Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous

"Joe Jakarta" wrote in message
oups.com...

George Dishman wrote:
"Finder" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"greysky" wrote in message
.net...

"Finder" wrote in message
reenews.net...


Their model is very slightly off, and needs no adjusting.

Only 8,000 miles off after 34 years at flying 27,000 mph is
Excellent!

I doubt that we can even measure 8,000 mi at that distance anyway.

It's 8,000 miles per year. Add it up since the early 1980's and you
have
a big problem with gravitational theory.



Bullpuppy.

It travels 236,520,000 in one year, and it is within 0.000338% of
expected.

The mass of the sun is not known to that precision, nor the mass of the
spacecraft.

The anomaly is a linear variation of speed from the
trajectory which is the best fit to the data. Any
adjustment to the mass (strictly the GM product) for
the Sun would have an effect that varied as the
inverse square of the distance instead of proportional
to distance which is what is observed.

EM waves vary according to an inverse-first-power law.

That's the amplitude, what is measured is the
frequency which is unaffected by distance.

George

"Joe Jakarta" wrote in message
ups.com...

Martin Hogbin wrote:
"Joe Jakarta" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...4583414B7F0000

Where's *your* money, ladies and gentlemen?

My money is still on something in the spacecraft.

It might be hard to get back.

He might have a very long piece of string.

George

"Joe Jakarta" wrote in message
oups.com...

....
Can the "no effect on planets" argument also be used to rule out wacky
ideas
about the speed of light changing?

Just for the record. Are there *wacky* ideas about the speed of light
changing, and *sensible* ideas about the speed of light changing?

All things in science are subject to confirmation by
observation. The possibility that what we take as
constants might actually change very slowly is no
exception. Ned Wright's news page mentions a new
measurement from late last year:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#13Dec05

Click the graph at the right hand side. The new result
places a tighter constraint on any variation but of
course no matter how well we measure, we can never rule
out a change slightly less than we can detect.

George

CWatters wrote:
"Richard Saam" wrote in message
...
Summary Motion data:

Pioneer 10 about 28,000 mph 1,250,000 cm/sec (sun reference)
Pioneer 11 about 26,000 mph 1,160,000 cm/sec (sun reference)
with deceleration for both at (8.74 ± 1.33) x 10^(-8) cm/sec2
(5.99 ± 0.01) x 10^(-9) Hz/s
and the pioneer spacecraft rotational spin rates
Pioneer 10 about 4 rpm (2,581 cm/sec tip speed)
Pioneer 11 about 7 rpm (4,517 cm/sec tip speed)
with deceleration for both at .0067 rpm/year
Moment of inertia = 5.88E9 g cm^2
Mass = 241,000 gram
Area = 58,965 cm2


Logically
It can be concluded that
deceleration is independent of observation coordinate


Ok so I've no idea what I'm talking about really but....

If spacetime were quantized would energy be required to move objects between
each quantum "position"?

Yes
and each cobblestone of potential energy = mc^2 imparted to moving objects
like the reverse engine thrust action on landing aircraft

Could that be the cause... a bit like driving over
a cobbled road? Would that explain why the effect is independant of the
coordinate system?

Yes - the c^2 provides the constancy to the concept.

And objects with large area to mass ratios (dust)
would be much affected (measurably decelerated)
and objects with small area to mass ratios (planets)
would be much less affected (immeasurably decelerated).


It would also explain clumps of galactic dark matter
as dust clouds hung up in this vast array of quantum cobblestones
gravitationally affecting rotational movements of galactic star systems
by their presence.

This a good conceptual idea.

Richard

"Richard Saam" wrote in message
...
And objects with large area to mass ratios (dust)
would be much affected (measurably decelerated)
and objects with small area to mass ratios (planets)
would be much less affected (immeasurably decelerated).

So probably wouldn't effect a dense object like a spaceship?

If it did would we learn anything by comparing the effect on an objects
rotation with the effect on it's translation?

CWatters wrote:
"Richard Saam" wrote in message
...

And objects with large area to mass ratios (dust)
would be much affected (measurably decelerated)
and objects with small area to mass ratios (planets)
would be much less affected (immeasurably decelerated).


So probably wouldn't effect a dense object like a spaceship?


Probably not detectable for something large enough to support man.

If it did would we learn anything by comparing the effect on an objects
rotation with the effect on it's translation?


