A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pioneer anomaly



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 3rd 05, 06:31 AM
Oz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pioneer anomaly

I.Vecchi writes

I was actually referring to the occurrence of the factor 1/8 in your
MOND argument, following your simplifying assumption that "the galaxy
lies in a plane with the earth".


Wouldn't most galaxy rotation curves be corrected, as far as possible,
to be equivalent to this? Alternatively galaxies that are pretty clearly
'edge-on' would be used for measurement.

Otherwise the angle would significantly alter the results.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Use functions].
BTOPENWORLD address has ceased. DEMON address has ceased.

Ads
  #2  
Old August 4th 05, 12:16 PM
Charles Francis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Oz
writes
I.Vecchi writes

I was actually referring to the occurrence of the factor 1/8 in your
MOND argument, following your simplifying assumption that "the galaxy
lies in a plane with the earth".


Wouldn't most galaxy rotation curves be corrected, as far as possible,
to be equivalent to this? Alternatively galaxies that are pretty clearly
'edge-on' would be used for measurement.

Otherwise the angle would significantly alter the results.

I think not. If I recall correctly the orbit projected into this plane
is also a valid orbit. It shouldn't be hard to work out, but I have so
many things to try and work out at the moment.


Regards

--
Charles Francis
  #3  
Old August 4th 05, 09:26 PM
Oz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

writes

Yeah Larsson is here with ideas in an interesting problem area also
without much discussion.


I think the appropriate wizards are impressed with larsson, but for most
he (and smith) are so far ahead only experts in the field can probably
follow it. They aren't here.

You'd think the problem itself could attract
a lot of interest even before reading the proposed solution. Francis
is even well known here. I consider Segal part of the Francis
discussion but so far it has not added much.


It may be superficially similar, but clearly NOT the same.

Francis I think has
expansion everywhere but a redshift varying with the square of the
expansion.


I think that is correct. However note carefully that the redshift is
what we measure, that is the experimental result. The expansion is
calculated from that, so changing the mode of calculation gives a
different result for the velocity, the expansion rate, the density and
the age of the universe. This is seriously significant.

Segal has no expansion in the matter dominated inner solar
system but has expansion in the "empty" Pioneer inertial frame. Both
produce the same apparent acceleration but assign different realities
to the situation.


Yes, but one must critically also include that its compatible with mond,
and that's astonishing. The fact that it also does away with most
(possibly all) the 'missing matter', and the age problem(s) as well is
astonishing IMHO. Whether his theoretical basis is valid or not, the
phenomenological expression makes one stop and pause and consider it's
significance.

Segal has a Minkowski space for us on Earth/matter
dominated space in general and a conformal cone space for
Pioneer/mostly empty space in general. The conformal cone space
creates a cosmological constant which tries to accelerate the
expansion. It only recently (last 2 billion years I think) has become a
bigger effect than the expansion slowdown effect of matter/gravity.


Francis, to first order, has our universe as CLOSED.
The apparent acceleration goes when the recalculated density of the
universe (approx 4x that currently calculated), combined with the lower
expansion rate (approx half).

The conformal cone space is related to torsion/antisymmetric tensor
stuff. What does Francis use torsion for, I didn't quite get that, I
may need to reread it.


Francis can answer for himself, but he has (I think) said that torsion
is resolved on collapse, that is its only ever at a point.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Use
functions].
BTOPENWORLD address has ceased. DEMON address has ceased.

  #4  
Old August 5th 05, 11:44 AM
Charles Francis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Oz
writes

Yes, but one must critically also include that its compatible with mond,
and that's astonishing. The fact that it also does away with most
(possibly all) the 'missing matter', and the age problem(s) as well is
astonishing IMHO. Whether his theoretical basis is valid or not, the
phenomenological expression makes one stop and pause and consider it's
significance.


Interestingly enough the theoretical considerations which lead Einstein
to special relativity are all but dropped in other accounts, and it is
generally justified on the basis of its predictions.


Francis, to first order, has our universe as CLOSED.


Possibly closed. But I confess a philosophical prejudice toward closure.

The apparent acceleration goes when the recalculated density of the
universe (approx 4x that currently calculated), combined with the lower
expansion rate (approx half).


No. The density is as it is, but if the universe is expanding at half
the currently accepted rate then critical density for closure is a
quarter the currently accepted value (textbook result).




Regards

--
Charles Francis

  #5  
Old August 5th 05, 02:28 PM
Charles Francis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Oz
writes

Yes, but one must critically also include that its compatible with mond,
and that's astonishing. The fact that it also does away with most
(possibly all) the 'missing matter', and the age problem(s) as well is
astonishing IMHO. Whether his theoretical basis is valid or not, the
phenomenological expression makes one stop and pause and consider it's
significance.


