Star Distances

You're right, that is the preferable term. And I posted a link to that
in Wikipedia; you think I would have used it.

Nice trick, somebody edited my bookmarks to leave only this,

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Anoma...eleration.html

Which I also posted earlier. Was this done through the windows script
engine or through JavaScript in Firefox?

Ok, so I reread this and then go to,

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9808/9808081.pdf

Good read btw. You're right George, a 10^-8 cm/s^2 acceleration is
significant now that I've tossed these numbers around a little bit. So
what's the consensus on all this anomalous acceleration... two stars?
Three counting the Sun.

what's the consensus on all this anomalous acceleration... two stars?
Three counting the Sun.


http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...riple_sun.html

The primary star is like our Sun, weighing 1.06 solar masses. The
other two stars form a tightly bound pair, which is separated from the
primary by approximately the Sun-Saturn distance.

Targeting multiple stars

Konacki hopes to find more planets around stars with companions. About
30 extrasolar planets have been found around double-star systems, or
binaries. This is a small percentage of the total number of extrasolar
planets, even though multi-star systems outnumber single star systems.

The reason for this disparity is that the main technique for locating
planets -- the radial velocity method -- is not well-suited for finding
planets with more than one star.

"Single stars are much easier to work with, since the shape of the
spectrum stays the same," Konacki explained.

By watching for wobbles in a star's spectrum, astronomers can infer
the gravitational tug from a nearby planet. But when there is a
companion star, its light competes with that of the main star. Konacki
has developed a method to extract the planet wobbles from this messy,
combined spectrum.

He found this triple-sun planet in the first 20 stars he looked at. He
plans to survey about 450 stars in the future.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:42:36 -0400, nightbat
Gave us:

2012 end
times indications


You're an idiot.

You know not the hour in which he comes.

On 12 Jul 2006 10:02:19 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us:


Why are your eyes brown, and what is that foul stench emanating from
your ears?

Some of the most vile, incompetent, selfish, ignorant, retards I have
ever met had blue eyes. And my eyes are not brown. A few bad apples
spoiling the bunch.


It was an indicator that you are full of ****, you brown eye,
stinking eared dumbass. You have **** for brains.

On 12 Jul 2006 12:13:09 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us:


You may be thinking of Voyager 1, Pioneer 10 was
at a nearly constant 3.1 degrees above the ecliptic
from 1978 to the present.

Yes, I believe you're right; the Pioneers are on their final escape
trajectories. In fact that paper, I think it was "that" paper,
mentioned something about not getting enough readings through their
arching transitions out of the ecliptic plane. Or something like that.
This thread has become so long I'm having trouble finding some of the
links in the individual posts.

Get a REAL news client.

D ' O H!

On 12 Jul 2006 14:12:53 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us:


None of the Pioneers move precisely, or even nearly, perpendicular to
the ecliptic plane (you might prefer to use the invariable plane of
the solar system here, since that doesn't change - the invariable plane,
defined by the total angular momentum of all orbiting planets, is inclined
only a few degrees to the ecliptic though).

You're right, that is the preferable term. And I posted a link to that
in Wikipedia; you think I would have used it.


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.

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

On 13 Jul 2006 01:01:07 -0700, "George Dishman"
Gave us:


Hurt wrote:
You may be thinking of Voyager 1, Pioneer 10 was
at a nearly constant 3.1 degrees above the ecliptic
from 1978 to the present.

Yes, I believe you're right; the Pioneers are on their final escape
trajectories. In fact that paper, I think it was "that" paper,
mentioned something about not getting enough readings through their
arching transitions out of the ecliptic plane.

You are mis-remembering, over the period studied,
Pioneer 10 has always been about 3 degrees above
the ecliptic while Pioneer 11 was between 14.6 and
16.6 degrees above from 1983 to the present.

Or something like that.
This thread has become so long I'm having trouble finding some of the
links in the individual posts.

There has been a lot of ground covered. The main
paper is:

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

At the bottom there is a line as follows:

SLAC-SPIRES HEP (refers to, cited by, arXiv reformatted);

Click on "by" for a list of the subsequent papers that
refer back to the main one. Note there are several
pages of citations.

My point, which you snipped, remains:

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, ...

That you ignore this only reinforces my view that
you are not really interested in the subject but are
only trolling. If you don't like that, you only have
to show me your calculation of the location of
th extra mass that indicates it can mimic the
observation - how much mass and where is it?


It's up his fat ass.

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.

George

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?

the borders within which such a planet cannot exist without us knowing
about it.

You keep saying that. Well somebody probably does know about it if it
exists.