Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous

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:


"Lester Zick" wrote in message
.. .
On 19 Jul 2006 02:04:43 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:


Lester Zick wrote:
...
Certain latency mods to Newtonian gravitation can in fact
adequately
explain ... the Pioneer anomaly ...

I don't believe you, please show your calculations.

Are you a publication of record, George?

Nope, just someone who considers you to be making a
claim you cannot back up by showing your derivation
of a_P based on the addition of "certain latency
mods to Newtonian gravitation". Of course if you have
already published them in a publication of record, I
will apologise.

So if I'm correct but haven't published you won't apologize? Not sure
that offers much incentive.

Not at all, I thought you were implying you had. If
you can show the modified Newtonian equation and
then show your calculations that match Pioneer,
then I still owe you that apology. I'm a reasonable
chap as many in the group will tell you.

Let me tell you a brief story. In 89 as an offer of good faith to the
editor of a revisionist magazine to show I had some interesting ideas
in astrophysics, I explained that globular clusters surrounding the
Milky Way were the youngest not the oldest objects in the galaxy as
was commonly thought at the time. Needless to say five years or so
later the astrophysical community was astounded to learn they had been
completely mistaken. Once burned twice shy.

Globular clusters are still known to be very old

Decades old conventional wisdom based on a supposition that globular
clusters had blown away all their interstellar dust.

No, based on mass distributions I believe. Only
small stars left since the large ones have long
since burnt out.

No sense arguing about it.

I don't know what
the new evidence for their actual youth consisted of but I distinctly
remember reading about it.

I can find nothing to support that, but I'm not
a professional.

Oh well.

My inference was based on the idea that
stars in the globular cluster had not yet collapsed into a rotating
disk analogous to the Milky Way and had not had time to produce a
significant amount of interstellar dust. Just annoying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_cl...bular_clusters

Are you perhaps thinking of open clusters?

Don't think so. It was only a casual aside to the editor of that
magazine in any event. But the subject was definitely the halo of
globular clusters surrounding the Milky Way.

I think you just picked up some article incorrectly.
Anyway, that's not the topic.

I agree but I'm a lot more careful than that about things I've
actually discussed. Perhaps it was only an isolated revisionist
interpretation but there it was wherever it may have been.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_cluster

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. If
you really want to have a go, the limited data set
used for the initial studies is freely available but
processing it isn't trivial:

http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/users/craigm/atdf/

There's a lot of helpful information on Craig's page
and the raw data files are available at the bottom,
about 400Mb altogether. The extended data recently
recovered probably won't be available for some time.

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.

Sorry. You're welcome to think of me what you want but I really prefer
to be talking for the record only if priority is established. I don't
know if posting on the usenet qualifies.I've heard different opinions.

~v~~

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:12:24 +0100, Richard Herring ]
wrote:

In message , Lester Zick
writes
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:35:21 +0100, Richard Herring ]
wrote:

In message , Lester Zick
writes
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:51:32 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Lester Zick" wrote in message
om...
On 19 Jul 2006 02:04:43 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:


Lester Zick wrote:
...
Certain latency mods to Newtonian gravitation can in fact adequately
explain ... the Pioneer anomaly ...

I don't believe you, please show your calculations.

Are you a publication of record, George?

Nope, just someone who considers you to be making a
claim you cannot back up by showing your derivation
of a_P based on the addition of "certain latency
mods to Newtonian gravitation". Of course if you have
already published them in a publication of record, I
will apologise.

So if I'm correct but haven't published you won't apologize? Not sure
that offers much incentive.

Let me tell you a brief story. In 89 as an offer of good faith to the
editor of a revisionist magazine to show I had some interesting ideas
in astrophysics, I explained that globular clusters surrounding the
Milky Way were the youngest not the oldest objects in the galaxy as
was commonly thought at the time. Needless to say five years or so
later the astrophysical community was astounded to learn they had been
completely mistaken. Once burned twice shy.

Pretty good work

Thanks, Red. I'm just chock full of surprises.

for somebody who doesn't understand the difference
between angular momentum and action.

Well at least I understand action at a distance, how to take dL and
analyze quantum effects correctly,

splork

Red, which is considerably more
than anyone can say for mathematikers.

whoever they may be.

Mathematikers are the usual suspects who work in faith based
mathematics.

Fortunately the explanation for
the Pioneer anomaly doesn't depend on angular mechanics so we don't
have a problem.

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q...r&hl=en&as_epq
=angular+momentum&as_uauthors=zick

I'm impressed, Red, that you actually take the time to catalog my
posts.

