Author 
Message 
George Dishman science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 963

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:19 pm Post subject:
Re: Anomalous Acceleration Proves Gravity Anisotropy.



"Max Keon" <maxkeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44bedc46$0$25284$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Quote: 
"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153137504.221634.167850@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e9b23b$1mu$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
What you are describing could be seen as a sort
of static version of frame dragging but the level
would be much smaller than your equation. However,
I'm not getting into that argument, I merely
pointed out that the consequence of your equation
is an anomaly that would vary with the inverse
square of the heliocentric range and what is
observed is constant.
It's quite irrelevant anyway because the anisotropy generated in
the forward direction would be canceled by that generated in the
trailing direction.
Your figures later seem to say there is a net effect.
The realization of my hastily contrived error arrived at about 2am
while I was half asleep.
According to the math, the anomalous acceleration remains fairly
constant, but in reality that's not the case at all. Figure 7 in
the rather exceptional link that you previously provided,
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0104064 shows a reasonably
constant curve plot for the anomalous acceleration. But it's only
constant because ***the calculation is in constant error by that
amount***.
The calculations have been repeated independently by
Markwardt as reported in:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0208046
and he finds the same anomaly, it is highly unlikely to
be a maths error.
At an easily determined location between Jupiter and Saturn, the
anisotropy generated by Pioneer11's motion away from Jupiter is
canceled by the negative anisotropy generated by its motion toward
Saturn.
The period studied for the Pioneers started in 1987.
If you look at figure 3 in the Anderson paper you can
see that by that time Pioneer 11 was beyond the orbit
of Uranus and Pioneer 10 was beyond the orbit of
Neptune. Your comment might apply between Uranus
and Neptune for Pioneer 11 but Pioneer 10 was on the
opposite side of the Sun so of no consequence. You
seem to grasp that below though.
Any gravity anisotropy generated in those close range
interactions would be well concealed by the math error anyway,
I don't know where you get the idea of a "math error".
g' = (GM / r^2)6.669e9v (v is velocity) accommodates the gravity
anisotropy.

The analysis done by Anderson et al already includes
all relevant relativistic effects, the full equation
they use is given at the bottom of page 12 as Eqn (3)
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0104064
As you can see, this is much more comprehensive than
your use of gamma to multiply the Newtonian force.
Quote:  The velocity multiplier 6.669e9 times the 11000m/sec
Pioneer velocity = 7.3359e5. The result of SQR(1v^2/c^2)/v
= 9.091e5.

You are using v too often, the units will not match.
Your previous posts said:
g' = ((c + v)^2 / c^2) * g
where g is the Newtonian acceleration due to the
Sun, or simplifying:
g' = g * (1 + (v/c)^2)
that gives an anomaly of
a_P/g = g'/g  1 = (v/c)^2
This time you seem to be saying
g' = g * sqrt(1 + (v/c)^2)
hence
a_P/g = g'/g  1 = sqrt(1+(v/c)^2)  1
In Jan 1987, at 40AU, v = 13.14 km/s so
(v/c)^2 = 1.92e9 while
sqrt(1+(v/c)^2)1 = 9.61e10
In Dec 1994, at 61AU, v = 12.53 km/s so
(v/c)^2 = 1.75e9 while
sqrt(1+(v/c)^2)1 = 8.73e10
The choice of equation makes a difference of a
factor of 2 which isn't too important.
In both cases, there is about a 10% change
due to the change of speed. On the other
hand the value of g falls from 3.71e4 m/s^2
to 1.65e4 m/s^2. That factor is much to large
a change and is ruled out by the constancy of
the anomaly.
Whichever equation you use, they predict an
anomaly around 2*10^13 at 61AU which is
4000 times less than is observed.
Quote:  I know that's a SR equation, but I also know that the
velocity component is accommodated in GR. I would say that the math
error is in the GR corrections.

Well the equation is in the paper where I indicated
above so you can check it for yourself but your use
of SR is certainly not adequate and still gives a
value three orders of magnitude to small.
Quote:  The problem is that anything which cancels the gravity anisotropy
for the near Sun case will also cancel it for all distances.

No, your real problem is that there is no significant
anisotropy in relativistic gravity in the weak field
regime that applies here. There is no "math error",
instead you are suggesting some new physics that would
produce anisotropy but even than it is too small and
varies too much with range.
Quote:  I can
find all sorts of little variations that will do the job for the
local case, but none follow any logical reason whatever. The
anomalous acceleration peak intersects the gravity anisotropy curve
very closely, so whatever is going on, a gravity anisotropy could
well have something to do with it.
I don't know whether or not you are aware of the zero origin
concept or of one of its predictions,

I have seen you use the phrase but words mean little.
What matters here is that you need to apply the
equations produced by your idea to the values for
Pioneer and get a prediction. Just trying to pull
equations out of SR isn't going to get you anywhere.
Quote:  which is that the Sun and
its satellites determine how dimension is set locally. Meaning
that the motion of the planets carry the base of dimension on which
light and gravity "propagate" along with them. If that is so, as
Pioneer moves into the outer reaches of the solar system, it's
going to encounter a zone where the universe begins to assume some
control. Pioneer then has a sideways component relative to the
universe, which is going to set up a gravity anisotropy that is not
camouflaged in a math loop which is necessarily designed to be self
consistent according to the rules of relativity.
But the now apparent anisotropy won't point at the sun, it will
point in the direction of motion in the universe's frame.

That would be a problem since the craft are on opposite
sides of the Sun while the system as a whole is moving
rapidly in orbit round the galaxy. Both craft should
accelerate in the same direction but they don't.
Quote:  The
reaction to this new force will tend to push Pioneer in the
direction of least resistance, back into the sun's frame. And that
force will remain fairly constant as Pioneer pushes further into
the frame of the universe.
If you were living at the center of mass of a hollow earth, with
your eyes closed, you would have no indication whatever of the
relatively enormous mass which surrounds you. But if you move in
any direction, you are moving relative to the center of mass of the
entire group, and you are moving relative to the individual masses,
and that will generate an anisotropy.
Even though the universe doesn't have a defined center of mass,
everything still resides at its center of mass. The CMBR arrives
here from everywhere, and as a consequence, so does the mass
"presence" that created the radiation. The entire mass within the
13 billion year radius of the visible big bang universe is, and has
always been, surrounding and affecting our existence. The amount of
matter through any solid angle of space remains constant, regardless
of its temperature. Its "presence" is not diminished just because
the universe has evolved.

