#11
|
|||
|
|||
Star Distances
That idea is not new: http://www.nineplanets.org/hypo.html#nemesis That sounds about right. And it's also very unlikely. A star that close to us would appear quite bright - either in visible light or in the infrared. Despite numerous attempts, no such star has been found, I understand there is a lot of activity in observatories in the Southern Hemisphere. We might not be able to see it from up here. And even if we could it might not be all that easy to find. "They" might be keeping the news secret. IRAS data doesn't get piped directly to the internet you know. If it does exist we'll have to hope some Australian amateurs find it. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Star Distances
Including the last sentence? That about the failure of IRAS to find that It's the first sentence that I was hoping is wrong and that the star is actually closer. The fact remains that if your nearby star had existed, it would have been discovered already. Maybe. No doubt if it does exist there are people who do know about it. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Star Distances
"Hurt" wrote in message oups.com... No, the majority of the anomaly would then be directed out of the plane. The anomalous acceleration is in the plane towards the Sun. They don't give any precise vector; they use words like away, towards, and radial towards the Sun. Page 18: "Over the years the data continually indicated that the largest systematic error in the acceleration residuals is a constant bias of a_P ~ 8+/-3)*10^-8 cm/s^2, directed toward the Sun (to within the beam-width of the Pioneers’ antennae [73])." Note [73] indicates the beamwidth is 3.6 degrees. As I said, there's a lot of information in the paper if you are serious, but that means reading the endnotes. And each of the values appears to be constant, independent of the distance from the Sun. The sigma is very large. You can't be sure it's constant with that sigma, over that range. No magnitude variation of aP with distance was found, within a sensitivity of s0 = 2×10-8 cm/s2 over a range of 40 to 60 AU. Page 34, commenting on the possibility of a correlation with the RTG radioactive decay: "Finally, we want to comment on the significance of radioactive decay for this mechanism. Even acknowledging the Interval jumps due to gas leaks (see below), we reported a one-day batch- sequential value (before systematics) for a_P, averaged over the entire 11.5 year interval, of a_P = (7.77+/-0.16)*10^-8 cm/s^2. From radioactive decay, the value of a_P should have decreased by 0.75 of these units over 11.5 years. This is 5 times the above variance, which is very large with batch sequential." And the planets are being affected. Solar "Global" Warming. Nope their motion is not being affected. George; something that barely budges a small spacecraft won't move a planet. It might deflect some asteroids over a long duration though. "Hurt", gravity produces the same acceleration independent of mass. Read up on Galileo. They checked to see if a gravitational effect was a possible cause and the orbits of the planets would have shown changes that would be detectable in a few years. I can't remember the exact numbers but no such variation exists so that possibility is ruled out. Just as well or our planet would be a lot closer to the Sun by now if it had formed anywhere near this orbit. There's a lot of good background information in the paper if you are serious about understanding the problem. The problem? Denial. Denial of what? You haven't come up with anything even vaguely credible, just stabs in the dark that are obviously nonsense to anyone who has looked at the data. Sadly, none of the other ideas works well either, and there have been many. George |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Star Distances
Sorry, clicked post accidentally. "Over the years the data continually indicated that the largest systematic error in the acceleration residuals is a constant bias of a_P ~ 8+/-3)*10^-8 cm/s^2, directed toward the Sun (to within the beam-width of the Pioneers' antennae [73])." And...? That was the ~ (approximate) LARGEST error. That doesn't change the uncertainty of the magnitude variation. Once again: "No magnitude variation of aP with distance was found, within a sensitivity of s0 = 2×10-8 cm/s2 over a range of 40 to 60 AU." Note [73] indicates the beamwidth is 3.6 degrees. As What note [73] indicates is that they could not tell whether the force direction was towards the Sun or if the force direction was towards the Earth. Or somewhere else! A beamwidth of 3.6 degrees, at the probe, spreads a whole lot over a distance of over 60 AU. PDF page 51: [73] We only measure Earth-spacecraft Doppler frequency and, as we will discuss in Sec. VIIIA, the down link antenna yields a conical beam of width 3.6 degrees at half-maximum power. Therefore, between Pioneer 10's past and present (May 2001) distances of 20 to 78 AU, the Earth-spacecraft line and Sun-spacecraft line are so close that one can not resolve whether the force direction is towards the Sun or if the force direction is towards the Earth. If we could have used a longer arc fit that started earlier and hence