View Full Version : Re: pioneer 10 acceleration
Nodem Info. Sys.
May20-04, 11:42 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Jonathan Silverlight <jsilverlight@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:<+uofYBGMgJmAFwei@merseia.fsnet.co.uk>...\n> In message <5f2edd6.0405041941.7fbbfad1@posting.google.com> , Nodem Info.\n> Sys. <research@nodem.info> writes\n> >Craig Markwardt <craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message\n> >news:<onr7u0lyl7.fsf@cow.physics.wisc.edu>...\n > >> **SNIP**\n> >> Also unlikely. An extra concentration of (dark) matter around the sun\n> >> should have been detectable in the motions of the planets, but has not\n> >> been. This is discussed in the Anderson et al (2001) paper.\n> >>\n> >> The most mundane explanation is, as mentioned already, improper\n> >> modeling of the spacecraft radiative properties.\n> >>\n> >> CM\n> >\n> >There are three totally different space craft designs, all showing the\n> >same effect, in the same direction, at the same magnitude. This can\'t\n> >be a radiative effect and be *that* consistant. Come on!\n>\n> One problem with that argument is that the later and much more\n> comprehensive paper by Anderson et al.\n> <http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0104064> notes that the effect for\n> Ulysses is highly correlated with solar radiation pressure, and the\n> effect for Galileo is highly inconsistent, probably due to gas leaks.\n> One of the tasks of the Cassini probe was to act as a platform for this\n> sort of acceleration measurement (to measure gravity waves and\n> relativistic effects) and Cassini shows no anomaly.\n\nI\'ve had time to study the Cassini measurements and yes, there is no\nanomaly. However, the reason for this is the way the measurement\nmethos differs from the other probes. The Cassini time-delay\nmeasurement should show no real change in the velocity, which is\nexpected and fully consistent with my result.\n\nWhat my result refers to is an apparent geometry feature of space-time\nwhich only effects measurements made via Doppler ranging. This\nresults in an apparent acceleration towards the observer, and does not\nrepresent a real change in the velocity of the probe.\n\n[REF: NKS 2004 proceedings, Alastair Hewitt, "A Cosmological Model\nUtilizing Causal-temporal Mobile Automaton", Materials <2>]\nhttp://www.wolframscience.com/conference/2004/presentations/material/ahewitt-2.pdf\n\nAs for the other probes, yes these could all be various different\nkinds of errors. All these errors are all similar in magnitude and\nall towards the observer. Let\'s just say that\'s quite a\ncoincidence...\n\nYour argument is typical of the failures of modern cosmology, where\npeople try to fit observations to existing theoretical assumptions.\nProgress will only ever be made when people question their assumptions\nand fit theory to observation. BTW, this is how real science gets\ndone.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Jonathan Silverlight <jsilverlight@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:<+uofYBGMgJmAFwei@merseia.fsnet.co.uk>...
> In message <5f2edd6.0405041941.7fbbfad1@posting.google.com>, Nodem Info.
> Sys. <research@nodem.info> writes
> >Craig Markwardt <craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message
> >news:<onr7u0lyl7.fsf@cow.physics.wisc.edu>...
> >> **SNIP**
> >> Also unlikely. An extra concentration of (dark) matter around the sun
> >> should have been detectable in the motions of the planets, but has not
> >> been. This is discussed in the Anderson et al (2001) paper.
> >>
> >> The most mundane explanation is, as mentioned already, improper
> >> modeling of the spacecraft radiative properties.
> >>
> >> CM
> >
> >There are three totally different space craft designs, all showing the
> >same effect, in the same direction, at the same magnitude. This can't
> >be a radiative effect and be *that* consistant. Come on!
>
> One problem with that argument is that the later and much more
> comprehensive paper by Anderson et al.
> <http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064> notes that the effect for
> Ulysses is highly correlated with solar radiation pressure, and the
> effect for Galileo is highly inconsistent, probably due to gas leaks.
> One of the tasks of the Cassini probe was to act as a platform for this
> sort of acceleration measurement (to measure gravity waves and
> relativistic effects) and Cassini shows no anomaly.
I've had time to study the Cassini measurements and yes, there is no
anomaly. However, the reason for this is the way the measurement
methos differs from the other probes. The Cassini time-delay
measurement should show no real change in the velocity, which is
expected and fully consistent with my result.
What my result refers to is an apparent geometry feature of space-time
which only effects measurements made via Doppler ranging. This
results in an apparent acceleration towards the observer, and does not
represent a real change in the velocity of the probe.
[REF: NKS 2004 proceedings, Alastair Hewitt, "A Cosmological Model
Utilizing Causal-temporal Mobile Automaton", Materials <2>]
http://www.wolframscience.com/conference/2004/presentations/material/ahewitt-2.pdf
As for the other probes, yes these could all be various different
kinds of errors. All these errors are all similar in magnitude and
all towards the observer. Let's just say that's quite a
coincidence...
Your argument is typical of the failures of modern cosmology, where
people try to fit observations to existing theoretical assumptions.
Progress will only ever be made when people question their assumptions
and fit theory to observation. BTW, this is how real science gets
done.
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Nodem Info. Sys." <research@nodem.info> wrote in message\nnews:mt2.0-12059-1085071346@star.bris.ac.uk...\n> Jonathan Silverlight <jsilverlight@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote\nin message news:<+uofYBGMgJmAFwei@merseia.fsnet.co.uk>...\n> > In message <5f2edd6.0405041941.7fbbfad1@posting.google.com> , Nodem Info.\n> > Sys. <research@nodem.info> writes\n> > >Craig Markwardt <craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message\n> > >news:<onr7u0lyl7.fsf@cow.physics.wisc.edu>...\n > > >> **SNIP**\n> > >> Also unlikely. An extra concentration of (dark) matter around the\nsun\n> > >> should have been detectable in the motions of the planets, but has\nnot\n> > >> been. This is discussed in the Anderson et al (2001) paper.\n> > >>\n> > >> The most mundane explanation is, as mentioned already, improper\n> > >> modeling of the spacecraft radiative properties.\n> > >>\n> > >> CM\n> > >\n> > >There are three totally different space craft designs, all showing the\n> > >same effect, in the same direction, at the same magnitude. This can\'t\n> > >be a radiative effect and be *that* consistant. Come on!\n> >\n> > One problem with that argument is that the later and much more\n> > comprehensive paper by Anderson et al.\n> > <http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0104064> notes that the effect for\n> > Ulysses is highly correlated with solar radiation pressure, and the\n> > effect for Galileo is highly inconsistent, probably due to gas leaks.\n> >\n> > One of the tasks of the Cassini probe was to act as a platform for this\n> > sort of acceleration measurement (to measure gravity waves and\n> > relativistic effects) and Cassini shows no anomaly.\n>\n> I\'ve had time to study the Cassini measurements and yes, there is no\n> anomaly. However, the reason for this is the way the measurement\n> methos differs from the other probes. The Cassini time-delay\n> measurement should show no real change in the velocity, which is\n> expected and fully consistent with my result.\n>\n> What my result refers to is an apparent geometry feature of space-time\n> which only effects measurements made via Doppler ranging. This\n> results in an apparent acceleration towards the observer, and does not\n> represent a real change in the velocity of the probe.\n>\n> [REF: NKS 2004 proceedings, Alastair Hewitt, "A Cosmological Model\n> Utilizing Causal-temporal Mobile Automaton", Materials <2>]\n>\nhttp://www.wolframscience.com/conference/2004/presentations/material/ahewitt\n-2.pdf\n>\n> As for the other probes, yes these could all be various different\n> kinds of errors. All these errors are all similar in magnitude and\n> all towards the observer. Let\'s just say that\'s quite a\n> coincidence...\n>\n> Your argument is typical of the failures of modern cosmology, where\n> people try to fit observations to existing theoretical assumptions.\n> Progress will only ever be made when people question their assumptions\n> and fit theory to observation. BTW, this is how real science gets done.\n\nThe "much more comprehensive paper by Anderson et al."[12002(HE)]\nnotes good fit to an "existing theoretical assumption": (traditional) tired\nlight,\nwhich is dismissed for well known reasons, see e.g. Ned Wright\'s tuition\nwebpage. There is however a tired light mechanism of cosmological origin\nbased on a new formalism that is capable of refuting all of Ned Wright\'s\nclaims. See http://www.estfound.org/pioneer.htm . This redshift mechanism\nis predicted by a new non ad hoc GR cosmos theory that you may find too\nspeculative. Then bear in mind that the observed acceleration anomaly may\nbe a strong evidence supporting this Scale Expanding Spacetime theory.\n/Kurt B.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Nodem Info. Sys." <research@nodem.info> wrote in message
news:mt2.0-12059-1085071346@star.bris.ac.uk...
