Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous

"Aladar" wrote in message
oups.com...
Dear George,

You know very well that the POLITICS in physics allows only the big
bang cosmognomia.

I know very well that you are incapable of facing the
truth and hide behind a facade of paranoia.

In the light of this fact the cited statement could
be read as you wish. If you wish, it means that the measured effect is
a lower than expected frequency returned (just fine for me) or (as is
alleged, but never shown clearly - as fits for bigbangology) the effect
is a higher then expected returned frequency.

If they wanted to show support for big bang cosmology,
they would pretend it matched, not pretend it didn't!

Of course reality is that they cannot pretend anything
because the data is publically available.

Why, do you think this simple fact never been shown?!

The FACT is that the anomaly is 16000 times larger
than the Hubble Law and is an increased frequency.

George Dishman wrote:
Aladar wrote:
Dear George,

The only blunt statement about "shown to be impossible" five years ago
was that the direction of the frequency shift is to the "blueshift"
direction.

That it is a blue shift is a known fact that is stated
clearly in the paper as I quoted. What is impossible
is that the study could measure the Hubble Law
effect because its effect is considerably smaller than
the uncertainty in the radio beam power, a systematic
effect that cannot be removed by mathetical means.

Except the way they did it: accumulating the light (EM photon) travel
time and the corresponding effect.

You know I was sure you would say that. I explained
it to you several times and you have had several
_years_ to go away and learn the difference between
a systematic error and a random error and what that
means for processing the data and yet here you are
making the same mistake you did last time. Well I'm
not going to waste my time trying to educate you
again, go and find out for yourself why accumulating
or averaging data has no effect on a systematic bias.

Hence: - it just was stated, never actually presented - the
received signal frequency was somewhat higher then expected.

Now, what really puzzles me that in the latest version the authors
still compare it to the Hubble effect. How come?!

Citation please, which document and
whereabouts in it?

Same paper march of 2005 v5.

The only mention there is the noted match of a_P
with the product c * H but that's not new, it was
always in the paper. The amount of redshift is
given by 2 * v * H where v is the speed of the
craft.

"v_model is the modeled velocity of the spacecraft due
to the gravitational and other large forces discussed in
Section IV. (This velocity is outwards and hence
produces a red shift.) We have already included the
sign showing that a_P is inward. (Therefore, a_P
produces a slight blue shift on top of the larger red shift.)"

Note: there is so many way to cover the real thing: less frequency...

The statement is clear and unambiguous, the
anomaly is a blue shift.

Looking from where?

The paragraph is quite clear, it says the outward velocity
of the craft produces a red shift. That defines the sense.
Then it says the anomaly produces a blue shift. That means
it is the opposite of the Doppler effect produced by the
speed of the craft leaving thesolar system. That means the
anomaly is an increase in the received frequency compared
to what was expected.

2. A.S. inquired about the anomaly reported that in the Doppler
shift of the
returned from the spacecraft signal there is an excess drift toward
lower than
expected frequency values, or it is an excess redshift, showing an
elevated
recession velocity over the real recession.

AS was told by Slava Turyshev that in fact there is a
drift toward higher than expected frequency values, or it
is an excess blue shift (as stated above) showing a
reduced recession velocity compared to that modelled.

Where?! They are dealing with beat frequencies.

In the email you got from Slava which you posted to
the group.

You mean after the politics really got ugly?!

No after you got him ****ed off by continually refusing
to listen to what he was telling you, that the frequency
was higher than expected.

I have shown the different representation ...

Yes, and Slava told you it was wrong repeatedly but you
refused to listen.

No, it is a blue shift as stated in the clarifying text and
independently confirmed by Markwardt:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208046

No. The values were checked, not the direction of the frequency drift.

Both the value, which is four orders of magnitude greater
than your claim, and the direction were checked.

Of the beat frequency, and the cumulative values corresponding to light
travel time. What are you talking about?!

I am telling you that Craig confirmed directly from the raw
data that the anomaly is four orders of magnitude larger
than Hubble's Law and of the wrong sign. Craig has previously
told you the same himself.

George

"Lester Zick" wrote in message
...

If this is posted in reply to me it's misdirected.

