Search: calculator for long numbers.

"George Dishman" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"lombo243" [email protected] wrote in message
...

"George Dishman" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

The main paper on this is:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064

Craig Markwardt has independently confirmed the result and gives
further analysis on the rate of change of the acceleration:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208046

This is of course only just a very
very very smale fraction 1/10'000'000'000 or somethign that the
acceleration
doesnt fit with the gravity law and I wondered what this could be.

The key point here is that it dosn't fit the law, the extra force
was constant over the range 40AU to 60AU.

really constant?

As far as they can tell, yes.

This is more exciting then i ever thought. How is it between
1AU and 40AU? Does the extraforce increase "smoothly" or is it like a
jump
at 40AU?

There are a range of problems that limited the region where
they could make the measurement. Data from Pioneer 11 covers
from 5AU to 30AU but below about 15AU the solar radiation
pressure is comparable and introduces a large error. Data for
Pioneer 10 starts at 27AU. One significant point is that the
values for the two craft are very similar. Possible causes like
faulty thruster valves or gas leaks are very unlikely to cause
precisely the same anomaly on the two craft.

Could this somehow be realted with the galaxy rotation phenomena where
the
far stars also looks to expire an acceleration to the gravity center
stronger than it should be by the gravity law? (dark matter/modified
newton
mechanics)?

Nobody knows. There have been lots of suggestions ranging from
highly unlikely to bizarre but nothing seems to match. A few
"highly speculative" ideas put forward by other people they
mention a


Maybe it's just the simplest thing we could imagine. A space invariant Force
Something like:

F = Gamma*m1*m2*r^-2 + Theta*m1*m2 (In the presume the Force would be
constant from 0AU up to 60AU)

where this additional force somehow manage to be space indepent but takes
the direction of the gravity froce. Maybe that would fit for the galaxy
rotation too.
(I dont like the case decition in the modified newton mechanics. That is not
natural.)

Gamma could be adjusted to make space for Theta.


* dark matter or modified gravity.
* local curvature of light geodesics in expanding spacetime.
* relativistically elastic spacetime.
* Kaluza-Klein model in 5 dimensions with time-varying scale
factor for the compactified fifth dimension.
* scale-dependent cosmological term.
* time-varying gravitational constant.
* a superstrong interaction of photons with single gravitons.
* flavor oscillations of neutrinos in the Brans-Dicke theory
of gravity producing a quantum mechanical phase shift of
neutrinos.

I don't understand a word of some of these but you get the
idea - it is a real puzzle!

Thanks for the links. Is there still more information somewhere?

Read the main Anderson paper first, it's about 50 pages and
there's _lots_ of information in that. Then I suggest you
look at the papers that cite Anderson's.

http://www.arxiv.org/cits/gr-qc/0104064


Thank you. I will do.


They cover everything from gas leaks to five-dimensional
gravity. There are over 40 and more being added all the
time. You can even get the original data from the NSSDC
but be warned it is about 500Mb of raw binary telemetry
measurements!

Have fun,
George



Lombo

Dear Benoit Morrissette:

"Benoit Morrissette" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:26:48 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:
....
Great papers, i stand corrected. My last idea: dark energy. The rest of
the
universe is repelling the spacecrafts back where they came from...

Actually the behaviour is consistent with Dark Matter distributed near the
periphery of the Solar System, adding to the mass inside the Solar System.
It is also consistent with them hitting slower moving gases too.

David A. Smith

(formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:GLc1b.6297$Qy4.6003@fed1read05...
Dear Benoit Morrissette:

"Benoit Morrissette" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:26:48 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:
...
Great papers, i stand corrected. My last idea: dark energy. The rest of
the
universe is repelling the spacecrafts back where they came from...

Actually the behaviour is consistent with Dark Matter distributed near the
periphery of the Solar System, adding to the mass inside the Solar System.

Do you have a reference for that or can you show how it
leads to a constant acceleration?

It is also consistent with them hitting slower moving gases too.

Surely the density needed is far higher than the observational
limits.

George

"lombo243" [email protected] wrote in message ...

Maybe it's just the simplest thing we could imagine. A space invariant Force
Something like:

F = Gamma*m1*m2*r^-2 + Theta*m1*m2 (In the presume the Force would be
constant from 0AU up to 60AU)

where this additional force somehow manage to be space indepent but takes
the direction of the gravity froce. Maybe that would fit for the galaxy
rotation too.
(I dont like the case decition in the modified newton mechanics. That is not
natural.)

Gamma could be adjusted to make space for Theta.

Perhaps you should calculate the effect on the orbital period
of Mercury and Pluto. I think you will find it will make an
easily detectable difference.

George

"George Dishman" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"lombo243" [email protected] wrote in message
...