I think basically that is just a statement of Mach's
Principle. Anyway I'm not concerned with your philosophy
at all, check the derivation of your equation (since you
aren't being consistent) then just apply it and see what
you get. It is obvious to me that the variation of g with
range rules out this idea and the value you are currently
predicting is far too small.
George 

Back to top 


Max Keon science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 111

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:28 am Post subject:
Re: Anomalous Acceleration Proves Gravity Anisotropy.



"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153137504.221634.167850@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:  Max Keon wrote:
"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e9b23b$1mu$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
What you are describing could be seen as a sort
of static version of frame dragging but the level
would be much smaller than your equation. However,
I'm not getting into that argument, I merely
pointed out that the consequence of your equation
is an anomaly that would vary with the inverse
square of the heliocentric range and what is
observed is constant.
It's quite irrelevant anyway because the anisotropy generated in
the forward direction would be canceled by that generated in the
trailing direction.
Your figures later seem to say there is a net effect.

The realization of my hastily contrived error arrived at about 2am
while I was half asleep.
Quote:  According to the math, the anomalous acceleration remains fairly
constant, but in reality that's not the case at all. Figure 7 in
the rather exceptional link that you previously provided,
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0104064 shows a reasonably
constant curve plot for the anomalous acceleration. But it's only
constant because ***the calculation is in constant error by that
amount***.
The calculations have been repeated independently by
Markwardt as reported in:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0208046
and he finds the same anomaly, it is highly unlikely to
be a maths error.
At an easily determined location between Jupiter and Saturn, the
anisotropy generated by Pioneer11's motion away from Jupiter is
canceled by the negative anisotropy generated by its motion toward
Saturn.
The period studied for the Pioneers started in 1987.
If you look at figure 3 in the Anderson paper you can
see that by that time Pioneer 11 was beyond the orbit
of Uranus and Pioneer 10 was beyond the orbit of
Neptune. Your comment might apply between Uranus
and Neptune for Pioneer 11 but Pioneer 10 was on the
opposite side of the Sun so of no consequence. You
seem to grasp that below though.
Any gravity anisotropy generated in those close range
interactions would be well concealed by the math error anyway,
I don't know where you get the idea of a "math error".

g' = (GM / r^2)6.669e9v (v is velocity) accommodates the gravity
anisotropy. The velocity multiplier 6.669e9 times the 11000m/sec
Pioneer velocity = 7.3359e5. The result of SQR(1v^2/c^2)/v
= 9.091e5. I know that's a SR equation, but I also know that the
velocity component is accommodated in GR. I would say that the math
error is in the GR corrections.
The problem is that anything which cancels the gravity anisotropy
for the near Sun case will also cancel it for all distances. I can
find all sorts of little variations that will do the job for the
local case, but none follow any logical reason whatever. The
anomalous acceleration peak intersects the gravity anisotropy curve
very closely, so whatever is going on, a gravity anisotropy could
well have something to do with it.
I don't know whether or not you are aware of the zero origin
concept or of one of its predictions, which is that the Sun and
its satellites determine how dimension is set locally. Meaning
that the motion of the planets carry the base of dimension on which
light and gravity "propagate" along with them. If that is so, as
Pioneer moves into the outer reaches of the solar system, it's
going to encounter a zone where the universe begins to assume some
control. Pioneer then has a sideways component relative to the
universe, which is going to set up a gravity anisotropy that is not
camouflaged in a math loop which is necessarily designed to be self
consistent according to the rules of relativity.
But the now apparent anisotropy won't point at the sun, it will
point in the direction of motion in the universe's frame. The
reaction to this new force will tend to push Pioneer in the
direction of least resistance, back into the sun's frame. And that
force will remain fairly constant as Pioneer pushes further into
the frame of the universe.
If you were living at the center of mass of a hollow earth, with
your eyes closed, you would have no indication whatever of the
relatively enormous mass which surrounds you. But if you move in
any direction, you are moving relative to the center of mass of the
entire group, and you are moving relative to the individual masses,
and that will generate an anisotropy.
Even though the universe doesn't have a defined center of mass,
everything still resides at its center of mass. The CMBR arrives
here from everywhere, and as a consequence, so does the mass
"presence" that created the radiation. The entire mass within the
13 billion year radius of the visible big bang universe is, and has
always been, surrounding and affecting our existence. The amount of
matter through any solid angle of space remains constant, regardless
of its temperature. Its "presence" is not diminished just because
the universe has evolved. Well, not in the zero origin universe
anyway. What you see is exactly as it was, right back to the
eternally distant origin.
The "presence" of matter reduces at exactly the same rate per
distance as does gravity and E/M radiation.
That sets up a whole new ball game. The outer edges of a galaxy,
especially the arms of a spiral galaxy, will be most affected by the
tangential velocity of its components as they interact with the
frame of the universe. They will be pushed back toward the galaxy
center to a location where their tangential velocities counteract
the new force. As the whole outer region is shifted inward, the
universe again closes in, and the operation is repeated over and
over again until a balance is found. Not in discrete stages of
course.

Max Keon 

Back to top 


George Dishman science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 963

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:56 am Post subject:
Re: Anomalous Acceleration Proves Gravity Anisotropy.



"Max Keon" <maxkeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44bc2741$0$1205$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Quote:  I wrote:
Every point in space is the focal point of the entire mass of the
universe. Its effect is naturally uniformly distributed everywhere
and wouldn't be easy to detect. But it still must have some effect
on anything in motion relative to where the local base of dimension
is set, which is determined by the Sun around here. You probably
won't like that.
George Dishman wrote:
What you are describing could be seen as a sort
of static version of frame dragging but the level
would be much smaller than your equation. However,
I'm not getting into that argument, I merely
pointed out that the consequence of your equation
is an anomaly that would vary with the inverse
square of the heliocentric range and what is
observed is constant.
I wrote:
It's quite irrelevant anyway because the anisotropy generated in
the forward direction would be canceled by that generated in the
trailing direction.
That is not so at all. But the effect is probably insignificant.
And I wrote:
At an easily determined location between Jupiter and Saturn, the
anisotropy generated by Pioneer11's motion away from Jupiter is
canceled by the negative anisotropy generated by its motion toward
Saturn.
Which again is false.
The point in space between Jupiter and Saturn where I assumed the
gravity anisotropies would cancel each other is offset toward Saturn
at .6462786 of the distance between them. Even though they are the
negative of each other, they add together to reinforce the total
anisotropy. One is generated by motion away from Jupiter and the
other through motion toward Saturn, regarless of how they intersect.