Generally, it would anticipated that if translation is affected
then rotation would be affected
but the numbered relationship could vary considerably.

Assuming the Pioneer was just on the border

Moment of inertia (MOI) = 5.88E9 g cm2
Mass (M) = 241,000 gram
Area (A) = 58,965 cm2

of detecting this deceleration anomaly

translational (8.74 ± 1.33) x 10^(-8) cm/sec2
rotational .0067 rpm/year,

I would like to see spacecraft launched to 10 AU

Moment of inertia (MOI) = 5.88E9 g cm2
Mass (M) = 241,000 gram
Area (A) = 58,965 cm2

in order to perhaps observe a more pronounced deceleration affect.

Now for your question:


If it did would we learn anything by comparing the effect on an objects
rotation with the effect on it's translation?

Assume a spacecraft designed like a spinning top
small enough to encounter deceleration affect.

I would anticipate that spinning deceleration would be constant
from any spinning top viewing angle.

Translational deceleration would be proportional to the projected area viewed
or in other words
it would be greater when viewed parallel to spin axis
(large projected area viewed)
than when viewed 90 degrees from spin axis
(small projected area viewed)

In general,it would be good to have a range of spacecraft
launched to 10 AU
at varied declination and hour angle to celestial sphere
with a spectrum of MOI's, M's and A's
(with potentially interfering transmitted EM radiation minimized)
to test this Anomaly.

Richard

Joe Jakarta wrote:
Joe Jakarta wrote:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...4583414B7F0000


"Anderson and theorist Michael M. Nieto of Los Alamos National
Laboratory have proposed a way to filter the ideas, noting the
interesting fact that the direction of the anomalous force would be
different for each theory. If the force points toward the sun, then it
should be a gravitational effect. If it points toward Earth, it should
be an anomaly relating to the velocity of light. If it points in the
direction of motion, it should be a drag force or a modification of
inertia. And finally, if it points along the spin axis of the probes,
it should indicate a force generated by the craft. ..."


Rough data for Pioneer 11 indicate that

"The anomalous acceleration was present ... at shorter distances, as
far in as ~10 AU.

"... also ... that the anomaly may be much smaller at distances 10
AU. It appears to be amplified (or turned on) at a distance of ~10 AU
from the Sun. This is approximately when the craft flew by Saturn and
entered an hyperbolic, escape trajectory."

gr-qc/0503021
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 21:28:29 GMT (392kb)
A Route to Understanding of the Pioneer Anomaly
Authors: Slava G. Turyshev, Michael Martin Nieto, John D. Anderson

I understand that very many alternatives are being explored to find
some acceptable explanation for the observed Pioneer Anomaly.

The main obsevational data for Pioneer -10 consists of Doppler
frequency record from which we can compute the spacecraft velocity data
and hence range data.

May I request the learned readers to kindly explain (if possible) how
exactly did we come to the conclusion from the available Doppler data
that the Anomaly exists? More precisely, how do we compute the
Anomalous acceleration from the available Doppler data?

GSS

"GSS" wrote in message
ups.com...

I understand that very many alternatives are being explored to find
some acceptable explanation for the observed Pioneer Anomaly.

The main obsevational data for Pioneer -10 consists of Doppler
frequency record from which we can compute the spacecraft velocity data
and hence range data.

Measured range data per se was not available for the
majority of the period examined for Pioneer 10. Range
can be inferred by integrating velocity but it cannot
be confirmed.

May I request the learned readers to kindly explain (if possible) how
exactly did we come to the conclusion from the available Doppler data
that the Anomaly exists? More precisely, how do we compute the
Anomalous acceleration from the available Doppler data?

Crudely: the overall trajectory of the craft can be
determined by six starting parameters, three to define
the location of the craft and three to define its
velocity at some initial instant. After that, the
motion should be entirely defined by the acceleration
due to the gravitational effect of the planets and
other large bodies.

When those six values are optimised to find the best
fit to the data, there remains an error. Adding a
constant acceleration towards the Sun removes that
error.

There are a lot of other factors to consider, notably
the effect of "CONSCAN" manoeuvres which maintained
alignment of the antenna beam with the Earth using
thrusters.

