Pioneer 10 looks like red shift, not blue

"Richard Saam" wrote in message
...
George Dishman wrote:
Richard Saam wrote:

George Dishman wrote:

Richard Saam wrote:


George Dishman wrote:



I am still waiting for you to adress the points
above. Either show an erro in what I said or
accept that it is correct but don't just
ignore Richard.


Do tou think deleting everything I wrote is better
than ignoring it Richard?


George:
The intent is not to delete any of your comments
but to clarify the model in terms of some of your misconceptions.

In general, you seem to have a misunderstanding of
constant force through linear distance
as related to scalar energy
as presented in the model.


I think it is more to do with your notation. Generally
what you say next is the same as I have been saying
for some time so I'll snip most. I'll just point out one
item that may illustrate the problem.


You are changing your notation. The force is:

F = m * |v| * dv/ds

but you previously used Fs for the component
of F in the direction of v.


If I did, it was erroneous or misunderstood

Fs(s) = m*v*dv/ds

Fs(s) is not a component. It is the force in the direction of 'v'


OK, then your use of round brackets implies Fs is a
function of s rather than the component. That's fine but ...


then:

F_x = |F| * v_x / |v|

Fs(x) = Fs(s) * v_x / v


Fs isn't a function of x, you have changed your
notation. What you are talking of here is the x
component of Fs which remains a function of s.

That sort of inconsistency is at the root of some
of our disagreements.


Fs(x), Fs(y), Fs(z) are balanced forces with Fs(s)

The equation you wrote says that Fs(x) is the
component of Fs in the x direction. What forces
are you talking about now? You seem to be
switching terminology and notation randomly.


F_y = |F| * v_y / |v|

Fs(x) = Fs(s) * v_x / v

F_z = |F| * v_z / |v|

Fs(z) = Fs(s) * v_z / v


Now integrate in accordance with Work - Energy Theorem

Fs(x) * s/xi * xi = M*a_x * (|v| / v_x) * xi = M * a * xi = m*|v|^2 /2

Fs(x) * s1/xi * s1 = M*a_x * (v / v_x) * s1 = M * a * s1 = m*|v|^2 /2



No, you cannot separate energy into components,

energy 'm*|v|^2 /2' has not been split into components


No but from above Fs(x) appears to be the x component
of Fs(s).

Fs(x), Fs(y), Fs(z) are balanced forces with Fs(s)



it is
not a vector.

Yes, of course, energy is not a vector.
How many times have I pointed this out to

you now Richard?

George:
There is a scalar energy
associated with Constant Force throught Linear Distance.
This does not in any way imply
a separation of that scalar energy into a vector component
associated with that linear distance traveled.


Right, so your "Fs(x)" is inappropriate since that
is what it is doing.

Fs(x), Fs(y), Fs(z) are balanced forces with Fs(s)



This is a finer but crucial point
that you have failed to grasp from the beginning.
It appears so obvious, I don't know why you cannot grasp it.


Because your notation implies components. If that's
not what you mean then I don't disagree.


If you would like to comment further on the entire model,
Allow me to present again.


No, the result is standard stuff and all the extras about
cells is superfluous, only rho matters so let's cut to the
conclusion:

The nature of rho does matter
and is not superfluous
assuming space viscosity.

The following standard fluid mechanical conversion
is provided as evidence
assuming viscous approach is operative.

F = Cd*A*rho*v^2 / 2

The factor Cd handles the viscosity. I wasn't
implying Cd could be ignored but that the gross
effect on the craft could be calculated from
rho without worrying about the cell structure
since presumably it is much smaller than the
size of the craft.

Cd = 24 / Re
Re = rho*v*Rh / (4*mu)
Rh = A / P

whe

Re = Reynold's number
rho = space density
mu = absolute viscosity (momentum/Ac) (m*v/Ac)
Ac = space lattice cell area
Rh = spacecraft hydraulic radius
P = spacecraft wetted Perimeter

therefo

F = 24 * mu * P * A * rho * v^2 / (rho * v * A * 4 * 2))
= 3 * mu * P * v
= 3 * (m*v/Ac) * P * v
= 3 * (m/Ac) * P * v^2

m*P/Ac must be continuous.

In as much as the space vacuum is
composed of cells of
(i*x-(i-1)*x),(j*y-(j-1)*y),(k*z-(k-1)*z)
where i,j,k are integers
or by more simple notation
xi,yj,zk
and
volume = xi*yj*zk
and
Ac = xi*yj = yi*zj = xi*zj
and xi=yj=zk
and filling universal space i*x-(i-1)*x,j*y-(j-1)*y,k*z-(k-1)*z
and these cells have a density of
rho = m/volume
= m/(xi*yj*zk) (m ~ 110*me)
= 3 H^2 / (8 pi G) = 6.38E-30 g/cm^3
and this space vacuum can be described as momentum space
m*v_x = h/xi = (h/2pi)*2pi/xi
m*v_y = h/yj = (h/2pi)*2pi/yj
m*v_z = h/zk = (h/2pi)*2pi/zk


snip

a = Cd * (Area/Mass) * (rho) * |v|^2 /2


Statement of hypothesis for Pioneer deceleration:


rho = m/volume
= m/(xi*yj*zk) (m ~ 110*me)
= 3 H2 / (8 pi G) = 6.38E-30 g/cm3
then an object with Mass (M) m
(Pioneer space craft, moons, planets, asteroids, stars, galaxies, etc.)