On 15 Aug 2006 05:52:40 -0700, "Aladar"
wrote:

No Lester, Aladar is a kook from about 5 years ago. He
argued with me for over 2000 posts in just one thread
that the anomaly was in the opposite direction to what
it really is and thousands of times smaller so that it
could be just the usual cosmological redshift. He seems
to think that would be a problem for the Big bang model
but of course it would merely confirm an aspect we
already know from measurement of the redshift of distant
galaxies.

It isn't directed at you at all but at Craig Markwardt
and myself.

HTH
George

"Lester Zick" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:23:17 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

....
If you want the answer to the question to claim
to be asking, read this page:

I'd really prefer you to advance your own arguments for a change,
George, since we both seem to have a difficult time judging exactly
which claim you seem to imagine I'm advancing versus which claim I'm
actually advancing. No more of this extraneous citation nonsense.

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-20-04.html

In particular read the last sentence of the second
paragraph and both sentences in the third paragraph
of the summary.

You know, George, this would be almost funny if you had any idea what
I was actually saying. Why don't you make your own arguments for what
you imagine I'm saying instead of just imagining what you think I'm
saying? Then we can tell right away whether you've gotten the idea
straight instead of trying to decipher references which may or may not
bear on what I'm actually saying?

Why don't you just read it and find out if it provides
the answer you are looking for. I think it does, but
if not tell me why and I'll have a better idea of what
you want. It is only three sentences so it will take
you less time than reading this post.

George

"Lester Zick" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:26:59 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Lester Zick" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:32:39 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

snip

I can add 200 million to another number, the
question is can you.

But what you can't seem to add is sensible arguments to this
conversation.

Read the pages, you'll find out why.

Why you can't seem to add sensible arguments to this conversation? I
can hardly wait for that explanation.

As I said, read the page and you'll find out why.

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-20-04.html

George

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:33:56 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Let me see if I can simplify it for you.

If you could look down on the Earth and Moon from someplace
in space far above the North pole, the planet is spinning
anti-clockwise and the Moon moves anti-clockwise as well.

If the Moon's orbit were "retrograde", that means it would
be moving clockwise, opposite to the spin of the Earth.

Alternatively if we keep the Moon orbiting anti-clockwise
but reverse the spin of the Earth then again they are
opposite.

Why I said it is equivalent is because the second condition
(Earth's spin reversed) seen from a point below the south pole
is identical to the first condition (Moon's orbit reversed)
seen from above the north pole. In both cases the Earth is
rotating anti-clockwise while the Moon is revolving clockwise.

I think (hope) Ben understood that.

Yes.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dear George,

It is fun! Remember!

George Dishman wrote:
"Aladar" wrote in message
oups.com...
Dear George,

You know very well that the POLITICS in physics allows only the big
bang cosmognomia.

I know very well that you are incapable of facing the
truth and hide behind a facade of paranoia.

Are you the one who will tell the truth?

I hope, you know by now that the interpretation of Hubble redshift as a
sign of expansion and creation in a big bang is anything but the truth!


In the light of this fact the cited statement could
be read as you wish. If you wish, it means that the measured effect is
a lower than expected frequency returned (just fine for me) or (as is
alleged, but never shown clearly - as fits for bigbangology) the effect
is a higher then expected returned frequency.

If they wanted to show support for big bang cosmology,
they would pretend it matched, not pretend it didn't!

Of course reality is that they cannot pretend anything
because the data is publically available.

Indeed, and because of it it is very hard to defend the bigbangology!
However, the gang of Goldin at al have to cover up the useless spending
on the cosmognomia.


Why, do you think this simple fact never been shown?!

The FACT is that the anomaly is 16000 times larger
than the Hubble Law and is an increased frequency.

What I have seen, it was an accumulation of the photon progression
(travel) times and the associated with it increase of frequency shift.
We know only one such phenomena, the Hubble discovered redshift vs
distance relation. Unfortunately, if this would be the case (IS THE
TRUTH) the big band, expanding Universe idiotic notions have to be
thrown out the window! At the time, when the entire academia and NASA
purs the massive amounts of money into this stupidity!


