A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Star Distances



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 2nd 06, 06:57 PM posted to alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,sci.astro,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
Hurt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default Star Distances


The anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11 is in the direction of
the Sun, not away from it. In other words they are slowing down more
than expected, not speeding up.

Double-A


Double? A binary system! Oh my gawd, we're in a binary star system.
So let me get this straight, I am right, the spacecraft is slowing down
due to a star... behind us. The probe is now far enough away so that
the gravity of our Sun is not overwhelming, therefore not masking, our
ability to detect the pull of "our" other sun? Wow! Neato! I love
it!

Hey, that would screw up parallax measurements as well.

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...bin_orbits.htm

  #2  
Old July 2nd 06, 07:35 PM posted to alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,sci.astro,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
George Dishman[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,509
Default Star Distances


"Hurt" wrote in message
oups.com...

The anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11 is in the direction of
the Sun, not away from it. In other words they are slowing down more
than expected, not speeding up.

Double-A


Double? A binary system! Oh my gawd, we're in a binary star system.


"Double-A" is the signature of the poster.

So let me get this straight, I am right, the spacecraft is slowing down
due to a star... behind us. The probe is now far enough away so that
the gravity of our Sun is not overwhelming, therefore not masking, our
ability to detect the pull of "our" other sun? Wow! Neato! I love
it!


Both Pioneers are slowing and they are on opposite
sides of the Sun so your extra star is on both sides
of the Sun at the same time, and again, the anomaly
does NOT affect the planets, the gravitational pull
of another body would so the cause is NOT another
object.

Please look at figure 3 on page 5 of this paper
before writing any mo

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

HTH
George


  #3  
Old July 2nd 06, 09:33 PM posted to alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,sci.astro,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
T Wake
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 622
Default Star Distances


"Hurt" wrote in message
oups.com...

The anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11 is in the direction of
the Sun, not away from it. In other words they are slowing down more
than expected, not speeding up.

Double-A


Double? A binary system! Oh my gawd, we're in a binary star system.
So let me get this straight, I am right, the spacecraft is slowing down
due to a star... behind us. The probe is now far enough away so that
the gravity of our Sun is not overwhelming, therefore not masking, our
ability to detect the pull of "our" other sun? Wow! Neato! I love
it!


Can you spot the immediate logical error in what you are writing here?

Actually, you probably can't.


  #4  
Old July 2nd 06, 09:44 PM posted to alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,sci.astro,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
Hurt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default Star Distances


Can you spot the immediate logical error in what you are writing here?

Actually, you probably can't.


Let's see. You want to point out that if it were behind us the "other"
star's gravity pull would diminish also? Well I didn't mean exactly
behind the Sun. It might have been below the Sun. Of course that
doesn't seem to be the case now since I'm starting to THINK.

  #5  
Old July 2nd 06, 10:50 PM posted to alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,sci.astro,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
Paul Schlyter[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Star Distances

In article .com,
says...

The anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11 is in the direction of
the Sun, not away from it. In other words they are slowing down more
than expected, not speeding up.

Double-A


Double? A binary system! Oh my gawd, we're in a binary star system.
So let me get this straight, I am right, the spacecraft is slowing down
due to a star... behind us. The probe is now far enough away so that
the gravity of our Sun is not overwhelming, therefore not masking, our
ability to detect the pull of "our" other sun? Wow! Neato! I love
it!


That idea is not new:
http://www.nineplanets.org/hypo.html#nemesis

And it's also very unlikely. A star that close to us would appear quite
bright - either in visible light or in the infrared. Despite numerous
attempts, no such star has been found,


Hey, that would screw up parallax measurements as well.


In principle, yes, but in practice it would only have the effect of changing
the proper motion of the stars somewhat. We're talking about a hypothetical
binary system with an orbital period of hundreds of thousands of years,
right? The parallax would be easy to distinguish from the proper motion,
since only the parallax would have a period of one Earth year.


http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...bin_orbits.htm



--
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
  #6  
Old July 2nd 06, 10:56 PM posted to alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,sci.astro,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
Hurt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default Star Distances


"Double-A" is the signature of the poster.


What makes you think that I'm referencing his signature. Maybe her.
Is that a cup size?


Both Pioneers are slowing and they are on opposite
sides of the Sun so your extra star is on both sides
of the Sun at the same time, and again, the anomaly
does NOT affect the planets, the gravitational pull
of another body would so the cause is NOT another
object.


Well George, the Pioneers are almost centered symmetrically above the
ecliptic plane, so an object somewhere below the plane might be
plausible. Also note that the acceleration is greater for Pioneer 11
which is closer.

We concluded [12], from the JPL-ODP analysis, that
there is an unmodeled acceleration, aP , towards the Sun
of (8.09 ± 0.20) × 10-8 cm/s2 for Pioneer 10 and of
(8.56±0.15)×10-8 cm/s2 for Pioneer 11.

http://www.heavens-above.com/solar-escape.asp

Distance from Earth (AU)
Pioneer 10 : 91.885
Pioneer 11 : 70.687

And the planets are being affected. Solar "Global" Warming.


Please look at figure 3 on page 5 of this paper
before writing any mo

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


Good reading. Thanks.