Be careful Max, your equation was:
(1 + (v/c)^2) * GM/r^2
but that is just the magnitude.
Since the speed enters as v^2 and (v/c) << 1 it
always produces a small increase in the magnitude
of the force. However that is directed towards
the body so if the craft is between the planets,
their contributions would tend to cancel. However,
you really need to find the vector sum because
the craft is unlikely to be directly on the line
joining the planets so there will also be a net
force perpendicular to that line at the point of
balance.
What you really need to do is plot the sum of
(v/c)^2 * GM/r^2
for the Sun and all the planets as a function of
the distance along the trajectory from 1987
onwards and split it into a component along the
path and one normal to the path. You won't get a
constant acceleration.
As a rough estimate, the Sun dominates so the total
effect will be close to an inverse square.
George 

Back to top 


Max Keon science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 111

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:11 am Post subject:
Re: Anomalous Acceleration Proves Gravity Anisotropy.



I wrote:
Quote:  Every point in space is the focal point of the entire mass of the
universe. Its effect is naturally uniformly distributed everywhere
and wouldn't be easy to detect. But it still must have some effect
on anything in motion relative to where the local base of dimension
is set, which is determined by the Sun around here. You probably
won't like that.

George Dishman wrote:
Quote:  What you are describing could be seen as a sort
of static version of frame dragging but the level
would be much smaller than your equation. However,
I'm not getting into that argument, I merely
pointed out that the consequence of your equation
is an anomaly that would vary with the inverse
square of the heliocentric range and what is
observed is constant.

I wrote:
It's quite irrelevant anyway because the anisotropy generated in
the forward direction would be canceled by that generated in the
trailing direction.
That is not so at all. But the effect is probably insignificant.
And I wrote:
At an easily determined location between Jupiter and Saturn, the
anisotropy generated by Pioneer11's motion away from Jupiter is
canceled by the negative anisotropy generated by its motion toward
Saturn.
Which again is false.
The point in space between Jupiter and Saturn where I assumed the
gravity anisotropies would cancel each other is offset toward Saturn
at .6462786 of the distance between them. Even though they are the
negative of each other, they add together to reinforce the total
anisotropy. One is generated by motion away from Jupiter and the
other through motion toward Saturn, regarless of how they intersect.

Max Keon 

Back to top 


George Dishman science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 963

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:58 am Post subject:
Re: Anomalous Acceleration Proves Gravity Anisotropy.



Max Keon wrote:
Quote:  "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e9b23b$1mu$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
....
Note the distance units are metres. "Mass of Sun" gives:

That typo should have been "Mass of Earth" as Jeff pointed out.
Quote:  Thanks for clearing that up. I shouldn't have bothered you with it.

No problem at all, it is the cranks that continue
to repeat errors after having them explained that
are annoying.
Quote:  What you are describing could be seen as a sort
of static version of frame dragging but the level
would be much smaller than your equation. However,
I'm not getting into that argument, I merely
pointed out that the consequence of your equation
is an anomaly that would vary with the inverse
square of the heliocentric range and what is
observed is constant.
It's quite irrelevant anyway because the anisotropy generated in
the forward direction would be canceled by that generated in the
trailing direction.

Your figures later seem to say there is a net effect.
Quote:  According to the math, the anomalous acceleration remains fairly
constant, but in reality that's not the case at all. Figure 7 in
the rather exceptional link that you previously provided,
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0104064 shows a reasonably
constant curve plot for the anomalous acceleration. But it's only
constant because ***the calculation is in constant error by that
amount***.

The calculations have been repeated independently by
Markwardt as reported in:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0208046
and he finds the same anomaly, it is highly unlikely to
be a maths error.
Quote:  At an easily determined location between Jupiter and Saturn, the
anisotropy generated by Pioneer11's motion away from Jupiter is
canceled by the negative anisotropy generated by its motion toward
Saturn.

The period studied for the Pioneers started in 1987.
If you look at figure 3 in the Anderson paper you can
see that by that time Pioneer 11 was beyond the orbit
of Uranus and Pioneer 10 was beyond the orbit of
Neptune. Your comment might apply between Uranus
and Neptune for Pioneer 11 but Pioneer 10 was on the
opposite side of the Sun so of no consequence. You
seem to grasp that below though.
Quote:  Any gravity anisotropy generated in those close range
interactions would be well concealed by the math error anyway,

I don't know where you get the idea of a "math error".
Quote:  but
not so for the relationship between Pioneer and the Sun because
the error is already beginning to show.
When Pioneer leaves Saturn, the anisotropy magically begins
to appear because the math error now has almost nowhere to hide.
The error is the negative of the anisotropy and reduces at a
squaring rate per distance because that's how it was necessarily
designed so as to counteract the close range anisotropy. Now Pioneer
is pointing out into a wilderness where the only significant masses
are Uranus and Neptune. But I don't think either of those planets
were anywhere near Pioneer 10 or 11's flight paths. But beyond
Neptune, the error **really** had nowhere to hide.

