Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:29:21 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:13:40 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:48:37 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 10:43:30 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:

It doesn't matter how you look at the system: orbits are either
retrograde or not. The only mystery about it all is why you and Ben
insist on making an arcane mystery out of something completely
trivial.

I am beginning to form the opinion that you don't know what retrograde
means yourself, because you seem unwilling or unable to define the
term.

Of course I don't know what retrograde means. That's why I failed to
answer Steve Willner's question directly in the first place and relied
instead on exactly the same kind of coy evasions and lexicographical
qualifications which characterize your extemporaneous badinage on the
subject. Next time someone asks me a simple question I'll give them
one of your answers.

I'll take that as a no, then.

Take it as a definite maybe.

Lester Zick
~v~~

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:10:58 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:10:23 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:
d) Globular clusters are the youngest objects in the galaxy.

Nothing to do with gd.

You do still claim that, then.

Do still claim what?

That. That above. Pay attention.

That what? Nothing to pay attention to.

e) Globular clusters have overall angular momentum, without which they
would collapse entirely, and with which they would collapse into
disks.

Nothing to do with gd.

You still appear to claim that too.

Claim what?

That. See above.

That what?

In the absence of *any* evidence or proof, I would have to say that
they most definitely are not true.

But absent any proof to the contrary you would nonetheless have to
conclude that they most definitely are true?

No, it doesn't work like that, or we would have to accept all sorts of
nonsense. Be sensible, please.

You already accept all sorts of nonsense uncritically.

You also seem to be mocking the use of the word "whizzing" wrt stars.

So what? You're trying to say "whizzing stars" is a technical term?

Used to describe the peculiar motion of fast moving stars in globular
clusters, it will do quite nicely.

How about fast moving centers of gravity between and among stars in
globular clusters? Do they "whiz" too?

I expect so. It seems a reasonable metaphor. I noticed on one web site
that they are described as "buzzing like gnats", and that is maybe an
even better simile.

You uncritically expect rather a lot.

It does you no credit at all to
mock its use by a professional in the field who is trying to explain
to you how things work in increasingly simple language so that you
might understand.

I have yet to meet professionals whose technical lexicon included the
term "whizzing" except perhaps urologists.

I just don't quite see why self
contracted gravitational assemblages with zero net angular momentum
would not continue to contract gravitationally through their
multitudinous centers of gravity until their elastic inverse square
interactions become inelastic interactions.

That is why they tell you to study Newtonian mechanics, because then
you might just "see".

I might see what, that various centers of gravity stationary with
respect to one another fail to collapse under the influence of
universal gravitation?

Who mentioned "stationary wrt to one another?". What makes you think
stars in globular clusters are stationary? They are far from that.

Did I say "stars", sport? Pay attention for a change.

And I see lots of people
claiming that they wouldn't but not explaining why except in terms
like "whizzing" and "zooming" stars.

Please note that "whizzing" was first used in this thread by you, and
has been repeated by you ad nauseam. "Lots of people" are not claiming
anything wrt stars whizzing or zooming.

And please note that "zooming" was not first not used by me but you
sneak it in anyway with problematic claims with respect to "whizzing"
as to who said what first when you can't demonstrate that no one used
the term "whizzing" before me which seems to be pretty much the form
followed in all your miscellaneous contentions and claims.

Your logic in this matter, as with your crackpot theories, is flawed.

I only adopt crackpot theories in response to crackpots.

You also roundly mocked Craig for his use of the word "zooming" in
describing the motion of stars. He was trying to explain to you, in
words of very few syllables, what happens to stars in a globular
cluster. He was under a certain amount of pressure. You had previously
called him an idiot and an asshole, remember?

And I still do.

There you go, you see? The "discussion" will not progress very far
while you persist in throwing childish insults about.

So? The discussion will not proceed very far so long as I don't accede
to your childish demands on how the discussion should proceed when
those completely ignorant of the technical Newtonian lexicon insist on
using terms like "whizzing" and "zooming" to describe centers of
gravity which are roughly stationary with respect to one another in
globular clusters but nonetheless refuse to collapse gravitationally?

"Roughly stationary" now. How fast do they in fact move? Do you
actually know?

I know that gc's are said to possess little net angular momentum.

Exactly what "discussion" do you think we're having anyway? Do you
imagine this kind of non mechanical nonsensical badinage is anything
more than childish equivocation and babbling?