George Dishman wrote:
Aladar wrote:
Dear George,

The only blunt statement about "shown to be impossible" five years ago
was that the direction of the frequency shift is to the "blueshift"
direction.

That it is a blue shift is a known fact that is stated
clearly in the paper as I quoted. What is impossible
is that the study could measure the Hubble Law
effect because its effect is considerably smaller than
the uncertainty in the radio beam power, a systematic
effect that cannot be removed by mathetical means.

Except the way they did it: accumulating the light (EM photon) travel
time and the corresponding effect.

You know I was sure you would say that. I explained
it to you several times and you have had several
_years_ to go away and learn the difference between
a systematic error and a random error and what that
means for processing the data and yet here you are
making the same mistake you did last time. Well I'm
not going to waste my time trying to educate you
again, go and find out for yourself why accumulating
or averaging data has no effect on a systematic bias.

You never learned what they realy did to discover the anomaly?!

Let me run it by you, again: they found a residual frequency shift in
each of the measurement. They added these anomalous shifts and plotted
against the photon travel times also added, to represent the
corresponding cumulative distance. Just to make it more fun, they
represented the distance the photon traveled in this cumulative sense
as calendar time from the start of the data collection. (They had
plenty excess data sets to cover the real calendar time with photn
travel time).


Hence: - it just was stated, never actually presented - the
received signal frequency was somewhat higher then expected.

Now, what really puzzles me that in the latest version the authors
still compare it to the Hubble effect. How come?!

Citation please, which document and
whereabouts in it?

Same paper march of 2005 v5.

The only mention there is the noted match of a_P
with the product c * H but that's not new, it was
always in the paper. The amount of redshift is
given by 2 * v * H where v is the speed of the
craft.


So somone somehow sending the mesage...

"v_model is the modeled velocity of the spacecraft due
to the gravitational and other large forces discussed in
Section IV. (This velocity is outwards and hence
produces a red shift.) We have already included the
sign showing that a_P is inward. (Therefore, a_P
produces a slight blue shift on top of the larger red shift.)"

Note: there is so many way to cover the real thing: less frequency...

The statement is clear and unambiguous, the
anomaly is a blue shift.

Looking from where?

The paragraph is quite clear, it says the outward velocity
of the craft produces a red shift. That defines the sense.
Then it says the anomaly produces a blue shift. That means
it is the opposite of the Doppler effect produced by the
speed of the craft leaving thesolar system. That means the
anomaly is an increase in the received frequency compared
to what was expected.

Why don't they say so?! And, first of all, why don't they produce the
representative sets of all the frequencies?! It would be too simple, I
guess.... Or... may be ... there are forces not letting them to present
the real thing...


2. A.S. inquired about the anomaly reported that in the Doppler
shift of the
returned from the spacecraft signal there is an excess drift toward
lower than
expected frequency values, or it is an excess redshift, showing an
elevated
recession velocity over the real recession.

AS was told by Slava Turyshev that in fact there is a
drift toward higher than expected frequency values, or it
is an excess blue shift (as stated above) showing a
reduced recession velocity compared to that modelled.

Where?! They are dealing with beat frequencies.

In the email you got from Slava which you posted to
the group.

You mean after the politics really got ugly?!

No after you got him ****ed off by continually refusing
to listen to what he was telling you, that the frequency
was higher than expected.

I have shown the different representation ...

Yes, and Slava told you it was wrong repeatedly but you
refused to listen.

May be I'm blocking something from my memory...


No, it is a blue shift as stated in the clarifying text and
independently confirmed by Markwardt:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208046

No. The values were checked, not the direction of the frequency drift.

Both the value, which is four orders of magnitude greater
than your claim, and the direction were checked.

Of the beat frequency, and the cumulative values corresponding to light
travel time. What are you talking about?!

I am telling you that Craig confirmed directly from the raw
data that the anomaly is four orders of magnitude larger
than Hubble's Law and of the wrong sign. Craig has previously
told you the same himself.

George

Really?

The key to the understanding of what's being reported is the
understanding of accumulation of the residual redshift and of the
corresponding light times. As I recall my understanding of this issue
was always correct (this is what they did) and you never could
understand this.

