaller then the redshift from the doppler
effect. ?

It is, when you put in the speed of the craft
at 12km/s, it is about 10,000 too small and of
course it is a blue shift, not a red shift.

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


Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 114

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous Reply with quote

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:48:20 +0100, "George Dishman"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

"Lester Zick" <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:qp8vb2p49j6d4vntk32a8ft1mtmp5a5mg2@4ax.com...
On 19 Jul 2006 23:05:49 -0700, "George Dishman"
george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:


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.

No, based on mass distributions I believe. Only
small stars left since the large ones have long
since burnt out.

No sense arguing about it.

Quote:
I don't know what
the new evidence for their actual youth consisted of but I distinctly
remember reading about it.

I can find nothing to support that, but I'm not
a professional.

Oh well.

Quote:
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.

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.

I think you just picked up some article incorrectly.
Anyway, that's not the topic.

I agree but I'm a lot more careful than that about things I've
actually discussed. Perhaps it was only an isolated revisionist
interpretation but there it was wherever it may have been.

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.

Horizons is an easy interface for a cursory look. If
you really want to have a go, the limited data set
used for the initial studies is freely available but
processing it isn't trivial:

http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/users/craigm/atdf/

There's a lot of helpful information on Craig's page
and the raw data files are available at the bottom,
about 400Mb altogether. The extended data recently
recovered probably won't be available for some time.

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.

So let's see your calculation.

Sorry. You're welcome to think of me what you want but I really prefer
to be talking for the record only if priority is established. I don't
know if posting on the usenet qualifies.I've heard different opinions.

~v~~
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 12 of 13 [186 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 10, 11, 12, 13 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sun Jul 06, 2014 2:00 am | 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: 0.6356s ][ Queries: 16 (0.2518s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]