Yes, that is true, Pluto was just below the path of
Voyager 1 in 1987 while Uranus and Neptune were
a little above the path of Pioneer 10.
Quote:  This is a list of the true anomalous accelerations from 10 to 50 AU
(with no Jupiter or Saturn), if you want to believe it.
10 AU = 4.755589087656936E09 m/sec^2.
11 AU = 3.896008085315498E09
12 AU = 3.250045593886828E09
13 AU = 2.752364820521866E09
14 AU = 2.360824712220865E09
15 AU = 2.047256497802501E09
16 AU = 1.792251870502713E09
17 AU = 1.582085902962213E09
18 AU = 1.406830882109913E09
19 AU = 1.259162008410678E09
20 AU = 1.133579419301479E09
21 AU = 1.025888573773084E09
22 AU = 9.328453978882273E10
23 AU = 8.519090813030703E10
24 AU = 7.810667570855401E10
25 AU = 7.187071318623832E10
26 AU = 6.635280475957262E10
27 AU = 6.144679481828836E10
28 AU = 5.706544383469149E10
29 AU = 5.313652310245493E10
30 AU = 4.959981872932218E10
31 AU = 4.640481074458655E10
32 AU = 4.35088588989594E10
33 AU = 4.087577256441907E10
34 AU = 3.847467453229853E10
35 AU = 3.627909165434229E10
36 AU = 3.426622200720786E10
37 AU = 3.241634047721924E10
38 AU = 3.071231367134923E10
39 AU = 2.91392017654919E10
40 AU = 2.768392992675339E10
41 AU = 2.63350157561423E10
42 AU = 2.508234209527147E10
43 AU = 2.391696676920535E10
44 AU = 2.283096255875709E10
45 AU = 2.181728203478706E10
46 AU = 2.086964293654711E10
47 AU = 1.998243060114523E10
48 AU = 1.915061460589767E10
49 AU = 1.836967730539746E10
50 AU = 1.763555236275647E10

I haven't checked the numbers but that illustrates
the point I made at first, these are falling as the
inverse square of the distance while the observed
anomaly was constant.
Quote:  Paradoxes and anomalies occur in mathematics, not in nature.
It's a pitty though because we really could use some anomalous
perpetual motion to get us out of trouble (for now).

Well this anomaly occurs in reality though
whether it is the effect of a real acceleration
or just something that affects the telemetry
signal frequency is still open to some debate,
and whether it is "new physics" or something
mundane like a gas leak or thermal radiation
will be argued over for a considerable time IMO.
George 

Back to top 


Max Keon science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 111

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:09 am Post subject:
Re: Anomalous Acceleration Proves Gravity Anisotropy.



"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e9b23b$1mu$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
Quote:  "Max Keon" <maxkeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44b8e741$0$18530$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152877198.152478.14770@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
"George Dishman WROTE:
The gravitational acceleration due to the
Sun is:
g = GM/r^2
 

Quote:  I seem to only get the right answer if I convert the gravitational
constant to an "acceleration constant" of my own making,
(G' = 6.6337075e20). Was I expected to provide an appropriate
multiplier or something? G' is close to G * 1e9. Am I just not
understanding the values that the letters now represent?
Put "gravitational constant" into Google and you will get:
6.67300 * 10^11 m^3 kg^1 s^2
Note the distance units are metres. "Mass of Sun" gives:

Thanks for clearing that up. I shouldn't have bothered you with it.


Quote:  There's still another point to be considered. In the outer reaches
of the solar system, Pioneer's motion relative to the local universe
will generate an anisotropy, ...
No, the craft was still well within the heliopause so
the only outside effect would be interstellar dust
passing through the system, and that is at far too
low a level.
Every point in space is the focal point of the entire mass of the
universe. Its effect is naturally uniformly distributed everywhere
and wouldn't be easy to detect. But it still must have some effect
on anything in motion relative to where the local base of dimension
is set, which is determined by the Sun around here. You probably
won't like that.
What you are describing could be seen as a sort
of static version of frame dragging but the level
would be much smaller than your equation. However,
I'm not getting into that argument, I merely
pointed out that the consequence of your equation
is an anomaly that would vary with the inverse
square of the heliocentric range and what is
observed is constant.

It's quite irrelevant anyway because the anisotropy generated in
the forward direction would be canceled by that generated in the
trailing direction.
According to the math, the anomalous acceleration remains fairly
constant, but in reality that's not the case at all. Figure 7 in
the rather exceptional link that you previously provided,
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0104064 shows a reasonably
constant curve plot for the anomalous acceleration. But it's only
constant because ***the calculation is in constant error by that
amount***.
At an easily determined location between Jupiter and Saturn, the
anisotropy generated by Pioneer11's motion away from Jupiter is
canceled by the negative anisotropy generated by its motion toward
Saturn. Any gravity anisotropy generated in those close range
interactions would be well concealed by the math error anyway, but
not so for the relationship between Pioneer and the Sun because
the error is already beginning to show.
When Pioneer leaves Saturn, the anisotropy magically begins
to appear because the math error now has almost nowhere to hide.
The error is the negative of the anisotropy and reduces at a
squaring rate per distance because that's how it was necessarily
designed so as to counteract the close range anisotropy. Now Pioneer
is pointing out into a wilderness where the only significant masses
are Uranus and Neptune. But I don't think either of those planets
were anywhere near Pioneer 10 or 11's flight paths. But beyond
Neptune, the error **really** had nowhere to hide.
This is a list of the true anomalous accelerations from 10 to 50 AU
(with no Jupiter or Saturn), if you want to believe it.
10 AU = 4.755589087656936E09 m/sec^2.
11 AU = 3.896008085315498E09
12 AU = 3.250045593886828E09
13 AU = 2.752364820521866E09
14 AU = 2.360824712220865E09
15 AU = 2.047256497802501E09
16 AU = 1.792251870502713E09
17 AU = 1.582085902962213E09
18 AU = 1.406830882109913E09
19 AU = 1.259162008410678E09
20 AU = 1.133579419301479E09
21 AU = 1.025888573773084E09
22 AU = 9.328453978882273E10
23 AU = 8.519090813030703E10
24 AU = 7.810667570855401E10
25 AU = 7.187071318623832E10
26 AU = 6.635280475957262E10
27 AU = 6.144679481828836E10
28 AU = 5.706544383469149E10
29 AU = 5.313652310245493E10
30 AU = 4.959981872932218E10
31 AU = 4.640481074458655E10
32 AU = 4.35088588989594E10
33 AU = 4.087577256441907E10
34 AU = 3.847467453229853E10
35 AU = 3.627909165434229E10
36 AU = 3.426622200720786E10
37 AU = 3.241634047721924E10
38 AU = 3.071231367134923E10
39 AU = 2.91392017654919E10
40 AU = 2.768392992675339E10
41 AU = 2.63350157561423E10
42 AU = 2.508234209527147E10
43 AU = 2.391696676920535E10
44 AU = 2.283096255875709E10
45 AU = 2.181728203478706E10
46 AU = 2.086964293654711E10
47 AU = 1.998243060114523E10
48 AU = 1.915061460589767E10
49 AU = 1.836967730539746E10
50 AU = 1.763555236275647E10
Paradoxes and anomalies occur in mathematics, not in nature.
It's a pitty though because we really could use some anomalous
perpetual motion to get us out of trouble (for now).

