Star Distances

Are you objecting to what I say here? If so, you're really arguing that
today's astronomical instruments are no better than the instruments more
than three decades ago.

In many ways they are not. But searching vast quantities of outer
space require speed and quantity more than quality.




If "somebody" knew it, it wouldn't take long until we all knew it. You
can't keep that a secret for very long.

Well... I'm waiting...

accelerate towards the Sun and with almost equal
magnitude, it is obvious the body needs to be nearly
on the axis of rotation of the planets in the invariant plane.

Just how does a body that large get into such a strange orbit?

On 13 Jul 2006 06:14:32 -0700, "George Dishman"
Gave us:


George Dishman wrote:

No. Let's be clear. We were talking of the Pioneer anomaly
which is a linear, constant acceleration relative to the Sun.
...
I have also suggested you try to work out where the
extra mass would need to be because you will quickly
find that there is no possible location that can produce
the effect, ...

There is no way to produce a constant acceleration
with a single extra body but as a lunch-time excercise
I tried to find the optimum solution. Since both craft
accelerate towards the Sun and with almost equal
magnitude, it is obvious the body needs to be nearly
on the axis of rotation of the planets in the invariant plane.

The primary study of Pioneer 10 covered a heliocentric
range of 40 AU to 60 AU so I first found the range to the
body that would produce equal acceleration at those
two craft ranges. The answer is 50.6 AU. Then I found
the mass need to produce an average acceleration of
8.74*10^-8 cm/s^s over the range which turns out to
be 2.09*10^25 kg or 1604 times the mass of Pluto.

The resulting acceleration is 7.74 *10^-8 cm/s^s at the
ends of the data track and peaks at 9.38*10^-8 cm/s^s
at 36 AU, a significantly greater variation than is
observed.

Assuming a density similar to Pluto, the object would
actually be 11 times the diameter and appear 9 times
larger as it would be slightly farther away than Pluto's
orbit of 39 AU.

Allowing for that increased range, and assuming a
comparable albedo, it would still be about 50 times
brighter than Pluto.

With a mass of 1600 times that of Pluto, the influence
on the orbits of the outer planets would be significant.


In other words, it is NOT possible for any such body to exist!

On 13 Jul 2006 08:55:26 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us:


One has to get pretty close to Earth in space before one can see the
Pyramids, and they are ****ing huge!

So are there Pyramids on Mars Roy? Ruins on the Moon?

Jeez. Do you ever stay on topic?

YOU were talking about being able (or not) to see the man made
artifacts that were left behind there, including Lunar Module bases.

I mentioned that from Earth it would not be possible due to the
already known fact of how far it is. The proof is that we cannot see
the pyramids from space until we get fairly close to earth.

It has not a goddamned thing to do with your kootard crap about
pyramids on Mars.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:14:02 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) Gave
us:

In article . com,
Hurt wrote:

It was part of the idea when the Pioneers were launched, yes. However,
improved observational techniques since the early 1970's, combined
with the failure to find any unknown large planet, has dramatically
decreased the probability of such a body out there.

Not necessarily. People don't believe me when I tell them that you
can't see the stuff we left on the Moon, even with the most powerful
telescope, yet you can prove it through optical physics. The space out
there is very large.

If there had been a planet in the outer solar system which was just
too small for us to be able to detect in the early 1970's, that planet
would have been easy to detect with current technology. That's what I
meant with "dramatically decreased the probability" -- we've expanded
the borders within which such a planet cannot exist without us knowing
about it.

Well, we are in no danger of the mass of Hurt's brain causing any
influence.

On 13 Jul 2006 09:49:00 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us:

Remember, "objects in mirror
are closer than they appear".

You are an IDIOT!

Chill with the "we don't know the distances" CRAP!

On 13 Jul 2006 15:37:21 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us:


Well... I'm waiting...

Well... You're retarded too...

"Hurt" wrote in message
ups.com...

accelerate towards the Sun and with almost equal
magnitude, it is obvious the body needs to be nearly
on the axis of rotation of the planets in the invariant plane.

Just how does a body that large get into such a strange orbit?

It gets worse. There is also an acceleration
perpendicular to the ecliptic. In this diagram
we are on the ecliptic plane, 'A' is the object
somewhere roughly over the north pole of the
Sun, '*' is the craft at three ranges and I have
broken the force at each location into components
in the plane and perpendicular:

A






24.36 19.60 13.19 6.53
^ ^ ^ ^
| | | |
(Sun) -* -* -*
7.74 9.38 7.74

20AU 36AU 60AU





B

For the final position, note the upward component
is only 6.53 (all accelerations in units of 10^-8
cm/s^2) while for the Sun it is 24.36, that's a
downward acceleration of 17.83 relative to the Sun.

Combined with the 7.74 towards the Sun, the total
relative acceleration would be angled down out of
the ecliptic at 66.5 degrees, but we know it is
within +/- 1.5 degrees.

The solution is to place half the mass at 'A' and
the other half at 'B' so the vertical parts cancel
while those in the plane add. The obvious question
then is how accurate does that have to be to get the
direction within +/- 1.5 degrees. The answer is they
have to be matched to better than 1.2%.

Then you have the problem that these masses cannot
just hang there, they must be in orbit. At 50.6 AU
the period would be 360 years, but it isn't that
simple. A three body solution with a common orbit
and the masses on opposite sides of the Sun is not
stable. This alignment would have to be purely
transient.

So you have three big problems:

1. The configuration is unstable.

2. The objects would each be 30 times brighter
than Pluto and could not have been missed.

3. Although this is the optimum alignment and
range, the anomalous acceleration still
varies more than is allowed by observation.

Bottom line: gravitational influence of unknown bodies
is it is not a credible explanation, these objects
simply don't exist.

George

Hurt wrote:

You seem like a pretty smart guy, can you tell me if the measured
anomalous acceleration of either Ulysses or Galileo was at or near a
Sun-Jupiter LaGrange point?

This is interesting. Gots to love the net.

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

Galileo went into orbit around Jupiter and remained
there while Ulysses used a Jupiter slingshot to
change into an orbit almost over the solar poles so
neither has been anywhere near the Trojan points.

The anomaly was measured when the craft was well
clear of the planets between the orbits of Uranus and
Neptune for Pioneer 11 and starting beyond the orbit
of Neptune for Pioneer 10.

The software includes the gravitational effects of the
Sun, all the planetary systems, our Moon and the
major asteroids so Lagrange points are fully modelled
anyway.

George

Galileo went into orbit around Jupiter and remained
there while Ulysses used a Jupiter slingshot to
change into an orbit almost over the solar poles so
neither has been anywhere near the Trojan points.

Probably a good thing too. I just mentioned the Trojan Asteroids as a
matter of interest as I was looking for the Sun-Jupiter Lagrangian
points L1 and L2.

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

Now if there was an external object creating an accelerating force on
our Solar System wouldn't it have a tendency to dislodge these Trojan
Asteroids? And wouldn't we notice?




The anomaly was measured when the craft was well
clear of the planets between the orbits of Uranus and
Neptune for Pioneer 11 and starting beyond the orbit
of Neptune for Pioneer 10.

On hyperbolic escape trajectories.