A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Pioneer Anomaly 2017



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 26th 17, 02:21 PM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default Pioneer Anomaly 2017

Il giorno sabato 25 marzo 2017 09:44:58 UTC+1, ha scritto:
Il giorno venerdì 24 marzo 2017 15:12:10 UTC+1, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 8:59:04 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 12:08:57 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 7:00:43 AM UTC-4, wrote:
The comparisons shown here only apply in the realm of light.
The square root of all measurements are required for comparisons
in the realm of matter. ...

Nope, this is not sufficient. A few vague words about square
roots and ASCII line-art drawings won't solve anything.

You really don't know what I'm talking about do you!


That's because the detailed presentation of physics is missing.

Let's summarize.
1. You claimed the incorrect speed of light was used for the Pioneer analysis. I have actually analyzed Pioneer data - the original Doppler data - and changing the speed of light by even one part per million makes the solution worse, not better. There is no better speed of light to use for Pioneer than "c."

2. All radiometric data analysis is based on a detailed physics model, which accounts for spacecraft trajectories, orbital physics, and light propagation. The presented "zero origin theory" is missing that, so there is no way it could prove or disprove anything regarding the Pioneer results.

3. The "Pioneer curve," as you like to call it, is actually a chart of a fitted acceleration parameter. It is based on the assumption and question: IF all known physics is true, PLUS there is an additional unexplained "constant" (*) spacecraft acceleration, THEN what is the magnitude of the acceleration? Using this model one obtains good fits to the data, and thus it is possible to retrieve the acceleration parameter. If one proposes to change the physics model, for example change the speed of light, that destructively worsens the solution, by factors of 1000x, and then it is no longer possible to retrieve the acceleration parameter. It thus makes no sense to talk about the "Pioneer curve."

And finally, let's recall that a paper from several years ago by Turyshev et al, which I helped contribute to, did indeed find a more mundane explanation to the Pioneer effect. When the thermal effects were more carefully considered, it was then understood that thermal emissions (and their associated radiation pressures) could explain the Pioneer accelerations, to within the tolerances of the thermal design.

CM

(*) "constant" here means a single constant acceleration per batch. Each batch has a 2-month duration I believe.


... today , somebody speaks about the Stoke'lines ( Raman ) as Stoke ' scattering ...
... if you apply it to the Pioneer ' anomaly with the same amount of Hubble Constant ( cm to km , sec. to M.y. ) , you resolve each question ( also yearly and dayly changements )..
... if you apply it to the universe , the BigBang does't exists , all galaxies are where we look its and many other questions are easier ...


1) if you report the Hubble Constant 24 km*sec*M.y.l. to cm*sec*sec , we get just the Pioneer acceleration-deceleration , because in the formula (15) of the famous arxiv ..gr../ 0104064 .. , we have at the denominator c that takes away the l. in M.y.l. ...
2) we can discuss about acceleration-deceleration , but substantially the cloks in rakets is lowering its ticking , like a red -shifted 'galaxy....
3) a Raman scattering increases his efficiency in situations of very low pressure , very low temperature , very hight coherence 'wave , very small bodies ..... or not ?
  #12  
Old March 28th 17, 06:47 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Pioneer Anomaly 2017

On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 1:12:10 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 8:59:04 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 12:08:57 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 7:00:43 AM UTC-4, wrote:
The comparisons shown here only apply in the realm of light.
The square root of all measurements are required for comparisons
in the realm of matter. ...

Nope, this is not sufficient. A few vague words about square
roots and ASCII line-art drawings won't solve anything.


You really don't know what I'm talking about do you!


That's because the detailed presentation of physics is missing.

Let's summarize.
1. You claimed the incorrect speed of light was used for the
Pioneer analysis. I have actually analyzed Pioneer data - the
original Doppler data - and changing the speed of light by even
one part per million makes the solution worse, not better.
There is no better speed of light to use for Pioneer than "c."


No. I claimed that the speed of light and distance between the
sun and Pioneer spacecraft are not as you or I would observe
from our fixed observation point on earth. Both the speed of
light and linear measurements do alter because the depth of
dimension increases in a gravity well, beyond what we assume to
be the base of dimension. I have already demonstrated how this
works. But I know it's not easy to comprehend.