Max Keon 

Back to top 


Jeff Root science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 147

Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:47 pm Post subject:
Re: Anomalous Acceleration Proves Gravity Anisotropy.



George Dishman wrote:
Quote:  "Mass of Sun" gives:
5.9742 * 10^24 kg

That is, of course, the mass of the Earth, as was intended,
not the mass of the Sun.
 Jeff, in Minneapolis 

Back to top 


George Dishman science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 963

Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject:
Re: Anomalous Acceleration Proves Gravity Anisotropy.



"Max Keon" <maxkeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44b8e741$0$18530$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Quote: 
"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152877198.152478.14770@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152719853.472225.61150@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
The anomalous acceleration of Pioneer toward the sun is guaranteed
proof of a gravity anisotropy.
Acceleration toward the Sun at the radius of Saturn is around
2.5957E4 m/sec^2. If Pioneer was sent off from Saturn at 20 km/sec,
pointing directly away from the Sun, the gravity force toward the
Sun would increase to g' = ((c + v)^2 / c^2) * g
= ((3e+5 + 20) ^2 / 3e+5 ^2) * 2.5957e4 = 2.59605e4 m/sec^2
That seems about right to me.
The gravitational acceleration due to the
Sun is:
g = GM/r^2
where M is the mass of the Sun, so your equation in
full should be:
g' = ((c + v)^2 / c^2) * GM / r^2
To me, that's a confusing way to perform a very simple task.
It is just the basic Netonian laws, force:
f = GMm/r^2
and acceleration:
f=ma
Put them together to get
a = GM/r^2
I seem to only get the right answer if I convert the gravitational
constant to an "acceleration constant" of my own making,
(G' = 6.6337075e20). Was I expected to provide an appropriate
multiplier or something? G' is close to G * 1e9. Am I just not
understanding the values that the letters now represent?

Put "gravitational constant" into Google and you will get:
6.67300 * 10^11 m^3 kg^1 s^2
Note the distance units are metres. "Mass of Sun" gives:
5.9742 * 10^24 kg
"Radius of Earth" gives:
6378.1 km or 6.3781 * 10^6 m
So g = GM/r^2
= (6.673*10^11) * (5.9742*10^24) / (6.3781*10^6)^2
= (6.673 * 5.9742 / 6.3781^2) * 10^(11 + 24  6*2)
= 0.98 * 10^1
= 9.8 m/s^2
Quote:  a = G'M/r^2 results in .0098 km/sec^2 for the acceleration rate
at the Earth's surface. The rest follows from that. But mass must
be in kilograms, and distance in kilometers, otherwise it stuffs
up. So, what's the correct method?

With the conventional units, mass is in kg and
distance in metres, not kilometres.
Quote:  The anisotropy formula also works quite well in this format
g' = ((c + v)^2 / c^2) * G' M / r^2 . "M" is Sun's mass in this
case, naturally.

Yes, that was the essence of my original reply
but v doesn't change much while r chages by 50%
over the period studied hence r^2 changes by a
factor of 2.25. You cannot treat it as constant.
Quote:  For your version I just included your speed term.
For
this case, gravitational attraction for a relatively minute mass
such as Pioneer in the realm of planets, can be determined with just
a simple comparison. Ms/Me=gs/ge (Ms = Sun mass. Me = Earth mass.
gs and ge are Sun and Earth gravity rates for a common radius ..
...
Please let me know if that's wrong. I stuffed it up last time.
The part that is wrong is "common radius". The distance
of the craft from the Sun increased from 40AU to 60AU
during the main period they considered and the 50%
change produces a factor of 2.25 reduction of gravity.
Apparently I haven't explained that properly. The "common radius"
is common only for the purpose of setting up a base radii for the
Sun at which the acceleration rate can be determined using the
already known acceleration rate on the Earth's surface at that
same radius. Once that has been done, the rest follows, for as far
as one wishes to go.

That's fine but then perhaps you didn't appreciate
how much the range changed over the period they
studied.
Quote:  Figure 3 from the link you provided below indicates that Pioneer 11
was accelerating very slowly away from the Sun on its initial
departure from Saturn. The angle of its trajectory would give it
only about .4 km/sec outward motion.
No, the speed was around 12km/s through the period.
You can use the JPL Horizons system to get lots of
this sort of basic information:
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi
According to figure 3 (linked previously), Pioneer 11 left Saturn's
orbit at an angle of about 88 degrees across the line to the Sun.
If it was traveling at 12 km/sec in that direction, it was moving
away from the Sun at .42 km/sec. That rate increased on its travels
as its path became more aligned with the Sun.

The period they were able to analyse cover 5 Jan 1987
to 1 Oct 1990 for Pioneer 11. The heliocentric range
rate was amllmost constant at about 11.7 km/s while
the speed in heliocentric coordinates (along the path
rather than radial) fell from 13.7 to 12.8 km/s.
Quote:  Applying the equation
g' = ((c + v)^2 / c^2) * g to that velocity, gives an anomalous
acceleration rate of 1.7e13 km/sec^2. When it arrived at the orbit
radius of Neptune, the apparent velocity was around 6.4 km/sec. By
the equation, the anomalous acceleration rate at that radii is
2.68e13 km/sec^2. But while it was passing by the orbit radii of
Uranus, the apparent anisotropy was 7.9e13 km/sec^2. The peak of
the curve is toward Saturn.
The anisotropy pointing toward Saturn, generated on its departure,
would be fairly well smothered by other effects. So too would the
Sun related anisotropy.
There's still another point to be considered. In the outer reaches
of the solar system, Pioneer's motion relative to the local universe
will generate an anisotropy, ...
No, the craft was still well within the heliopause so
the only outside effect would be interstellar dust
passing through the system, and that is at far too
low a level.
Every point in space is the focal point of the entire mass of the
universe. Its effect is naturally uniformly distributed everywhere
and wouldn't be easy to detect. But it still must have some effect
on anything in motion relative to where the local base of dimension
is set, which is determined by the Sun around here. You probably
won't like that.