Maybe it's just the simplest thing we could imagine. A space invariant
Force
Something like:

F = Gamma*m1*m2*r^-2 + Theta*m1*m2 (In the presume the Force would be
constant from 0AU up to 60AU)

where this additional force somehow manage to be space indepent but
takes
the direction of the gravity froce. Maybe that would fit for the galaxy
rotation too.
(I dont like the case decition in the modified newton mechanics. That is
not
natural.)

Gamma could be adjusted to make space for Theta.

Perhaps you should calculate the effect on the orbital period
of Mercury and Pluto. I think you will find it will make an
easily detectable difference.

George


Not when the planets are on a lower distance to the sun. Do we exactly know
the orbit of this planets and checked it without using the Gravity law?
In case It was measured with use of the Geavity law I would say that the
orbit itself are just a little bit wrong and have to be reacalculated.

I don't know. It's all an idea only, that's maybe worth to be checked. I
think the galaxy and the pioneer expire the same anomalie and maybe an
alternated gravity law can be found that modells both.

rad

"lombo243" [email protected] wrote in message ...

"George Dishman" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"lombo243" [email protected] wrote in message
...

Maybe it's just the simplest thing we could imagine. A space invariant Force
Something like:

F = Gamma*m1*m2*r^-2 + Theta*m1*m2 (In the presume the Force would be
constant from 0AU up to 60AU)

where this additional force somehow manage to be space indepent but takes
the direction of the gravity froce. Maybe that would fit for the galaxy
rotation too.
(I dont like the case decition in the modified newton mechanics. That is not
natural.)

Gamma could be adjusted to make space for Theta.

Perhaps you should calculate the effect on the orbital period
of Mercury and Pluto. I think you will find it will make an
easily detectable difference.

Not when the planets are on a lower distance to the sun. Do we exactly know
the orbit of this planets and checked it without using the Gravity law?

Yes, they are observed and the orbits calculated directly.
Kepler did this about 350 years ago and found the orbits were
ellipses but could not prove that an inverse square law would
produce an elliptical orbit. Newton did that some years later,
so the orbits came first and the law followed.

In case It was measured with use of the Geavity law I would say that the
orbit itself are just a little bit wrong and have to be reacalculated.

I don't know. It's all an idea only, that's maybe worth to be checked. I
think the galaxy and the pioneer expire the same anomalie and maybe an
alternated gravity law can be found that modells both.

Many people writing in response to the original paper have
suggested changes to gravity but none have been able to find
a version that fits. Most alternatives would cause very large
changes to the orbits of the planets.

In your equation above, if you make Theta*m1*m2 equal to the
anomalous acceleration and reduce the Gamma*m1*m2*r^-2 term
to fit for Mercury, the effect on the outer planets would be
so large they probably couldn't stay in orbit for very long.

George

"George Dishman" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"lombo243" [email protected] wrote in message
...

"George Dishman" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"lombo243" [email protected] wrote in message
...

Maybe it's just the simplest thing we could imagine. A space
invariant Force
Something like:

F = Gamma*m1*m2*r^-2 + Theta*m1*m2 (In the presume the Force
would be
constant from 0AU up to 60AU)

where this additional force somehow manage to be space indepent but
takes
the direction of the gravity froce. Maybe that would fit for the
galaxy
rotation too.
(I dont like the case decition in the modified newton mechanics.
That is not
natural.)

Gamma could be adjusted to make space for Theta.

Perhaps you should calculate the effect on the orbital period
of Mercury and Pluto. I think you will find it will make an
easily detectable difference.

Not when the planets are on a lower distance to the sun. Do we exactly
know
the orbit of this planets and checked it without using the Gravity law?

Yes, they are observed and the orbits calculated directly.
Kepler did this about 350 years ago and found the orbits were
ellipses but could not prove that an inverse square law would
produce an elliptical orbit. Newton did that some years later,
so the orbits came first and the law followed.

In case It was measured with use of the Geavity law I would say that the
orbit itself are just a little bit wrong and have to be reacalculated.

I don't know. It's all an idea only, that's maybe worth to be checked.
I
think the galaxy and the pioneer expire the same anomalie and maybe an
alternated gravity law can be found that modells both.

Many people writing in response to the original paper have
suggested changes to gravity but none have been able to find
a version that fits. Most alternatives would cause very large
changes to the orbits of the planets.

In your equation above, if you make Theta*m1*m2 equal to the
anomalous acceleration and reduce the Gamma*m1*m2*r^-2 term
to fit for Mercury, the effect on the outer planets would be
so large they probably couldn't stay in orbit for very long.