> Jonathan Silverlight <jsilverlight@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote
in message news:<+uofYBGMgJmAFwei@merseia.fsnet.co.uk>...
> > In message <5f2edd6.0405041941.7fbbfad1@posting.google.com>, Nodem Info.
> > Sys. <research@nodem.info> writes
> > >Craig Markwardt <craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message
> > >news:<onr7u0lyl7.fsf@cow.physics.wisc.edu>...
> > >> **SNIP**
> > >> Also unlikely. An extra concentration of (dark) matter around the
sun
> > >> should have been detectable in the motions of the planets, but has
not
> > >> been. This is discussed in the Anderson et al (2001) paper.
> > >>
> > >> The most mundane explanation is, as mentioned already, improper
> > >> modeling of the spacecraft radiative properties.
> > >>
> > >> CM
> > >
> > >There are three totally different space craft designs, all showing the
> > >same effect, in the same direction, at the same magnitude. This can't
> > >be a radiative effect and be *that* consistant. Come on!
> >
> > One problem with that argument is that the later and much more
> > comprehensive paper by Anderson et al.
> > <http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064> notes that the effect for
> > Ulysses is highly correlated with solar radiation pressure, and the
> > effect for Galileo is highly inconsistent, probably due to gas leaks.
> >
> > One of the tasks of the Cassini probe was to act as a platform for this
> > sort of acceleration measurement (to measure gravity waves and
> > relativistic effects) and Cassini shows no anomaly.
>
> I've had time to study the Cassini measurements and yes, there is no
> anomaly. However, the reason for this is the way the measurement
> methos differs from the other probes. The Cassini time-delay
> measurement should show no real change in the velocity, which is
> expected and fully consistent with my result.
>
> What my result refers to is an apparent geometry feature of space-time
> which only effects measurements made via Doppler ranging. This
> results in an apparent acceleration towards the observer, and does not
> represent a real change in the velocity of the probe.
>
> [REF: NKS 2004 proceedings, Alastair Hewitt, "A Cosmological Model
> Utilizing Causal-temporal Mobile Automaton", Materials <2>]
>
http://www.wolframscience.com/conference/2004/presentations/material/ahewitt
-2.pdf
>
> As for the other probes, yes these could all be various different
> kinds of errors. All these errors are all similar in magnitude and
> all towards the observer. Let's just say that's quite a
> coincidence...
>
> Your argument is typical of the failures of modern cosmology, where
> people try to fit observations to existing theoretical assumptions.
> Progress will only ever be made when people question their assumptions
> and fit theory to observation. BTW, this is how real science gets done.
The "much more comprehensive paper by Anderson et al."[12002(HE)]
notes good fit to an "existing theoretical assumption": (traditional) tired
light,
which is dismissed for well known reasons, see e.g. Ned Wright's tuition
webpage. There is however a tired light mechanism of cosmological origin
based on a new formalism that is capable of refuting all of Ned Wright's
claims. See http://www.estfound.org/pioneer.htm . This redshift mechanism
is predicted by a new non ad hoc GR cosmos theory that you may find too
speculative. Then bear in mind that the observed acceleration anomaly may
be a strong evidence supporting this Scale Expanding Spacetime theory.
/Kurt B.
Sam Wormley
May22-04, 04:33 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Suggest reading the papers by all\nhttp://www.google.com/search?q=pioneer+10+site%3AarXiv.org\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Suggest reading the papers by all
http://www.google.com/search?q=pioneer+10+site%3AarXiv.org
Craig Markwardt
May22-04, 04:35 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"kurtan" <kurt.borgne@chello.se> writes:\n> The "much more comprehensive paper by Anderson et al."[12002(HE)]\n> notes good fit to an "existing theoretical assumption": (traditional) tired\n> light,\n.... Then bear in mind that the observed acceleration anomaly may\n> be a strong evidence supporting this Scale Expanding Spacetime theory.\n> /Kurt B.\n\nThe apparent fatal flaw in your proposition is that the Pioneer 10\neffect is a slight frequency *increase* compared to the expected\nvalue, whereas tired light scenarios would tend to *decrease* the\nfrequency.\n\nCM\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"kurtan" <kurt.borgne@chello.se> writes:
> The "much more comprehensive paper by Anderson et al."[12002(HE)]
> notes good fit to an "existing theoretical assumption": (traditional) tired
> light,
.... Then bear in mind that the observed acceleration anomaly may
> be a strong evidence supporting this Scale Expanding Spacetime theory.
> /Kurt B.
The apparent fatal flaw in your proposition is that the Pioneer 10
effect is a slight frequency *increase* compared to the expected
value, whereas tired light scenarios would tend to *decrease* the
frequency.
CM
G. R. L. Cowan
May22-04, 03:10 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Sam Wormley wrote:\n>\n> Suggest reading the papers by all\n> http://www.google.com/search?q=pioneer+10+site%3AarXiv.org\n\nSuggest requiring "pioneer" and "10" to be significantly close together\n(http://tinyurl.com/2hz5p ,\n\nhttp://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&\nq=%22pioneer+10%22+site%3AarXiv.org&btnG=Search\n\n242 hits versus 1870.\n\n\n--- Graham Cowan\nhttp://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --\nfireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> Suggest reading the papers by all
> http://www.google.com/search?q=pioneer+10+site%3AarXiv.org
Suggest requiring "pioneer" and "10" to be significantly close together
(http://tinyurl.com/2hz5p ,
http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&
q=%22pioneer+10%22+site%3AarXiv.org&btnG=Search
242 hits versus 1870.