What you are describing could be seen as a sort
of static version of frame dragging but the level
would be much smaller than your equation. However,
I'm not getting into that argument, I merely
pointed out that the consequence of your equation
is an anomaly that would vary with the inverse
square of the heliocentric range and what is
observed is constant.
<snip other comment, I assumed you were describing
something else so my comments were irrelevant>
George 

Back to top 


Max Keon science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 111

Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:01 pm Post subject:
Re: Anomalous Acceleration Proves Gravity Anisotropy.



"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152877198.152478.14770@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:  Max Keon wrote:
"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152719853.472225.61150@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
The anomalous acceleration of Pioneer toward the sun is guaranteed
proof of a gravity anisotropy.
Acceleration toward the Sun at the radius of Saturn is around
2.5957E4 m/sec^2. If Pioneer was sent off from Saturn at 20 km/sec,
pointing directly away from the Sun, the gravity force toward the
Sun would increase to g' = ((c + v)^2 / c^2) * g
= ((3e+5 + 20) ^2 / 3e+5 ^2) * 2.5957e4 = 2.59605e4 m/sec^2
That seems about right to me.
The gravitational acceleration due to the
Sun is:
g = GM/r^2
where M is the mass of the Sun, so your equation in
full should be:
g' = ((c + v)^2 / c^2) * GM / r^2
To me, that's a confusing way to perform a very simple task.
It is just the basic Netonian laws, force:
f = GMm/r^2
and acceleration:
f=ma
Put them together to get
a = GM/r^2

I seem to only get the right answer if I convert the gravitational
constant to an "acceleration constant" of my own making,
(G' = 6.6337075e20). Was I expected to provide an appropriate
multiplier or something? G' is close to G * 1e9. Am I just not
understanding the values that the letters now represent?
a = G'M/r^2 results in .0098 km/sec^2 for the acceleration rate
at the Earth's surface. The rest follows from that. But mass must
be in kilograms, and distance in kilometers, otherwise it stuffs
up. So, what's the correct method?
The anisotropy formula also works quite well in this format
g' = ((c + v)^2 / c^2) * G' M / r^2 . "M" is Sun's mass in this
case, naturally.
Quote:  For your version I just included your speed term.
For
this case, gravitational attraction for a relatively minute mass
such as Pioneer in the realm of planets, can be determined with just
a simple comparison. Ms/Me=gs/ge (Ms = Sun mass. Me = Earth mass.
gs and ge are Sun and Earth gravity rates for a common radius ..
...
Please let me know if that's wrong. I stuffed it up last time.
The part that is wrong is "common radius". The distance
of the craft from the Sun increased from 40AU to 60AU
during the main period they considered and the 50%
change produces a factor of 2.25 reduction of gravity.

Apparently I haven't explained that properly. The "common radius"
is common only for the purpose of setting up a base radii for the
Sun at which the acceleration rate can be determined using the
already known acceleration rate on the Earth's surface at that
same radius. Once that has been done, the rest follows, for as far
as one wishes to go.
Quote:  Figure 3 from the link you provided below indicates that Pioneer 11
was accelerating very slowly away from the Sun on its initial
departure from Saturn. The angle of its trajectory would give it
only about .4 km/sec outward motion.
No, the speed was around 12km/s through the period.
You can use the JPL Horizons system to get lots of
this sort of basic information:
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi

According to figure 3 (linked previously), Pioneer 11 left Saturn's
orbit at an angle of about 88 degrees across the line to the Sun.
If it was traveling at 12 km/sec in that direction, it was moving
away from the Sun at .42 km/sec. That rate increased on its travels
as its path became more aligned with the Sun.
Quote:  Applying the equation
g' = ((c + v)^2 / c^2) * g to that velocity, gives an anomalous
acceleration rate of 1.7e13 km/sec^2. When it arrived at the orbit
radius of Neptune, the apparent velocity was around 6.4 km/sec. By
the equation, the anomalous acceleration rate at that radii is
2.68e13 km/sec^2. But while it was passing by the orbit radii of
Uranus, the apparent anisotropy was 7.9e13 km/sec^2. The peak of
the curve is toward Saturn.
The anisotropy pointing toward Saturn, generated on its departure,
would be fairly well smothered by other effects. So too would the
Sun related anisotropy.
There's still another point to be considered. In the outer reaches
of the solar system, Pioneer's motion relative to the local universe
will generate an anisotropy, ...
No, the craft was still well within the heliopause so
the only outside effect would be interstellar dust
passing through the system, and that is at far too
low a level.

Every point in space is the focal point of the entire mass of the
universe. Its effect is naturally uniformly distributed everywhere
and wouldn't be easy to detect. But it still must have some effect
on anything in motion relative to where the local base of dimension
is set, which is determined by the Sun around here. You probably
won't like that.
Quote:  and in that peaceful realm, may well
begin to become obvious. And, that anisotropy will remain fairly
constant.
It would also be in the same direction for both craft
while in reality the anomaly accelerates both towards
the Sun and they are on opposite sides of the Solar
System. Local interstellar or galactic influences can
generally be ruled out for that reason.

Not in this case. Whatever direction Pioneer is pointing, it's
moving away from the Sun's influence and more into the realm of
the universe. It's moving away from the universe in the direction
of the Sun, where the Sun is the major influence, and toward the
universe in the direction of its travels.

Max Keon 

Back to top 


Richard Saam science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 20 May 2005
Posts: 137

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:58 pm Post subject:
Re: Anomalous Acceleration Proves Gravity Anisotropy.