2. All radiometric data analysis is based on a detailed physics
model, which accounts for spacecraft trajectories, orbital
physics, and light propagation. The presented "zero origin
theory" is missing that, so there is no way it could prove or
disprove anything regarding the Pioneer results.


The theory misses nothing. You are basing all of your
measurements on what you assume is reality with a "seeing is
believing" approach. That will never work in the zero origin
universe. And that's why the anomaly exists.

3. The "Pioneer curve," as you like to call it, is actually a
chart of a fitted acceleration parameter. It is based on the
assumption and question: IF all known physics is true, PLUS
there is an additional unexplained "constant" (*) spacecraft
acceleration, THEN what is the magnitude of the acceleration?
Using this model one obtains good fits to the data, and thus it
is possible to retrieve the acceleration parameter. If one
proposes to change the physics model, for example change the
speed of light, that destructively worsens the solution, by
factors of 1000x, and then it is no longer possible to retrieve
the acceleration parameter. It thus makes no sense to talk about
the "Pioneer curve."

And finally, let's recall that a paper from several years ago by
Turyshev et al, which I helped contribute to, did indeed find a
more mundane explanation to the Pioneer effect. When the thermal
effects were more carefully considered, it was then understood
that thermal emissions (and their associated radiation pressures)
could explain the Pioneer accelerations, to within the tolerances
of the thermal design.


I know your involvement wasn't intensive, but perhaps you could
enlighten me here.

This is a comment from one of your earlier posts:
-Anderson et al's work from 2002 and before did not reckon
-properly that amount and direction of the force, to the point
-of hand-waving.

Does that comment apply for Anderson's work as well? I hope not.

Followed by this:
-Later work like Turyshev et al (2012) had a "better" theoretical
-model which more closely matched the reality (more accurate
-physics more accurate input data).

More accurate physics? What can I say.
More accurate input data? If you consider breaking the spacecraft
up into, 3300 surface elements, 3700 nodes and 8700 linear
conductors as being more accurate, you are kidding yourself.
Breaking everything down into tiny elements is the worst
solution because that generates many thousands of places where
tiny compounding errors can go unnoticed.

Why on earth did they do that?

John Anderson thoroughly analyzed every individual component of
the spacecraft separately. Do you really think he was so far off
the mark that some computer simulation which is potentially
seriously error prone is more realistic?

Why has this potentially inaccurate analysis been so readily
accepted over Anderson's? I think it's ridiculous.

-----

Max Keon

  #13  
Old March 31st 17, 09:47 PM posted to sci.astro
Craig Markwardt[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Pioneer Anomaly 2017

On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 1:47:34 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 1:12:10 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 8:59:04 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 12:08:57 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 7:00:43 AM UTC-4, wrote:
The comparisons shown here only apply in the realm of light.
The square root of all measurements are required for comparisons
in the realm of matter. ...

Nope, this is not sufficient. A few vague words about square
roots and ASCII line-art drawings won't solve anything.

You really don't know what I'm talking about do you!


That's because the detailed presentation of physics is missing.

Let's summarize.
1. You claimed the incorrect speed of light was used for the
Pioneer analysis. I have actually analyzed Pioneer data - the
original Doppler data - and changing the speed of light by even
one part per million makes the solution worse, not better.
There is no better speed of light to use for Pioneer than "c."


No. I claimed that the speed of light and distance between the
sun and Pioneer spacecraft are not as you or I would observe
from our fixed observation point on earth. Both the speed of
light and linear measurements do alter because the depth of
dimension increases in a gravity well, beyond what we assume to
be the base of dimension. I have already demonstrated how this
works. But I know it's not easy to comprehend.


Nevertheless, changing the speed of light does not improve the Pioneer solution.


2. All radiometric data analysis is based on a detailed physics
model, which accounts for spacecraft trajectories, orbital
physics, and light propagation. The presented "zero origin
theory" is missing that, so there is no way it could prove or
disprove anything regarding the Pioneer results.


The theory misses nothing. You are basing all of your
measurements on what you assume is reality with a "seeing is
believing" approach. That will never work in the zero origin
universe. And that's why the anomaly exists.


I showed the level of technical detail which is required to perform the Pioneer analysis (see the Moyer reference). That level of detail is missing from the presented "theory."


