(Nodem Info. Sys.) wrote in message ...
Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
In message , Nodem Info.
Sys. writes
Craig Markwardt wrote in message
...
**SNIP**
Also unlikely. An extra concentration of (dark) matter around the sun
should have been detectable in the motions of the planets, but has not
been. This is discussed in the Anderson et al (2001) paper.

The most mundane explanation is, as mentioned already, improper
modeling of the spacecraft radiative properties.

CM

There are three totally different space craft designs, all showing the
same effect, in the same direction, at the same magnitude. This can't
be a radiative effect and be *that* consistant. Come on!

One problem with that argument is that the later and much more
comprehensive paper by Anderson et al.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0104064 notes that the effect for
Ulysses is highly correlated with solar radiation pressure, and the
effect for Galileo is highly inconsistent, probably due to gas leaks.
One of the tasks of the Cassini probe was to act as a platform for this
sort of acceleration measurement (to measure gravity waves and
relativistic effects) and Cassini shows no anomaly.

I've had time to study the Cassini measurements and yes, there is no
anomaly. However, the reason for this is the way the measurement
methos differs from the other probes. The Cassini time-delay
measurement should show no real change in the velocity, which is
expected and fully consistent with my result.

What my result refers to is an apparent geometry feature of space-time
which only effects measurements made via Doppler ranging. This
results in an apparent acceleration towards the observer, and does not
represent a real change in the velocity of the probe.

[REF: NKS 2004 proceedings, Alastair Hewitt, "A Cosmological Model
Utilizing Causal-temporal Mobile Automaton", Materials 2]
http://www.wolframscience.com/confer.../ahewitt-2.pdf

As for the other probes, yes these could all be various different
kinds of errors. All these errors are all similar in magnitude and
all towards the observer. Let's just say that's quite a
coincidence...

Your argument is typical of the failures of modern cosmology, where
people try to fit observations to existing theoretical assumptions.
Progress will only ever be made when people question their assumptions
and fit theory to observation. BTW, this is how real science gets
done.

Real science seems to be a very slowly maturing thing.

The problem is that when people have made up their mind in whatever
direction, they never requestion. This is an age old problem.

With unswerving consistency through the ages, questioning of
accepted assumptions always was done by young yet undecided
individuals as they were making the round of what options
were offered to them. But once they chose a prefered option,
they keep it for life, rationalizing all exceptions so they
would fit their choice.

Planck nicely summed it up in 1900:

"A new scientific truth doesn't triumph by convincing it opponents
and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents end
up dying, and the following generation grows, becoming familiar
with it."

Unfortunately, a rational solution for the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly
(and apparently, an anomaly that seems to be the lot of all very
small orbiting bodies) has no chance of being accepted until a
coherent theory explaining it becomes familiar to a sufficient
number in one of the up coming generations.

André Michaud