Pioneer 10 acceleration

Is there enough information to state the acceleration is directly towards the sun ?

What if there is an acceleration towards the earth ?

Isn't this worth investigating.

Spud

Background Pioneer 10 Anomalous Acceleration
http://www.google.com/search?q=pione...te%3AarXiv.org

(Spud) wrote in message ...
Is there enough information to state the acceleration is directly
towards the sun ?

Yes.

What if there is an acceleration towards the earth ?

Isn't this worth investigating.

There is no need. Both crafts are on escape trajectories from
the Solar system in opposite directions, the Sun being the
central body of the system.

The attraction of the Earth is totally negligible at the
distances involved.

André Michaud

Andr? Michaud wrote:

(Spud) wrote in message ...
Is there enough information to state the acceleration is directly
towards the sun ?

Yes.

What if there is an acceleration towards the earth ?

Isn't this worth investigating.

There is no need. Both crafts are on escape trajectories from
the Solar system in opposite directions, the Sun being the
central body of the system.

The attraction of the Earth is totally negligible at the
distances involved.

And yet it was the target of the probes' transmissions,
and to aim their antennae, they aimed their whole bodies at it.

Since the anomalous acceleration was so small,
and the angle between Earth and the sun
as seen from the probes was also small in most of the
years when the acceleration was being measured,
it may well be that there is no way to tell
whether they were anomalously accelerating towards the Sun
due to some Solar-mass-dependent effect,
or towards the Earth because of a force
aligned with one of their axes.

If you knew, and could show, that for sure
no such force could have been acting,
then of course no investigation would be worthwhile.
Maybe it still isn't, but the case for not looking
is not made by assuming nothing can be there.


--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
How individual mobility gains nuclear cachet.
Link if you want it to happen

"G. R. L. Cowan" wrote in message ...
Andr? Michaud wrote:

(Spud) wrote in message ...
Is there enough information to state the acceleration is directly
towards the sun ?

Yes.

What if there is an acceleration towards the earth ?

Isn't this worth investigating.

There is no need. Both crafts are on escape trajectories from
the Solar system in opposite directions, the Sun being the
central body of the system.

The attraction of the Earth is totally negligible at the
distances involved.

And yet it was the target of the probes' transmissions,
and to aim their antennae, they aimed their whole bodies at it.

Since the anomalous acceleration was so small,
and the angle between Earth and the sun
as seen from the probes was also small in most of the
years when the acceleration was being measured,
it may well be that there is no way to tell
whether they were anomalously accelerating towards the Sun
due to some Solar-mass-dependent effect,
or towards the Earth because of a force
aligned with one of their axes.

If you knew, and could show, that for sure
no such force could have been acting,
then of course no investigation would be worthwhile.
Maybe it still isn't, but the case for not looking
is not made by assuming nothing can be there.

I see what you mean, and I agree in principle. We cannot
assume stuff without analysis.

I don't think that anyone can "prove" that no force
could have been acting between the Earth and the
probes.

I just understand that the only known long range force
(and only possible candidate force, from all we know)
that could have been acting between the Earth and the
probes, and which is gravitation, is negligible at such
distances compared to that acting from the Sun.

As for the Doppler analysis, it seems impossible to me
that compensation for the cyclic orbital motion of the Earth
would not have been the very first correction to have been
applied to the data.

From all the papers published, it seems to me that just
about all possible avenues not jeopardyzing GR and SR have
by now been explored and rejected as unsatisfactory or
shelved as non conclusive or impossible to verify.

André Michaud

(Andr? Michaud) wrote in message ...
(Spud) wrote in message ...
Is there enough information to state the acceleration is directly
towards the sun ?

Yes.

What if there is an acceleration towards the earth ?

Isn't this worth investigating.

There is no need. Both crafts are on escape trajectories from
the Solar system in opposite directions, the Sun being the
central body of the system.

The attraction of the Earth is totally negligible at the
distances involved.

André Michaud

The reason why it matters, and is a viable target for investigation,
whether the acceleration is heliocentric or Earth-centric is not
because one thinks it might be a real effect. But because the most
probably systematic experimental errors would give an apparent
Earth-centric effect rather than heliocentric.

Something no-one seems to mention in the classic paper at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www....gr-qc/0104064.
is that they see a systematic DIURNAL acceleration approximately 100
times as great as the overall long-term average they are purporting to
measure. Which they cannot find any explanation for, and ignore after
1 paragraph of discussion.

Let me repeat. There is no way they could see ANY diurnal effect, let
alone 100 times greater than the long-term one, unless at this level
of accuracy there was a serious systematic error in the direction of
the assumed Earth-station - spacecraft vector.

Actually I think the explanation is probably quite mundane for the
whole effect. Either the position of the Earth antenna is not exactly
where the GPS calculations put it (working in the industry, I know how
few people ever bother about the proper conversion between WGS-84
ellipsoidal co-ordinates and ECEF). Or the spacecraft has a position
co-ordinate tangential to the Earth-spacecraft line not exactly where
they think. Remember, only the RANGE is known to within metres.

Either way, that puts the observation vector off at an angle, which
introduces a small diurnal variation and probably a small systematic
error.