3. The "Pioneer curve," as you like to call it, is actually a
chart of a fitted acceleration parameter. It is based on the
assumption and question: IF all known physics is true, PLUS
there is an additional unexplained "constant" (*) spacecraft
acceleration, THEN what is the magnitude of the acceleration?
Using this model one obtains good fits to the data, and thus it
is possible to retrieve the acceleration parameter. If one
proposes to change the physics model, for example change the
speed of light, that destructively worsens the solution, by
factors of 1000x, and then it is no longer possible to retrieve
the acceleration parameter. It thus makes no sense to talk about
the "Pioneer curve."


I note no response.


And finally, let's recall that a paper from several years ago by
Turyshev et al, which I helped contribute to, did indeed find a
more mundane explanation to the Pioneer effect. When the thermal
effects were more carefully considered, it was then understood
that thermal emissions (and their associated radiation pressures)
could explain the Pioneer accelerations, to within the tolerances
of the thermal design.


I know your involvement wasn't intensive, but perhaps you could
enlighten me here.

This is a comment from one of your earlier posts:
-Anderson et al's work from 2002 and before did not reckon
-properly that amount and direction of the force, to the point
-of hand-waving.

Does that comment apply for Anderson's work as well? I hope not.


Do you mean Turyshev et al's work? The answer is that the thermal modeling of Turyshev et al's paper was motivated by physics and was validated against the actual thermal data records of the entire Pioneer mission. Anderson 2002's work was a good starting point but was not sufficient for the level of detail required.


Followed by this:
-Later work like Turyshev et al (2012) had a "better" theoretical
-model which more closely matched the reality (more accurate
-physics more accurate input data).

More accurate physics? What can I say.


The physics is more accurate in the sense that for the Turyshev paper, the spacecraft was modeled using well defined and validated modeling methods. These processes have been validated against many thermal scenarios in the lab and in spacecraft environments. Compare to the Anderson 2002 method, which did a back of the envelope type calculation.

More accurate input data?


Yes, more accurate input data.
* use of actual optical/thermal properties of materials used in Pioneer spacecraft series (Anderson et al ~2 surfaces)
* use of actual Pioneer mechanical structure (Anderson et al treated plate and sphere approximations)
* use of flight RTG properties (power output) (Anderson et al assumed azimuthal symmetry)
* use of flight temperatures to validate the model (Anderson et al did not use these)
Also, the consideration of tolerances on the above items in order to derive a tolerance on the output model predictions. (Anderson et al did not consider tolerances)

... Breaking everything down into tiny elements is the worst
solution because that generates many thousands of places where
tiny compounding errors can go unnoticed.


Regardless of your feelings, this is a standard approach for spacecraft (and other) thermal modeling, with a long and validated history. Breaking a spacecraft into many pieces is required to accurately model the complex curved geometries. THEN, when that is all done with a priori inputs, the modelers compare the predicted temperatures to the actual temperatures as measured by in-flight sensors. Some small adjustments were required to bring the modeled results in line with the actual results. Thus, the results were validated. We can have confidence that if the thermal model accurately reproduces the in-flight temperatures, it should also accurately reflect the thermal emission which could contribute an effective thrust.

John Anderson thoroughly analyzed every individual component of
the spacecraft separately.


False. And by the way, Turyshev was a co-author on the Anderson 2002 paper..

Do you really think he was so far off
the mark that some computer simulation which is potentially
seriously error prone is more realistic?


The question is what tolerance was required for the analysis. Anderson et al's analysis was quite back of the envelope. A few Watts makes a difference, so it was important to treat the analysis in more detail.

I don't think you will find that John Anderson disagrees with very much that was done in Turyshev et al's paper.

CM

  #14  
Old April 5th 17, 09:14 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default Pioneer Anomaly 2017

Il giorno venerdì 31 marzo 2017 22:47:20 UTC+2, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 1:47:34 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 1:12:10 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 8:59:04 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 12:08:57 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 7:00:43 AM UTC-4, wrote:
The comparisons shown here only apply in the realm of light.
The square root of all measurements are required for comparisons
in the realm of matter. ...

Nope, this is not sufficient. A few vague words about square
roots and ASCII line-art drawings won't solve anything.

You really don't know what I'm talking about do you!

That's because the detailed presentation of physics is missing.

