Unification of physics

On May 2, 9:56*am, kenseto wrote:
On May 1, 5:14*pm, PD wrote:



On May 1, 9:23*am, " wrote:

On Apr 29, 11:30*am, PD wrote:

On Apr 29, 10:15*am, " wrote:

On Apr 27, 3:31*pm, PD wrote:

On Apr 27, 2:26*pm, kenseto wrote:

On Apr 27, 2:23*pm, PD wrote:

On Apr 27, 1:19*pm, kenseto wrote:

On Apr 27, 10:37*am, PD wrote:

On Apr 27, 9:28*am, kenseto wrote:

On Apr 27, 9:48*am, PD wrote:

On Apr 27, 8:17*am, kenseto wrote:

On Apr 26, 1:00*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 4/26/11 10:02 AM, kenseto wrote:

6. The pioneer 10 anormalie problem.

The Pioneer Anomaly is finally solved, thanks to 1970s computer graphics

http://io9.com/#!5788543/the-pioneer...-solved-thanks...

"The Pioneer probes are both on escape trajectories that will eventually
take them out of the solar system. They're travelling fast, but both are
slightly decelerating because the Sun's gravity is pulling them back.
The so-called Pioneer Anomaly comes from the fact that both probes are
slowing down slightly more than they ought to. It's less than an extra
billionth of a meter per second squared, but that's still enough to fall
outside our understanding ofphysics.

Right....so it is an anomaly that current theories did not predict.

"There was much speculation on the sorts strange and bizarre hidden
effects that could be causing this, including the exotic idea that
gravity itself somehow becomes stronger over the distances separating
the Sun from the Pioneer probes. These by and large fell by the wayside
when physicists realized the heat produced by the probes might be able
to account for the extra deceleration. But even then, calculations
revealed thermal effects could only account for about two-thirds of the
anomaly, still leaving the basic mystery unsolved.

Model mechanics includes a physical explanation for the Pioneer
anomaly.

"That's where researchers at Portugal's Institute for Plasmas and
Nuclear Fusion enter the picture. They realized that all the previous
calculations had only looked at the heat emitted, ignoring any heat
reflected back at the probes. They used a computer modeling technique
first developed in the 1970s known as Phong shading to figure out how
the heat would reflect off the spacecraft and in which direction it
would then travel".

These are pure speculations and not within the provision of the
current theories.

Of course they are in the provision of current theories, Ken. That's
what the announced results are about. It really is sad that a) you
can't keep up with the experimental results, and b) you cling to
problems and refuse to believe it when they are resolved.

Hey idiot....they wouldn't call it the pioneer anomaly if it is within
the provisions of the current theories. These are add-ons
(epicycles)outside of the current theories.

Ken, you are using OLD, OUTDATED information. The Pioneer anomaly is
no longer an anomaly now that it is understood and it is no longer
called the Pioneer anomaly.

Assertion is not a valid arguement.

This is not a matter of assertion, Ken. It is a matter of
DOCUMENTATION. It is a FACT that the label "Pioneer anomaly" is
associated with OLDER and OUTDATED documents surrounding the Pioneer,
and NEWER and UP-TO-DATE documents surrounding Pioneer do not regard
it as an anomaly.

It is not solved....the authors made assumptions that the heat
generated by the spacecraft causes the deceleration of the spacecraft
toward the sun. The problem is: why is the anomaly observed only when
the spacecraft is almost outside the solar system?'

Read the paper, Ken. The anomaly is not observed ONLY when the
spaceship is almost outside the solar system. But the heat effect is
constant, and the gravitational pull declines. Inside the solar
system, the gravitational effect swamps the heat effect, and so the
deceleration due to the heat is below measurement sensitivity. Near
the edge of the solar system, when the gravitational deceleration is
very small, then the heat effect becomes noticeable compared to that
other effect.

This is an ad hoc assertion.....they merely invented a scenario that
fit their calculations.

That is wrong, Ken. I've already explained why.

This invention is not included in the model of
the current theories.

Yes, it is. Heat radiation and the pressure from it is certainly part
of our current models.

The heat emitted by the scpacraft on the back side of the satellite
will cause the spacecraft recoil to balance out the heat reflected
off *the antenna....their explanation is bogus.

