Pioneer 10 Anomaly and Relativity

The Anomalous Acceleration of Pioneer 10 toward the sun of
about 10^-8cm/sec^2 at various distances r from the sun can be
associated with
the fact that the velocity of the spacecraft is greater than the
orbital velocity the spacecraft would have in a circular orbit at
the same distance.
This is necessary so that the spacecraft will not be made to
move
in orbit about the sun and could escape the solar system
but it also implies that the attractive mass of the
spacecraft is greater than it otherwise would be.
Is the increase in mass consistent with the increase
in mass with velocity according to Einstein:
m=(m_0)(1-v^2/c^)^-1/2?
No but there is a similarity if you think of the velocity
of the spacecraft at a point in space not relative
to the speed of light but to the orbital velocity
at that point in space.

How can an objects mass increase in this way?
It is possible to describe the gravitational
attraction between objects on the earth toward the center of the
earth
and of objects in the solar system toward the sun etc in terms of
electrostatic
dipoles in the objects radially oriented to these respective
centers.
The dipole dipole force varies inversely as the fourth power
of distance
while the gravitational force is an inverse square force. But if
the size of the
dipole is proportional to the distance of the dipole from another
dipole
eg a dipole in the spacecraft and a dipole in the sun then the
dipole dipole
force reduces to an inverse square force. The dipole in the craft
is due to
the net effect of dipoles in each element, each proton and
neutron and the
dipole in the sun is due to the net of the dipoles in each
element of the plasma
sun.
The plausibility of electrostatic dipoles interacting in this
way is shown as due to the decrease in interference between
the dipoles as distance increases. That is, the primary
determination
of the size of the dipole is its speed. Its speed is caused by a
force
which produced and may continue to produce an
accleration and at the same time an increase of
polarization of charge in its elements eg protons and neutrons
etc..
The details are given in http://www.bestweb.net/~sansbury.


The speed of the craft,now 12km/sec according to Pioneer
home page was about 36.67km/sec as it passed Jupiter while
29km per sec relative to the sun when it was on earth
orbiting the sun.
If the spacecraft was in orbit around the sun at a distance
r from the sun it would have an orbital velocity of v from
GM/r^2=v^2/r So its orbital velocity at a distance r can
be compared to its actual velocity v*_r compared to v_r.
The Pioneer 10 spacecraft is moving almost completely
radially away from the sun such that the sine of the angle
between its
trajectory and a radial line to the sun is very small eg .001.
The spacecraft is also free to rotate. According to this
hypothesis there would be a change in the attraction
of the spacecraft to the sun proportional to the difference
between (GM/r)^1/2 and v*_r. If r=10^12 then
((6.67)(10^-11)(1.99)(10^30)/(10^12))^1/2
=3.66(10^3.5)=11.57km/sec
about and the speed of the craft was probably more.
Hence the attraction

The attractive mass of an object on the earth directed to
the center of the earth is assumed to be due to electrostatic
dipole
inside protons and neutrons of length 10^-18 meters so that
(6.67)(10^-11) times [(1.67)(10^-27)]^2 = (9)(10^9)(es)^2 if
s=(.9)(10-18) is the gravitational force between two protons
one meter apart represented as the force between two
electrostatic
dipoles one meter part and colinearly and attractively oriented.
This gravitational force may in fact be due to the horizontal
component of the radial force between each proton and all
those on a radius from each toward the center of the earth etc.

And so the gravitational force between the sun and the earth
could be written as the force between radially oriented dipoles:
GmM/R^2 = 9(10^9)mM[6.02)(10^26)]^2 times kK times s*S*
times (2.56) times 10-38 divided by R^2 where the dipoles are es*
and
eS* and e=1.6(10^-19)Coul.;this implies kKs*S*=
(.0079)10^(-61-11+38) =
10^-36 approximatelySince the Sun is .75H+.25He so that 1.75kg
of Sun contains 6.02 times 10^26 molecules each of which contains
on average 1.75 protons+neutrons so 1kg of the gaseous Sun
contains 6.02 times 10^26 protons+neutrons in a volume that is
larger of course than that of 1 kg of a solid planet; but 1kg of
any planet or the Sun contains the same number of
protons+neutrons. There are about 2(10^30) kg in the Sun. Hence
the Sun contains 6.02 times 10^26 times M or 12 times 10^56 and
the Earth contains 6.02 times 10^26 times m or 3.59 times 10^51
unit dipoles in the Earth. The total dipoles a
1.2(10^57)k(s)RS* and 3.59(10^51)K(S)Rs*.
Hence . Now RkS* and RKs* are the magnitudes of the dipoles
associated with the Sun and planet respectively where R varies
from around 1.5(10^11)meters ( 10^10 to 10^13 meters for the
planets)
But we also know that the Earth's dipoles cannot be much larger
than atomic
nuclei about 10^-15meters =RKs* that Ks*=10^-26 which implies
kS*=10^-10 and also RkS*= 10^(-10+11) so the dipoles on the
Sun would have to be 10 meters in length or the amount of
charge in
each dipole is more than e=^-19 etc.
We assume, following the Wilson Bartlett relation between
angular momentum and gravity,
that dipoles in protons and neutrons on planets that produce
their attraction to the sun is
due to the orbital speed of the planets and so a part of the
planet, like the spacecraft, when moving apart from the planet
at a different speed
will have its dipoles change and so its attractive mass will
change. see http://www.bestweb.net/~sansbury

