|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Pioneer anomaly
I.Vecchi writes
I was actually referring to the occurrence of the factor 1/8 in your MOND argument, following your simplifying assumption that "the galaxy lies in a plane with the earth". Wouldn't most galaxy rotation curves be corrected, as far as possible, to be equivalent to this? Alternatively galaxies that are pretty clearly 'edge-on' would be used for measurement. Otherwise the angle would significantly alter the results. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Use functions]. BTOPENWORLD address has ceased. DEMON address has ceased. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Oz
writes I.Vecchi writes I was actually referring to the occurrence of the factor 1/8 in your MOND argument, following your simplifying assumption that "the galaxy lies in a plane with the earth". Wouldn't most galaxy rotation curves be corrected, as far as possible, to be equivalent to this? Alternatively galaxies that are pretty clearly 'edge-on' would be used for measurement. Otherwise the angle would significantly alter the results. I think not. If I recall correctly the orbit projected into this plane is also a valid orbit. It shouldn't be hard to work out, but I have so many things to try and work out at the moment. Regards -- Charles Francis |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Oz
writes Yes, but one must critically also include that its compatible with mond, and that's astonishing. The fact that it also does away with most (possibly all) the 'missing matter', and the age problem(s) as well is astonishing IMHO. Whether his theoretical basis is valid or not, the phenomenological expression makes one stop and pause and consider it's significance. Interestingly enough the theoretical considerations which lead Einstein to special relativity are all but dropped in other accounts, and it is generally justified on the basis of its predictions. Francis, to first order, has our universe as CLOSED. Possibly closed. But I confess a philosophical prejudice toward closure. The apparent acceleration goes when the recalculated density of the universe (approx 4x that currently calculated), combined with the lower expansion rate (approx half). No. The density is as it is, but if the universe is expanding at half the currently accepted rate then critical density for closure is a quarter the currently accepted value (textbook result). Regards -- Charles Francis |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Oz
writes Yes, but one must critically also include that its compatible with mond, and that's astonishing. The fact that it also does away with most (possibly all) the 'missing matter', and the age problem(s) as well is astonishing IMHO. Whether his theoretical basis is valid or not, the phenomenological expression makes one stop and pause and consider it's significance. Interestingly enough the theoretical considerations which lead Einstein to special relativity are all but dropped in other accounts, and it is generally justified on the basis of its predictions. Francis, to first order, has our universe as CLOSED. Possibly closed. But I confess a philosophical prejudice toward closure. The apparent acceleration goes when the recalculated density of the universe (approx 4x that currently calculated), combined with the lower expansion rate (approx half). No. The density is as it is, but if the universe is expanding at half the currently accepted rate then critical density for closure is a quarter the currently accepted value (textbook result). Regards -- Charles Francis |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Oz" wrote in message ... writes Yeah Larsson is here with ideas in an interesting problem area also without much discussion. I think the appropriate wizards are impressed with larsson, but for most he (and smith) are so far ahead only experts in the field can probably follow it. They aren't here. You'd think the problem itself could attract a lot of interest even before reading the proposed solution. Francis is even well known here. I consider Segal part of the Francis discussion but so far it has not added much. It may be superficially similar, but clearly NOT the same. snip Segal has no expansion in the matter dominated inner solar system but has expansion in the "empty" Pioneer inertial frame. Both produce the same apparent acceleration but assign different realities to the situation. Yes, but one must critically also include that its compatible with mond, and that's astonishing. The fact that it also does away with most (possibly all) the 'missing matter', and the age problem(s) as well is astonishing IMHO. Whether his theoretical basis is valid or not, the phenomenological expression makes one stop and pause and consider it's significance. Segal has a Minkowski space for us on Earth/matter dominated space in general and a conformal cone space for Pioneer/mostly empty space in general. The conformal cone space creates a cosmological constant which tries to accelerate the expansion. It only recently (last 2 billion years I think) has become a bigger effect than the expansion slowdown effect of matter/gravity. snip In this context it might be appropriate to draw attention again to Johan Masreliez' explanation to the Pioneer anomaly. It was recently singled out by the Russian scientific newsletter CNews as the viable candidate to competing MOND. Here is the link for the able reader: http://www.cnews.ru/news/top/index.s...5/06/27/181145 Masreliez' Pioneer paper will soon appear in Astrophysics and Space Science vol 299, pp. 83-108. Masreliez claims that the anomaly is of cosmological origin and is explained by inadvertent use of different coordinate representations when estimating the observed and modeled frequencies. /Kurt B. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
To Kurt
To resolve the apparent anomaly in the speed of the spacecraft and subsequently the variations in projected distance travelled against actual distance would require an re-alignment of most of astronomic principles back to their original heliocentric format. The major obstacle exists with the introduction of an alternative explanation for retrograde motions by Newton in contrast to the explanations of astronomers such as Galileo and Rheticus who refer retrograde motions from the faster Earth taking an inner orbital circuit against the apparent retrogrades of Mars,Jupiter and Saturn (1) - http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...turn_retro.gif The original heliocentric insight did not require a resolution that is speculative in nature and which constitutes the Newtonian line of reasoning based on an observer on the Sun - "For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes of that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined." http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm Like Kepler before him,Ole Roemer who give us the insight on finite light distance worked off the anomalistic motion of Io as seen from the Earth's