Let's summarize.
1. You claimed the incorrect speed of light was used for the
Pioneer analysis. I have actually analyzed Pioneer data - the
original Doppler data - and changing the speed of light by even
one part per million makes the solution worse, not better.
There is no better speed of light to use for Pioneer than "c."


No. I claimed that the speed of light and distance between the
sun and Pioneer spacecraft are not as you or I would observe
from our fixed observation point on earth. Both the speed of
light and linear measurements do alter because the depth of
dimension increases in a gravity well, beyond what we assume to
be the base of dimension. I have already demonstrated how this
works. But I know it's not easy to comprehend.


Nevertheless, changing the speed of light does not improve the Pioneer solution.


2. All radiometric data analysis is based on a detailed physics
model, which accounts for spacecraft trajectories, orbital
physics, and light propagation. The presented "zero origin
theory" is missing that, so there is no way it could prove or
disprove anything regarding the Pioneer results.


The theory misses nothing. You are basing all of your
measurements on what you assume is reality with a "seeing is
believing" approach. That will never work in the zero origin
universe. And that's why the anomaly exists.


I showed the level of technical detail which is required to perform the Pioneer analysis (see the Moyer reference). That level of detail is missing from the presented "theory."


3. The "Pioneer curve," as you like to call it, is actually a
chart of a fitted acceleration parameter. It is based on the
assumption and question: IF all known physics is true, PLUS
there is an additional unexplained "constant" (*) spacecraft
acceleration, THEN what is the magnitude of the acceleration?
Using this model one obtains good fits to the data, and thus it
is possible to retrieve the acceleration parameter. If one
proposes to change the physics model, for example change the
speed of light, that destructively worsens the solution, by
factors of 1000x, and then it is no longer possible to retrieve
the acceleration parameter. It thus makes no sense to talk about
the "Pioneer curve."


I note no response.


And finally, let's recall that a paper from several years ago by
Turyshev et al, which I helped contribute to, did indeed find a
more mundane explanation to the Pioneer effect. When the thermal
effects were more carefully considered, it was then understood
that thermal emissions (and their associated radiation pressures)
could explain the Pioneer accelerations, to within the tolerances
of the thermal design.


I know your involvement wasn't intensive, but perhaps you could
enlighten me here.

This is a comment from one of your earlier posts:
-Anderson et al's work from 2002 and before did not reckon
-properly that amount and direction of the force, to the point
-of hand-waving.

Does that comment apply for Anderson's work as well? I hope not.


Do you mean Turyshev et al's work? The answer is that the thermal modeling of Turyshev et al's paper was motivated by physics and was validated against the actual thermal data records of the entire Pioneer mission. Anderson 2002's work was a good starting point but was not sufficient for the level of detail required.


Followed by this:
-Later work like Turyshev et al (2012) had a "better" theoretical
-model which more closely matched the reality (more accurate
-physics more accurate input data).

More accurate physics? What can I say.


The physics is more accurate in the sense that for the Turyshev paper, the spacecraft was modeled using well defined and validated modeling methods. These processes have been validated against many thermal scenarios in the lab and in spacecraft environments. Compare to the Anderson 2002 method, which did a back of the envelope type calculation.

More accurate input data?


Yes, more accurate input data.
* use of actual optical/thermal properties of materials used in Pioneer spacecraft series (Anderson et al ~2 surfaces)
* use of actual Pioneer mechanical structure (Anderson et al treated plate and sphere approximations)
* use of flight RTG properties (power output) (Anderson et al assumed azimuthal symmetry)
* use of flight temperatures to validate the model (Anderson et al did not use these)
Also, the consideration of tolerances on the above items in order to derive a tolerance on the output model predictions. (Anderson et al did not consider tolerances)

... Breaking everything down into tiny elements is the worst
solution because that generates many thousands of places where
tiny compounding errors can go unnoticed.


Regardless of your feelings, this is a standard approach for spacecraft (and other) thermal modeling, with a long and validated history. Breaking a spacecraft into many pieces is required to accurately model the complex curved geometries. THEN, when that is all done with a priori inputs, the modelers compare the predicted temperatures to the actual temperatures as measured by in-flight sensors. Some small adjustments were required to bring the modeled results in line with the actual results. Thus, the results were validated. We can have confidence that if the thermal model accurately reproduces the in-flight temperatures, it should also accurately reflect the thermal emission which could contribute an effective thrust.

