Exoplanet hunter

I heard one anecdote (in a television documentary quite some time ago)
of an exoplanet hunter who, in the early or mid 1990's (when the best
precision was in the 3 - 10 m/s range) thought he had discovered one.
When it came time to present his findings at a conference, he mounted
the podium only to painfully relate to his eager audience that, having
realized that the period of his purported planet was 1 year, what he had
"discovered" was merely an annual residual in his data. His candor,
nevertheless, earned him a brisk applause. The moral of the story, as
presented, was about the scientific virtue of frank disclosure in the
face of error.

But now I have another interest. I would like to analyse his residuals.
can any of you suggest who the planet hunter was?

[Mod. note: you are probably thinking of Andrew Lyne: see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lyne -- mjh]

Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email

Thus spake Oh No
I heard one anecdote (in a television documentary quite some time ago)
of an exoplanet hunter who, in the early or mid 1990's (when the best
precision was in the 3 - 10 m/s range) thought he had discovered one.
When it came time to present his findings at a conference, he mounted
the podium only to painfully relate to his eager audience that, having
realized that the period of his purported planet was 1 year, what he had
"discovered" was merely an annual residual in his data. His candor,
nevertheless, earned him a brisk applause. The moral of the story, as
presented, was about the scientific virtue of frank disclosure in the
face of error.

But now I have another interest. I would like to analyse his residuals.
can any of you suggest who the planet hunter was?

[Mod. note: you are probably thinking of Andrew Lyne: see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lyne -- mjh]

Many thanks. That is right.

Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email

On Apr 23, 10:05 am, Oh No wrote:
I heard one anecdote (in a television documentary quite some time ago)
of an exoplanet hunter who, in the early or mid 1990's (when the best
precision was in the 3 - 10 m/s range) thought he had discovered one.
When it came time to present his findings at a conference, he mounted
the podium only to painfully relate to his eager audience that, having
realized that the period of his purported planet was 1 year, what he had
"discovered" was merely an annual residual in his data. His candor,
nevertheless, earned him a brisk applause. The moral of the story, as
presented, was about the scientific virtue of frank disclosure in the
face of error.

About the Pioneer Anomaly.
Check out fig.1 in this, (the bottom fig)...
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903024

I have no conclusions, but an annular effect
"may" be apparent in the data. (A work in
progress).
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

In article , Oh No
writes:

I heard one anecdote (in a television documentary quite some time ago)
of an exoplanet hunter who, in the early or mid 1990's (when the best
precision was in the 3 - 10 m/s range) thought he had discovered one.
When it came time to present his findings at a conference, he mounted
the podium only to painfully relate to his eager audience that, having
realized that the period of his purported planet was 1 year, what he had
"discovered" was merely an annual residual in his data. His candor,
nevertheless, earned him a brisk applause. The moral of the story, as
presented, was about the scientific virtue of frank disclosure in the
face of error.

But now I have another interest. I would like to analyse his residuals.
can any of you suggest who the planet hunter was?

[Mod. note: you are probably thinking of Andrew Lyne: see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lyne -- mjh]

Andrew Lyne is one of the leading pulsar astronomers and was the
director of the Jodrell Bank Observatory. IIRC, it was actually a
student who did the work (there is another name mentioned in the
Wikipedia article, but I'm pretty sure that's not the name of the
student), but Andrew "accepted responsibility" for the goof. While that
was definitely the correct thing to do (after all, had a student come up
with something really sensational, he would have gladly and justly
accepted some of the credit), I don't think it helped the student get a
job in astronomy. :-(

Of the three headings in the article, only "binary pulsar" is really
important enough to be there. It's a shame that someone who has worked
in the field for 40 years is essentially reduced to one goof in the
article. But, alas, such is the quality of Wikipedia. It might be OK
for a quick read, but it is sad that many people now use it as their
primary source of information.