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
fireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions
John C. Polasek
May22-04, 03:11 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>On Sat, 22 May 2004 09:35:24 GMT, Craig Markwardt\n<craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote:\n\n>research@nodem.info (Nodem Info. Sys.) writes:\n>> I\'ve had time to study the Cassini measurements and yes, there is no\n>> anomaly. However, the reason for this is the way the measurement\n>> methos differs from the other probes. The Cassini time-delay\n>> measurement should show no real change in the velocity, which is\n>> expected and fully consistent with my result.\n>\n>You are in fact incorrect. The recent Cassini results published in\n>Nature are based on radiometric Doppler tracking, just as the Anderson\n>et al results for Pioneer 10, 11, and other spacecraft results were.\n>\n>The difference is that the Cassini spacecraft is able to transpond at\n>dual frequencies, so analysts are able to correct for the solar plasma\n>more precisely than for previous spacecraft. Thus, the Cassini data\n>are even more sensitive to velocity changes than the previous data\n>were.\n>\n>CM\nOnly the Pioneers are able to show evidence of the anomaly.\n\nSee the reference below which says that "other probes in the outer\nsolar system, such as the Voyagers and the Cassini probe, en route to\nSaturn and Titan, can\'t provide any useful data....Later probes were\nstabilized about three axes by intermittent rocket boosts. The\nunpredictable accelerations cause by these are at least 10 times\nbigger than a small effect like the Pioneer acceleration, so they\ncompletely cloak it. Pioneers are spin-stabilized, making them a\nparticularly simple platform to understand."\nhttp://buckyballmusic.com/progressivity/pioneer.html\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On Sat, 22 May 2004 09:35:24 GMT, Craig Markwardt
<craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote:
>research@nodem.info (Nodem Info. Sys.) writes:
>> I've had time to study the Cassini measurements and yes, there is no
>> anomaly. However, the reason for this is the way the measurement
>> methos differs from the other probes. The Cassini time-delay
>> measurement should show no real change in the velocity, which is
>> expected and fully consistent with my result.
>
>You are in fact incorrect. The recent Cassini results published in
>Nature are based on radiometric Doppler tracking, just as the Anderson
>et al results for Pioneer 10, 11, and other spacecraft results were.
>
>The difference is that the Cassini spacecraft is able to transpond at
>dual frequencies, so analysts are able to correct for the solar plasma
>more precisely than for previous spacecraft. Thus, the Cassini data
>are even more sensitive to velocity changes than the previous data
>were.
>
>CM
Only the Pioneers are able to show evidence of the anomaly.
See the reference below which says that "other probes in the outer
solar system, such as the Voyagers and the Cassini probe, en route to
Saturn and Titan, can't provide any useful data....Later probes were
stabilized about three axes by intermittent rocket boosts. The
unpredictable accelerations cause by these are at least 10 times
bigger than a small effect like the Pioneer acceleration, so they
completely cloak it. Pioneers are spin-stabilized, making them a
particularly simple platform to understand."
http://buckyballmusic.com/progressivity/pioneer.html
David Williams
May23-04, 03:14 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>-> Only the Pioneers are able to show evidence of the anomaly.\n\nI vaguely recall that Ulysses has also displayed the anomaly.\n\ndow\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>-> Only the Pioneers are able to show evidence of the anomaly.
I vaguely recall that Ulysses has also displayed the anomaly.
dow
Nodem Info. Sys.
May23-04, 05:02 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Craig Markwardt <craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<mt2.0-22458-1085218523@star.bris.ac.uk>...\n> research@nodem.info (Nodem Info. Sys.) writes:\n> > I\'ve had time to study the Cassini measurements and yes, there is no\n> > anomaly. However, the reason for this is the way the measurement\n> > methos differs from the other probes. The Cassini time-delay\n> > measurement should show no real change in the velocity, which is\n> > expected and fully consistent with my result.\n>\n> You are in fact incorrect. The recent Cassini results published in\n> Nature are based on radiometric Doppler tracking, just as the Anderson\n> et al results for Pioneer 10, 11, and other spacecraft results were.\n>\n> The difference is that the Cassini spacecraft is able to transpond at\n> dual frequencies, so analysts are able to correct for the solar plasma\n> more precisely than for previous spacecraft. Thus, the Cassini data\n> are even more sensitive to velocity changes than the previous data\n> were.\n>\n> CM\n\nI guess I should have been a bit more specific. The Doppler tracking\ndata includes a \'modeled\' acceleration, which is partly determined by\nthe time-delay measurement. In gr-qc/0308010, this is given as -26.7\n* 10^-8 cm/s^2, and it would appear that the \'Pioneer anomaly\' has\nbeen inadvertently rolled into this number, but still makes up less\nthan a third of it.\n\nThe Cassini spacecraft doesn\'t make the best platform to test the\nPioneer anomaly, but it has shown that this anomaly is not a real\nchange in velocity (ruling out alternative gravity theories).\n\nMy prediction implies an \'apparent\' deceleration of 8.14 * 10^-8\ncm/s^2 in radial velocity. So far no observations have disagreed with\nthis.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Craig Markwardt <craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<mt2.0-22458-1085218523@star.bris.ac.uk>...
> research@nodem.info (Nodem Info. Sys.) writes:
> > I've had time to study the Cassini measurements and yes, there is no
> > anomaly. However, the reason for this is the way the measurement
> > methos differs from the other probes. The Cassini time-delay
> > measurement should show no real change in the velocity, which is
> > expected and fully consistent with my result.
>
> You are in fact incorrect. The recent Cassini results published in
> Nature are based on radiometric Doppler tracking, just as the Anderson
> et al results for Pioneer 10, 11, and other spacecraft results were.
>
> The difference is that the Cassini spacecraft is able to transpond at
> dual frequencies, so analysts are able to correct for the solar plasma
> more precisely than for previous spacecraft. Thus, the Cassini data
> are even more sensitive to velocity changes than the previous data
> were.
>
> CM
I guess I should have been a bit more specific. The Doppler tracking
data includes a 'modeled' acceleration, which is partly determined by
the time-delay measurement. In http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308010, this is given as -26.7
* 10^-8 cm/s^2, and it would appear that the 'Pioneer anomaly' has
been inadvertently rolled into this number, but still makes up less
than a third of it.
The Cassini spacecraft doesn't make the best platform to test the
Pioneer anomaly, but it has shown that this anomaly is not a real
change in velocity (ruling out alternative gravity theories).
My prediction implies an 'apparent' deceleration of 8.14 * 10^-8cm/s^2 in radial velocity. So far no observations have disagreed with
this.