George



That sounds plausible. And nevertheless something doesnt fit If we really
know the orbits by observation and they obay the original Gravity Law how
comes the pinoeer seems to do not?
Asumed there is no physical difference between a Planet like Neptun and the
pioneer sonde if we both see them as space-object with a mass and charge
and a velocity. How can the piooner expire another force than the outer
planets on the same distacne to the sun? They should expire exactly the same
anomaliy.
If they don't than there must be a difference between a planet and a pioneer
sonde. Obviously Differences a

1) the velocity direction
2) the size (mass, volumen, area)
3) maybe a static charge the pioneer (and the sun??) carry (not neutral
charged)
4) the kind of material

My thoughts:
1) don't think that matters.. (wouldnt fit to nature)
2) It cant be mass if the planets show that theoriginal Gravity Law is true.
Except wie would consider somthing likeTheta* m2 without an m1. which would
but rather not logic. And whats with Theta only? - too strange i think.
volumen? Mabye the space it takes.But hwats the space a body occupies? And
then wouldn't it be something very simmular to Theta*m1*m2?
area? That would be something simular to Theta*m1. Too strange
3) How could this happen? Could the pioneer collect charge b traveling
through space? But then the sun must have a charge too and if so why not the
planets? But sun and planets cant have charge at the same time otherwhise
planet orbits wouldnt fit. Also the charge would not lead to a constant
force.
4) The pioneer has a lot of metal .Presume they travel through a magnetic
field the additional force would show into the right direction. Presume the
magnetic field would be constant rhe additional force would not be constant
but proportinal to the velocity. Hmm how much did the pioneer slow down
between 40AU and 60AU? Could it be compensated with an increasing magentic
field (but how would it increase?). Is there any magnetifield out there and
if so where does it come from? (Did the pioneer sondes measured the magnetic
field?)

hmm strange strange strange, but very very interesting

Thanks for your comments George,

Lombo





...

Yeah, they'll probably stop, and head back to where they came from as
meteors.

http://www.geocities.com/solarstormmonitor/Pioneer.html

=DF=83--=B9=B9

Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

(formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:GLc1b.6297$Qy4.6003@fed1read05...
....
Actually the behaviour is consistent with Dark Matter distributed near
the
periphery of the Solar System, adding to the mass inside the Solar
System.

Do you have a reference for that or can you show how it
leads to a constant acceleration?

I can show very little (since I care little for DM). The anomolous
behaviours of spiral galaxies is pretty much evenly distributed based on
distance, achieving approximately identical radial velocity regardless of
distance. This would indicate a consantly increasing DM concentration,
constantly variable G (ala MOND to some extent), or some other thing.

If, in the case of Pioneer, the distribution is essentially apparently a
step change in G, then the distribution of DM, if that is the cause, would
be just "inside" the radius where the anomolous acceleration occurs.
Assuming G is constant, then M_ss must increase (where M_ss is all the
known mass within that radius and DM).

It is also consistent with them hitting slower moving gases too.

Surely the density needed is far higher than the observational
limits.

I would think so, but this is one of the flavors of "reasons" I have read.
A decreasing mass density with increasing differential velocity would do
the trick. Not unreasonable, unless there was no change in the anomolous
acceleration across the orbit of planets (presumably swept by the planet)
or the "shadow" of planets (where the mass outflow was gravitationally
bound or at least deflected)

Solar wind, in some sense. Slower, cooler, expanding more and more slowly,
but less dense due to, well the usual culprits.

David A. Smith

(formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:IDy1b.8763$Qy4.1287@fed1read05...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

(formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:GLc1b.6297$Qy4.6003@fed1read05...
...
Actually the behaviour is consistent with Dark Matter distributed near
the
periphery of the Solar System, adding to the mass inside the Solar
System.

Do you have a reference for that or can you show how it
leads to a constant acceleration?

I can show very little (since I care little for DM). The anomolous
behaviours of spiral galaxies is pretty much evenly distributed based on
distance, achieving approximately identical radial velocity regardless of
distance. This would indicate a consantly increasing DM concentration,
constantly variable G (ala MOND to some extent), or some other thing.

If, in the case of Pioneer, the distribution is essentially apparently a
step change in G, then the distribution of DM, if that is the cause, would
be just "inside" the radius where the anomolous acceleration occurs.
Assuming G is constant, then M_ss must increase (where M_ss is all the
known mass within that radius and DM).


That's a good thought.
But this means, that Neptune and Pluto had to expire the same anaomalie.
Their orbit's must be a little different then which also hits the same
trouble like a modified gravity law
except that you dont have to care about the inner planets and it would only
matters for the outer planets. (would be like a modified gravity law make
fitted for saturn instead of merkure) So the orbit wouldnt change that
dramatic, just a little. Again the question, do we know the orbits of the
outer planets exactly enough to exclude this?

It is also consistent with them hitting slower moving gases too.

Surely the density needed is far higher than the observational
limits.

I would think so, but this is one of the flavors of "reasons" I have read.
A decreasing mass density with increasing differential velocity would do
the trick. Not unreasonable, unless there was no change in the anomolous
acceleration across the orbit of planets (presumably swept by the planet)
or the "shadow" of planets (where the mass outflow was gravitationally
bound or at least deflected)

Solar wind, in some sense. Slower, cooler, expanding more and more
slowly,
but less dense due to, well the usual culprits.

David A. Smith



Lombo