Indeed, this issue is a fundamental one: if I'm right - as I'm - the
physics as we know has to be discarded. (No worries, I already has one
to replace it.)

Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com

"Jeff Root" writes:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap980826.html

Explanation: Spanning the sky behind the majestic Clouds of
Magellan is an unusual stream of gas: the Magellanic Stream.
The origin of this gas might hold a clue to origin and fate
of our Milky Way's most famous satellite galaxies: the LMC
and the SMC. Two leading genesis hypotheses have surfaced:
that the stream was created by gas stripped off these galaxies
as they passed through the halo of our Milky Way, or that the
stream was created by the differential gravitational tug of
the Milky Way. Measurements of slight angular motions by the
Hipparcos satellite have indicated that the Clouds are leading
the Stream. Now, recent radio measurements have located fresh
gas emerging from the Clouds, bolstering the later, tidal
explanation. Most probably, in a few hundred million years,
the Magellanic Clouds themselves will fall victim to this
same tidal force.

I've seen a lot of APoD entries, but missed this one.

I'm confused. Naively, I would think that the Clouds
leading the stream would support the notion that the gas
has been stripped by friction with gas in the galactic
halo, while the Clouds themselves -- stars *AND* gas
equally -- being spread out both ahead of and trailing
the main body of the Cloud would support the notion that
the disruption was caused by differential gravitation.

So, why does the APoD caption imply that the Hipparcos
measurements which show that the Magellenic Clouds are
leading (ahead of) the stream(s?) of gas coming from
them is support for the tidal hypothesis?

I don't think it said that. It was the *radio* observations that
favored the tidal hypothesis. The CSIRO web page linked by the APOD
story is now dead, but it has moved to:

http://www.csiro.au/news/mediarel/mr1998/mr98194.html

It's pretty clear that the new gas was escaping the Clouds on the
*leading* side.

Craig

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig B. Markwardt, Ph.D. EMAIL:
Astrophysics, IDL, Finance, Derivatives | Remove "net" for better response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

writes:
....
Most often in discussions as well as in modeling of globular clusters a
'statistical' as well as 'dynamical' equilibrium is *assumed*. The
stars in a cluster are often viewed just like the molecules in a gas
cloud. I had clarified last time that since the dominant interaction of
molecules is through 'repulsive contact' forces and the interaction of
stars in a GC is through 'long range attractive' forces, the dynamics
of stars *can not* be compared with that of the molecules.

The analogy to molecules was my own, not necessarily one of common
practice. Like any analogy, it has its strengths and its flaws.

It is certainly *not* true that the equilibrium of clusters is
assumed. It is possible to measure the speeds of individual stars
(via Doppler shift) and the mass density of stars (via star counts)
and show that globular clusters are in a state of approximate
equilibrium. [ references to observational substantiation of my
claims are in previous posts. ]


Further, the stars in a GC are often treated as point masses. A star
can be treated as a point mass only when we are considering its
gravitational field 'outside' its physical boundary. But when we
consider the effect of any external gravitational field on a star, we
cannot treat it as a point mass. Due to the fluid structure and large
size of a star, the differential gravitational effects (so called tidal
effects) on a star will often be very significant.

As I and others already pointed out, it is strictly true that no
encounter is perfectly elastic. However the question is *how
significant* is the dissipation of kinetic energy and how often? The
tidal stresses on two bodies decreases as the separation distance
*cubed* (not squared), and so are usually weak. As shown by textbooks
like Binney & Tremaine (Ch. 8.4), the timescale for inelastic
encounters in a typical GC is longer than their lifetime (Hubble
time), except for perhaps in the core of a core collapsed cluster.
The close approaches needed for inelastic encounters is just don't
happen often enough to be significant.


....
Therefore, with all inelastic gravitational encounters among stars in a
GC, it is just possible that a GC may never achieve a 'dynamical'
equilibrium state during its 'lifetime', contrary to the general
presumption.

.... or it is more possible that globular clusters remain near
equilibrium, with very mild dissipative processes (including tidal
disruption, evaporative removal of stars, inelastic encounters) which
act on a time scale longer than a Hubble time.