No, Lester, that would be Google. I just type the name and subject, and
look at what pops up.

My point exactly.

I guess that makes you my amanuensis.

Keep guessing.

Look who's talking, Red!

~v~~

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:


"Lester Zick" wrote in message
.. .
On 19 Jul 2006 02:04:43 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:


Lester Zick wrote:
...
Certain latency mods to Newtonian gravitation can in fact
adequately
explain ... the Pioneer anomaly ...

I don't believe you, please show your calculations.

Are you a publication of record, George?

Nope, just someone who considers you to be making a
claim you cannot back up by showing your derivation
of a_P based on the addition of "certain latency
mods to Newtonian gravitation". Of course if you have
already published them in a publication of record, I
will apologise.

So if I'm correct but haven't published you won't apologize? Not sure
that offers much incentive.

Not at all, I thought you were implying you had. If
you can show the modified Newtonian equation and
then show your calculations that match Pioneer,
then I still owe you that apology. I'm a reasonable
chap as many in the group will tell you.

Let me tell you a brief story. In 89 as an offer of good faith to the
editor of a revisionist magazine to show I had some interesting ideas
in astrophysics, I explained that globular clusters surrounding the
Milky Way were the youngest not the oldest objects in the galaxy as
was commonly thought at the time. Needless to say five years or so
later the astrophysical community was astounded to learn they had been
completely mistaken. Once burned twice shy.

Globular clusters are still known to be very old

Decades old conventional wisdom based on a supposition that globular
clusters had blown away all their interstellar dust.

No, based on mass distributions I believe. Only
small stars left since the large ones have long
since burnt out.

I don't know what
the new evidence for their actual youth consisted of but I distinctly
remember reading about it.

I can find nothing to support that, but I'm not
a professional.

My inference was based on the idea that
stars in the globular cluster had not yet collapsed into a rotating
disk analogous to the Milky Way and had not had time to produce a
significant amount of interstellar dust. Just annoying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_cl...bular_clusters

Are you perhaps thinking of open clusters?

Don't think so. It was only a casual aside to the editor of that
magazine in any event. But the subject was definitely the halo of
globular clusters surrounding the Milky Way.

I think you just picked up some article incorrectly.
Anyway, that's not the topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_cluster

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. If
you really want to have a go, the limited data set
used for the initial studies is freely available but
processing it isn't trivial:

http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/users/craigm/atdf/

There's a lot of helpful information on Craig's page
and the raw data files are available at the bottom,
about 400Mb altogether. The extended data recently
recovered probably won't be available for some time.

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'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.

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

~v~~

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear RadicalLibertarian:

wrote in message
oups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
...
My money's on wave-particle duality of gravity.

Be prepared to lose.

The wave portion of a particle's existence/
behavior is its interaction with "the field". If you
divorce gravitation from "the field", there is no
gravitation. Nothing to curve, no path.

And so the double-slit tells us - something
about fields ?

No, it tells us something about "the field". The place that
light passes through (the field) has/is evidence of everything,
no matter where it is. (No pun intended.)


I got some fertilizer for that field of yours (heh heh)


Gravitation is a warping of dimensional fabric.
No field needed.

"Dimensional fabric" cannot be divorced from the matter and
energy that caused it to exist. "The field" and "dimensional
fabric" are synonymous. Gravitation occurs across the same
"place" that self-interference does.

Chicken or the Egg.

You guys have got things backwards. Dimension does not exist for the
convenience of particles. It's the other way around.

I will place my money on gravitons being as
necessary to Nature as magnetic monopoles.
In other words, "it will be really simple if..."
but always non-detect.

And gravitons, if they exist, you would expect
them to be particles

By definition, yes. But then spacetime is meaningless at the
quantum level, so does "curvature of meaningless" require a
quantum actor?


Not meaningless at all. It continuous and discrete. Spacetime is never
meaningless. Trivial, sometimes. Meaningless, never.


David A. Smith

Dear RadicalLibertarian:

wrote in message
oups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear RadicalLibertarian:

wrote in message
oups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
...
My money's on wave-particle duality of gravity.

Be prepared to lose.

The wave portion of a particle's existence/
behavior is its interaction with "the field". If you
divorce gravitation from "the field", there is no
gravitation. Nothing to curve, no path.

And so the double-slit tells us - something
about fields ?

No, it tells us something about "the field". The
place that light passes through (the field) has/is
evidence of everything, no matter where it is.
(No pun intended.)

I got some fertilizer for that field of yours (heh heh)

Hmmmmm.

Gravitation is a warping of dimensional fabric.
No field needed.

