Could there be a connection between standard kilogram having less weight then its copies, and Pioneer's anomalous acceleration?

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:09:14 -0700) it happened Uncle Al
wrote in :

Jan Panteltje wrote:

Could there be a connection between standard kilogram having less weight then its copies,
and Pioneer's anomalous acceleration?

For a moment, if the copies of the standard kilogram moved a lot,
and the standard stayed in one place, and the copies are heavier,
it occurred to me Pioneer also moves a lot, and slows down right?
because it is getting heavier perhaps?

How is internally contradicting your own argument a means of proposal?

You know Pioneer slowed down, or did you not?

You propose the Standard Kilogram artifact got less massive for the
same reason both Pioneers effectively got more massive. You argue
that cm/sec impressed local velocities and 7.6 miles/sec Pioneer 10
velocity are comensurate.

Yours is a terrible muddle wthout physical meaning.

Platinum sorbs hydrogen like sponge. One could propose traces of bulk
sorbed hydrogen progressively migrate to the surface, are oxidized to
water, and desorb over the decades. The reaction is reversible. Now
weight loss depends on relative humidity over and metal casting
conditions during fabrication.

The anomalous sunward acceleration of Pioneers 10 and 11 is easily
rationalized by Kuiper belt dust. Impact with ~1.4x10^(-19) g/cm^3
would do it. Work the numbers. That would be a tremendously
UNinteresting explanation - more so if true.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On a sunny day (Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:46:15 -0000) it happened Igor
wrote in
.com:


But why would a body that moved around be heavier than an identical
body that didn't? Relativity says that mass is an invariant.

Yes, that is the big question, 'why'.

I was sort of joking about time-deletion in sci.physics related to this:
If one mass accelerated and then de-accelerated, it would arrive back at the
origin YOUNGER then a similar one that stayed behind as reference.
If any universal parameter changed (over time), it would have changed less for the
moving mass.
;-)

I am not saying it is so, but relativity says that!

On a sunny day (Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:59:10 -0700) it happened dlzc
wrote in
.com:

Dear Jan Panteltje:

On Sep 14, 10:13 am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:18:25 -0700) it happened dlzc
wrote in
. com:
Sorry, I absolutely cannot follow you here, this is
the way I see it: Say you launch a mass A into
space, it sets out on a trajectory B that takes it
eventually out of the solar systm, and the speed
the thing distances itself from earth is S1.
Now it seems to me, that if my some mysterious
process A's mass increased after launch,

... without altering the total momentum that was imparted at
launch ...

it's orbit would take it away from the earth with
less speed.

I follow your reasoning this far. The mass of the Pioneers is not
increasing. It did not take longer or unexpectedly large thrusts to
adjust their positions. Additionally, if we are positing "mystery
mass increase" why not "mystery momentum increase" too? Also,
accumulations of mass as impactors has been discounted from similar
reasons.

If this was not so, then you could launch a
100 kg spacecraft with the same rocket as a
1000 kg one.

Different circumstances. You assume the source of momentum derives
from the Universe, rather than from the mass (whatever that is). Not
a bad assumption, but you left it unstated.

Although Pioneer did some gravity assist flyby, the
same basic idea applies. What is wrong with this
reasoning?

I did not figure out you were keeping the initial momentum the same.

Now keep in mind that:
- Pioneer was slowing down, so the effect should be decreasing. It
didn't.
- The Pioneer effect (really for four different satellites / probes)
was "sudden onset". Which belies a simple motion-related effect.
- The platinum standard is being cleaned, which removes metal oxides
from its surface. This removes metal.

David A. Smith

Yes, sure a lot of thought for food.
I mentioned the oxydation possiblility in an other post, but would not
the copies be cleaned too?
Maybe the standard more often, perhaps anytime they compare it with a copy?

Dear Jan Panteltje:

On Sep 14, 11:23 am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:59:10 -0700) it happened dlzc
wrote in
.com:
....
I did not figure out you were keeping the initial
momentum the same.

Now keep in mind that:
- Pioneer was slowing down, so the effect
should be decreasing. It didn't.
- The Pioneer effect (really for four different
satellites / probes) was "sudden onset".
Which belies a simple motion-related effect.
- The platinum standard is being cleaned,
which removes metal oxides from its surface.
This removes metal.

Yes, sure a lot of thought for food.

.... he says at lunch time ... ;)

I mentioned the oxydation possiblility in an
other post, but would not the copies be
cleaned too?

I suspect the copies are handled more. More handling means more
chances to absorb hydrogen from both water and "people grease".
Metrology is a real interesting *art*.

Maybe the standard more often, perhaps
anytime they compare it with a copy?

When I worked as a machining inspector, I polished my standards
everytime I referenced them.

David A. Smith