|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Pioneer 10 acceleration
(Andr? Michaud) wrote in message ...
(Carlos L) wrote in message ... Thanks André for having looked and for your comments about my non-orthodox explanation that was posted in the thread "Pioneer Anomaly" URL: http:// oogle.com Here is my comment. It is pretty well established without any doubt that the speed of light of photons is invariant in vacuum and completely independant of the velocity of the source, which is precisely why Doppler ranging can be used at all. I know "that" and I believe it is true. Unfortunately everybody finds difficult to understand my (very simple) interpretation of the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum. (It must be that I don't explain myself clearly enough). I try again: I do believe that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. But I believe that the speed of light in vacuum is always c *relative to the physical apparatus* that detects it. The speed of light will also be c relative to the reference frame of description if the detector is at rest in it (as is generally the case). But since SR does not dare forbid to use detectors that move relative to the reference frame of description, I assume that in these cases the speed of light will no longer be c relative to the frame of description (until some experiment, in vacuum, proves me wrong). An implication of such interpretation is that since "all" detectors, whatever their speed relative to the source, are known to receive light from moving sources it must be assumed that a typical source emits light-type disturbance at a continuum of speeds. (I don't want to discuss in this thread the details of the *other* implications or problems with this idea). My hope here was to find some reader able to believe in the possibility that such idea is compatible with the experimental facts and be willing to discuss my interpretation of the Pioneers anomalies. As for the doppler data, if it were not to be trusted in this case, this would make this case the only one on record where Doppler data would be found not to be totally precise. I also believe that this case (of the Pioneers) is indeed the first in which the Doppler data do not agree with the expected position of a body governed by the very trustable celestial mechanics laws. But this is a special case because, for the Pioneers: (1) the position (as a function of time, therefore including velocity, acceleration, ...) is (supposedly) known with enormous precision and the experimenter is not allowed to say "the disagreement with our Doppler data must be due to our imprecise knowledge of their position". (2) the velocities of the observed bodies (the Pioneers) have a "big" component v along the line of sight, and according to my interpretation, the effect is proportional to such component. That is not the case for the moon that is AFAIK the only other celestial body whose position is known with such precision. To my knowledge, all cases where verification by other means could be used, the precision cannot be questioned. I believe that also. When orthodox theories can't explain some phenomenon, it is common practice to distrust and finally discard the data as being tainted. Well, after having studied and discarded all other "reasonable" explanations, I suppose that it is the best thing to do. Mine has not been considered yet except by you that has not fully understood it, (my fault). But anyway, thanks again. Carlos L. Nothin new under the Sun. André Michaud |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
pioneer 10 acceleration | Jonathan Silverlight | Research | 2 | June 4th 04 10:15 AM |
pioneer 10 acceleration | Nodem Info. Sys. | Research | 19 | June 4th 04 10:15 AM |
pioneer 10 acceleration | Jonathan Silverlight | Research | 0 | June 2nd 04 07:03 PM |
Probably Dumb Questions | John | Research | 49 | May 6th 04 09:01 AM |