#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 09:29 PM |