You have your basic physics wrong, Ken. It does not balance.

you have it wrong....the heat reflected back from the antenna and hit
the spacecraft and causes it to accelerate away from the sun and thus
there is no deceleration caused by the heat. The anomaly remain
unsolved with current theories.

Ken, I'm sorry, but your basic physics is just flat wrong.
I know that you have a high emotional attachment to this, just like
the people who have a high emotional attachment to 9/11 conspiracy
theories.
But you just make a fool of yourself by saying things that a freshman
knows is wrong.




Model Mechanics give a much better
explanation.....the dark matter, in term of free S-Particle, in the
sun and the planets causes the decelration of the spacecaft toward the
sun when it is outside the solar system. When the space craft in
inside the solar system the dark matter in the planets canels the
effect of the drak matter in the sun and thus no deceleration of the
spacecraft toward the sun.http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.xps

Ken, Ken, Ken.

Does it not occur to you to READ first before shooting your mouth off?

Why is the heat
generated by the spacecaft did not affect the path of the spacecraft
while it is still within the solar system????

When it comes to DOCUMENTED FACTS, Ken, argument has nothing to do
with it. Either you avail yourself of the documentation, or you don't.
If you don't, then it's nobody's fault but your own.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 2, 9:42*am, kenseto wrote:
On May 1, 5:16*pm, PD wrote:



On May 1, 9:26*am, " wrote:

On Apr 29, 11:30*am, PD wrote:

On Apr 29, 10:20*am, " wrote:

On Apr 27, 10:37*am, PD wrote:

On Apr 27, 9:28*am, kenseto wrote:

On Apr 27, 9:48*am, PD wrote:

On Apr 27, 8:17*am, kenseto wrote:

On Apr 26, 1:00*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 4/26/11 10:02 AM, kenseto wrote:

6. The pioneer 10 anormalie problem.

The Pioneer Anomaly is finally solved, thanks to 1970s computer graphics

http://io9.com/#!5788543/the-pioneer...-solved-thanks...

"The Pioneer probes are both on escape trajectories that will eventually
take them out of the solar system. They're travelling fast, but both are
slightly decelerating because the Sun's gravity is pulling them back.
The so-called Pioneer Anomaly comes from the fact that both probes are
slowing down slightly more than they ought to. It's less than an extra
billionth of a meter per second squared, but that's still enough to fall
outside our understanding ofphysics.

Right....so it is an anomaly that current theories did not predict.

"There was much speculation on the sorts strange and bizarre hidden
effects that could be causing this, including the exotic idea that
gravity itself somehow becomes stronger over the distances separating
the Sun from the Pioneer probes. These by and large fell by the wayside
when physicists realized the heat produced by the probes might be able
to account for the extra deceleration. But even then, calculations
revealed thermal effects could only account for about two-thirds of the
anomaly, still leaving the basic mystery unsolved.

Model mechanics includes a physical explanation for the Pioneer
anomaly.

"That's where researchers at Portugal's Institute for Plasmas and
Nuclear Fusion enter the picture. They realized that all the previous
calculations had only looked at the heat emitted, ignoring any heat
reflected back at the probes. They used a computer modeling technique
first developed in the 1970s known as Phong shading to figure out how
the heat would reflect off the spacecraft and in which direction it
would then travel".

These are pure speculations and not within the provision of the
current theories.

Of course they are in the provision of current theories, Ken. That's
what the announced results are about. It really is sad that a) you
can't keep up with the experimental results, and b) you cling to
problems and refuse to believe it when they are resolved.

Hey idiot....they wouldn't call it the pioneer anomaly if it is within
the provisions of the current theories. These are add-ons
(epicycles)outside of the current theories.

Ken, you are using OLD, OUTDATED information. The Pioneer anomaly is
no longer an anomaly now that it is understood and it is no longer
called the Pioneer anomaly.

It is still an anomaly.

That is an incorrect statement, born of ignorance, Ken. You can't make
something right by simply remaining ignorant.

Hey idiot pointing out that their effort is purely ad-hoc is not born
of ignorance.

There IS NO anomaly, Ken. The explanation is old physics, simply
overlooked.

Assertion is not a valid arguement.

Don't need arguments, Ken, when the documentation is available.




Ken Seto

....they merely invented an ad hoc scenario
that fits the math. The observation is not within the provision of the
current theories.