....
As against the presumed 'equilibrium' configuration of stars in a GC,
let us consider an early star formation stage configuration of a large
GC. Let us assume the outer radius of this GC to be about 100 light
years (LY), with a population of a few million stars of one solar mass
each. Let the approximate separation between any two adjoining stars be
one LY. Let one star be located at the center of this GC. Consider 100
spherical surfaces with radii of 1 LY, 2 LY, 3 LY, ... 99 LY, 100 LY
respectively. Let 12 stars be located with their centers on the first
spherical surface, 48 stars be located with their centers on the second
spherical surface, ... 12 n^2 stars be located with their centers on
the n-th spherical surface. Finally let us assume that *initially* each
of these stars possesses negligible KE.

Note: this is not necessarily a valid assumption.

... Now let us attempt to figure
out as to how the stars in this GC will progress towards a state of
'dynamical' equilibrium in which they will be *seen* as "whizzing" and
"zooming" at high speeds.

At this stage let me introduce a physical principle as per which the
gravitational field inside a hollow cavity of a uniform sphere is
identically zero, provided the distribution of matter in the spherical
shell is symmetrical. Making use of this principle, let us consider a
spherical cavity at the center of this GC with a diameter of 3 LY. If
there were no stars located within this cavity, the gravitational field
due to millions of stars located outside will be identically zero
within this cavity. If we now consider 1+12 stars located within this
cavity, clearly they will not experience any gravitational influence
from the stars located outside. Therefore we can easily compute the
gravitational interaction of the innermost 1+12 stars.

Kindly let me know the individual considered opinions of all of you,
whether in about a million years or two, these 1+12 innermost stars in
the GC are likely to,
(a) Collapse and merge at the center?
(b) A few will merge and others will form stable orbits?
(c) A few will form binaries and others will 'evaporate'?
(d) No collapsing or merging but all stars will start "whizzing" and
"zooming" past each other.

If many stars are arranged in the manner you described, with initial
velocity of precisely zero, then of course the stars would collapse to
a point. Just as the planets would fall into the sun if you arranged
them in their present locations with zero orbital velocity.[*]

Your scenario is irrelevant because your initial conditions are
completely unsubstantiated by observations. In fact, as already cited
in previous posts, Globular clusters are filled with stars that have a
small net rotation (when averaged over many stars), but also a large
random scatter of velocities. On average, the kinetic energy of stars
is comparable to the gravitational potential energy (i.e. near
equilibrium).

-----
[*] However, if we consider just for the sake of argument what happens
to the system you describe, but assume that the individual stars have
small initial random motions, then I would opine that choices (b) (c)
and (d) would all happen. The twelve particular stars you mention
would form some complicated 12-body system, not necessarily stable.
Perhaps some would collide. The stars in exterior shells would come
plunging through the center and interact, further randomizing the
trajectories of both populations. Eventually the "shells" would
become mixed.

Since you started the system so far from equilibrium (all potential
energy and no kinetic energy), of course there will be a violent
relaxation period. If we look at the system from an energy
perspective, we have an initial total energy comprised of only potential:
E_init = (K.E. + P.E.)_init = - (3/5) * (G Mtot^2) / R_init [1]
where M_init is the total mass and R_init is the initial radius. After
approaching equilibrium, the virial theorem should apply, in which
case, the kinetic energy is equal to half of the potential.
(K.E.)_eq = - (1/2) * (P.E.)_eq [2]
so the total energy is,
E_eq = (K.E. + P.E.)_eq = (1/2) (P.E.)_eq = - (3/10) (G M_eq^2) / R_eq [3]

Assuming conservation of mass and energy, we can set the two energies
in equations [1] and [3] equal to each other and cancel, leaving
E_eq = E_init [4]
1/(2*R_eq) = 1/R_init

R_eq = R_init / 2 [5]

or, upon reaching equilibrium, the system will have contracted to one
half of the initial radius. But that is the stable *equilibrium*
radius; the system won't contract further by definition.

