Pioneer 10 Anomaly and Relativity

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
The Anomalous acceleration is rather large about
1 part in 1700. This rules out any new g-field effect
or known GR effect or SR effect. These effects
would certainly appear as anomalies in the orbits
of bodies with high eccentricities.

IMO...
The error appears in the measurement procedure,
specifically in Galilean Relativity, let me explain,
why Gal. Rel. is a useful concept here.

Earth spacecraft (s/c)
K ~~~~~~ k=
c relative to K v relative to K.

The velocity of the radar signal transmitted from
Earth is c. However the velocity of this signal
*compared* to k in the system K is C = c - v.
Please note the word *compared*. This recognizes
the fact that the s/c is receeding from the photon.

That is not specifically Galilean, the closing
speed of the photon to the craft measured in K
is c-v in SR as well, but I think you know that.

Of course, relative to system k the signal has a
velocity c, but we need to change the reference
to k.

The paper uses the solar system barycentre frame
for the calculations.

Flames welcome...

Not a flame really, but I suggest you look at the
sections on "Relativistic equations of motion",
"Light time solution and time scales" and "Solar
corona model and weighting" where they consider
the effect on the range. Note that since the range
is derived from the Doppler shift, and the shift
is measured by counting cycles as the integral of
phase, it is the phase velocity of the signal that
matters and this is greater than c. You can find
the sections on pages 12-15 of:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064

The reference to phase velocity is in note [60].
The ranging system was not working on Pioneer 10.

HTH
George

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

Well I think the OP is wrong...
The Anomalous acceleration is rather large about
1 part in 1700. This rules out any new g-field effect
or known GR effect or SR effect. These effects
would certainly appear as anomalies in the orbits
of bodies with high eccentricities.

IMO...
The error appears in the measurement procedure,
specifically in Galilean Relativity, let me explain,
why Gal. Rel. is a useful concept here.

snip

I went through a prolonged discussion of this some time
back in these newsgroups.

If you look at how the folks who came to the conclusion
arrived at it the first thing to note is the fudge factors
they enter into "correcting" the incoming data stream
to acommodate atmospheric conditions. There are other
problems as well, including the possibility of multiple
signal paths.

Clean and unadulterated data would make me a lot happier
about the whole situation. Till then the whole thing
remains suspect IMO. But doubtless it has brought
lots of funding over the years, and who can fault
the group for that?

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:49:17 GMT, Bill Vajk
wrote:

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

Well I think the OP is wrong...
The Anomalous acceleration is rather large about
1 part in 1700. This rules out any new g-field effect
or known GR effect or SR effect. These effects
would certainly appear as anomalies in the orbits
of bodies with high eccentricities.

IMO...
The error appears in the measurement procedure,
specifically in Galilean Relativity, let me explain,
why Gal. Rel. is a useful concept here.

snip

I went through a prolonged discussion of this some time
back in these newsgroups.

If you look at how the folks who came to the conclusion
arrived at it the first thing to note is the fudge factors
they enter into "correcting" the incoming data stream
to acommodate atmospheric conditions. There are other
problems as well, including the possibility of multiple
signal paths.

Clean and unadulterated data would make me a lot happier
about the whole situation. Till then the whole thing
remains suspect IMO. But doubtless it has brought
lots of funding over the years, and who can fault
the group for that?

Gentlemen: I have solved the problem of the Pioneer anomaly perfectly
in the forthcoming "Dual Space-new Science for a new Century". A_p is
a real acceleration. In deriving the solution, I also derived a model
for the entire cosmos. I will only give a hint here.

Just for starters, recall that recently Australian scientists said
there were 70 sextillion stars in the universe. It appears to come
mighty close.

Let each star equal the mass of the Sun, and let the age of the
universe be 10.98 billion years, with a radius R = 1.028x10^26 meters.
Then, using Newton's law we get Ap for the acceleration:
M = 70*10^21*M_s = 1.384x10^53 kg
g = MG/R^2 = 8.74x10^-10m/ss
Therefore, if we were located at range R from total mass M, we would
detect gravity equal to Ap.

