On 21 Jul 2006 00:13:49 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:


Lester Zick wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:48:20 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
.. .
On 19 Jul 2006 23:05:49 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:51:32 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:



snip side issue of clusters

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.

Just to clear up a possible misunderstanding, you
said you got within 2% using "rough figures" from
the L.A. Times. I meant you could improve on those
rough figures by using Horizons.

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 let me say this on the subject apart from issues of priority.

I am sure you can establish priority by publishing
to usenet, there are multiple servers and all add
timestamps so there can be no doubt when the
work was published. Use PGP if you also want
to establish yourself as the source, but that's
another matter. You may find this interesting:

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/p...ndex.html#hack

I've recently moved and just gotten the bulk of what was being
transhipped so I've had a hell of a hard time locating material. But I
finally managed to locate the reference I needed and rechecked my
calculations which once more came out to within 2%. However what I'd
like to do is if I decide to post the calculation I'll do it on a
separate thread just devoted to the mechanical principle involved and
cross it to different groups where it might be of interest.

How about a compromise. Without showing your
method at the moment, how about answering some
questions about the results. You say you are within
2% and the published value in units of 10^-8cm/s^s
is 8.74 average from 40AU to 60AU so I would
assume your number is between 8.56 and 8.92, is
that correct?

The anomaly appears to be almost constant so how
does your answer vary with range. Specifically if I
were to approximate your anomalous acceleration
a_P with a quadratic:

a_P = a_0 + b * R + c * R^2

where R is the range in AU from 40 to 60, what
are the coefficients a_0, b and c?

You know I was afraid it might come down to this. All I ever intended
was to calculate the magnitude of the discrepancy in distance traveled
specifically for Pioneer without trying to calculate variances in the
gravitational constant. My numbers do come out within 2% (almost
exactly) but I'm sure everyone will have a lot of fun when I show up
doing the calculations in miles etc. It's what I had to work with.

I appreciate your interest and hope you and others won't be
disappointed.

Not at all, you should be able to state the
coefficients above without giving anything away
about your method.You can demonstrate the
technique later when you are happy about
whatever medium you choose to use.

The mechanical principle involved will be obvious from the title of
the post. I'm not trying to be coy so much as opportune. Fact is that
the principle itself was named and formally copyrighted back in '87.
It's only the application of it in this context that is novel.

While my maths isn't good enough, what would
probably be most useful for others would be for
you to translate your equations into PPN
coefficients.

As I noted previously the "equations" are really simple. I did the
calculations on my computer's accessories calculator and I doubt
anyone will have difficulty duplicating the results just as easily.
Beyond that regression to the gravitational constant should not be too
difficult. It's more the interpretation and further application that
are of interest. The post is pretty much complete. I'm thinking that
Monday morning will be the best opportunity. I'll notify this thread
of the title so you can be on the lookout. Then we can all have a good
laugh and sit around discussing why the mechanical principle involved
cannot possibly be true and why I'm a crackpot.

~v~~