ralph sansbury wrote:

The Anomalous Acceleration of Pioneer 10 toward the sun of
about 10^-8cm/sec^2 at various distances r from the sun can be
associated with
the fact that the velocity of the spacecraft is greater than the
orbital velocity the spacecraft would have in a circular orbit at
the same distance.
This is necessary so that the spacecraft will not be made to
move
in orbit about the sun and could escape the solar system
but it also implies that the attractive mass of the
spacecraft is greater than it otherwise would be.
[snip]

Those who know nothing and are too butt stooopid to look up a subject
ought to keep their pieholes sealed shut.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205059
Pioneer anomaly
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0307042
Rationalized Pioneer anomaly
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9810085
Believable rationalized Pioneer anomaly
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/gr-qc/0310088
Believable Pioneer anomaly updated

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)

"Uncle Al" escribió en el mensaje
...

Those who know nothing and are too butt stooopid to look up a subject
ought to keep their pieholes sealed shut.

Uncle Al, are you maybe a relative of Dirk?
I say that because you are such an adorable human (?) being...

Cesar Sirvent wrote:

"Uncle Al" escribió en el mensaje
...

Those who know nothing and are too butt stooopid to look up a subject
ought to keep their pieholes sealed shut.

Uncle Al, are you maybe a relative of Dirk?
I say that because you are such an adorable human (?) being...

We will start with the scholarly links you removed. Ignorance and
malice hate the light,

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205059
Pioneer anomaly
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0307042
Rationalized Pioneer anomaly
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9810085
Believable rationalized Pioneer anomaly
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/gr-qc/0310088
Believable Pioneer anomaly updated

You are a critic troll brainfarting. No contribution, only
complaint. No references URL or literature, no mathematics, no input
to the discussion, no enlightenment, no hint of intelligence. Nothing
but anile kneejerk spasm befitting a particulary inferior undergrad
assignment in spew emulation. Having ****ed upon a skyscraper wall,
the critic troll rears back and exhorts the crowd to admire both his
spoor and the manly implement that emplaced it.

Now little boy, your having come to a battle of wits armed with a
putty knife, would you care to endure another round of conflict with a
functional mentality?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)

"Cesar Sirvent" wrote in message . es...
"Uncle Al" escribió en el mensaje
...

Those who know nothing and are too butt stooopid to look up a subject
ought to keep their pieholes sealed shut.

Uncle Al, are you maybe a relative of Dirk?
I say that because you are such an adorable human (?) being...

[EL]
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahaha.

Yes, yes, yes, he is very adorable.

ROTFLMAOuuuuuuuuuuuuut.

EheheheheL

"Uncle Al" escribió en el mensaje
...
Cesar Sirvent wrote:

"Uncle Al" escribió en el mensaje
...

Those who know nothing and are too butt stooopid to look up a subject
ought to keep their pieholes sealed shut.

Uncle Al, are you maybe a relative of Dirk?
I say that because you are such an adorable human (?) being...

We will start with the scholarly links you removed. Ignorance and
malice hate the light,

I removed them because they are already present in the first message. Are
you the author of some of them?

You are a critic troll brainfarting. No contribution, only
complaint.

Some contributions that have not been properly addressed.

No references URL or literature, no mathematics, no input
to the discussion, no enlightenment, no hint of intelligence.

I thought I gave URLs, some basic mathematics (which possibly were not
understood), and contributed to try to correct some misconceptions of
non-relativists here.

As for the hint of intelligence, it is true. Replying to you is a sign of
severe low IQ, the waste of time does not worth the trouble.