John Anderson thoroughly analyzed every individual component of
the spacecraft separately.


False. And by the way, Turyshev was a co-author on the Anderson 2002 paper.

Do you really think he was so far off
the mark that some computer simulation which is potentially
seriously error prone is more realistic?


The question is what tolerance was required for the analysis. Anderson et al's analysis was quite back of the envelope. A few Watts makes a difference, so it was important to treat the analysis in more detail.

I don't think you will find that John Anderson disagrees with very much that was done in Turyshev et al's paper.

CM


Around the year 2000 , i exchanged some mails with Turishev ( shall he remember me?) ; in that moment he was thinking that the Pioneers were like attracted by an unknown strengh external to the solar sistem ; i understood also a kind of discussion between Anderson and him around the sign to give to that acceleration (+ or -) ; Anderson imposed the minus (towards the sun) , because the Pioneers had two sistems of distance'reliefment in conflict ( the Doppler shift and the times of go-and-back signals ) and the + or - depended of the choice of preferred sistem...
So the main point : the absolute de-acceleration is a quantity just like to the Hubble constant and the sign was in discussion ... but the Pioneers clocks showed a clear lowering (1.5 Hz in 8 years ) and that sign had also to respect the sign of solar radiation beam and the radio beam reaction force (page 73) ...
... a conclusion : the Pioneer acceleration is like the BigBang redshift .. but ,like the BB , is a virtual shift , probabely caused by the Raman scattering ..
  #15  
Old April 5th 17, 03:31 PM posted to sci.astro
Craig Markwardt[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Pioneer Anomaly 2017

On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 4:14:11 AM UTC-4, wrote:
So the main point : the absolute de-acceleration is a quantity just like to the Hubble constant and the sign was in discussion ...


Nope. The magnitude of the acceleration of Pioneer is equivalent to the magnitude of the Hubble acceleration at a distance equivalent to redshift z=1. This is a mistake in the original Anderson et al 2002 paper.

but the Pioneers clocks showed a clear lowering (1.5 Hz in 8 years )


Nope. Absent any other evidence, the Pioneer effect *could* be modeled as ground station clocks drifting, but we have other data demonstrating that that is not occurring.

and that sign had also to respect the sign of solar radiation beam and the radio beam reaction force (page 73) ...


Nope. The direction of the anomalous acceleration was never in question to knowledgeable people. Perhaps the interpretation of whether to display it as a negative or positive sign was.

CM
  #16  
Old April 6th 17, 09:18 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default Pioneer Anomaly 2017

Il giorno mercoledì 5 aprile 2017 16:31:58 UTC+2, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 4:14:11 AM UTC-4, wrote:
So the main point : the absolute de-acceleration is a quantity just like to the Hubble constant and the sign was in discussion ...


Nope. The magnitude of the acceleration of Pioneer is equivalent to the magnitude of the Hubble acceleration at a distance equivalent to redshift z=1. This is a mistake in the original Anderson et al 2002 paper.

but the Pioneers clocks showed a clear lowering (1.5 Hz in 8 years )


Nope. Absent any other evidence, the Pioneer effect *could* be modeled as ground station clocks drifting, but we have other data demonstrating that that is not occurring.

and that sign had also to respect the sign of solar radiation beam and the radio beam reaction force (page 73) ...


Nope. The direction of the anomalous acceleration was never in question to knowledgeable people. Perhaps the interpretation of whether to display it as a negative or positive sign was.

CM


... Mr. Craig seems to me an interesting competitor .. we shall try to speak completely (?) in one point, each time ...
... first point : is quantitatively similar the magnitude of acceleration of Pioneer and Hubble constant ?
... i don't know the paper of Anderson 2002 .. modestly i know that the acceleration in the International Sistem is given in meter each sec * sec .. ..: if i translate the Pioneer 'datas 8.7cm * 10^-8 sec*sec in meter , i get 8.7 m *10^-10 sec*sec
...: if i tranlate the Hubble 'datas 25 km sec * M y , i get 25*10^3 sec *sec/ 3.1 *10^6 * 10 *6 or 8.2 m*10^-10 sec*sec ...and so the two accelerations are , in absolute value , very similar ..(NB: i have forgotten the M. y. l. , the l. of 'light' because also in Pioneer datas , this quantity was forgotten..)
Here i should like open a discussion over the Hubble Constant (many times called Hubble Inconstant ) just because this value in history (less than 100 years!) is easily changed up and down many times... personally i think that it is not a constant , but the resultat of a formula that we could read the contours . In the Pioneer it seems constant , because the contours are almost strictly definited , also in its yearly and dayly variations ..
  #17  
Old April 7th 17, 03:03 PM posted to sci.astro
Craig Markwardt[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Pioneer Anomaly 2017