I will keep pushing you to produce some actual evidence or some actual
numbers to support your claims, because I strongly suspect that you
can't.

Nor can you.

What are you trying to do run a complaint bureau for
the thread? Fact is that these guys claim to be a technical news group
with oh so sophisticated understanding of Newtonian gravitational
mechanics that is way beyond my limited comprehension according to
them

No. Far from it. First of all "these guys" are merely posting to
sci.physics, the same as you are. Secondly, nobody has even hinted
that Newtonian gravitational mechanics are beyond your comprehension.

Horse****. Check the record. You act like a complete mental defective.

Please fee free to post references to where you were told that
Newtonian mechanics are beyond your comprehension. However, if the cap
fits...

You appear to have found many caps that fit, all of them pointed.

They would hardly advise you to study it if they thought it was beyond
you.

Of course they would because it gets me off their backs so they can
continue to pretend that centers of gravity in globular clusters
roughly stationary with respect to one another shouldn't collapse
gravitationally.

But they *aren't* stationary wrt to one another, roughly or otherwise.

Right, sport, and gc's don't have roughly zero net angular momentum
because their internal centers of gravity are not roughly stationary
with respect to one another. Good thinking. Not very mechanical but
there it is nonetheless.

Lester Zick
~v~~

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:30:46 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:00:25 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:22:13 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:39:11 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:

Retrograde orbits would eventually fall into the sun. Ecliptic orbits
can be any conic section. Non retrograde orbital inclinations will
eventually be drawn into the ecliptic plane.

Pure fantasy. For a start, you should qualify "conic section"
somewhat. I really don't think you should include the bisection of a
cone down the middle, and we still haven't been told what you
understand by the word "retrograde".

Nor have you bothered to enquire of the person who used the term in
this context initially. So much for pure fantasy.

You did say "any" conic section though. Care to qualify that?

You mean do I care to qualify the shape of your hat? Not especially.

Lester Zick
~v~~

On 17 Aug 2006 11:20:08 -0700, "GSS"
wrote:

[. . .]

In my opinion there are no 'elastic' gravitational encounters. If there
is any gravitational encounter between two stars or bigger structures,
it has to be 'inelastic' in nature. We must not neglect or disregard
this 'inelastic' nature on the pretext that this effect is 'too' small;
just as we must not neglect the gravitational field at distances of few
light years on the grounds of its smallness.

GSS, I'm beginning to appreciate what you say here with respect to the
inelastic nature of stellar collisions and I generally agree with your
interpretation. As I understand it you maintain the fluid nature of
stellar interiors results in some degree of inelastic interaction
regardless of distance. Good insight.

Lester Zick
~v~~

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:50:35 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:10:58 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:10:23 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:
d) Globular clusters are the youngest objects in the galaxy.

Nothing to do with gd.

You do still claim that, then.

Do still claim what?

That. That above. Pay attention.

That what? Nothing to pay attention to.

That globular clusters are the youngest stars in the galaxy. You still
claim that. Please don't play the thicko, it doesn't help your case,
such as it still is.

e) Globular clusters have overall angular momentum, without which they
would collapse entirely, and with which they would collapse into
disks.

Nothing to do with gd.

You still appear to claim that too.

Claim what?

That. See above.

That what?

That globular clusters have overall angular momentum, without which
they would collapse entirely, and with which they would collapse into
disks. You still claim that.

I expect so. It seems a reasonable metaphor. I noticed on one web site
that they are described as "buzzing like gnats", and that is maybe an
even better simile.

You uncritically expect rather a lot.

The quote referring to the buzzing of gnats is ascribed to Brian Yanny
of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, who even you would have
to admit knows a whole lot about globular clusters. If he feels that
comparing globular clusters to the buzzing of gnats is a suitable
simile, then that's good enough for me. The simulations do look
remarkably similar. Strangely, biologists describing swarms of small
invertebrates use words like "cluster" and "globular" too. I have no
problem with that either.

I might see what, that various centers of gravity stationary with
respect to one another fail to collapse under the influence of
universal gravitation?

Who mentioned "stationary wrt to one another?". What makes you think
stars in globular clusters are stationary? They are far from that.

Did I say "stars", sport? Pay attention for a change.

Ah, I see. You really do need to learn some Newtonian stuff. The stars
move, and interact with each other gravitationally. You cannot produce
various "centres of gravity" out of a hat as it were, and then treat
them as objects in their own right. Well, you just did, I know, but
you shouldn't.