One immediate problem is that the Schw. Radius for this mass is 2R-we
would be half inside a black hole! As a tentative fix, if we change M
to M/2 (being R distant from, on average, half the mass), we would be
on the horizon. This would be much more comfortable, but it is not the
answer.

Unfortunately, the fixes available in conventional science cannot help
here. To form a proper model of the cosmos we need to employ new
principles found only in Dual Space theory, such as my theory of
creation and new law of gravity. With these we solve not only the
horizon problem in the model, but also satisfy the Einstein-deSitter
criterion of omega = 1. We also show exactly how the so-called maximum
force of c^4/4G (which is twice too high) is derived.

The theory of Dual Space will have profound implications, including
that it has a much more palatable replacement for General Relativity.
It is impossible to write an acceptable paper on a single topic such
as the Pioneer 10 anomaly, since the solution will usually involve
some of the principles of Dual Space, to which no else is yet party.

(Furthermore, I have considered it, but it would be a form of
harlotry, if I were to load the title with such flatulent phrases as
"brane-world dynamics" or "spontaneous baryogenesis", and the like)
just to get under the radar beam of the screener, who has been trained
to accept only proper content).


Mr. Dual Space

If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay.

"Bill Vajk" wrote in message
news:zHAFb.111682$8y1.347028@attbi_s52...
Franz Heymann wrote:

"ralph sansbury" wrote in message
...

In view of the fact that you are incapable of using simple laboratory
equipment to measure the speed of light, it is highly unlikely that
anything
else you might have to say on any other topic would be worth reading, so
I
snipped your guff.

[snip]

Franz

I don't think Hawking capable of using simple labratory equipment
to measure the speed of light either so I don't think your attempted
insult works very well. The bigger question is, how about you? Can
you correctly do such an experiment when you refuse to acknowledge
that turning around and facing in the other direction introduces
another rotation into an experiment of imaging through a lens?

If you were to spend the time to read precisely what I said. you would
undoubtedly agree that I was totally correct.
Since you could not perform the very simple experiment which I described in
agonising detail, you would be better off if you were to forget the whole
episode.

Franz

"Bill Vajk" wrote in message
news:hgFFb.176916$_M.807142@attbi_s54...
Ken S. Tucker wrote:

Well I think the OP is wrong...
The Anomalous acceleration is rather large about
1 part in 1700. This rules out any new g-field effect
or known GR effect or SR effect. These effects
would certainly appear as anomalies in the orbits
of bodies with high eccentricities.

IMO...
The error appears in the measurement procedure,
specifically in Galilean Relativity, let me explain,
why Gal. Rel. is a useful concept here.

snip

I went through a prolonged discussion of this some time
back in these newsgroups.

If you look at how the folks who came to the conclusion
arrived at it the first thing to note is the fudge factors
they enter into "correcting" the incoming data stream
to acommodate atmospheric conditions. There are other
problems as well, including the possibility of multiple
signal paths.

Clean and unadulterated data would make me a lot happier
about the whole situation. Till then the whole thing
remains suspect IMO. But doubtless it has brought
lots of funding over the years, and who can fault
the group for that?

Strange though it may seem, I agree with Bill about his interpretation of
the anomaly.

Franz

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Bill Vajk" wrote in message
news:hgFFb.176916$_M.807142@attbi_s54...

If you look at how the folks who came to the conclusion
arrived at it the first thing to note is the fudge factors
they enter into "correcting" the incoming data stream
to acommodate atmospheric conditions. There are other
problems as well, including the possibility of multiple
signal paths.

Clean and unadulterated data would make me a lot happier
about the whole situation. Till then the whole thing
remains suspect IMO. But doubtless it has brought
lots of funding over the years, and who can fault
the group for that?

Strange though it may seem, I agree with Bill about his interpretation of
the anomaly.

If either of you can suggest how to obtain a signal
from a spacecraft 70AU away that is _not_ subject to
refraction by the solar wind, I'm sure JPL would be
interested. In the meantime, they have to do the best
they can with what was recorded at the time. The data
is easily available if you think you can do better ;-)

George

"Cesar Sirvent" wrote in message
s..
SNIP

Hello moron.

