A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Star Distances



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 4th 06, 11:59 AM posted to sci.astro,alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
George Dishman[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,509
Default Star Distances


Hurt wrote:
Sorry, clicked post accidentally.


No probs, easily done. I have replaced some previously
snipped context:

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.


They don't give any precise vector; they use words like away, towards,
and radial towards the Sun.


Page 18:

...
"Over the years the data continually indicated that
the largest systematic error in the acceleration
residuals is a constant bias of a_P ~ 8+/-3)*10^-8
cm/s^2, directed toward the Sun (to within the
beam-width of the Pioneers' antennae [73])."


And...? That was the ~ (approximate) LARGEST error. That doesn't
change the uncertainty of the magnitude variation. Once again:

"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."


Perhaps I should have added some emphasis, the relevant
part wasn't the uncertainty in magnitude but the statement
regarding the direction. You said "They don't give any precise
vector" but they do in fact say that the direction is within
the beamwidth, or +/- 1.8 degrees of the line from the craft
to the Sun. Think of what you were suggesting:


ecliptic: ----P----------E--S---------

The dashes show the plane, P is Pioneer, E is Earth and
S is the Sun. Your putative extra star would be somewhere
off in this direction:

|
|
V

but the anomalous acceleration is in the plane to within
2 degrees.

Note [73] indicates the beamwidth is 3.6 degrees. As


What note [73] indicates is that they could not tell whether the force direction
was towards the Sun or if the force direction was towards the Earth.
Or somewhere else! A beamwidth of 3.6 degrees, at the probe, spreads a
whole lot over a distance of over 60 AU.


It is still a cone less than 4 degrees wide no matter
how far away.

PDF page 51:

[73] We only measure Earth-spacecraft Doppler frequency
and, as we will discuss in Sec. VIIIA, the down link
antenna yields a conical beam of width 3.6 degrees at
half-maximum power. Therefore, between Pioneer 10's
past and present (May 2001) distances of 20 to 78 AU,
the Earth-spacecraft line and Sun-spacecraft line are so
close that one can not resolve whether the force direction
is towards the Sun or if the force direction is towards
the Earth. If we could have used a longer arc fit
that started earlier and hence closer, we might have able
to separate the Sun direction from the Earth direction.


I said, there's a lot of information in the paper if
you are serious, but that means reading the endnotes.


Unfortunately I don't have enough useful time to read everything; and
still, I'm doing pretty good.


You are actually, there's lots of bits of information
scattered through the document and even more in
the dozens that came subsequently. I've been going
through these of and on for 5 years and I haven't
extracted it all.

Page 34, commenting on the possibility of a correlation
with the RTG radioactive decay:

"Finally, we want to comment on the significance
of radioactive decay for this mechanism. Even
acknowledging the Interval jumps due to gas
leaks (see below), we reported a one-day batch-
sequential value (before systematics) for a_P,
averaged over the entire 11.5 year interval, of
a_P = (7.77+/-0.16)*10^-8 cm/s^2. From radioactive
decay, the value of a_P should have decreased by
0.75 of these units over 11.5 years. This is 5
times the above variance, which is very large
with batch sequential."


Unless you're trying to tell me something indirectly I don't see what
this has to do with our conversation. Maybe you're trying to baffle
the masses?


No, you were commenting that the uncertainty in the
mean magnitude was about +/- 2 in these units from
one part of the paper and I was pointing out that in
another part you can find a figure of +/-0.16, an order
of magnitude better. A numbger of data processing
methods were used with different sample batches and
so on, so you have to be careful about the details.

"Hurt", gravity produces the same acceleration
independent of mass. Read up on Galileo.


Did I say anything about acceleration? I can qualify my statement.

"... something that barely budges a small spacecraft won't [measurably
OR significantly OR noticeably] move a planet."


That is still wrong, it should be. ".. something that
barely budges a small spacecraft will barely budge a
planet by exactly the same amount."