"Dimensional fabric" cannot be divorced from the
matter and energy that caused it to exist. "The
field" and "dimensional fabric" are synonymous.
Gravitation occurs across the same "place" that
self-interference does.

Chicken or the Egg.

You guys

"You guys". I do not have a mouse in my pocket.

have got things backwards. Dimension does not
exist for the convenience of particles. It's the other
way around.

How is it that matter tells something separate from it how to
bend?

I will place my money on gravitons being as
necessary to Nature as magnetic monopoles.
In other words, "it will be really simple if..."
but always non-detect.

And gravitons, if they exist, you would expect
them to be particles

By definition, yes. But then spacetime is
meaningless at the quantum level, so does
"curvature of meaningless" require a
quantum actor?

Not meaningless at all. It continuous and discrete.

Que? Those are antonyms, aren't they?

Spacetime is never meaningless. Trivial,
sometimes. Meaningless, never.

Quantum processes occur at all necessary speeds (not limited to
c). Quantum objects follow all possible paths. Therefore
spacetime contains no meaning in quantum mechanics.

David A. Smith

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear RadicalLibertarian:

wrote in message
oups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear RadicalLibertarian:

wrote in message
oups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
...
My money's on wave-particle duality of gravity.

Be prepared to lose.

The wave portion of a particle's existence/
behavior is its interaction with "the field". If you
divorce gravitation from "the field", there is no
gravitation. Nothing to curve, no path.

And so the double-slit tells us - something
about fields ?

No, it tells us something about "the field". The
place that light passes through (the field) has/is
evidence of everything, no matter where it is.
(No pun intended.)

I got some fertilizer for that field of yours (heh heh)

Hmmmmm.

Yeah - it was uncalled for......

Gravitation is a warping of dimensional fabric.
No field needed.

"Dimensional fabric" cannot be divorced from the
matter and energy that caused it to exist. "The
field" and "dimensional fabric" are synonymous.
Gravitation occurs across the same "place" that
self-interference does.

Chicken or the Egg.

You guys

"You guys". I do not have a mouse in my pocket.

have got things backwards. Dimension does not
exist for the convenience of particles. It's the other
way around.

How is it that matter tells something separate from it how to
bend?

Matter - separate from dimension ? Impossible. That's what it's made
of.


I will place my money on gravitons being as
necessary to Nature as magnetic monopoles.
In other words, "it will be really simple if..."
but always non-detect.

And gravitons, if they exist, you would expect
them to be particles

By definition, yes. But then spacetime is
meaningless at the quantum level, so does
"curvature of meaningless" require a
quantum actor?

Not meaningless at all. It continuous and discrete.

Que? Those are antonyms, aren't they?


Were antonyms.


Spacetime is never meaningless. Trivial,
sometimes. Meaningless, never.

Quantum processes occur at all necessary speeds (not limited to
c). Quantum objects follow all possible paths. Therefore
spacetime contains no meaning in quantum mechanics.


Trivial dynamics can only occur in trivial spacetime. It has meaning.


David A. Smith

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?

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.

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.

George

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~~

Dear Lester Zick:

"Lester Zick" wrote in message
news
On 21 Jul 2006 00:13:49 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:
....
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.

1) George rarely spends this much time on a "crackpot".
2) A bad idea (if it turns out to be such) does not make you a
crackpot.
3) The first step in learning is not being afraid to make
mistakes.
4) Einstein had some bad ideas too.

It is only important that the journey start.

David A. Smith

"Lester Zick" wrote in message
news
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.

OK, so I used a little guesswork. The title of the
thread doesn't help much but you mentioned something
like retarded gravity so what I have done is take
the acceleration due to the Sun at some range, added
the anomaly and then found the range at which the
acceleration due to the Sun alone would produce that
value. Since the anomaly is towards the Sun, the total
is higher hence the revised location is closer to the
Sun.

I have then expressed the difference in range in light
seconds (ls), effectively the time by which the effect
of the Sun's gravity would need to be delayed. Over the
craft range from 40AU to 60AU this is quite linear
ranging from 907 ls to 1848 ls.

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Zic...yedGravity.png

OK, so assuming I guessed your approach correctly, you
have at least a phenomenological fit that shows a nearly
linear characteristic over the sample period. Projecting
the linear curve shows a threshold at around 20AU whereas
the anomaly appears to have a threshold around 10, though
that may just be a symptom of the increasing systematics
at that range. It would be fairly easy to write down an
equation for the delay required to produce the anomaly
but essentially this so far is nothing more than an
empirical fit.

So the questions are firstly what equation does your theory
predict for the delay and secondly what is the mechanism?

George