On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 2:36:34 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 6:44:11 AM UTC-4, wrote:
The following paragraph is exactly as written in Anderson's
paper.
... trim for brevity ...
The Cassini HGA dish properties would be much the same as those
for Pioneer. As would be the RTG surface coatings. Even if they
weren't, their properties would have been established prior to
launch. Then there's the "relatively large systematic from the
close in Cassini RTGs" to be considered.

If Turyshev's thermal solution accounts for the Pioneer anomaly,
why isn't it also required to account for a Cassini anomaly?
How do you explain the non-gravitational acceleration of
Cassini (as predicted by my theory) ???

Why don't you consult the PhD Thesis of "The non-gravitational
accelerations of the Cassini spacecraft and the nature of the
Pioneer anomaly" by Mauro di Benedetto. You've been referred to
it several times, but conveniently ignore it.

You're an analyst and your assessment of Mauro di Benedetto's
work should be fairly accurate. On 29-4-17 in your reply to a
question from old...@yahoo you wrote this paragraph;
"It's an interesting question. No effect similar to the Pioneer
anomaly has been detected with the Cassini doppler data. Cassini
is indeed a more complicated spacecraft, and there are more
trajectory disturbances for Cassini than for Pioneer. The very
detailed PhD work of Benedetto was able to rule out a
Pioneer-like anomaly using the full Cassini data set."

So, did Benedetto rule out a Pioneer-like anomaly or not?
You don't seem so sure any more.

Whatever your unsubstantiated assumptions, the Pioneers and
Cassini are not identical. There are several quite substantial
differences.

First of all, no-one has done a thermal model of Cassini for the
purposes of asymmetric radiation patterns, so it is not possible
to comment either way if they should be significant. These
calculations depend somewhat sensitively on where the
power-producing and -consuming components are located and the
view factors to other bodies and to space. Cassini is configured
in a much different way than the Pioneers so we cannot assume
similarity. You just decided to speculate without substantiation
that Cassini is similar to the Pioneers, but why do that without
evidence?

Second of all, there are things we *know* are very different.
Cassini is ~10x more massive than Pioneers. The Pioneers area to
mass ratio is about 10 times larger than the Cassini area to mass
ratio. This means that *accelerations* due to solar and
internally-generated thermal are about 10x smaller for the same
input signal.

If you had bothered to read the di Benedetto thesis you would
have found extensive discussions of the RTGs, which are quite
different than the Pioneer's RTGs.
---
---

"exact thermal coatings used by Pioneer"? Did they know something
Turyshev didn't?

Cute. Rather that learning about thermal emissivity properties,
you instead decide to invent a conspiracy theory (see #5 below).
The thermal coatings were documented, and *some* UV and radiation
tests were performed on those coatings in laboratories, but they
did not mimic the exact space environment the Pioneers
experienced. So do we really know the amount of degradation
experienced? What we do know is that most thermal coatings
degrade by changing their optical reflectivity (absorptivity) but
have very little change to the infrared emissivity. You could have
read about this but did not.

Increased absorptivity with no change in emissivity only reduces
solar radiation pressure. It has no effect whatever on the
fore/aft drive ratio from the internally generated RTG thermal
energy. Think about it. The emissivity of the surfaces hasn't
changed at all. And without the sunward drive asymmetry the
thermal solution fails.

You seem fixated upon the RTGs.

Exactly! That's where the thermal solution fails. Read the
paragraph you replied to.

This part paragraph is from Turyshev's paper:
"Approximately 25% of the RTG coated surfaces were exposed to
solar irradiation. A calculation that takes into account the
relative contribution of RTG heat to the total anisotropy yields
a corresponding error figure of 25% in the overall error budget."

It's impossible for the RTG's to provide anything like 25% of
in the overall error budget.

The uncertainties in the surface coating does **not** help the
thermal solution at all. If absorptivity increases, emissivity
normally increases as well and the emissivity of the fore surface
will be greater than the aft surface. So the RTG's will be driven
away from the sun by the internally produced thermal energy,
which overwhelms any residual inward drive generated from solar
thermal energy absorption.

Or if the sun facing RTG surface coating was such that the
effects of solar radiation causes an absorptivity increase with
zero emissivity change, the RTG's would only be driven sunward
according to the small solar thermal absorption/emissivity
imbalance. Because the emissivity of all surfaces remains
unchanged the RTG generated thermal energy will be emitted
equally in all directions. Which gives zero drive from that
source (ignoring the reflections off the rear of the HGA dish).

The RTG's will only be driven to the sun by the internally
produced thermal energy if the sun facing surface emissivity
decreases. And in order to generate 25% of the overall error
budget the decrease would need to be substantial. But according
to Turyshev the maximum negative emissivity generated from the
irradiated sun facing surfaces is only 5%. That's the maximum
fore/aft emissivity difference for the RTG's **AND IT'S NOWHERE
NEAR ENOUGH.**
---
---

But let's summarize the issues you seem to be willfully ignoring.

---
(irrelevant content snipped again)
---

So I ask again: if this is so important to you, why don't you
stop ignoring important things? It's clear you have your own
theory to hawk, and are willing to ignore anything that
disagrees with it. So why should we listen to you?

I was hoping you could provide me with some real proof that the
anomaly doesn't exist, but sadly I've proven you wrong instead.

And yes, I do have a theory. But it's so far removed from current
theory that I don't think they could coexist in the same forum.
The tendency would be to attempt to unify the two and that's
impossible. So I'm left with a dilemma. How do I convince the
physics world to throw out just about everything they've come to
accept as reality and replace it with completely different
physics? There's no possibility of the theories competing on a
level playing field either because that field is comparable to
Mount Everest.

The only way forward would seem to be via some rouge university
peddling the zero origin universe exclusively. That university
would rise from the dust while all others fade away.

-----

Max Keon