George Dishman wrote:
Quote:  Max Keon wrote:
"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152719853.472225.61150@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
The anomalous acceleration of Pioneer toward the sun is guaranteed
proof of a gravity anisotropy.
Acceleration toward the Sun at the radius of Saturn is around
2.5957E4 m/sec^2. If Pioneer was sent off from Saturn at 20 km/sec,
pointing directly away from the Sun, the gravity force toward the
Sun would increase to g' = ((c + v)^2 / c^2) * g
= ((3e+5 + 20) ^2 / 3e+5 ^2) * 2.5957e4 = 2.59605e4 m/sec^2
That seems about right to me.
The gravitational acceleration due to the
Sun is:
g = GM/r^2
where M is the mass of the Sun, so your equation in
full should be:
g' = ((c + v)^2 / c^2) * GM / r^2
To me, that's a confusing way to perform a very simple task.
It is just the basic Netonian laws, force:
f = GMm/r^2
and acceleration:
f=ma
Put them together to get
a = GM/r^2
For your version I just included your speed term.
For
this case, gravitational attraction for a relatively minute mass
such as Pioneer in the realm of planets, can be determined with just
a simple comparison. Ms/Me=gs/ge (Ms = Sun mass. Me = Earth mass.
gs and ge are Sun and Earth gravity rates for a common radius ..
...
Please let me know if that's wrong. I stuffed it up last time.
The part that is wrong is "common radius". The distance
of the craft from the Sun increased from 40AU to 60AU
during the main period they considered and the 50%
change produces a factor of 2.25 reduction of gravity.
Figure 3 from the link you provided below indicates that Pioneer 11
was accelerating very slowly away from the Sun on its initial
departure from Saturn. The angle of its trajectory would give it
only about .4 km/sec outward motion.
No, the speed was around 12km/s through the period.
You can use the JPL Horizons system to get lots of
this sort of basic information:
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi
Applying the equation
g' = ((c + v)^2 / c^2) * g to that velocity, gives an anomalous
acceleration rate of 1.7e13 km/sec^2. When it arrived at the orbit
radius of Neptune, the apparent velocity was around 6.4 km/sec. By
the equation, the anomalous acceleration rate at that radii is
2.68e13 km/sec^2. But while it was passing by the orbit radii of
Uranus, the apparent anisotropy was 7.9e13 km/sec^2. The peak of
the curve is toward Saturn.
The anisotropy pointing toward Saturn, generated on its departure,
would be fairly well smothered by other effects. So too would the
Sun related anisotropy.
There's still another point to be considered. In the outer reaches
of the solar system, Pioneer's motion relative to the local universe
will generate an anisotropy, ...
No, the craft was still well within the heliopause so
the only outside effect would be interstellar dust
passing through the system, and that is at far too
low a level.
and in that peaceful realm, may well
begin to become obvious. And, that anisotropy will remain fairly
constant.
It would also be in the same direction for both craft
while in reality the anomaly accelerates both towards
the Sun and they are on opposite sides of the Solar
System. Local interstellar or galactic influences can
generally be ruled out for that reason.
George

Interjecting a possibility of obtaining more definitive data,
the following reference provides a mission
to quantify the anomalous effect
http://arxiv.org/pdf/grqc/0506139
3.3. A Dedicated Mission Concept
quote
"In particular,
we emphasize a precision formation flying as a feasible
flight system concept for the proposed mission. For
this architecture, a passive sphere covered with cornercube
retroreflectors is laserranged from the primary craft."
Unquote
This is an excellent idea.
My fear is that 'area to mass' ratio
will not be designed into the "passive sphere"
If the "passive sphere" is designed as a bowling ball rather than a soccer ball
the anomalous effect will not be measured above the noise.
Why not have several passive objects
with an array of geometric shapes with a range of 'area to mass' ratios
Richard 

Back to top 


George Dishman science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 963

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:39 am Post subject:
Re: Anomalous Acceleration Proves Gravity Anisotropy.



Max Keon wrote:
Quote:  "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152719853.472225.61150@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
The anomalous acceleration of Pioneer toward the sun is guaranteed
proof of a gravity anisotropy.
Acceleration toward the Sun at the radius of Saturn is around
2.5957E4 m/sec^2. If Pioneer was sent off from Saturn at 20 km/sec,
pointing directly away from the Sun, the gravity force toward the
Sun would increase to g' = ((c + v)^2 / c^2) * g
= ((3e+5 + 20) ^2 / 3e+5 ^2) * 2.5957e4 = 2.59605e4 m/sec^2
That seems about right to me.
The gravitational acceleration due to the
Sun is:
g = GM/r^2
where M is the mass of the Sun, so your equation in
full should be:
g' = ((c + v)^2 / c^2) * GM / r^2
To me, that's a confusing way to perform a very simple task.

It is just the basic Netonian laws, force:
f = GMm/r^2
and acceleration:
f=ma
Put them together to get
a = GM/r^2
For your version I just included your speed term.
Quote:  For
this case, gravitational attraction for a relatively minute mass
such as Pioneer in the realm of planets, can be determined with just
a simple comparison. Ms/Me=gs/ge (Ms = Sun mass. Me = Earth mass.
gs and ge are Sun and Earth gravity rates for a common radius ..
....
Please let me know if that's wrong. I stuffed it up last time.

The part that is wrong is "common radius". The distance
of the craft from the Sun increased from 40AU to 60AU
during the main period they considered and the 50%
change produces a factor of 2.25 reduction of gravity.
Quote:  Figure 3 from the link you provided below indicates that Pioneer 11
was accelerating very slowly away from the Sun on its initial
departure from Saturn. The angle of its trajectory would give it
only about .4 km/sec outward motion.

No, the speed was around 12km/s through the period.
You can use the JPL Horizons system to get lots of
this sort of basic information:
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi
Quote:  Applying the equation
g' = ((c + v)^2 / c^2) * g to that velocity, gives an anomalous
acceleration rate of 1.7e13 km/sec^2. When it arrived at the orbit
radius of Neptune, the apparent velocity was around 6.4 km/sec. By
the equation, the anomalous acceleration rate at that radii is
2.68e13 km/sec^2. But while it was passing by the orbit radii of
Uranus, the apparent anisotropy was 7.9e13 km/sec^2. The peak of
the curve is toward Saturn.
The anisotropy pointing toward Saturn, generated on its departure,
would be fairly well smothered by other effects. So too would the
Sun related anisotropy.
There's still another point to be considered. In the outer reaches
of the solar system, Pioneer's motion relative to the local universe
will generate an anisotropy, ...