Craig Markwardt
May23-04, 05:02 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> writes:\n\n> Only the Pioneers are able to show evidence of the anomaly.\n>\n> See the reference below which says that "other probes in the outer\n> solar system, such as the Voyagers and the Cassini probe, en route to\n> Saturn and Titan, can\'t provide any useful data....Later probes were\n> stabilized about three axes by intermittent rocket boosts. The\n> unpredictable accelerations cause by these are at least 10 times\n> bigger than a small effect like the Pioneer acceleration, so they\n> completely cloak it. Pioneers are spin-stabilized, making them a\n> particularly simple platform to understand."\n> http://buckyballmusic.com/progressivity/pioneer.html\n\n\nThere is some danger in using press releases, especially out of\ncontext, as a source of facts. To say that later probes "can\'t supply\nuseful data" is not really fair.\n\nOf course they supply useful data, since after all Doppler tracking is\nin fact the means to navigate them!\n\nIt is true in general to say that Cassini and other newer spacecraft\nhave been three-axis stabilized, and experience more maneuvers which\ncan confound the analysis. However, it is also true that during the\nCassini radiometric relativity tests under discussion, the spacecraft\ndid not use thrusters or momentum wheel dumps, so the above criticism\nis not an issue.\n\nCraig\n\n--\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\nCraig B. Markwardt, Ph.D. EMAIL: craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> writes:
> Only the Pioneers are able to show evidence of the anomaly.
>
> See the reference below which says that "other probes in the outer
> solar system, such as the Voyagers and the Cassini probe, en route to
> Saturn and Titan, can't provide any useful data....Later probes were
> stabilized about three axes by intermittent rocket boosts. The
> unpredictable accelerations cause by these are at least 10 times
> bigger than a small effect like the Pioneer acceleration, so they
> completely cloak it. Pioneers are spin-stabilized, making them a
> particularly simple platform to understand."
> http://buckyballmusic.com/progressivity/pioneer.html
There is some danger in using press releases, especially out of
context, as a source of facts. To say that later probes "can't supply
useful data" is not really fair.
Of course they supply useful data, since after all Doppler tracking is
in fact the means to navigate them!
It is true in general to say that Cassini and other newer spacecraft
have been three-axis stabilized, and experience more maneuvers which
can confound the analysis. However, it is also true that during the
Cassini radiometric relativity tests under discussion, the spacecraft
did not use thrusters or momentum wheel dumps, so the above criticism
is not an issue.
Craig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig B. Markwardt, Ph.D. EMAIL: craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Markwardt
May24-04, 04:46 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>research@nodem.info (Nodem Info. Sys.) writes:\n>\n> The Cassini spacecraft doesn\'t make the best platform to test the\n> Pioneer anomaly, but it has shown that this anomaly is not a real\n> change in velocity (ruling out alternative gravity theories).\n\nHow has the Cassini spacecraft shown that the Pioneer anomaly is not a\nreal change in velocity?\n\nCM\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>research@nodem.info (Nodem Info. Sys.) writes:
>
> The Cassini spacecraft doesn't make the best platform to test the
> Pioneer anomaly, but it has shown that this anomaly is not a real
> change in velocity (ruling out alternative gravity theories).
How has the Cassini spacecraft shown that the Pioneer anomaly is not a
real change in velocity?
CM
Andr? Michaud
May24-04, 07:49 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>research@nodem.info (Nodem Info. Sys.) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-12059-1085071346@star.bris.ac.uk>...\n> Jonathan Silverlight <jsilverlight@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:<+uofYBGMgJmAFwei@merseia.fsnet.co.uk>...\n> > In message <5f2edd6.0405041941.7fbbfad1@posting.google.com> , Nodem Info.\n> > Sys. <research@nodem.info> writes\n> > >Craig Markwardt <craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message\n> > >news:<onr7u0lyl7.fsf@cow.physics.wisc.edu>...\n > > >> **SNIP**\n> > >> Also unlikely. An extra concentration of (dark) matter around the sun\n> > >> should have been detectable in the motions of the planets, but has not\n> > >> been. This is discussed in the Anderson et al (2001) paper.\n> > >>\n> > >> The most mundane explanation is, as mentioned already, improper\n> > >> modeling of the spacecraft radiative properties.\n> > >>\n> > >> CM\n> > >\n> > >There are three totally different space craft designs, all showing the\n> > >same effect, in the same direction, at the same magnitude. This can\'t\n> > >be a radiative effect and be *that* consistant. Come on!\n> >\n> > One problem with that argument is that the later and much more\n> > comprehensive paper by Anderson et al.\n> > <http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0104064> notes that the effect for\n> > Ulysses is highly correlated with solar radiation pressure, and the\n> > effect for Galileo is highly inconsistent, probably due to gas leaks.\n> > One of the tasks of the Cassini probe was to act as a platform for this\n> > sort of acceleration measurement (to measure gravity waves and\n> > relativistic effects) and Cassini shows no anomaly.\n>\n> I\'ve had time to study the Cassini measurements and yes, there is no\n> anomaly. However, the reason for this is the way the measurement\n> methos differs from the other probes. The Cassini time-delay\n> measurement should show no real change in the velocity, which is\n> expected and fully consistent with my result.\n>\n> What my result refers to is an apparent geometry feature of space-time\n> which only effects measurements made via Doppler ranging. This\n> results in an apparent acceleration towards the observer, and does not\n> represent a real change in the velocity of the probe.\n>\n> [REF: NKS 2004 proceedings, Alastair Hewitt, "A Cosmological Model\n> Utilizing Causal-temporal Mobile Automaton", Materials <2>]\n> http://www.wolframscience.com/conference/2004/presentations/material/ahewitt-2.pdf\n>\n> As for the other probes, yes these could all be various different\n> kinds of errors. All these errors are all similar in magnitude and\n> all towards the observer. Let\'s just say that\'s quite a\n> coincidence...\n>\n> Your argument is typical of the failures of modern cosmology, where\n> people try to fit observations to existing theoretical assumptions.\n> Progress will only ever be made when people question their assumptions\n> and fit theory to observation. BTW, this is how real science gets\n> done.\n\nReal science seems to be a very slowly maturing thing.\n\nThe problem is that when people have made up their mind in whatever\ndirection, they never requestion. This is an age old problem.\n\nWith unswerving consistency through the ages, questioning of\naccepted assumptions always was done by young yet undecided\nindividuals as they were making the round of what options\nwere offered to them. But once they chose a prefered option,\nthey keep it for life, rationalizing all exceptions so they\nwould fit their choice.\n\nPlanck nicely summed it up in 1900:\n\n"A new scientific truth doesn\'t triumph by convincing it opponents\nand making them see the light, but rather because its opponents end\nup dying, and the following generation grows, becoming familiar\nwith it."\n\nUnfortunately, a rational solution for the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly\n(and apparently, an anomaly that seems to be the lot of all very\nsmall orbiting bodies) has no chance of being accepted until a\ncoherent theory explaining it becomes familiar to a sufficient\nnumber in one of the up coming generations.\n\nAndré Michaud\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>research@nodem.info (Nodem Info. Sys.) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-12059-1085071346@star.bris.ac.uk>...