closer, we might have able to separate the Sun direction from the Earth direction. I said, there's a lot of information in the paper if you are serious, but that means reading the endnotes. Unfortunately I don't have enough useful time to read everything; and still, I'm doing pretty good. Page 34, commenting on the possibility of a correlation with the RTG radioactive decay: "Finally, we want to comment on the significance of radioactive decay for this mechanism. Even acknowledging the Interval jumps due to gas leaks (see below), we reported a one-day batch- sequential value (before systematics) for a_P, averaged over the entire 11.5 year interval, of a_P = (7.77+/-0.16)*10^-8 cm/s^2. From radioactive decay, the value of a_P should have decreased by 0.75 of these units over 11.5 years. This is 5 times the above variance, which is very large with batch sequential." Unless you're trying to tell me something indirectly I don't see what this has to do with our conversation. Maybe you're trying to baffle the masses? "Hurt", gravity produces the same acceleration independent of mass. Read up on Galileo. Did I say anything about acceleration? I can qualify my statement. "... something that barely budges a small spacecraft won't [measurably OR significantly OR noticeably] move a planet." What is the angular acceleration of a planet, say Earth. Not to mention its instantaneous linear tangential acceleration. IT'S HUGE. Take that vector and add it to ~ 8*10^ -8 (that's a minus 8) cm/s^2 and you basically get that vector. I don't know if we could even measure such a small change over many years. They checked to see if a gravitational effect was a possible cause and the orbits of the planets would have shown changes that would be detectable in a few years. I can't remember the exact numbers Can you point out the section that says this please. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Star Distances
Hurt wrote:
That idea is not new: http://www.nineplanets.org/hypo.html#nemesis That sounds about right. And it's also very unlikely. A star that close to us would appear quite bright - either in visible light or in the infrared. Despite numerous attempts, no such star has been found, I understand there is a lot of activity in observatories in the Southern Hemisphere. We might not be able to see it from up here. And even if we could it might not be all that easy to find. "They" might be keeping the news secret. IRAS data doesn't get piped directly to the internet you know. If it does exist we'll have to hope some Australian amateurs find it. How does that shoe leather taste? It's in there pretty deep now. -- COOSN-266-06-39716 Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005 Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion", as designated by Brad Guth "And without accurate measuring techniques, how can they even *call* quantum theory a "scientific" one? How can it possibly be referred to as a "fundamental branch of physics"?" -- Painsnuh the Lamer "Well, orientals moved to the U.S. and did amazingly well on their own, and the races are related (brown)." -- "Honest" John pontificates on racial purity "Significant new ideas have rarely come from the ranks of the establishment." -- Double-A on technology development |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Star Distances
On 3 Jul 2006 08:59:54 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us: We might not be able to see it from up here. How old are you... I mean... mentally? 12? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Star Distances
On 3 Jul 2006 08:59:54 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us: "They" might be keeping the news secret. Like your momma kept it a secret that you were "touched"? Oh... that's right... The other kids know... they ALWAYS know... No secret(s) there... either. Dude... come back when you have gained adulthood, and I am not referring to numerical age either. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Star Distances
On 3 Jul 2006 08:59:54 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us: If it does exist we'll have to hope some Australian amateurs find it. The only *IT* that exists is the *IT* that YOU put in YOUR head. You are indeed HURT beyond repair. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Star Distances
On 3 Jul 2006 12:24:51 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us: No doubt if it does exist there are people who do know about it. Unbelievable. What ****Tard U did you flop out of? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Yes, Virginia, Man NEVER Walked on the Moon... | Ed Conrad | Amateur Astronomy | 12 | September 4th 06 01:20 PM |
Who Says CROP CIRCLES are Man Made? | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 25th 06 05:35 AM |
Off to Early Start in Worldwide Burning of EVOLUTION Textbooks | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 29th 06 09:08 PM |
THE INCREDIBLE BILLY MEIER EXTRATERRESTRIAL CASE -- All the critics can go to hell | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 3 | April 20th 06 08:23 PM |
Space Calendar - January 27, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 7 | January 29th 04 09:29 PM |