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

"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

"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.

"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

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

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.

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

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.

Page 18:

"Over the years the data continually indicated that
the largest systematic error in the acceleration
residuals is a constant bias of a_P ~ 8+/-3)*10^-8
cm/s^2, directed toward the Sun (to within the
beam-width of the Pioneers’ antennae [73])."

Note [73] indicates the beamwidth is 3.6 degrees. As
I said, there's a lot of information in the paper if
you are serious, but that means reading the endnotes.

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.

Page 34, commenting on the possibility of a correlation
with the RTG radioactive decay:

"Finally, we want to comment on the significance
of radioactive decay for this mechanism. Even
acknowledging the Interval jumps due to gas
leaks (see below), we reported a one-day batch-
sequential value (before systematics) for a_P,
averaged over the entire 11.5 year interval, of
a_P = (7.77+/-0.16)*10^-8 cm/s^2. From radioactive
decay, the value of a_P should have decreased by
0.75 of these units over 11.5 years. This is 5
times the above variance, which is very large
with batch sequential."

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.

"Hurt", gravity produces the same acceleration
independent of mass. Read up on Galileo.

They checked to see if a gravitational effect was
a possible cause and the orbits of the planets
would have shown changes that would be detectable
in a few years. I can't remember the exact numbers
but no such variation exists so that possibility
is ruled out. Just as well or our planet would be
a lot closer to the Sun by now if it had formed
anywhere near this orbit.

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

The problem? Denial.

Denial of what? You haven't come up with anything
even vaguely credible, just stabs in the dark that
are obviously nonsense to anyone who has looked at
the data. Sadly, none of the other ideas works well
either, and there have been many.

George

"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.

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.

"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.