  #7  
Old July 2nd 06, 11:35 PM posted to alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,sci.astro,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
George Dishman[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,509
Default Star Distances


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

[I wrote:]
Both Pioneers are slowing and they are on opposite
sides of the Sun so your extra star is on both sides
of the Sun at the same time, and again, the anomaly
does NOT affect the planets, the gravitational pull
of another body would so the cause is NOT another
object.


Well George, the Pioneers are almost centered symmetrically above the
ecliptic plane, so an object somewhere below the plane might be
plausible.


No, the majority of the anomaly would then be
directed out of the plane. The anomalous
acceleration is in the plane towards the Sun.

Also note that the acceleration is greater for Pioneer 11
which is closer.


And each of the values appears to be constant,
independent of the distance from the Sun.

We concluded [12], from the JPL-ODP analysis, that
there is an unmodeled acceleration, aP , towards the Sun
of (8.09 ± 0.20) × 10-8 cm/s2 for Pioneer 10 and of
(8.56±0.15)×10-8 cm/s2 for Pioneer 11.

http://www.heavens-above.com/solar-escape.asp

Distance from Earth (AU)
Pioneer 10 : 91.885
Pioneer 11 : 70.687

And the planets are being affected.


Nope their motion is not being affected.

Solar "Global" Warming.

Please look at figure 3 on page 5 of this paper
before writing any mo

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


Good reading. Thanks.


There's a lot of good background information
in the paper if you are serious about
understanding the problem.

George


  #8  
Old July 3rd 06, 12:31 AM posted to alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,sci.astro,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
T Wake
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 622
Default Star Distances


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

since I'm starting to THINK.


That would be a first. I haven't seen any signs of it yet. Your line of
reasoning is flawed from the start. You are trying to find extra reasoning
to support it. In effect you are building your house on quicksand here.


  #9  
Old July 3rd 06, 05:20 AM posted to alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,sci.astro,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics,alt.usenet.kooks
Art Deco[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,280
Default Star Distances

George Dishman wrote:

"Hurt" wrote in message
oups.com...

[I wrote:]
Both Pioneers are slowing and they are on opposite
sides of the Sun so your extra star is on both sides
of the Sun at the same time, and again, the anomaly
does NOT affect the planets, the gravitational pull
of another body would so the cause is NOT another
object.


Well George, the Pioneers are almost centered symmetrically above the
ecliptic plane, so an object somewhere below the plane might be
plausible.


No, the majority of the anomaly would then be
directed out of the plane. The anomalous
acceleration is in the plane towards the Sun.

Also note that the acceleration is greater for Pioneer 11
which is closer.


And each of the values appears to be constant,
independent of the distance from the Sun.

We concluded [12], from the JPL-ODP analysis, that
there is an unmodeled acceleration, aP , towards the Sun
of (8.09 ± 0.20) × 10-8 cm/s2 for Pioneer 10 and of
(8.56±0.15)×10-8 cm/s2 for Pioneer 11.

http://www.heavens-above.com/solar-escape.asp

Distance from Earth (AU)
Pioneer 10 : 91.885
Pioneer 11 : 70.687

And the planets are being affected.


Nope their motion is not being affected.

Solar "Global" Warming.

Please look at figure 3 on page 5 of this paper
before writing any mo

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


Good reading. Thanks.


There's a lot of good background information
in the paper if you are serious about
understanding the problem.


He isn't. He'd prefers the comfort of his delusions.

--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth

"And without accurate measuring techniques, how can they even
*call* quantum theory a "scientific" one? How can it possibly
be referred to as a "fundamental branch of physics"?"
-- Painsnuh the Lamer

"Well, orientals moved to the U.S. and did amazingly well on
their own, and the races are related (brown)."
-- "Honest" John pontificates on racial purity

"Significant new ideas have rarely come from the ranks of
the establishment."
-- Double-A on technology development
  #10  
Old July 3rd 06, 04:41 PM posted to alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,sci.astro,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
Hurt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default Star Distances


No, the majority of the anomaly would then be
directed out of the plane. The anomalous
acceleration is in the plane towards the Sun.


They don't give any precise vector; they use words like away, towards,
and radial towards the Sun.



And each of the values appears to be constant,
independent of the distance from the Sun.


The sigma is very large. You can't be sure it's constant with that
sigma, over that range.

No magnitude variation
of aP with distance was found, within a sensitivity of
s0 = 2×10-8 cm/s2 over a range of 40 to 60 AU.


And the planets are being affected. Solar "Global" Warming.


Nope their motion is not being affected.


George; something that barely budges a small spacecraft won't move a
planet. It might deflect some asteroids over a long duration though.



There's a lot of good background information
in the paper if you are serious about
understanding the problem.


The problem? Denial.

 




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
Yes, Virginia, Man NEVER Walked on the Moon... Ed Conrad Amateur Astronomy 12 September 4th 06 01:20 PM
Who Says CROP CIRCLES are Man Made? Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 0 May 25th 06 05:35 AM
Off to Early Start in Worldwide Burning of EVOLUTION Textbooks Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 0 April 29th 06 09:08 PM
THE INCREDIBLE BILLY MEIER EXTRATERRESTRIAL CASE -- All the critics can go to hell [email protected] Astronomy Misc 3 April 20th 06 08:23 PM
Space Calendar - January 27, 2004 Ron Astronomy Misc 7 January 29th 04 10:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.