On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 4:18:06 AM UTC-4, wrote:
....
.. Mr. Craig seems to me an interesting competitor .. we shall try to speak completely (?) in one point, each time ...
.. first point : is quantitatively similar the magnitude of acceleration of Pioneer and Hubble constant ?

No

.. i don't know the paper of Anderson 2002 .. modestly i know that the acceleration in the International Sistem is given in meter each sec * sec ... ..: if i translate the Pioneer 'datas 8.7cm * 10^-8 sec*sec in meter , i get 8.7 m *10^-10 sec*sec


Yes

..: if i tranlate the Hubble 'datas 25 km sec * M y , i get 25*10^3 sec *sec/ 3.1 *10^6 * 10 *6 or 8.2 m*10^-10 sec*sec ...and so the two accelerations are , in absolute value , very similar ..(NB: i have forgotten the M. y. l. , the l. of 'light' because also in Pioneer datas , this quantity was forgotten..)


Don't forget it, it's important. Hubble constant is about 75 km/s/Mpc (Mpc = megaparsec) That is a velocity change of 75 km/s for each megaparsec of distance increase. Typical escape speed for Pioneers is about 12 km/s, so (75 km/s/Mpc * 12 km/s) = 2.9e-14 m/s^2. No way this is close to 8.7e-10 m/s^2.

Now if Pioneers were traveling at the speed of light, then yes, the numbers would be comparable, but that is not the case.
CM
  #18  
Old April 9th 17, 02:24 PM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default Pioneer Anomaly 2017

Il giorno venerdì 7 aprile 2017 16:03:50 UTC+2, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 4:18:06 AM UTC-4, wrote:
...
.. Mr. Craig seems to me an interesting competitor .. we shall try to speak completely (?) in one point, each time ...
.. first point : is quantitatively similar the magnitude of acceleration of Pioneer and Hubble constant ?

No

.. i don't know the paper of Anderson 2002 .. modestly i know that the acceleration in the International Sistem is given in meter each sec * sec .. ..: if i translate the Pioneer 'datas 8.7cm * 10^-8 sec*sec in meter , i get 8.7 m *10^-10 sec*sec


Yes

..: if i tranlate the Hubble 'datas 25 km sec * M y , i get 25*10^3 sec *sec/ 3.1 *10^6 * 10 *6 or 8.2 m*10^-10 sec*sec ...and so the two accelerations are , in absolute value , very similar ..(NB: i have forgotten the M. y. l. , the l. of 'light' because also in Pioneer datas , this quantity was forgotten..)


Don't forget it, it's important. Hubble constant is about 75 km/s/Mpc (Mpc = megaparsec) That is a velocity change of 75 km/s for each megaparsec of distance increase. Typical escape speed for Pioneers is about 12 km/s, so (75 km/s/Mpc * 12 km/s) = 2.9e-14 m/s^2. No way this is close to 8.7e-10 m/s^2.

Now if Pioneers were traveling at the speed of light, then yes, the numbers would be comparable, but that is not the case.
CM


...i refer to the paper arxiv : gr ..q../010406..
1) Turyshev wrote that an other people (like me) had noted the similarity of the quantity of the Pioneer acceleration and the Hubble constant ..
2) at page 32 of the paper , the formula 15 keeps at denominator the c ( migth that authorize to write M.y.l. only M.y. ?
3) of course , i take the datas from the arxiv'paper , but the measures of distance are done with signals coming of light'speed in the two cases ( Pioneer and Hubble)
... the tipical escape'speed of 12 km.sec is not inside the question , because the anomaly is an extraspeed , out of the 12k.s. (initial speed) and the gravitational 'speed adjustments..
... i understand so the anomaly :
we have a way to understand the Pioneer' distance : the times go-and-back...
we have a way for understanding the depart'speed : the frequency of the inside cloks ..
.. many positions of distance ( in succession ) can give also the Pioneer'speed... : the lack of coincidence of calculated positions by the signal ' times and by the clock is the anomaly ! or not ?
  #19  
Old April 10th 17, 12:55 PM posted to sci.astro
Craig Markwardt[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Pioneer Anomaly 2017