Interestingly enough the theoretical considerations which lead Einstein
to special relativity are all but dropped in other accounts, and it is
generally justified on the basis of its predictions.


Francis, to first order, has our universe as CLOSED.


Possibly closed. But I confess a philosophical prejudice toward closure.

The apparent acceleration goes when the recalculated density of the
universe (approx 4x that currently calculated), combined with the lower
expansion rate (approx half).


No. The density is as it is, but if the universe is expanding at half
the currently accepted rate then critical density for closure is a
quarter the currently accepted value (textbook result).




Regards

--
Charles Francis
  #6  
Old September 7th 05, 07:27 AM
kurtan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Oz" wrote in message
...
writes

Yeah Larsson is here with ideas in an interesting problem area also
without much discussion.


I think the appropriate wizards are impressed with larsson, but for most
he (and smith) are so far ahead only experts in the field can probably
follow it. They aren't here.

You'd think the problem itself could attract
a lot of interest even before reading the proposed solution. Francis
is even well known here. I consider Segal part of the Francis
discussion but so far it has not added much.


It may be superficially similar, but clearly NOT the same.

snip

Segal has no expansion in the matter dominated inner solar
system but has expansion in the "empty" Pioneer inertial frame. Both
produce the same apparent acceleration but assign different realities
to the situation.


Yes, but one must critically also include that its compatible with mond,
and that's astonishing. The fact that it also does away with most
(possibly all) the 'missing matter', and the age problem(s) as well is
astonishing IMHO. Whether his theoretical basis is valid or not, the
phenomenological expression makes one stop and pause and consider it's
significance.

Segal has a Minkowski space for us on Earth/matter
dominated space in general and a conformal cone space for
Pioneer/mostly empty space in general. The conformal cone space
creates a cosmological constant which tries to accelerate the
expansion. It only recently (last 2 billion years I think) has become a
bigger effect than the expansion slowdown effect of matter/gravity.


snip

In this context it might be appropriate to draw attention again to
Johan Masreliez' explanation to the Pioneer anomaly. It was recently
singled out by the Russian scientific newsletter CNews as the viable
candidate to competing MOND. Here is the link for the able reader:
http://www.cnews.ru/news/top/index.s...5/06/27/181145
Masreliez' Pioneer paper will soon appear in
Astrophysics and Space Science vol 299, pp. 83-108.

Masreliez claims that the anomaly is of cosmological origin and is
explained by inadvertent use of different coordinate representations
when estimating the observed and modeled frequencies.

/Kurt B.


  #7  
Old September 19th 05, 10:58 PM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

To Kurt

To resolve the apparent anomaly in the speed of the spacecraft and
subsequently the variations in projected distance travelled against
actual distance would require an re-alignment of most of astronomic
principles back to their original heliocentric format.

The major obstacle exists with the introduction of an alternative
explanation for retrograde motions by Newton in contrast to the
explanations of astronomers such as Galileo and Rheticus who refer
retrograde motions from the faster Earth taking an inner orbital
circuit against the apparent retrogrades of Mars,Jupiter and Saturn (1)
-

http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...turn_retro.gif

The original heliocentric insight did not require a resolution that is
speculative in nature and which constitutes the Newtonian line of
reasoning based on an observer on the Sun -

"For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a
little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the
areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly
demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the
help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes of
that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm


Like Kepler before him,Ole Roemer who give us the insight on finite
light distance worked off the anomalistic motion of Io as seen from
the Earth's orbital motion but as anyone can see from the Newtonian
explanation,the 'finite light' insight is completely anonymous in
Newton's explanation as he cobbles or rather mangles together the
Keplerian insight with the Roemerian insight.

It is an enormous task to make a necessary re-alignment of astronomic
principles even for those focused on the matter and it would be an
injustice to imagine otherwise.












(1)

Salviati

Sagredo, you will see them come about in such a way that the theory of
this alone ought to be enough to gain assent for the rest of the
doctrine from anyone who is neither stubborn nor unteachable. I tell
you, then, that no change occurs in the movement of Saturn in thirty
years, in that of Jupiter in twelve, that of Mars in two, Venus in nine
months, or in that of Mercury in about eighty days. The annual movement
of the Earth alone, between Mars and Venus, causes all the apparent
irregularities of the five stars named. . . . (explains Jupiter's
motion, then follows with)

Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and Mars
also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent than in
Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that the Earth
overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its motion
being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends more time
in catching up with it.

Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose circles are included within that
of the Earth, stoppings and retrograde motions appear in them also, due
not to any motion that really exists in them, but to the annual motion
of the Earth. This is acutely demonstrated by Copernicus . . .