You also roundly mocked Craig for his use of the word "zooming" in
describing the motion of stars. He was trying to explain to you, in
words of very few syllables, what happens to stars in a globular
cluster. He was under a certain amount of pressure. You had previously
called him an idiot and an asshole, remember?

And I still do.

There you go, you see? The "discussion" will not progress very far
while you persist in throwing childish insults about.

So? The discussion will not proceed very far so long as I don't accede
to your childish demands on how the discussion should proceed when
those completely ignorant of the technical Newtonian lexicon insist on
using terms like "whizzing" and "zooming" to describe centers of
gravity which are roughly stationary with respect to one another in
globular clusters but nonetheless refuse to collapse gravitationally?

"Roughly stationary" now. How fast do they in fact move? Do you
actually know?

I know that gc's are said to possess little net angular momentum.

The stars in globular clusters are far from stationary. They, er,
whizz about like anything. It takes as little as a million years or so
for a star to go all the way from one side to the other. It would be
*highly* unlikely that you could find any two stars that had a
stationary common centre of gravity, and even if you did, it would
have no special significance.

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

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:57:14 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:30:46 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:00:25 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:22:13 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:39:11 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:

Retrograde orbits would eventually fall into the sun. Ecliptic orbits
can be any conic section. Non retrograde orbital inclinations will
eventually be drawn into the ecliptic plane.

Pure fantasy. For a start, you should qualify "conic section"
somewhat. I really don't think you should include the bisection of a
cone down the middle, and we still haven't been told what you
understand by the word "retrograde".

Nor have you bothered to enquire of the person who used the term in
this context initially. So much for pure fantasy.

You did say "any" conic section though. Care to qualify that?

You mean do I care to qualify the shape of your hat? Not especially.

So, are you still claiming that an ecliptic orbit can be *any* conic
section?

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

Craig Markwardt wrote:
"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

It would be much less fun.

I just follow the footsteps of some famous guys...

Also, I listen to others when they point out the mistakes I make.

Now, it would be nice if the cosmognomia also would listen about the
idiotic mistake they made: namely to identify the Hubble redshift with
the Doppler effect. There is no basis for that!

Cheers,
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com

Steve Willner wrote:
", it
isn't at all clear what the galaxy "building blocks" might have been.
Furthermore, the existence of very massive galaxies so quickly after
the Big Bang tells us that hierarchical assembly probably isn't the
whole story. Somehow those galaxies had to form very quickly indeed,
and it isn't obvious that hierarchical assembly can do the job.
(Mind you, these massive galaxies are rather rare, so unusual or
unlikely events to assemble them suffice.)"

Now, in my understanding there is infinite time to get the hierarchical
assembly to work.
These observations prove that the photon energy loss is the cause of
Hubble redshift and not a Doppler effect, there was no big bang.

Will the academia ever recognize the obvious?!


As I say, this is a hot research topic. I expect considerable
progress over the next few years, but I doubt we'll have a solid
understanding until JWST flies, if then.

--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com/stolmar2.pdf

Lester Zick wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:03:47 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Lester Zick" wrote in message
.. .
On 15 Aug 2006 20:03:15 -0700, "Aladar"
wrote:
..
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!

And what's the mechanical basis for this conclusion?

Aladar likes the theory commonly known as "Tired Light"
first proposed by Zwicky in 1929:

Well there may in fact be more to the idea than meets the eye.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

May be because all the observations prove that the photon energy loss
is the truth, and the bigbangology is the bull****?!

Cheers!
http://stolmarphysics.com/stolmar2.pdf


George


Lester Zick
~v~~

On 19 Aug 2006 02:43:57 -0700, "Aladar"
wrote:


Lester Zick wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:03:47 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Lester Zick" wrote in message
.. .
On 15 Aug 2006 20:03:15 -0700, "Aladar"
wrote:
..
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!

And what's the mechanical basis for this conclusion?

Aladar likes the theory commonly known as "Tired Light"
first proposed by Zwicky in 1929:

Well there may in fact be more to the idea than meets the eye.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

May be because all the observations prove that the photon energy loss
is the truth, and the bigbangology is the bull****?!

It might be if you knew what you were talking about. As it is you're
just talking.

Cheers!
http://stolmarphysics.com/stolmar2.pdf


George


Lester Zick
~v~~

Lester Zick
~v~~