What is the angular acceleration of a planet, say Earth. Not to
mention its instantaneous linear tangential acceleration. IT'S HUGE.


Both very small, if the Earth were in a circular orbit
both would be exactly zero. The _radial_ acceleration
is larger, but why don't you calculate it as a simple
excercise to get a feel for the numbers.

Take that vector and add it to ~ 8*10^ -8 (that's a minus 8) cm/s^2
and you basically get that vector. I don't know if we could even
measure such a small change over many years.


Easily.

They checked to see if a gravitational effect was
a possible cause and the orbits of the planets
would have shown changes that would be detectable
in a few years. I can't remember the exact numbers


Can you point out the section that says this please.


Not immediately or I would have done so, I suspect it
isn't in the main paper but a subsequent one so I'd have
to trawl through to find it.

George

  #22  
Old July 5th 06, 04:30 PM posted to sci.astro,alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
Hurt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default Star Distances



Perhaps I should have added some emphasis, the relevant
part wasn't the uncertainty in magnitude but the statement
regarding the direction. You said "They don't give any precise
vector" but they do in fact say that the direction is within
the beamwidth, or +/- 1.8 degrees of the line from the craft
to the Sun. Think of what you were suggesting:


ecliptic: ----P----------E--S---------

The dashes show the plane, P is Pioneer, E is Earth and
S is the Sun. Your putative extra star would be somewhere
off in this direction:

|
|
V

but the anomalous acceleration is in the plane to within
2 degrees.


As soon as the vodka from the past few days wears off I'll try to give
that paper another look. But this is a good discussion.





What is the angular acceleration of a planet, say Earth. Not to
mention its instantaneous linear tangential velocity. IT'S HUGE.


Both very small, if the Earth were in a circular orbit
both would be exactly zero. The _radial_ acceleration
is larger, but why don't you calculate it as a simple
excercise to get a feel for the numbers.


I'm surprised no one nailed me on that gaff. Yeah I was about to try
running those numbers before my time ran out. I'm using a limited use
public computer. Hey Google, how about a spell checker for the news
groups.




Take that vector and add it to ~ 8*10^ -8 (that's a minus 8) cm/s^2
and you basically get that vector. I don't know if we could even
measure such a small change over many years.


Easily.


Are just the tidal forces enough to mask such a small quantity?

  #23  
Old July 6th 06, 01:00 AM posted to sci.astro,alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
George Dishman[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,509
Default Star Distances


"Hurt" wrote in message
ps.com...


Perhaps I should have added some emphasis, the relevant
part wasn't the uncertainty in magnitude but the statement
regarding the direction. You said "They don't give any precise
vector" but they do in fact say that the direction is within
the beamwidth, or +/- 1.8 degrees of the line from the craft
to the Sun. Think of what you were suggesting:


ecliptic: ----P----------E--S---------

The dashes show the plane, P is Pioneer, E is Earth and
S is the Sun. Your putative extra star would be somewhere
off in this direction:

|
|
V

but the anomalous acceleration is in the plane to within
2 degrees.


As soon as the vodka from the past few days wears off I'll try to give
that paper another look. But this is a good discussion.


OK. Try to work out what the effect would be bearing
in mind your extra objects would influence not only
the craft but the Sun and planets too, it is only the
difference in accelerations that becomes measurable.
The key factor is how any anomaly varies with the
distance of the craft from the Sun.

What is the angular acceleration of a planet, say Earth. Not to
mention its instantaneous linear tangential velocity. IT'S HUGE.


Both very small, if the Earth were in a circular orbit
both would be exactly zero. The _radial_ acceleration
is larger, but why don't you calculate it as a simple
excercise to get a feel for the numbers.


I'm surprised no one nailed me on that gaff. Yeah I was about to try
running those numbers before my time ran out. I'm using a limited use
public computer. Hey Google, how about a spell checker for the news
groups.