...

with space craft object velocity 'V' relative to CMBR reference

...

will result in transfer of the momentum
from momentum space to pioneer space craft
V_x - 0, V_y - 0, V_z - 0
and will cause vectorial slowing of the space craft or object
a_x,a_y,a_z relative to space coordinates (CMBR reference)
in accordance with its Area/Mass ratio
a_x = -Cd/2 * (Area/Mass) * (m / volume) * |V|^2 * (V_x / V)


a_x = -Cd/2 * (Area/Mass) * (m / volume) * |V|^2 * (V_x / |V|)

or

a_x = -Cd/2 * (Area/Mass) * (m / volume) * |V| * V_x



a_y = -Cd/2 * (Area/Mass) * (m / volume) * |V|^2 * (V_y / V)
a_z = -Cd/2 * (Area/Mass) * (m / volume) * |V|^2 * (V_z / V)
and
a = -Cd/2 * (Area/Mass) * (m / volume) * |V|^2


or

a = -Cd/2 * (Area/Mass) * (m / volume) * |V| * V

which emphasises that vector a it oppositely directed to
vector V.


let as = pioneer deceleration relative to sun be 'as'

earth accelerations 'ae' have been subtracted so dv/dt = 0

as = d(V-v)/dt = dV/dt - v/dt = a - 0 = a


Right so as which is a_P in Anderson's paper would be
directed opposite to the CMBR dipole. That's exactly
what I have been saying all the time.


a = (Cd/2) * Area/Mass * rho * |v|^2
= (1/2)*(58,965 cm2)/(241,000 g)*(6.38E-30 g/cm3)*((620 + 12)*1E5
cm/sec)2
= 3.1E-15 cm/sec2

This value is insignificant relative
to pioneer deceleration of 8E8 cm/sec2


Type, that should be 8E-8, however it is still 7 orders of
magnitude greater than your suggestion and in the wrong
direction.


therefore drag computed with Pioneer passing through CMBR coordinates
is not the valid mechanism for Pioneer deceleration


Exactly.


********
Now the other alternative based on thrust and not drag:

Ref:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thrsteq.html
The general thrust equation is then given by:

F = m*dv/dt 'e' - dm/dt * v '0'+ (pe - p0) * Ae

We will denote the exit of the device as station "e"
and the free stream as station "0".


Right, but pe and p0 are exhaust gas pressures which are
not really relevant to your lattice.


For our analysis

- dm/dt * v ~ 0

Therefo

F = m*dv/dt + (pe - p0) * Ae

The concept is that the space lattice has density (rho) (m/(xi*yj*zk))
with potential energy (m*c2 /volume)
converted to kinetic energy (m*c2 /volume) (P)
where volume is xi*yj*zk and m = 110 * electron mass (me).

As the Pioneer spacecraft passes through the space lattice
the space lattice potential energy is converted to kinetic energy
in accordance with the work energy theorem.


Work and energy is just conservation, it doesn't say
anything about how that might occur.


An imperfect analogy would be a jet engine
and the potential energy (free energy) of the intake air (oxygen)
along with internal fuel potential energy (free energy)
is converted to work energy thrust.


The potential energy is not in the air but
it's not really relevant anyway.


The Pioneer spacecraft case is different
in that the resulting thrust is in the same direction
as spacecraft movement through space lattice
resulting in spacecraft deceleration.


Even if you could explain how this thrust is produced,
the direction would still be aligned with V and hence
the CMBR dipole. This also cannot explain the
observation because it is again in the wrong direction.

George



In other words, this process cannot be used
to propel a spacecraft through space
unless some method can be devised
to make thrust opposite to spacecraft movement.

F = m*dv/dt + (pe - p0) * Ae
= m*c2 / xi + P * A
= m*c2 / xi + (m*c2 / (xi*yj*zk)) * Area
= 2*(m*c2 / (xi*yj*zk)) * Area

a ~ 2*Area*rho*c2 / M
~ 2*(58,965 cm2)*(6.38E-30 g/cm3)*(3E10 cm/sec)2 /(241,000 g)
~ 2.8E10-9 cm/sec2 for Pioneer spacecraft

This value is a little low compared to actual deceleration value of 8E-8
cm/sec2
but it makes the thrust alternative worthy of further investigation.

Richard