Nothing
but anile kneejerk spasm befitting a particulary inferior undergrad
assignment in spew emulation. Having ****ed upon a skyscraper wall,
the critic troll rears back and exhorts the crowd to admire both his
spoor and the manly implement that emplaced it.
Now little boy, your having come to a battle of wits armed with a
putty knife, would you care to endure another round of conflict with a
functional mentality?

I doubt that functional mentality is yours. Some of the non-relativists here
seem much more intelligent than you.
The fact that you have learned some maths does not mean that you know how to
use them or that understand the very basic principles of relativity.

My recommendation is that you stop reading high-level bibliography on
relativity, buy some good layman book on the topic, and read it together
with Dirk. Sometimes re-reading basic concepts helps a little, instead of
mentally masturbating you with complex formula that I am sure you don't
understand.

Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)

"ralph sansbury" wrote in message
...

In view of the fact that you are incapable of using simple laboratory
equipment to measure the speed of light, it is highly unlikely that anything
else you might have to say on any other topic would be worth reading, so I
snipped your guff.

[snip]

Franz

Franz Heymann wrote:

"ralph sansbury" wrote in message
...

In view of the fact that you are incapable of using simple laboratory
equipment to measure the speed of light, it is highly unlikely that anything
else you might have to say on any other topic would be worth reading, so I
snipped your guff.

[snip]

Franz

I don't think Hawking capable of using simple labratory equipment
to measure the speed of light either so I don't think your attempted
insult works very well. The bigger question is, how about you? Can
you correctly do such an experiment when you refuse to acknowledge
that turning around and facing in the other direction introduces
another rotation into an experiment of imaging through a lens?

Bill Vajk wrote in message news:zHAFb.111682$8y1.347028@attbi_s52...

I don't think Hawking capable of using simple labratory equipment
to measure the speed of light either so I don't think your attempted
insult works very well. The bigger question is, how about you? Can
you correctly do such an experiment when you refuse to acknowledge
that turning around and facing in the other direction introduces
another rotation into an experiment of imaging through a lens?

Well I think the OP is wrong...
The Anomalous acceleration is rather large about
1 part in 1700. This rules out any new g-field effect
or known GR effect or SR effect. These effects
would certainly appear as anomalies in the orbits
of bodies with high eccentricities.

IMO...
The error appears in the measurement procedure,
specifically in Galilean Relativity, let me explain,
why Gal. Rel. is a useful concept here.

Earth spacecraft (s/c)
K ~~~~~~ k=
c relative to K v relative to K.

The velocity of the radar signal transmitted from
Earth is c. However the velocity of this signal
*compared* to k in the system K is C = c - v.
Please note the word *compared*. This recognizes
the fact that the s/c is receeding from the photon.

Of course, relative to system k the signal has a
velocity c, but we need to change the reference
to k. I think this reference hoping can be highly
confusing, so it's simplest to retain K as the FoR
throughout the calculations. Then C is the speed
of the signal *compared* to k in K's Frame of
Reference.

When a signal is received by k at time t after
transmission from K, two radial quantiites result,

(K's) r = ct and (k's) R = Ct.

In calculating distance, r=ct is *presumed*.
However compared to the s/c where the
signal is absorbed at time t, R=Ct.
Using R the s/c is closer to Earth, and thus
is subject to a greater gravitational deacceleration,
because the magnitude,

A= Gm/R^2 Gm/r^2 = a

That's how Dynamics accounts for the anomaly.

What would really be a true calibration satellite
is the purposed *Pluto Express* employing
several independent means of establishing it's
location.

Flames welcome...
Ken S. Tucker

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Bill Vajk wrote in message news:zHAFb.111682$8y1.347028@attbi_s52...

I don't think Hawking capable of using simple labratory equipment
to measure the speed of light either so I don't think your attempted
insult works very well. The bigger question is, how about you? Can
you correctly do such an experiment when you refuse to acknowledge
that turning around and facing in the other direction introduces
another rotation into an experiment of imaging through a lens?

Well I think the OP is wrong...
The Anomalous acceleration is rather large about
1 part in 1700. This rules out any new g-field effect
or known GR effect or SR effect. These effects
would certainly appear as anomalies in the orbits
of bodies with high eccentricities.

IMO...
The error appears in the measurement procedure,
specifically in Galilean Relativity, let me explain,
why Gal. Rel. is a useful concept here.

[snip]

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205059
Pioneer anomaly
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0307042
Rationalized Pioneer anomaly
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9810085
Believable rationalized Pioneer anomaly
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/gr-qc/0310088
Believable Pioneer anomaly updated


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!