HTH
George

"GSS" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Joe Jakarta wrote:
| Joe Jakarta wrote:
|
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...4583414B7F0000
|
|
| "Anderson and theorist Michael M. Nieto of Los Alamos National
| Laboratory have proposed a way to filter the ideas, noting the
| interesting fact that the direction of the anomalous force would be
| different for each theory. If the force points toward the sun, then it
| should be a gravitational effect. If it points toward Earth, it should
| be an anomaly relating to the velocity of light. If it points in the
| direction of motion, it should be a drag force or a modification of
| inertia. And finally, if it points along the spin axis of the probes,
| it should indicate a force generated by the craft. ..."
|
|
| Rough data for Pioneer 11 indicate that
|
| "The anomalous acceleration was present ... at shorter distances, as
| far in as ~10 AU.
|
| "... also ... that the anomaly may be much smaller at distances 10
| AU. It appears to be amplified (or turned on) at a distance of ~10 AU
| from the Sun. This is approximately when the craft flew by Saturn and
| entered an hyperbolic, escape trajectory."
|
| gr-qc/0503021
| Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 21:28:29 GMT (392kb)
| A Route to Understanding of the Pioneer Anomaly
| Authors: Slava G. Turyshev, Michael Martin Nieto, John D. Anderson
|
| I understand that very many alternatives are being explored to find
| some acceptable explanation for the observed Pioneer Anomaly.
|
| The main obsevational data for Pioneer -10 consists of Doppler
| frequency record from which we can compute the spacecraft velocity data
| and hence range data.
|
| May I request the learned readers to kindly explain (if possible) how
| exactly did we come to the conclusion from the available Doppler data
| that the Anomaly exists? More precisely, how do we compute the
| Anomalous acceleration from the available Doppler data?
|
| GSS

Doppler's equation:
c+u
f' = f ----------
c+v

Einstein's equation:
1+v/c
f' = f sqrt[-------------]
1-v/c

To be more precise,
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...er/Doppler.htm

They are slightly different... the anomaly simply shows the wrong equation
was used. It's no good applying real data to Einstein's fairy tale or you'll
get anomalous results.
Androcles

On 24 Jun 2006 23:08:00 -0700, "GSS"
wrote:


Joe Jakarta wrote:
Joe Jakarta wrote:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...4583414B7F0000


"Anderson and theorist Michael M. Nieto of Los Alamos National
Laboratory have proposed a way to filter the ideas, noting the
interesting fact that the direction of the anomalous force would be
different for each theory. If the force points toward the sun, then it
should be a gravitational effect. If it points toward Earth, it should
be an anomaly relating to the velocity of light. If it points in the
direction of motion, it should be a drag force or a modification of
inertia. And finally, if it points along the spin axis of the probes,
it should indicate a force generated by the craft. ..."


Rough data for Pioneer 11 indicate that

"The anomalous acceleration was present ... at shorter distances, as
far in as ~10 AU.

"... also ... that the anomaly may be much smaller at distances 10
AU. It appears to be amplified (or turned on) at a distance of ~10 AU
from the Sun. This is approximately when the craft flew by Saturn and
entered an hyperbolic, escape trajectory."

gr-qc/0503021
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 21:28:29 GMT (392kb)
A Route to Understanding of the Pioneer Anomaly
Authors: Slava G. Turyshev, Michael Martin Nieto, John D. Anderson

I understand that very many alternatives are being explored to find
some acceptable explanation for the observed Pioneer Anomaly.

The main obsevational data for Pioneer -10 consists of Doppler
frequency record from which we can compute the spacecraft velocity data
and hence range data.

May I request the learned readers to kindly explain (if possible) how
exactly did we come to the conclusion from the available Doppler data
that the Anomaly exists? More precisely, how do we compute the
Anomalous acceleration from the available Doppler data?

GSS
Now that you ask, the discovery has nothing to do with the Doppler
effect, which is the change in frequency corresponding to Pioneer's
velocity, during a round trip to the target satellite.

It comes from integration of an accurate model for predicted frequency
over years of time, during which it was found that the station
frequency consistently and secularly exceeded the frequency predicted
by the model. Over a much studied 8 year period, it amounted to 1.5 Hz
out of 2,922,000,000 Hz.
The difference would be essentially the same if you used the station
frequency or the reflected frequency, the latter contributing an
anomaly equal to only Ap/25,000, where V/c = 1/25000.

There is every indication the causeof this drift is the secular
increase of all atomic clocks at Hubble rate of 2.6e-18/sec, while the
model perforce used the established frequency of 2.292GHz m/l.

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net.