> Jonathan Silverlight <jsilverlight@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:<+uofYBGMgJmAFwei@merseia.fsnet.co.uk>...
> > In message <5f2edd6.0405041941.7fbbfad1@posting.google.com>, Nodem Info.
> > Sys. <research@nodem.info> writes
> > >Craig Markwardt <craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message
> > >news:<onr7u0lyl7.fsf@cow.physics.wisc.edu>...
> > >> **SNIP**
> > >> Also unlikely. An extra concentration of (dark) matter around the sun
> > >> should have been detectable in the motions of the planets, but has not
> > >> been. This is discussed in the Anderson et al (2001) paper.
> > >>
> > >> The most mundane explanation is, as mentioned already, improper
> > >> modeling of the spacecraft radiative properties.
> > >>
> > >> CM
> > >
> > >There are three totally different space craft designs, all showing the
> > >same effect, in the same direction, at the same magnitude. This can't
> > >be a radiative effect and be *that* consistant. Come on!
> >
> > One problem with that argument is that the later and much more
> > comprehensive paper by Anderson et al.
> > <http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064> notes that the effect for
> > Ulysses is highly correlated with solar radiation pressure, and the
> > effect for Galileo is highly inconsistent, probably due to gas leaks.
> > One of the tasks of the Cassini probe was to act as a platform for this
> > sort of acceleration measurement (to measure gravity waves and
> > relativistic effects) and Cassini shows no anomaly.
>
> I've had time to study the Cassini measurements and yes, there is no
> anomaly. However, the reason for this is the way the measurement
> methos differs from the other probes. The Cassini time-delay
> measurement should show no real change in the velocity, which is
> expected and fully consistent with my result.
>
> What my result refers to is an apparent geometry feature of space-time
> which only effects measurements made via Doppler ranging. This
> results in an apparent acceleration towards the observer, and does not
> represent a real change in the velocity of the probe.
>
> [REF: NKS 2004 proceedings, Alastair Hewitt, "A Cosmological Model
> Utilizing Causal-temporal Mobile Automaton", Materials <2>]
> http://www.wolframscience.com/conference/2004/presentations/material/ahewitt-2.pdf
>
> As for the other probes, yes these could all be various different
> kinds of errors. All these errors are all similar in magnitude and
> all towards the observer. Let's just say that's quite a
> coincidence...
>
> Your argument is typical of the failures of modern cosmology, where
> people try to fit observations to existing theoretical assumptions.
> Progress will only ever be made when people question their assumptions
> and fit theory to observation. BTW, this is how real science gets
> done.
Real science seems to be a very slowly maturing thing.
The problem is that when people have made up their mind in whatever
direction, they never requestion. This is an age old problem.
With unswerving consistency through the ages, questioning of
accepted assumptions always was done by young yet undecided
individuals as they were making the round of what options
were offered to them. But once they chose a prefered option,
they keep it for life, rationalizing all exceptions so they
would fit their choice.
Planck nicely summed it up in 1900:
"A new scientific truth doesn't triumph by convincing it opponents
and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents end
up dying, and the following generation grows, becoming familiar
with it."
Unfortunately, a rational solution for the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly
(and apparently, an anomaly that seems to be the lot of all very
small orbiting bodies) has no chance of being accepted until a
coherent theory explaining it becomes familiar to a sufficient
number in one of the up coming generations.
André Michaud
Nodem Info. Sys.
May24-04, 02:41 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Craig Markwardt <craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<mt2.0-31041-1085391963@star.bris.ac.uk>...\n> research@nodem.info (Nodem Info. Sys.) writes:\n> >\n> > The Cassini spacecraft doesn\'t make the best platform to test the\n> > Pioneer anomaly, but it has shown that this anomaly is not a real\n> > change in velocity (ruling out alternative gravity theories).\n>\n> How has the Cassini spacecraft shown that the Pioneer anomaly is not a\n> real change in velocity?\n>\n> CM\n\nI believe that there is a discrepancy between the time-delay and\nDoppler ranging measurements. The modeled acceleration can be\nmeasured from the time-delay, however, the Pioneer anomaly will only\nshow up on the Doppler ranging (in addition to the modeled\nacceleration). If the anomaly was due to a real change in velocity,\nthen both measurement methods would give the same result.\n\nI thought there was something about this in the paper I referenced,\nbut it looks like it was withdrawn from the archives. I\'ve contacted\nJohn Anderson to see if he can shed any light on this matter.\n\nI\'ll keep you posted.\n\nAlastair\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Craig Markwardt <craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<mt2.0-31041-1085391963@star.bris.ac.uk>...
> research@nodem.info (Nodem Info. Sys.) writes:
> >
> > The Cassini spacecraft doesn't make the best platform to test the
> > Pioneer anomaly, but it has shown that this anomaly is not a real
> > change in velocity (ruling out alternative gravity theories).
>
> How has the Cassini spacecraft shown that the Pioneer anomaly is not a
> real change in velocity?
>
> CM
I believe that there is a discrepancy between the time-delay and
Doppler ranging measurements. The modeled acceleration can be
measured from the time-delay, however, the Pioneer anomaly will only
show up on the Doppler ranging (in addition to the modeled
acceleration). If the anomaly was due to a real change in velocity,
then both measurement methods would give the same result.
I thought there was something about this in the paper I referenced,
but it looks like it was withdrawn from the archives. I've contacted
John Anderson to see if he can shed any light on this matter.
I'll keep you posted.
Alastair
Nodem Info. Sys.