You see, gentlemen, with what ease and simplicity the annual motion --
if made by the Earth -- lends itself to supplying reasons for the
apparent anomalies which are observed in the movements of the five
planets. . . . It removes them all and reduces these movements to
equable and regular motions; and it was Nicholas Copernicus who first
clarified for us the reasons for this marvelous effect." 1632, Dialogue
Concerning the Two Chief World Systems

  #8  
Old September 24th 05, 04:34 AM
kurtan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
ups.com...
To Kurt
To resolve the apparent anomaly in the speed of the spacecraft and
subsequently the variations in projected distance travelled against
actual distance would require an re-alignment of most of astronomic
principles back to their original heliocentric format.

The major obstacle exists with the introduction of an alternative
explanation for retrograde motions by Newton in contrast to the
explanations of astronomers such as Galileo and Rheticus who refer
retrograde motions from the faster Earth taking an inner orbital
circuit against the apparent retrogrades of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn

---------------------------
The original heliocentric insight did not require a resolution that is
speculative in nature and which constitutes the Newtonian line of
reasoning based on an observer on the Sun -
------------------
It is an enormous task to make a necessary re-alignment of astronomic
principles even for those focused on the matter and it would be an
injustice to imagine otherwise.

----------------------------

Gerald,
Coordinate transformations with cosmological implications take time to
full impact. So had Aristarchos' from Samos heliocentric ideas influence
on Kopernikus which eventually found its way outside scientific world.
And so will Masreliez´ coordinate manipulations with FRW standard
take its time till tentative acceptance.
In this context you might like to consider that another transformation to
a jovian centric system would give a fantastic fit for Titius-Bode´s law.
Why keep the Sun in origo?

  #9  
Old September 24th 05, 05:12 PM
oriel36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

To Kurtan

The original Keplerian insight on orbital geometry and motion refered
the orbit of Mars as seen from the Earth against the background stars -
Kepler called the plotted trajectory 'Panis Quadragesimalis', a
representation that is nowhere to be found on the entire internet .

Newton worked off mean Sun/Earth distances drawn from Flamsteed's
sidereal format which represents a stellar circumpolar/axial rotational
equivalency only that Newton transfered it to a geocentric/heliocentric
orbital equivalency.This is where he is getting this astronomically
erroneous perspective from -

"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

The deviation from mean Sun/Earth distances generating Keplerian motion
can be extracted that way however it is impossible to fit the stated
sidereal format into Keplerian orbital geometry when taken through the
center of the planet's orbit.Because the sidereal format attributes a
constant .986 degree orbital displacement,it requires little effort to
see that in a Keplerian framework ,the Newtonian stretching of orbital
distances would occur but unfortunately it generates the odd spectacle
of the Earth travelling faster at the aphelion and slower at the
perihelion -

http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/...S/AACHCIR0.JPG

While it becomes even more complicated when dealing with Ole Roemer's
insight,the damage is already done and especially in regard to how to
treat observed motions from the center of the planet's orbit rather
than an independent speculative observer based on the Sun which
constitutes the Newtonian view.

  #10  
Old September 27th 05, 07:39 PM
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message .com,
oriel36 writes
To Kurtan

The original Keplerian insight on orbital geometry and motion refered
the orbit of Mars as seen from the Earth against the background stars -
Kepler called the plotted trajectory 'Panis Quadragesimalis', a
representation that is nowhere to be found on the entire internet .


Looks as if the gerald kelleher program has been partially erased :-)
According to one of your own posts
http://www.newsfeeds.com/archive/sci-astro-amateur/msg27075.html it's
depicted at
http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-lyon.fr/Entree_par_medium/Animations/Mouvement_Mars
Well worth looking at,

Because the sidereal format attributes a
constant .986 degree orbital displacement


For about the thousandth time, it doesn't. That's a simplification used
in examples such as the one below to avoid complicating things with
elliptical orbits. Over a year, the average is 0.986 degrees,


unfortunately it generates the odd spectacle
of the Earth travelling faster at the aphelion and slower at the
perihelion -

http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/...S/AACHCIR0.JPG


As usual, this link has absolutely nothing to do with what he is
describing, which is a simple consequence of an elliptical orbit. Does
he grab them at random from a very small selection ?

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pioneer 10 & 11 Spacecraft Deceleration Anomaly Revisited sue jahn History 31 July 12th 05 03:04 AM
Pioneer 10 Anomaly solved via Dual Space Theory John C. Polasek Astronomy Misc 0 April 10th 05 02:14 AM
Which way does NASA Pioneer 10 & 11 gravity anomaly point? Jack Sarfatti Astronomy Misc 1 March 20th 05 03:30 PM
The Pioneer Anomaly Mark F. Amateur Astronomy 4 December 25th 04 01:30 PM
Pioneer 10 Anomaly and Relativity ralph sansbury Astronomy Misc 55 December 26th 03 07:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.