"Bill Vajk" wrote in message
news:zHAFb.111682$8y1.347028@attbi_s52...

Hello crackpot.

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Bill Vajk" wrote in message
news:hgFFb.176916$_M.807142@attbi_s54...
Ken S. Tucker wrote:

Well I think the OP is wrong...
The Anomalous acceleration is rather large about
1 part in 1700. This rules out any new g-field effect
or known GR effect or SR effect. These effects
would certainly appear as anomalies in the orbits
of bodies with high eccentricities.

IMO...
The error appears in the measurement procedure,
specifically in Galilean Relativity, let me explain,
why Gal. Rel. is a useful concept here.

snip

I went through a prolonged discussion of this some time
back in these newsgroups.

If you look at how the folks who came to the conclusion
arrived at it the first thing to note is the fudge factors
they enter into "correcting" the incoming data stream
to acommodate atmospheric conditions. There are other
problems as well, including the possibility of multiple
signal paths.

Clean and unadulterated data would make me a lot happier
about the whole situation. Till then the whole thing
remains suspect IMO. But doubtless it has brought
lots of funding over the years, and who can fault
the group for that?

Strange though it may seem, I agree with Bill about his interpretation of
the anomaly.

*gasp*

Bill Vajk wrote in message news:hgFFb.176916$_M.807142@attbi_s54...

Thank you Al, George and Bill,

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
. com...
The Anomalous acceleration is rather large about
1 part in 1700. This rules out any new g-field effect
or known GR effect or SR effect.
[snip kst]

Not a flame really, but I suggest you look at the
sections on "Relativistic equations of motion",
"Light time solution and time scales" and "Solar
corona model and weighting" where they consider
the effect on the range. Note that since the range
is derived from the Doppler shift, and the shift
is measured by counting cycles as the integral of
phase, it is the phase velocity of the signal that
matters and this is greater than c. You can find
the sections on pages 12-15 of:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064
The reference to phase velocity is in note [60].
The ranging system was not working on Pioneer 10.
HTH
George

[snip kst]
IMO...
The error appears in the measurement procedure,
specifically in Galilean Relativity, let me explain,
why Gal. Rel. is a useful concept here.

I went through a prolonged discussion of this some time
back in these newsgroups.

If you look at how the folks who came to the conclusion
arrived at it the first thing to note is the fudge factors
they enter into "correcting" the incoming data stream
to acommodate atmospheric conditions. There are other
problems as well, including the possibility of multiple
signal paths.
Clean and unadulterated data would make me a lot happier
about the whole situation. Till then the whole thing
remains suspect IMO. But doubtless it has brought
lots of funding over the years, and who can fault
the group for that?

Ha, well Bill I don't manage this group, and the1 part
in 1700 error is huge by Newtonian standards. It is
approximately 1+3*(V(e) +v) where V(e) is escape
velocity (sun+earth), and v is the relative velocity of
the s/c relative to Earth. This Equation also accounts
for the periodiocy reported in gr-qc/9903024 Fig. 1.
This equation can be *rationalized* by employing
a Galilean Transform.

((I communicated with Dr. Turyshev back in 1999
about this - we had a bit of fun because his footnote
on page 5 spelled louvers as "lovers around the bus")).

Anyway, lacking more intelligence, and cross checked
data, I'm inclined to regard the anomaly at the feet of
Galilean Relativity.

What's needed is the *Pluto Express*, with lot's of
geodesy to explore how things move, and where
they are. That will be be a very good experiment to
close our current gaps in spacetime measurement
when rapidly radially receeding objects are considered.

We have a good deal of data where circular orbits
are concerned, and we aquired a bit of GR in the
examination of Mercury's orbit because it's eccentricity
had some radial component. But by and large we
really are quite ignorant of data covering extreme
eccentricities as the hyperberbolic Pioneers are doing,
and wound up with an enormous discrepency, (1/1700).

Regards and thanks, flames welcome...
Ken S. Tucker