May24-04, 02:42 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>srp@microtec.net (Andr? Michaud) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-305-1085402989@star.bris.ac.uk>...\n> research@nodem.info (Nodem Info. Sys.) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-12059-1085071346@star.bris.ac.uk>...\n>\n> > Your argument is typical of the failures of modern cosmology, where\n> > people try to fit observations to existing theoretical assumptions.\n> > Progress will only ever be made when people question their assumptions\n> > and fit theory to observation. BTW, this is how real science gets\n> > done.\n>\n> Real science seems to be a very slowly maturing thing.\n>\n> The problem is that when people have made up their mind in whatever\n> direction, they never requestion. This is an age old problem.\n>\n> With unswerving consistency through the ages, questioning of\n> accepted assumptions always was done by young yet undecided\n> individuals as they were making the round of what options\n> were offered to them. But once they chose a prefered option,\n> they keep it for life, rationalizing all exceptions so they\n> would fit their choice.\n>\n> Planck nicely summed it up in 1900:\n>\n> "A new scientific truth doesn\'t triumph by convincing it opponents\n> and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents end\n> up dying, and the following generation grows, becoming familiar\n> with it."\n>\n> Unfortunately, a rational solution for the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly\n> (and apparently, an anomaly that seems to be the lot of all very\n> small orbiting bodies) has no chance of being accepted until a\n> coherent theory explaining it becomes familiar to a sufficient\n> number in one of the up coming generations.\n>\n> André Michaud\n\nThis is very true. Scientific change typically takes two generations\nto make a real impact. This is why few scientists see the true\nbenefits of breakthrough discoveries within their lifetime.\n\nThe existing generation of scientists will always resist any change to\nthe foundations of their field. They are convinced that what they\nknow represents some form of truth and it is human nature to never\nadmit that one\'s deepest beliefs are false. The next generation has\nthe opportunity to contrast the old and the new paradigms before\ncommitting to either. Their careers will bring the new ideas to the\nmainstream and from there the following generation will be taught\ncorrectly from the outset.\n\nThis process takes about 50 years, but scientific change that\nchallenges philosophical foundations takes much longer. Quantum\ntheory is a good example of this: I can only think of a tiny number\nof scientists who have even attempted to take it\'s implications\nseriously.\n\nThe good news is that things do eventually change, but it\'s an\nexcruciatingly slow process at times!\n\nAlastair\n\n[s.a.r. mod. note: more discussion along these lines should really be\ncarried out outside the moderated groups -- followups set. --mjh]\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>srp@microtec.net (Andr? Michaud) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-305-1085402989@star.bris.ac.uk>...
> research@nodem.info (Nodem Info. Sys.) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-12059-1085071346@star.bris.ac.uk>...
>
> > Your argument is typical of the failures of modern cosmology, where
> > people try to fit observations to existing theoretical assumptions.
> > Progress will only ever be made when people question their assumptions
> > and fit theory to observation. BTW, this is how real science gets
> > done.
>
> Real science seems to be a very slowly maturing thing.
>
> The problem is that when people have made up their mind in whatever
> direction, they never requestion. This is an age old problem.
>
> With unswerving consistency through the ages, questioning of
> accepted assumptions always was done by young yet undecided
> individuals as they were making the round of what options
> were offered to them. But once they chose a prefered option,
> they keep it for life, rationalizing all exceptions so they
> would fit their choice.
>
> Planck nicely summed it up in 1900:
>
> "A new scientific truth doesn't triumph by convincing it opponents
> and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents end
> up dying, and the following generation grows, becoming familiar
> with it."
>
> Unfortunately, a rational solution for the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly
> (and apparently, an anomaly that seems to be the lot of all very
> small orbiting bodies) has no chance of being accepted until a
> coherent theory explaining it becomes familiar to a sufficient
> number in one of the up coming generations.
>
> André Michaud
This is very true. Scientific change typically takes two generations
to make a real impact. This is why few scientists see the true
benefits of breakthrough discoveries within their lifetime.
The existing generation of scientists will always resist any change to
the foundations of their field. They are convinced that what they
know represents some form of truth and it is human nature to never
admit that one's deepest beliefs are false. The next generation has
the opportunity to contrast the old and the new paradigms before
committing to either. Their careers will bring the new ideas to the
mainstream and from there the following generation will be taught
correctly from the outset.
This process takes about 50 years, but scientific change that
challenges philosophical foundations takes much longer. Quantum
theory is a good example of this: I can only think of a tiny number
of scientists who have even attempted to take it's implications
seriously.
The good news is that things do eventually change, but it's an
excruciatingly slow process at times!
Alastair
[s.a.r. mod. note: more discussion along these lines should really be
carried out outside the moderated groups -- followups set. --mjh]
Craig Markwardt
May25-04, 11:09 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>research@nodem.info (Nodem Info. Sys.) writes:\n> Craig Markwardt <craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<mt2.0-31041-1085391963@star.bris.ac.uk>...\n> > research@nodem.info (Nodem Info. Sys.) writes:\n> > >\n> > > The Cassini spacecraft doesn\'t make the best platform to test the\n> > > Pioneer anomaly, but it has shown that this anomaly is not a real\n> > > change in velocity (ruling out alternative gravity theories).\n> >\n> > How has the Cassini spacecraft shown that the Pioneer anomaly is not a\n> > real change in velocity?\n> >\n> > CM\n>\n> I believe that there is a discrepancy between the time-delay and\n> Doppler ranging measurements. The modeled acceleration can be\n> measured from the time-delay, however, the Pioneer anomaly will only\n> show up on the Doppler ranging (in addition to the modeled\n> acceleration). If the anomaly was due to a real change in velocity,\n> then both measurement methods would give the same result.\n\nYou are incorrect. All the measurement methods are the same, i.e.,\nCassini and the other spacecraft mentioned in this thread *all* use\nDoppler tracking. The published paper in Nature does *not* use\n"time-delay" (ranging). There is no such thing as "Doppler ranging,"\nsince Doppler tracking and ranging are quite independent techniques.\n\nIt is likely that any conclusions drawn from your incorrect premises\nare thus irrelevant.\n\nCM\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>research@nodem.info (Nodem Info. Sys.) writes:
> Craig Markwardt <craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<mt2.0-31041-1085391963@star.bris.ac.uk>...
> > research@nodem.info (Nodem Info. Sys.) writes:
> > >
> > > The Cassini spacecraft doesn't make the best platform to test the
> > > Pioneer anomaly, but it has shown that this anomaly is not a real
> > > change in velocity (ruling out alternative gravity theories).
> >
> > How has the Cassini spacecraft shown that the Pioneer anomaly is not a
> > real change in velocity?
> >
> > CM
>
> I believe that there is a discrepancy between the time-delay and
> Doppler ranging measurements. The modeled acceleration can be
> measured from the time-delay, however, the Pioneer anomaly will only
> show up on the Doppler ranging (in addition to the modeled
> acceleration). If the anomaly was due to a real change in velocity,
> then both measurement methods would give the same result.
You are incorrect. All the measurement methods are the same, i.e.,
Cassini and the other spacecraft mentioned in this thread *all* use
Doppler tracking. The published paper in Nature does *not* use
"time-delay" (ranging). There is no such thing as "Doppler ranging,"
since Doppler tracking and ranging are quite independent techniques.
It is likely that any conclusions drawn from your incorrect premises
are thus irrelevant.
CM
Nodem Info. Sys.