Also, there is the fact that the RANGE itself is not well-defined in
their measurement procedure (although the rate of change ought to be).
This is because of the PLL which is used to "reflect" the outgoing
transmission at the spacecraft. The assumption is that the spacecraft
transmitted frequency is instantaneously equal to N times the received
frequency. Of course, we don't have the engineering details, but the
spacecraft PLL is almost certainly second-order, and the phase noise
spec given in the paper mandates the PLL bandwidth to be sub-1 Hz. The
implication is that for the PLL to "converge", the output frequency
equals N times the input frequency as it was at least 1 second ago.
However, the PLL bandwidth - signal lag will remain constant over
time.

Similarly, the modulated ranging signal (as opposed to Doppler) has a
finite latency through the spacecraft, which does not seem to have
been modelled. These are small errors, but when the claimed accuracy
is ~10^-10 m/s^2........

(Spud) wrote in message ...

Is there enough information to state the acceleration is directly towards the sun ?
What if there is an acceleration towards the earth ?

From the article of John D. Anderson et al
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064
explaining the details of the anomaly observed in the Pioneers 10 and
11, "I understand" that the available information is not enough
precise to discriminate if the supposed acceleration is towards the
Sun or towards the Earth. More precisely, since they also detect
annual and diurnal variations in the effect that they suspect are due
to:

Quotes
"...modeling errors in the Earth's ephemeris, the orientation of the
Earth's spin axis (precession and nutation), or in the station
coordinates (polar motion and length of day variations), the
least-squares process (which determines best-fit values of the three
direction cosines) will leave small diurnal and annual components in
the Doppler residuals..." ...

"...We conclude that for both Pioneer 10 and 11, there are small
periodic errors in solar system modeling that are largely masked by
maneuvers and by the overall plasma noise. But because these sinusoids
are essentially uncorrelated with the constant aP , they do not
present important sources of systematic error. The characteristic
signature of aP is a linear drift in the Doppler, not annual/diurnal
signatures..."
/Quotes

my interpretation is that the authors believe that it is impossible to
elucidate your question under the present circumstances.

Isn't this worth investigating.

It would be interesting to investigate but I don't think the available
data of the Pioneers 10 and 11 are precise enough to extract such
information.

But actually I don't even believe that the observed anomalous
acceleration is real but only apparent as I tried to explain in
another thread some time ago.
Although I am aware that there are many authors that claim to have
explained the anomaly using orthodox Physics I nevertheless ask again
for comments to my non-orthodox explanation that received no comments
when I posted it (except the typical barking from Uncle Al that I
always ignore). This is the URL:

oogle.com

Spud

Best regards
Carlos L.

(jdff) wrote in message ...
Actually I think the explanation is probably quite mundane for the
whole effect. Either the position of the Earth antenna is not exactly
where the GPS calculations put it (working in the industry, I know how
few people ever bother about the proper conversion between WGS-84
ellipsoidal co-ordinates and ECEF). Or the spacecraft has a position
co-ordinate tangential to the Earth-spacecraft line not exactly where
they think. Remember, only the RANGE is known to within metres.

Either way, that puts the observation vector off at an angle, which
introduces a small diurnal variation and probably a small systematic
error.

[s.a.r. mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- please do this yourself -- mjh]

I was not aware of that particular twist in the case.

Thanks for the link and explanation.

André Michaud

(Carlos L) wrote in message ...
Although I am aware that there are many authors that claim to have
explained the anomaly using orthodox Physics I nevertheless ask again
for comments to my non-orthodox explanation that received no comments
when I posted it (except the typical barking from Uncle Al that I
always ignore). This is the URL:

oogle.com

Spud

Best regards
Carlos L.

I had a look.

Here is my comment. It is pretty well established without any
doubt that the speed of light of photons is invariant in vacuum
and completely independant of the velocity of the source, which
is precisely why Doppler ranging can be used at all.

As for the doppler data, if it were not to be trusted in this case,
this would make this case the only one on record where Doppler data
would be found not to be totally precise.

To my knowledge, all cases where verification by other means could
be used, the precision cannot be questioned.

When orthodox theories can't explain some phenomenon, it is common
practice to distrust and finally discard the data as being tainted.

Nothin new under the Sun.

André Michaud

[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- mjh]

(jdff) wrote in message ...
[snip]
Also, there is the fact that the RANGE itself is not well-defined in
their measurement procedure (although the rate of change ought to be).
This is because of the PLL which is used to "reflect" the outgoing
transmission at the spacecraft. The assumption is that the spacecraft
transmitted frequency is instantaneously equal to N times the received
frequency. Of course, we don't have the engineering details, but the
spacecraft PLL is almost certainly second-order, and the phase noise
spec given in the paper mandates the PLL bandwidth to be sub-1 Hz. The
implication is that for the PLL to "converge", the output frequency
equals N times the input frequency as it was at least 1 second ago.
However, the PLL bandwidth - signal lag will remain constant over
time.

Similarly, the modulated ranging signal (as opposed to Doppler) has a
finite latency through the spacecraft, which does not seem to have
been modelled. These are small errors, but when the claimed accuracy
is ~10^-10 m/s^2........

Would the acceleration towards the earth (if measured) point to a
possible acceleration of time for pioneer 10.

If so how would it be possible to confirm ?

Spud

[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed. Please do this yourself -- mjh]