Pioneer 10 acceleration

(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]

(Andr? Michaud) wrote in message ...
(Carlos L) wrote in message ...

Thanks André for having looked and for your comments about my
non-orthodox explanation that was posted in the thread "Pioneer
Anomaly" URL: http://
oogle.com

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.

I know "that" and I believe it is true. Unfortunately everybody finds
difficult to understand my (very simple) interpretation of the
constancy of the speed of light in vacuum. (It must be that I don't
explain myself clearly enough). I try again:
I do believe that the speed of light is independent of the speed of
the source. But I believe that the speed of light in vacuum is always
c *relative to the physical apparatus* that detects it. The speed of
light will also be c relative to the reference frame of description if
the detector is at rest in it (as is generally the case). But since SR
does not dare forbid to use detectors that move relative to the
reference frame of description, I assume that in these cases the speed
of light will no longer be c relative to the frame of description
(until some experiment, in vacuum, proves me wrong). An implication of
such interpretation is that since "all" detectors, whatever their
speed relative to the source, are known to receive light from moving
sources it must be assumed that a typical source emits light-type
disturbance at a continuum of speeds. (I don't want to discuss in this
thread the details of the *other* implications or problems with this
idea). My hope here was to find some reader able to believe in the
possibility that such idea is compatible with the experimental facts
and be willing to discuss my interpretation of the Pioneers anomalies.

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.

I also believe that this case (of the Pioneers) is indeed the first in
which the Doppler data do not agree with the expected position of a
body governed by the very trustable celestial mechanics laws. But this
is a special case because, for the Pioneers: (1) the position (as a
function of time, therefore including velocity, acceleration, ...) is
(supposedly) known with enormous precision and the experimenter is not
allowed to say "the disagreement with our Doppler data must be due to
our imprecise knowledge of their position". (2) the velocities of the
observed bodies (the Pioneers) have a "big" component v along the line
of sight, and according to my interpretation, the effect is
proportional to such component. That is not the case for the moon that
is AFAIK the only other celestial body whose position is known with
such precision.

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

I believe that also.

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

Well, after having studied and discarded all other "reasonable"
explanations, I suppose that it is the best thing to do. Mine has not
been considered yet except by you that has not fully understood it,
(my fault).
But anyway, thanks again.

Carlos L.

Nothin new under the Sun.

André Michaud