May27-04, 04:10 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Craig Markwardt <craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<mt2.0-11376-1085544540@star.bris.ac.uk>...\n> research@nodem.info (Nodem Info. Sys.) writes:\n> >\n> > I believe that there is a discrepancy between the time-delay and\n> > Doppler ranging measurements. The modeled acceleration can be\n> > measured from the time-delay, however, the Pioneer anomaly will only\n> > show up on the Doppler ranging (in addition to the modeled\n> > acceleration). If the anomaly was due to a real change in velocity,\n> > then both measurement methods would give the same result.\n>\n> You are incorrect. All the measurement methods are the same, i.e.,\n> Cassini and the other spacecraft mentioned in this thread *all* use\n> Doppler tracking. The published paper in Nature does *not* use\n> "time-delay" (ranging). There is no such thing as "Doppler ranging,"\n> since Doppler tracking and ranging are quite independent techniques.\n>\n> It is likely that any conclusions drawn from your incorrect premises\n> are thus irrelevant.\n>\n> CM\n\nSorry about using the wrong terminology, I guess I confused you a bit\nthere.\n\nLet me clarify things here:\n\nAccording to the Nature article you mention, there is a \'modeled\'\nacceleration considered to be due entirely to the non-isotropic\nradiation from the RTGs. The article states this as around 30 x 10^-8\ncm/s^2, which is almost 4 times the Pioneer anomaly (the sign is the\nsame for both). According to the article, "Deriving this acceleration\nfrom a model of the spacecraft is a difficult task". Therefore it\nmust be measured, and then the measurement is *assumed* to relate to\n*known* parameters such as the radiation from RTGs.\n\nSo what we have is something that contains the Pioneer anomaly, but\nbecause it is labeled as \'modeled\'... poof!.. the \'unmodeled\' Pioneer\nanomaly is not there. Now that\'s a great bit of science!\n\nThe time-delay *ranging* measurements (assume we will make a series of\nthem over a period of time) can be used to measure the velocity of the\nprobe, and the change in velocity of the probe (acceleration). This\nacceleration can be used to gain a true measurement of what is\nconsidered as the \'modeled\' acceleration (this would come out around\n19 x 10^-8 cm/s^2).\n\nThe Doppler *tracking* measurements will contain an additional effect\ncaused by the curvature of space time, resulting in an additional\napparent acceleration of 8.143 x 10^-8 cm/s^2 towards the observer.\nThe combined \'modeled\' and \'Pioneer anomaly\' acceleration would add up\nto around the 27 x 10^-8 cm/s^2 figure quoted in the article.\n\nSo how did that article show there was no Pioneer anomaly?\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Craig Markwardt <craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<mt2.0-11376-1085544540@star.bris.ac.uk>...
> research@nodem.info (Nodem Info. Sys.) writes:
> >
> > I believe that there is a discrepancy between the time-delay and
> > Doppler ranging measurements. The modeled acceleration can be
> > measured from the time-delay, however, the Pioneer anomaly will only
> > show up on the Doppler ranging (in addition to the modeled
> > acceleration). If the anomaly was due to a real change in velocity,
> > then both measurement methods would give the same result.
>
> You are incorrect. All the measurement methods are the same, i.e.,
> Cassini and the other spacecraft mentioned in this thread *all* use
> Doppler tracking. The published paper in Nature does *not* use
> "time-delay" (ranging). There is no such thing as "Doppler ranging,"
> since Doppler tracking and ranging are quite independent techniques.
>
> It is likely that any conclusions drawn from your incorrect premises
> are thus irrelevant.
>
> CM
Sorry about using the wrong terminology, I guess I confused you a bit
there.
Let me clarify things here:
According to the Nature article you mention, there is a 'modeled'
acceleration considered to be due entirely to the non-isotropic
radiation from the RTGs. The article states this as around 30 x 10^-8cm/s^2, which is almost 4 times the Pioneer anomaly (the sign is the
same for both). According to the article, "Deriving this acceleration
from a model of the spacecraft is a difficult task". Therefore it
must be measured, and then the measurement is *assumed* to relate to
*known* parameters such as the radiation from RTGs.
So what we have is something that contains the Pioneer anomaly, but
because it is labeled as 'modeled'... poof!.. the 'unmodeled' Pioneer
anomaly is not there. Now that's a great bit of science!
The time-delay *ranging* measurements (assume we will make a series of
them over a period of time) can be used to measure the velocity of the
probe, and the change in velocity of the probe (acceleration). This
acceleration can be used to gain a true measurement of what is
considered as the 'modeled' acceleration (this would come out around
19 x 10^-8 cm/s^2).
The Doppler *tracking* measurements will contain an additional effect
caused by the curvature of space time, resulting in an additional
apparent acceleration of 8.143 x 10^-8 cm/s^2 towards the observer.
The combined 'modeled' and 'Pioneer anomaly' acceleration would add up
to around the 27 x 10^-8 cm/s^2 figure quoted in the article.
So how did that article show there was no Pioneer anomaly?
Jonathan Silverlight
Jun2-04, 01:03 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In message <mt2.0-5263-1085992623@star.bris.ac.uk>, alistair\n<alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk> writes\n>Dark energy could be causing the anomalous acceleration of pioneer 10.\n>The solar system is surrounded by the spherical Oort cloud.If dark\n>energy consists of particles that flow into the galaxy, the Oort cloud\n>would shield\n>the solar system from those particles.However a gap in the Oort cloud\n>would allow some dark energy particles to flow into the solar system.\n>Dark energy accounts for up to 70 per cent of the mass of the universe\n>and the universe has an approximate average mass density of 10 ^ -27\n>kg/ m^3.So, as an approximation, dark energy has a mass density of\n>about\n>10 ^ -27 kg/ m^ 3 too.If dark energy particles move at close to the\n>speed of light then 10 ^ -27 kg of them will move through one metre in\n>10 ^ -8 seconds. The particles will have a total momentum of 10 ^ -27\n>x 10 ^ 8 = 10 ^ -19.\n>The maximum force the particles can exert in 10 ^ -8 seconds on one\n>square metre of pioneer 10 is given by Force = rate of change of\n>momentum / time\n>Force = (10 ^ -19 minus 0 ) / 10 ^ - 8 = 10 ^ -11 Newtons.\n>Now assuming pioneer 10 has an area facing the direction of travel of\n>the dark energy particles through the Oort cloud and that area is at\n>most 100 square metres (perhaps someone on sci.physics.research knows\n>the exact area!)\n>then the total force on pioneer 10 due to dark energy is 10 ^ -11 x\n>100 Newtons = 10 ^ - 9 Newtons.Since acceleration = force / mass and\n>assuming pioneer 10 has a mass of about 1000 kg ( again, perhaps\n>someone on sci.physics.research can put an exact figure to this), then\n>the acceleration of pioneer 10 towards the sun caused by dark energy\n>particles would be about\n>10 ^ - 9 / 1000 = 10 ^ -12 m / s ^2.The figure Nasa gives is 10 ^ -10\n>m / s ^2.\n>If the exact mass and area of pioneer 10 are used, the answer given\n>for the acceleration of pioneer 10 due to dark energy flowing through\n>a gap in the Oort cloud could well be a lot closer to the value Nasa\n>gives.\n\nThere are a few problems with this idea :-)\n\nThe paper by Anderson et al. which everyone cites is available online at\n<http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0104064>. It has figures for the mass of\nthe Pioneers (223 kg dry mass) and their surface area (or at least that\nof the dish antenna, which accounts for nearly all of it. It\'s a 2.74\nmeter dish giving an area of 5.9 square meters.\nAlso, the two Pioneers are going in nearly opposite directions.\n\nIf you want to try your idea on Galileo, the launch mass (which includes\n925 kg of propellant) was 2223 kg and the area was 19.5 square meters -\nmostly sunshade and RTGs as the main antenna notoriously failed to\ndeploy :-(\n--\nWhat have they got to hide? Release the full Beagle 2 report.\nMail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcomed.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In message <mt2.0-5263-1085992623@star.bris.ac.uk>, alistair
<alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Dark energy could be causing the anomalous acceleration of pioneer 10.