No, the craft was still well within the heliopause so
the only outside effect would be interstellar dust
passing through the system, and that is at far too
low a level.
Quote:  and in that peaceful realm, may well
begin to become obvious. And, that anisotropy will remain fairly
constant.

It would also be in the same direction for both craft
while in reality the anomaly accelerates both towards
the Sun and they are on opposite sides of the Solar
System. Local interstellar or galactic influences can
generally be ruled out for that reason.
George 

Back to top 


Max Keon science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 111

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:33 am Post subject:
Re: Anomalous Acceleration Proves Gravity Anisotropy.



"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152719853.472225.61150@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:  Max Keon wrote:
The anomalous acceleration of Pioneer toward the sun is guaranteed
proof of a gravity anisotropy.
Acceleration toward the Sun at the radius of Saturn is around
2.5957E4 m/sec^2. If Pioneer was sent off from Saturn at 20 km/sec,
pointing directly away from the Sun, the gravity force toward the
Sun would increase to g' = ((c + v)^2 / c^2) * g
= ((3e+5 + 20) ^2 / 3e+5 ^2) * 2.5957e4 = 2.59605e4 m/sec^2
That seems about right to me.
The gravitational acceleration due to the
Sun is:
g = GM/r^2
where M is the mass of the Sun, so your equation in
full should be:
g' = ((c + v)^2 / c^2) * GM / r^2

To me, that's a confusing way to perform a very simple task. For
this case, gravitational attraction for a relatively minute mass
such as Pioneer in the realm of planets, can be determined with just
a simple comparison. Ms/Me=gs/ge (Ms = Sun mass. Me = Earth mass.
gs and ge are Sun and Earth gravity rates for a common radius
respectively). gs=(Ms/Me)*ge . gs = (1.99e30 / 5.97e24) * .0098
= 3266 km/sec^2 at 6357 km radius from the center of Sun's mass
(if the Sun was a black hole). Which gives acceleration rates for
Saturn, Uranus and Neptune of 6.45e8, 1.59e8 and 6.27e9 km/sec^2
respectively.
Please let me know if that's wrong. I stuffed it up last time.
Figure 3 from the link you provided below indicates that Pioneer 11
was accelerating very slowly away from the Sun on its initial
departure from Saturn. The angle of its trajectory would give it
only about .4 km/sec outward motion. Applying the equation
g' = ((c + v)^2 / c^2) * g to that velocity, gives an anomalous
acceleration rate of 1.7e13 km/sec^2. When it arrived at the orbit
radius of Neptune, the apparent velocity was around 6.4 km/sec. By
the equation, the anomalous acceleration rate at that radii is
2.68e13 km/sec^2. But while it was passing by the orbit radii of
Uranus, the apparent anisotropy was 7.9e13 km/sec^2. The peak of
the curve is toward Saturn.
The anisotropy pointing toward Saturn, generated on its departure,
would be fairly well smothered by other effects. So too would the
Sun related anisotropy.
There's still another point to be considered. In the outer reaches
of the solar system, Pioneer's motion relative to the local universe
will generate an anisotropy, and in that peaceful realm, may well
begin to become obvious. And, that anisotropy will remain fairly
constant. In this case though, Pioneer is moving away from one
gravity source, toward another.
g' = ((c  v)^2 / c^2) * g also applies.
Quote:  During the period from Jan 1987 to Dec 1994 covered
by Figure 8 in www.arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0104064, the
heliocentric speed fell from 12.85km/s to 12.40km/s
so was effectively constant. However the range
increased from 40AU to 61AU so the anomalous
acceleration should have fallen to (40/61)^2 or 43% of
the initial value. It was constant to within the resolution
of the measurement.
George


Max Keon 

Back to top 


George Dishman science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 963

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:57 pm Post subject:
Re: Anomalous Acceleration Proves Gravity Anisotropy.



Max Keon wrote:
Quote:  The anomalous acceleration of Pioneer toward the sun is guaranteed
proof of a gravity anisotropy.
Acceleration toward the Sun at the radius of Saturn is around
2.5957E4 m/sec^2. If Pioneer was sent off from Saturn at 20 km/sec,
pointing directly away from the Sun, the gravity force toward the
Sun would increase to g' = ((c + v)^2 / c^2) * g
= ((3e+5 + 20) ^2 / 3e+5 ^2) * 2.5957e4 = 2.59605e4 m/sec^2
That seems about right to me.

The gravitational acceleration due to the
Sun is:
g = GM/r^2
where M is the mass of the Sun, so your equation in
full should be:
g' = ((c + v)^2 / c^2) * GM / r^2
During the period from Jan 1987 to Dec 1994 covered
by Figure 8 in www.arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0104064, the
heliocentric speed fell from 12.85km/s to 12.40km/s
so was effectively constant. However the range
increased from 40AU to 61AU so the anomalous
acceleration should have fallen to (40/61)^2 or 43% of
the initial value. It was constant to within the resolution
of the measurement.
George 

Back to top 


Craig Markwardt science forum addict
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 66

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:32 pm Post subject:
Re: Anomalous Acceleration Proves Gravity Anisotropy.



"Max Keon" <maxkeon@optusnet.com.au> writes:
....
Quote:  Now, thanks to Jerry, I can address that problem properly. The
existence of the anisotropy is beyond doubt. All I need do is find
it.
The gravity anisotropy appeared to be turned on when Pioneer 11 flew
by Saturn and entered a hyperbolic escape trajectory, which would
carry it rapidly away from the Sun. Why do you think it wasn't
noticed before that maneuver?

Mostl likely, because of the large radiation pressure of the sun
within the radius of Jupiter.
CM 

Back to top 


Greg Neill science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 180

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:24 pm Post subject:
Re: Anomalous Acceleration Proves Gravity Anisotropy.



"Max Keon" <maxkeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44b4612f$0$22359$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Quote:  The anomalous acceleration of Pioneer toward the sun is guaranteed
proof of a gravity anisotropy.

"Guaranteed proof"? In what way is it guaranteed, and what
is your return policy? 

Back to top 


Google


Back to top 



The time now is Thu Aug 25, 2016 7:56 am  All times are GMT