I suggest using a calculator and piece of paper
before getting to the computer. The old ways
still work ;-)

Take that vector and add it to ~ 8*10^ -8 (that's a minus 8) cm/s^2
and you basically get that vector. I don't know if we could even
measure such a small change over many years.


Easily.


Are just the tidal forces enough to mask such a small quantity?


What "tidal forces"?

It may be small but integrate over a couple of
centuries of reasonable records of planetary
motions and it mounts up, and since it is
directly added to everything else, it can't be
masked.

George


  #24  
Old July 6th 06, 02:12 AM posted to sci.astro,alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
Hurt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default Star Distances


OK. Try to work out what the effect would be bearing


BTW, I'll workout when I get a membership to the Y or Gold's.

  #25  
Old July 6th 06, 04:09 AM posted to sci.astro,alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
Roy L. Fuchs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default Star Distances

On 5 Jul 2006 18:12:40 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us:


OK. Try to work out what the effect would be bearing


BTW, I'll workout when I get a membership to the Y or Gold's.



Jeez... do you say ANYTHING that isn't utterly retarded?

NO, ASSWIPE, there is no grand conspiracy to keep scientific facts
from the masses.
  #26  
Old July 6th 06, 04:09 PM posted to sci.astro,alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
Hurt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default Star Distances


NO, ASSWIPE, there is no grand conspiracy to keep scientific facts
from the masses.


Are there still people who actually believe that.

  #27  
Old July 6th 06, 04:43 PM posted to sci.astro,alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
M Holmes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 72
Default Star Distances

In uk.sci.astronomy Hurt wrote:

NO, ASSWIPE, there is no grand conspiracy to keep scientific facts
from the masses.


Are there still people who actually believe that.


That there's no grand conspiracy? Yeah, sure. In fact we've formed our
own Secret Club. It meets on Tuesdays.

FoFP

  #28  
Old July 6th 06, 04:54 PM posted to sci.astro,alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
Phineas T Puddleduck[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 310
Default Star Distances




On 6/7/06 16:43, in article , "M Holmes"
wrote:

In uk.sci.astronomy Hurt wrote:

NO, ASSWIPE, there is no grand conspiracy to keep scientific facts
from the masses.


Are there still people who actually believe that.


That there's no grand conspiracy? Yeah, sure. In fact we've formed our
own Secret Club. It meets on Tuesdays.

FoFP


Shhhh don't let on. You'll tell him the secret knock next.....

--

Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
Why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE
SCIENCE". Pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
TomGee proves his physics education is beyond measure...
"I don't know that much math." - 2 April 2006
"I don't claim to know what I'm talking about" - 10 May 2006
"There is no such thing as relativistic momentum" - July 2006
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Puddle**** tou are on my kill file. Good bye" - Vert admits he cannot
calculate \gamma for a photon and admits defeat - 2nd July 2006
PWNED
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


  #29  
Old July 6th 06, 05:00 PM posted to sci.astro,alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
Hurt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default Star Distances


That there's no grand conspiracy? Yeah, sure. In fact we've formed our
own Secret Club. It meets on Tuesdays.


Your secret club? I thought my club was the official grand conspiracy
club; and we meet on Fridays. Well usually Fridays except when Floyd
is busy, then it's on Saturday.

  #30  
Old July 6th 06, 05:38 PM posted to sci.astro,alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
M Holmes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 72
Default Star Distances

In uk.sci.astronomy Hurt wrote:

That there's no grand conspiracy? Yeah, sure. In fact we've formed our
own Secret Club. It meets on Tuesdays.


Your secret club? I thought my club was the official grand conspiracy
club


It is. We're the Secret Club that doesn't believe in you.

and we meet on Fridays. Well usually Fridays except when Floyd
is busy, then it's on Saturday.


Floyd??? Hey, he's in our Club too.

FoFP

 




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
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 10:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:39 AM.


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.