(I think it is interesting that "[t]he American band Neutrino wrote and
recorded a song named for Lyne". Since I also know Lubos Kohoutek
personally (immortalised in the eponymous R.E.M. song via his comet), I
am probably one of the few people who know all astronomers who have rock
songs named after them (unless there are other such songs I'm not aware
of). While not an astronomer, note the Jethro Tull song "For Michael
Collins, Jeffrey and Me" on their 1970 album "Benefit". No, it's not
the Irish revolutionary, but rather the astronaut who remained aboard
the lunar orbiter while Armstrong and Collins landed on the Moon. And
of course Tasmin Archer's "Sleeping Satellite" and, moving outside of
astronomy, Olivia Newton-John is the granddaughter of quantum pioneer
Max Born.)

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Apr 23, 10:05 am, Oh No wrote:

I heard one anecdote (in a television documentary quite some time ago)
of an exoplanet hunter who, in the early or mid 1990's (when the best
precision was in the 3 - 10 m/s range) thought he had discovered one.
When it came time to present his findings at a conference, he mounted
the podium only to painfully relate to his eager audience that, having
realized that the period of his purported planet was 1 year, what he had
"discovered" was merely an annual residual in his data. His candor,
nevertheless, earned him a brisk applause. The moral of the story, as
presented, was about the scientific virtue of frank disclosure in the
face of error.


About the Pioneer Anomaly.
Check out fig.1 in this, (the bottom fig)...
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903024

I have no conclusions, but an annular effect
"may" be apparent in the data. (A work in
progress).
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

The Planetary Society reports
"that as of March 2007,
the existence of the anomaly is confirmed
by seven independent investigations
using different navigational codes."

Seems definitive.

It is hoped that the spin deceleration anomaly
will be investigated to the same degree
as the translational deceleration anomaly.

Richard D. Saam

On Apr 25, 12:01 am, Richard Saam wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
.....
About the Pioneer Anomaly.
Check out fig.1 in this, (the bottom fig)...
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903024

I have no conclusions, but an annual effect
"may" be apparent in the data. (A work in
progress).
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

The Planetary Society reports
"that as of March 2007,
the existence of the anomaly is confirmed
by seven independent investigations
using different navigational codes."

Seems definitive.

My post referred to a possible "annual cyclicity"
impressed on the data, that might be explained
by the Earth's relative approach and recession
from the Pioneers as it orbits. If true, the anomaly
of the measurement is a function of "relative velocity".

Could you provide a ref to the "spin anomally"?
Regards
Ken
PS: I engaged briefly with Mr. Turyshev on the
paper I ref'd to above. Check out his foot-note
on pg.5, "orientation of the lover's around the bus".
Well, when I queried him for more details on that
foot-note, he too busted a gut :-).

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

On Apr 25, 12:01 am, Richard Saam wrote:

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

....

About the Pioneer Anomaly.
Check out fig.1 in this, (the bottom fig)...
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903024

I have no conclusions, but an annual effect
"may" be apparent in the data. (A work in
progress).
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

The Planetary Society reports
"that as of March 2007,
the existence of the anomaly is confirmed
by seven independent investigations
using different navigational codes."

Seems definitive.


My post referred to a possible "annual cyclicity"
impressed on the data, that might be explained
by the Earth's relative approach and recession
from the Pioneers as it orbits. If true, the anomaly
of the measurement is a function of "relative velocity".

Could you provide a ref to the "spin anomally"?
Regards
Ken
PS: I engaged briefly with Mr. Turyshev on the
paper I ref'd to above. Check out his foot-note
on pg.5, "orientation of the lover's around the bus".
Well, when I queried him for more details on that
foot-note, he too busted a gut :-).

Yes, a little levity goes a long ways.

When did you talk to Mr. Turyshev?

Perhaps the ongoing Planetary Society analysis of archival data
sheds new light on this 'possible "annual cyclicity"'.

Let's hope for more definitive reporting.

I do not have any reference to the term "spin anomaly"
but only to the JPL papers indicating a "spin deceleration"
indicating such deceleration on the order of .0067 rpm/year.