orbital motion but as anyone can see from the Newtonian explanation,the 'finite light' insight is completely anonymous in Newton's explanation as he cobbles or rather mangles together the Keplerian insight with the Roemerian insight. It is an enormous task to make a necessary re-alignment of astronomic principles even for those focused on the matter and it would be an injustice to imagine otherwise. (1) Salviati Sagredo, you will see them come about in such a way that the theory of this alone ought to be enough to gain assent for the rest of the doctrine from anyone who is neither stubborn nor unteachable. I tell you, then, that no change occurs in the movement of Saturn in thirty years, in that of Jupiter in twelve, that of Mars in two, Venus in nine months, or in that of Mercury in about eighty days. The annual movement of the Earth alone, between Mars and Venus, causes all the apparent irregularities of the five stars named. . . . (explains Jupiter's motion, then follows with) Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends more time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and retrograde motions appear in them also, due not to any motion that really exists in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is acutely demonstrated by Copernicus . . . You see, gentlemen, with what ease and simplicity the annual motion -- if made by the Earth -- lends itself to supplying reasons for the apparent anomalies which are observed in the movements of the five planets. . . . It removes them all and reduces these movements to equable and regular motions; and it was Nicholas Copernicus who first clarified for us the reasons for this marvelous effect." 1632, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ups.com... To Kurt To resolve the apparent anomaly in the speed of the spacecraft and subsequently the variations in projected distance travelled against actual distance would require an re-alignment of most of astronomic principles back to their original heliocentric format. The major obstacle exists with the introduction of an alternative explanation for retrograde motions by Newton in contrast to the explanations of astronomers such as Galileo and Rheticus who refer retrograde motions from the faster Earth taking an inner orbital circuit against the apparent retrogrades of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn --------------------------- The original heliocentric insight did not require a resolution that is speculative in nature and which constitutes the Newtonian line of reasoning based on an observer on the Sun - ------------------ It is an enormous task to make a necessary re-alignment of astronomic principles even for those focused on the matter and it would be an injustice to imagine otherwise. ---------------------------- Gerald, Coordinate transformations with cosmological implications take time to full impact. So had Aristarchos' from Samos heliocentric ideas influence on Kopernikus which eventually found its way outside scientific world. And so will Masreliez´ coordinate manipulations with FRW standard take its time till tentative acceptance. In this context you might like to consider that another transformation to a jovian centric system would give a fantastic fit for Titius-Bode´s law. Why keep the Sun in origo? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
To Kurtan
The original Keplerian insight on orbital geometry and motion refered the orbit of Mars as seen from the Earth against the background stars - Kepler called the plotted trajectory 'Panis Quadragesimalis', a representation that is nowhere to be found on the entire internet . Newton worked off mean Sun/Earth distances drawn from Flamsteed's sidereal format which represents a stellar circumpolar/axial rotational equivalency only that Newton transfered it to a geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency.This is where he is getting this astronomically erroneous perspective from - "That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun." http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm The deviation from mean Sun/Earth distances generating Keplerian motion can be extracted that way however it is impossible to fit the stated sidereal format into Keplerian orbital geometry when taken through the center of the planet's orbit.Because the sidereal format attributes a constant .986 degree orbital displacement,it requires little effort to see that in a Keplerian framework ,the Newtonian stretching of orbital distances would occur but unfortunately it generates the odd spectacle of the Earth travelling faster at the aphelion and slower at the perihelion - http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/...S/AACHCIR0.JPG While it becomes even more complicated when dealing with Ole Roemer's insight,the damage is already done and especially in regard to how to treat observed motions from the center of the planet's orbit rather than an independent speculative observer based on the Sun which constitutes the Newtonian view. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In message .com,
oriel36 writes To Kurtan The original Keplerian insight on orbital geometry and motion refered the orbit of Mars as seen from the Earth against the background stars - Kepler called the plotted trajectory 'Panis Quadragesimalis', a representation that is nowhere to be found on the entire internet . Looks as if the gerald kelleher program has been partially erased :-) According to one of your own posts http://www.newsfeeds.com/archive/sci-astro-amateur/msg27075.html it's depicted at http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-lyon.fr/Entree_par_medium/Animations/Mouvement_Mars Well worth looking at, Because the sidereal format attributes a constant .986 degree orbital displacement For about the thousandth time, it doesn't. That's a simplification used in examples such as the one below to avoid complicating things with elliptical orbits. Over a year, the average is 0.986 degrees, unfortunately it generates the odd spectacle of the Earth travelling faster at the aphelion and slower at the perihelion - http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/...S/AACHCIR0.JPG As usual, this link has absolutely nothing to do with what he is describing, which is a simple consequence of an elliptical orbit. Does he grab them at random from a very small selection ? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pioneer 10 & 11 Spacecraft Deceleration Anomaly Revisited | sue jahn | History | 31 | July 12th 05 03:04 AM |
Pioneer 10 Anomaly solved via Dual Space Theory | John C. Polasek | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 10th 05 02:14 AM |
Which way does NASA Pioneer 10 & 11 gravity anomaly point? | Jack Sarfatti | Astronomy Misc | 1 | March 20th 05 04:30 PM |
The Pioneer Anomaly | Mark F. | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | December 25th 04 02:30 PM |
Pioneer 10 Anomaly and Relativity | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 55 | December 26th 03 08:14 PM |