If energy is dissipated by the system, or mass is lost, then the
equality of equation [4] does not hold, but it becomes an inequality,
E_eq = E_init [6]

1/(2*R_eq) = 1/R_init

R_eq = R_init / 2 . [7]

In other words, the equilibrium radius would be *larger* if mass or
kinetic energy were dissipated from the system, not smaller.

Note again, this is derivation only applies to your contrived example,
not to present-day globular clusters.

------

....
Isn't it quite likely that the evolution of a galaxy may take the
following steps?

(a) Vast regions of homogeneous density of stellar gas (and dust) may
first 'condense' under extremely weak gravitational forces into regions
of inhomogeneous density with significant radial density gradients from
their central zones.

(b) The star formation in such inhomogeneous density clouds of stellar
gas (and dust) may commence from their central high density zones and
gradually spread out to the outermost zones to constitute the structure
of a GC.

(c) A large number of GC's may keep merging together gradually to form
the so called dwarf galaxies.

(d) A large number of dwarf galaxies and GC's may keep merging together
gradually to form major galaxies like our Milky Way galaxy.

I don't necessarily agree with all of your specific descriptions, but
I believe the conventional wisdom is that smaller galaxies like
globular clusters and dwarfs formed first, and that some of these
coalesced into larger galaxies later. [ i.e. paralleling the concept
that GCs are very old objects. ]

Gravitational tidal forces may be playing a dominant role in all of the
above steps.

Tidal forces on the scale of individual stars? Not likely, for the
reasons noted above. Tidal forces on the scales of whole galaxies?
Very likely (examples: the LMC and SMC; the Antennae merging
galaxies).

CM

"Aladar" writes:
Just to bring some perspective...

Your "perspective" is irrelevant since it is not substantiated by
anything other than your erroneous opinions.


2. A.S. inquired about the anomaly reported that in the Doppler
shift of the returned from the spacecraft signal there is an excess
drift toward lower than expected frequency values, or it is an
excess redshift, showing an elevated recession velocity over the
real recession.

This claim is erroneous, as shown by both the Anderson et al and
Markwardt analyses.

3. This excess redshift is represented on Figure 8. on page 36 in a
cumulative form. X-axis is showing the accumulated distance [in
light days] and on the Y-axis the corresponding excess redshift
values could be read with negative sign, in Doppler velocity
form. The down slope of curve indicates an increasing with the
distance excess redshift trend.

Again erroneous (c.f. Markwardt gr-qc/0208046 Figure 1).

In the event JPL or others dispute the validity of the above
statements, I request full unrestricted and funded access to the
related data for independent evaluation.

Lame. You have access to the data with as much funding for the project
as I did (i.e. none), and you just punted..

On my part the only change is :Hd=4.115 Gy as per
http://stolmarphysics.com/

Interesting. Let's review.

[ Stolmar, April 2001: ]
: I add the repeated challenge here also: if you can show that the
: Hd photon half-life constant is Hd18.525 billion years or Hd
: 18.523 billion years, I also will shut-up.

[ Stolmar, May 2001: ]
: I made my choice: Hd = 9.262 billion years is the correct value
: for the photon's energy half-life. ..

[ Stolmar, today: ]
: On my part the only change is :Hd=4.115 Gy as per

Why haven't you honored your April 2001 promise?

CM

wrote:
... I have
also followed the links provided by George and found them quite
informative.

I'll try to reply to your lengthy post this evening, though
Craig has probably covered most of what I might say.
However, you might be intereted in this link which
gives the conventional calculations on which the theory
is based. Not that it specifically mentions that several
of the processes occur on similar timescales hence
cannot be considered in isolation. That somewhat
limits the scope for 'simplifying assumptions':

http://www.maths.tcd.ie/EMIS/journal...sta/node5.html

There is background in the previous 'nodes':

http://www.maths.tcd.ie/EMIS/journal...sta/node3.html

http://www.maths.tcd.ie/EMIS/journal...sta/node4.html

I had withdrawn from your discussions because being an
'outsider' to this field and without possessing sufficient information
about the subject my viewpoint may not carry any 'weight'.

Don't get the wrong impression, I too am an 'outsider', I am
a communications engineer looking at astropyhics purely as
a hobby. The web pages I quote are mostly from reputable
sources where possible.

George