On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 9:24:25 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Il giorno venerdì 7 aprile 2017 16:03:50 UTC+2, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 4:18:06 AM UTC-4, wrote:
...
.. Mr. Craig seems to me an interesting competitor .. we shall try to speak completely (?) in one point, each time ...
.. first point : is quantitatively similar the magnitude of acceleration of Pioneer and Hubble constant ?

No

.. i don't know the paper of Anderson 2002 .. modestly i know that the acceleration in the International Sistem is given in meter each sec * sec .. ..: if i translate the Pioneer 'datas 8.7cm * 10^-8 sec*sec in meter , i get 8.7 m *10^-10 sec*sec


Yes

..: if i tranlate the Hubble 'datas 25 km sec * M y , i get 25*10^3 sec *sec/ 3.1 *10^6 * 10 *6 or 8.2 m*10^-10 sec*sec ...and so the two accelerations are , in absolute value , very similar ..(NB: i have forgotten the M. y. l. , the l. of 'light' because also in Pioneer datas , this quantity was forgotten..)


Don't forget it, it's important. Hubble constant is about 75 km/s/Mpc (Mpc = megaparsec) That is a velocity change of 75 km/s for each megaparsec of distance increase. Typical escape speed for Pioneers is about 12 km/s, so (75 km/s/Mpc * 12 km/s) = 2.9e-14 m/s^2. No way this is close to 8.7e-10 m/s^2.

Now if Pioneers were traveling at the speed of light, then yes, the numbers would be comparable, but that is not the case.
CM


..i refer to the paper arxiv : gr ..q../010406..
1) Turyshev wrote that an other people (like me) had noted the similarity of the quantity of the Pioneer acceleration and the Hubble constant ..
2) at page 32 of the paper , the formula 15 keeps at denominator the c ( migth that authorize to write M.y.l. only M.y. ?


There is no equation 15 on page 32 of 0104064.pdf, but if you mean equation 57 on page 44... This was a throwaway line in the paper, and unfortunately stimulated too many people. It is meaningless numerology.

3) of course , i take the datas from the arxiv'paper , but the measures of distance are done with signals coming of light'speed in the two cases ( Pioneer and Hubble)
.. the tipical escape'speed of 12 km.sec is not inside the question , because the anomaly is an extraspeed , out of the 12k.s. (initial speed) and the gravitational 'speed adjustments..


Nope. Problem 1 of course is that the Hubble expansion is an expansion which accelerates "outward" with increased distance, whereas the Pioneer effect is an acceleration "inward." So of course the direction is totally wrong.

But even then the explanation fails. If one takes the Hubble effect as it is conventionally understood, it is an expansion of space which carries objects along with it. Hubble expansion alone at a single distance could never lead to the Pioneer effect, because the Hubble effect is a constant velocity at fixed distance (i.e. no acceleration). Fail. However, Pioneer is moving from smaller distance to larger distance at about 12 km/s so it does sample regions of smaller, then large expansion. That *does* lead to differential Hubble expansion, i.e. acceleration, *but* the magnitude is too small as already noted.

Your appeal to light speed of the measurement is not founded upon anything known about the Hubble effect. The Hubble effect is still a amount of speed change *per distance*. The Pioneer spacecraft just doesn't have a large distance (and distance is not increasing at a large rate).