On the top of your reference pg.6 is stated
"Assume that the slowing of the spin rate
was caused by spacecraft systems that also account
for a few % systematic effect."

This statement indicates the often expressed view
that spin rate deceleration
is due to a spacecraft systematic effect.

I have never seen spin rate deceleration
expressed as an "anomaly"
as the translational deceleration routinely is
perhaps for lack of any envisioned theory to explain
such anomalous spin rate deceleration.

It would appear to be important to initiate
the analysis of archival data
with no preconceived notions
on spin or translational deceleration anomaly.

Let the term "anomaly" fall where it may.

Dimensional analysis indicates there may be a link
between anomalous spacecraft spin
and translational deceleration.

Richard Saam

On Apr 27, 2:21 am, Richard Saam wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Apr 25, 12:01 am, Richard Saam wrote:

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

....

About the Pioneer Anomaly.
Check out fig.1 in this, (the bottom fig)...
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903024

I have no conclusions, but an annual effect
"may" be apparent in the data. (A work in
progress).
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

The Planetary Society reports
"that as of March 2007,
the existence of the anomaly is confirmed
by seven independent investigations
using different navigational codes."

Seems definitive.

My post referred to a possible "annual cyclicity"
impressed on the data, that might be explained
by the Earth's relative approach and recession
from the Pioneers as it orbits. If true, the anomaly
of the measurement is a function of "relative velocity".

Could you provide a ref to the "spin anomally"?
Regards
Ken
PS: I engaged briefly with Mr. Turyshev on the
paper I ref'd to above. Check out his foot-note
on pg.5, "orientation of the lover's around the bus".
Well, when I queried him for more details on that
foot-note, he too busted a gut :-).

Yes, a little levity goes a long ways.

When did you talk to Mr. Turyshev?

We exchanged info in the late 90's early 00's.

Perhaps the ongoing Planetary Society analysis of archival data
sheds new light on this 'possible "annual cyclicity"'.

Yeah I recall reading an article in Planetary Society
back in 2000 or so.

Let's hope for more definitive reporting.

I do not have any reference to the term "spin anomaly"
but only to the JPL papers indicating a "spin deceleration"
indicating such deceleration on the order of .0067 rpm/year.

On the top of your reference pg.6 is stated
"Assume that the slowing of the spin rate
was caused by spacecraft systems that also account
for a few % systematic effect."

Thanks for the refs!

This statement indicates the often expressed view
that spin rate deceleration
is due to a spacecraft systematic effect.

I have never seen spin rate deceleration
expressed as an "anomaly"
as the translational deceleration routinely is
perhaps for lack of any envisioned theory to explain
such anomalous spin rate deceleration.

It would appear to be important to initiate
the analysis of archival data
with no preconceived notions
on spin or translational deceleration anomaly.

Well we don't have a really good data base on
hyperbolic orbits, or highly eccentrical orbits
such as comets have, (it's a bit fuzzy), so
there could be unknown orbital characteristics
associated with those types of trajectories as
Pioneers etc. suggest. I was rather hoping a
definitive probe akin to the Pluto Express may
provide a bit harder data.

Let the term "anomaly" fall where it may.

Dimensional analysis indicates there may be a link
between anomalous spacecraft spin
and translational deceleration.

If you a ref on that linkage I'd appreciate seeing it.

Richard Saam

Thanks
Ken S. Tucker

Rock group Queen's Brian Mae was working on a PhD in astrophysics at
Imperial College London, he co-authored two papers, including one in
Nature!
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972Natur.240..401H
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974MNRAS.166..439H

According to a Southampton astronomer who was working there at the
same time, Mae even submitted a thesis (he started playing with Queen
while still a postgraduate), but ICL demanded revisions. Since Mae was
too busy being a rockstar, he never resubmitted. Brian Mae is now
quite involved in popularizing astronomy in Britain.

Wikipedia was not consulted in the composition of this article.

PS: of course he's spelt "May" not "Mae".