Ken Seto

See:http://io9.com/#!5788543/the-pioneer...-solved-thanks...

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 2, 9:40*am, kenseto wrote:
On May 1, 5:17*pm, PD wrote:



On May 1, 9:17*am, " wrote:

On Apr 28, 10:39*am, PD wrote:

On Apr 28, 9:05*am, kenseto wrote:

On Apr 27, 7:33*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 4/27/11 2:23 PM, kenseto wrote:

It is not solved....the authors made assumptions that the heat
generated by the spacecraft causes the deceleration of the spacecraft
toward the sun. The problem is: why is the anomaly observed only when
the spacecraft is almost outside the solar system? Why is the heat
generated by the spacecaft did not affect the path of the spacecraft
while it is still within the solar system????

* *Did you even read the reference, Seto?http://io9.com/#!5788543/the-pioneer...-solved-thanks...

As PD explained: "Inside the solar system, the gravitational effect
swamps the heat effect, and so the deceleration due to the heat is
below measurement sensitivity. Near the edge of the solar system,
when the gravitational deceleration is very small, then the heat
effect becomes noticeable compared to that other effect".

This explanation is purely ad hoc.

Nature does what it does, involving everything that applies naturally.
Our ability to accurately represent what's going on depends on our
ability to remember to include everything that's important. In this
particular case, there was an oversight, leaving out something that
should have been remembered but wasn't. It was old physics, not a new
addition, but it had been simply left out. Remembering this
contribution and adding it back in showed that old physics accounts
for the Pioneer trajectory completely. Again, it is not a NEW
solution. It is remembering to include all the old ones.

There IS no Pioneer anomaly. There was only THOUGHT to be one when not
everything we should have remembered was included.

Hey idiot what they did was post-diction....just like the old day,
they invented epicyles upon epicycle to explain that the earth is the
center of the universe.

Post-diction if it involves old physics is not a bad thing, Ken. It is
just remembering to include factors that should have been included
originally. Nothing wrong with that.

Sure there is something wrong....post-diction enables you physicists
to ignore new physics such as Model Mechanics.

And here we finally get to the core truth.
You don't like anything in physics that enables people to ignore you.
You don't like the definitions of terms in physics if those
definitions allow people to ignore you.
You don't like puzzles not being paradoxes if that enables people to
ignore you.
You don't like unsolved problems being solved if that enables people
to ignore you.

It doesn't occur to you that the reason why people ignore you is
because what you've produced is worthless and doesn't even meet the
minimum requirements to be called physics?




Every time you encounter problems
you guys invent an ad hoc solution. The basic problem is that the
current theories are not complete....Model mechanics is complete. It
includes the free S-Particles that act as the observed dark matter.

On Apr 26, 1:00*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/26/11 10:02 AM, kenseto wrote:

6. The pioneer 10 anormalie problem.

The Pioneer Anomaly is finally solved, thanks to 1970s computer graphics

http://io9.com/#!5788543/the-pioneer...-solved-thanks...

"The Pioneer probes are both on escape trajectories that will eventually
take them out of the solar system. They're travelling fast, but both are
slightly decelerating because the Sun's gravity is pulling them back.
The so-called Pioneer Anomaly comes from the fact that both probes are
slowing down slightly more than they ought to. It's less than an extra
billionth of a meter per second squared, but that's still enough to fall
outside our understanding of physics.

"There was much speculation on the sorts strange and bizarre hidden
effects that could be causing this, including the exotic idea that
gravity itself somehow becomes stronger over the distances separating
the Sun from the Pioneer probes. These by and large fell by the wayside
when physicists realized the heat produced by the probes might be able
to account for the extra deceleration. But even then, calculations
revealed thermal effects could only account for about two-thirds of the
anomaly, still leaving the basic mystery unsolved.

"That's where researchers at Portugal's Institute for Plasmas and
Nuclear Fusion enter the picture. They realized that all the previous
calculations had only looked at the heat emitted, ignoring any heat
reflected back at the probes. They used a computer modeling technique
first developed in the 1970s known as Phong shading to figure out how
the heat would reflect off the spacecraft and in which direction it
would then travel".

See:http://io9.com/#!5788543/the-pioneer...-solved-thanks....

Sam I am trying to unify 3 of my theories. It is not easy making them
3 sides to the same pyramid TreBert