CM
  #20  
Old April 11th 17, 08:46 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default Pioneer Anomaly 2017

Il giorno lunedì 10 aprile 2017 13:55:22 UTC+2, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 9:24:25 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Il giorno venerdì 7 aprile 2017 16:03:50 UTC+2, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 4:18:06 AM UTC-4, wrote:
...
.. Mr. Craig seems to me an interesting competitor .. we shall try to speak completely (?) in one point, each time ...
.. first point : is quantitatively similar the magnitude of acceleration of Pioneer and Hubble constant ?
No

.. i don't know the paper of Anderson 2002 .. modestly i know that the acceleration in the International Sistem is given in meter each sec * sec .. ..: if i translate the Pioneer 'datas 8.7cm * 10^-8 sec*sec in meter , i get 8.7 m *10^-10 sec*sec

Yes

..: if i tranlate the Hubble 'datas 25 km sec * M y , i get 25*10^3 sec *sec/ 3.1 *10^6 * 10 *6 or 8.2 m*10^-10 sec*sec ...and so the two accelerations are , in absolute value , very similar ..(NB: i have forgotten the M. y. l. , the l. of 'light' because also in Pioneer datas , this quantity was forgotten..)

Don't forget it, it's important. Hubble constant is about 75 km/s/Mpc (Mpc = megaparsec) That is a velocity change of 75 km/s for each megaparsec of distance increase. Typical escape speed for Pioneers is about 12 km/s, so (75 km/s/Mpc * 12 km/s) = 2.9e-14 m/s^2. No way this is close to 8.7e-10 m/s^2.

Now if Pioneers were traveling at the speed of light, then yes, the numbers would be comparable, but that is not the case.
CM


..i refer to the paper arxiv : gr ..q../010406..
1) Turyshev wrote that an other people (like me) had noted the similarity of the quantity of the Pioneer acceleration and the Hubble constant ..
2) at page 32 of the paper , the formula 15 keeps at denominator the c ( migth that authorize to write M.y.l. only M.y. ?


There is no equation 15 on page 32 of 0104064.pdf, but if you mean equation 57 on page 44... This was a throwaway line in the paper, and unfortunately stimulated too many people. It is meaningless numerology.

3) of course , i take the datas from the arxiv'paper , but the measures of distance are done with signals coming of light'speed in the two cases ( Pioneer and Hubble)
.. the tipical escape'speed of 12 km.sec is not inside the question , because the anomaly is an extraspeed , out of the 12k.s. (initial speed) and the gravitational 'speed adjustments..


Nope. Problem 1 of course is that the Hubble expansion is an expansion which accelerates "outward" with increased distance, whereas the Pioneer effect is an acceleration "inward." So of course the direction is totally wrong.

But even then the explanation fails. If one takes the Hubble effect as it is conventionally understood, it is an expansion of space which carries objects along with it. Hubble expansion alone at a single distance could never lead to the Pioneer effect, because the Hubble effect is a constant velocity at fixed distance (i.e. no acceleration). Fail. However, Pioneer is moving from smaller distance to larger distance at about 12 km/s so it does sample regions of smaller, then large expansion. That *does* lead to differential Hubble expansion, i.e. acceleration, *but* the magnitude is too small as already noted.

Your appeal to light speed of the measurement is not founded upon anything known about the Hubble effect. The Hubble effect is still a amount of speed change *per distance*. The Pioneer spacecraft just doesn't have a large distance (and distance is not increasing at a large rate).

CM


... my reference 'paper is arxiv:qr-qc/0104064 19Apr2001 ..page 32 chapter 5 -Original detection... at half-page we have : formula 15 .. . Vobs=Vmodel(t)*(1-2ap*t/c)... can be interpreted like a detection at light'speed?
...the Pioneer anomaly is 8.5*10^-8 cm*s*s .. is that like 8.5*10^-10 m*s*s ? and so and so ..untill 25 km*s * M.y. ?
... the distance of the Pioneers was considered in UA (in Km=space ) and in Hours/light'speed ( in time=space? ): they made the two things togheter and that could carry some confusion ..can i have right at 10% ?
...so we go to discuss the second question :the sign of de-acceleration .. then the third : is Hubble an acceleration ? ...at the end we could discuss the dayly and yearly variations , when its occur (times of the maximum and minimum) and the amounts .. ok ? of course , you can change this order ...and thanks for your patience ..
 




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
Pioneer Anomaly [email protected] Policy 7 July 21st 07 09:44 PM
30 Years of Pioneer Spacecraft Data Rescued: The Planetary Society Enables Study of the Mysterious Pioneer Anomaly [email protected] News 0 June 6th 06 05:35 PM
Pioneer anomaly Oz Research 10 October 1st 05 09:40 AM
The Pioneer Anomaly Mark F. Amateur Astronomy 4 December 25th 04 02:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:39 PM.


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.