On 23 Jan, 23:29, "Max Keon" wrote:
"George Dishman" wrote in ...
Max Keon wrote:
George Dishman wrote:
Max Keon wrote:---

It would certainly prove that the effect is real though. Then we
can move on.

We already know the anomaly is real without a doubt.

Yes, but you still think it could be caused by systematic errors.
So you really have no idea what the actual cause might be.

Right on both counts, and your proposal to simply repeat
the mission would not shed any light on that.

If the anomaly points in opposite directions on the outward and
inward legs, that would rule out systematic errors as a possible
cause.

It could rule out some but not others, but we are not
at the point of ruling out ideas that might fit to narrow
down the cause, we don't have _any_ explanations
that work (including yours).

....
How many times do I have to point out that your equation
does not permit the anisotropy to be elastic? You say that
the force is slowing Pioneer as it leaves the Sun but it
would push Pioneer away if it was approaching the Sun. Both
those reduce the energy of the craft so it nevers recovers
what is lost.

You've switched from the universe generated anisotropy for
Mercury to the local anisotropy generated in the Sun-Pioneer
relationship. That's hardly relevant to the "elastic sheet"
comparison in the universe generated anisotropy for Mercury.

The "elastic sheet" model is a way of thinking about the
metric of GR. Your equation(s) would be like friction
between body and the sheet.

Pioneer is not in orbit around the Sun, so that argument becomes
totally disjointed.

The anisotropy must obey your equation regardless. You
said there was no effect from the tangential component
so a planet in a circular orbit would not feel any anisotropic
force. Please correct that if you have changed your mind.

That means that whether we are looking at Mercury or
Pioneer, we only need to consider the radial part of the
velocity when working out the anisotropic force.

If Pioneer, or Mercury due to its eccentric orbit, is moving
away from the Sun, there will be a gravitational effect which
will slow that outward motion. There is only one effect but
we can split it into two parts, the conventional effect given
by GR or, to a reasonable approximation, by Newton's Law,
and your extra anisotropic part. You have agreed that the
extra part slows the object more, thus it shows up in Pioneer
as an excess slowing of the craft, it isn't speeding up. I
believe you don't dispute that, we are in agreeement. It is
an indisputable fact that Pioneer is currently losing energy
due to the effect of the anomaly and your equation says
the same.

If Pioneer was moving towards the Sun, I think you have also
made it clear that the anisotropic force would point the other
way and what you said above matches that:

If the anomaly points in opposite directions on the outward and
inward legs, that would rule out systematic errors as a possible
cause.

What that means is that the conventional part of gravity
pulls towards the Sun so causes the object to increase
its speed towards the Sun as it approaches. Your words
tell me that the effect of the anisotropic force would be
to reduce that effect, the object would speed up slightly
less than expected. Is that right, or do you think it would
speed up _more_ than the conventional theory?

I'll snip the rest until we get this sorted out because what
your theory predicts depends critically on your answer.

_The only energy loss is in the advance of the perihelion._

The advance of the perihelion doesn't change the energy,
it only causes the ellipse to slowly move round to point
in a different direction.

George