>The solar system is surrounded by the spherical Oort cloud.If dark
>energy consists of particles that flow into the galaxy, the Oort cloud
>would shield
>the solar system from those particles.However a gap in the Oort cloud
>would allow some dark energy particles to flow into the solar system.
>Dark energy accounts for up to 70 per cent of the mass of the universe
>and the universe has an approximate average mass density of 10 ^ -27>kg/ m^3.So, as an approximation, dark energy has a mass density of
>about
>10 ^ -27 kg/ m^ 3 too.If dark energy particles move at close to the
>speed of light then 10 ^ -27 kg of them will move through one metre in
>10 ^ -8 seconds. The particles will have a total momentum of 10 ^ -27>x 10 ^ 8 = 10 ^ -19.
>The maximum force the particles can exert in 10 ^ -8 seconds on one
>square metre of pioneer 10 is given by Force = rate of change of
>momentum / time
>Force = (10 ^ -19 minus ) / 10 ^ - 8 = 10 ^ -11 Newtons.
>Now assuming pioneer 10 has an area facing the direction of travel of
>the dark energy particles through the Oort cloud and that area is at
>most 100 square metres (perhaps someone on sci.physics.research knows
>the exact area!)
>then the total force on pioneer 10 due to dark energy is 10 ^ -11 x
>100 Newtons = 10 ^ - 9 Newtons.Since acceleration = force / mass and
>assuming pioneer 10 has a mass of about 1000 kg ( again, perhaps
>someone on sci.physics.research can put an exact figure to this), then
>the acceleration of pioneer 10 towards the sun caused by dark energy
>particles would be about
>10 ^ - 9 / 1000 = 10 ^ -12 m / s ^2.The figure Nasa gives is 10 ^ -10>m / s ^2.
>If the exact mass and area of pioneer 10 are used, the answer given
>for the acceleration of pioneer 10 due to dark energy flowing through
>a gap in the Oort cloud could well be a lot closer to the value Nasa
>gives.
There are a few problems with this idea :-)
The paper by Anderson et al. which everyone cites is available online at
<http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064>. It has figures for the mass of
the Pioneers (223 kg dry mass) and their surface area (or at least that
of the dish antenna, which accounts for nearly all of it. It's a 2.74
meter dish giving an area of 5.9 square meters.
Also, the two Pioneers are going in nearly opposite directions.
If you want to try your idea on Galileo, the launch mass (which includes
925 kg of propellant) was 2223 kg and the area was 19.5 square meters -
mostly sunshade and RTGs as the main antenna notoriously failed to
deploy :-(
--
What have they got to hide? Release the full Beagle 2 report.
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcomed.
alistair
Jun2-04, 02:39 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In message <mt2.0-5263-1085992623@star.bris.ac.uk>, alistair\n<alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk> writes\n>Dark energy could be causing the anomalous acceleration of pioneer\n10.\n>The solar system is surrounded by the spherical Oort cloud.If dark\n>energy consists of particles that flow into the galaxy, the Oort\ncloud\n>would shield\n>the solar system from those particles.However a gap in the Oort cloud\n>would allow some dark energy particles to flow into the solar system.\n\n\nANDRE?MICHAUD wrote:\n\nThere are a few problems with this idea :-)\n\nThe paper by Anderson et al. which everyone cites is available online\nat\n<http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www....gr-qc/0104064>. It has figures\nfor the mass of\nthe Pioneers (223 kg dry mass) and their surface area (or at least\nthat\nof the dish antenna, which accounts for nearly all of it. It\'s a 2.74\nmeter dish giving an area of 5.9 square meters.\nAlso, the two Pioneers are going in nearly opposite directions.\n\n\nALISTAIR writes:\n\nThe mass and surface area you quote for Pioneer 10 would give an\nacceleration for Pioneer 10 that is roughly only one third smaller\nthan the figure I calculated of 10^ -12 m/s^2.The correct figure NASA\ngives is 10^-10 m /s^2.\nHowever, if dark energy consists of particles with rest mass and these\nparticles in our part of the Milky Way move at 99.9999 per cent the\nspeed of light then there would be a relativistic mass increase by a\nfactor of 10000 compared to the average expectation for dark energy\nmass which would have to be moving at a speed of around 1/3 that of\nlight.Whether or not dark energy actually has a different mass density\nin galaxies compared to intergalactic space,I couldn\'t say.There is\nalso the possibility that dark energy coming through a gap in the Oort\ncloud could pick up speed and mass if it has fluid like properties (\nthough I think such a Bernouilli flow is unlikely given how large the\nmass increase would be).Both these factors could give the acceleration\nNASA quotes.The fact that the Pioneers are moving in opposite\ndirections is irrelevant because the Oort cloud could have other gaps\nin it which allow dark energy particles into the solar sytem.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In message <mt2.0-5263-1085992623@star.bris.ac.uk>, alistair
<alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Dark energy could be causing the anomalous acceleration of pioneer
10.
>The solar system is surrounded by the spherical Oort cloud.If dark
>energy consists of particles that flow into the galaxy, the Oort
cloud
>would shield
>the solar system from those particles.However a gap in the Oort cloud
>would allow some dark energy particles to flow into the solar system.
ANDRE?MICHAUD wrote:
There are a few problems with this idea :-)
The paper by Anderson et al. which everyone cites is available online
at
<http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www....http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064>. It has figures
for the mass of
the Pioneers (223 kg dry mass) and their surface area (or at least
that
of the dish antenna, which accounts for nearly all of it. It's a 2.74
meter dish giving an area of 5.9 square meters.
Also, the two Pioneers are going in nearly opposite directions.
ALISTAIR writes:
The mass and surface area you quote for Pioneer 10 would give an
acceleration for Pioneer 10 that is roughly only one third smaller
than the figure I calculated of 10^ -12 m/s^2.The correct figure NASA
gives is 10^-10 m /s^2.
However, if dark energy consists of particles with rest mass and these
particles in our part of the Milky Way move at 99.9999 per cent the
speed of light then there would be a relativistic mass increase by a
factor of 10000 compared to the average expectation for dark energy
mass which would have to be moving at a speed of around 1/3 that of
light.Whether or not dark energy actually has a different mass density
in galaxies compared to intergalactic space,I couldn't say.There is
also the possibility that dark energy coming through a gap in the Oort
cloud could pick up speed and mass if it has fluid like properties (
though I think such a Bernouilli flow is unlikely given how large the
mass increase would be).Both these factors could give the acceleration
NASA quotes.The fact that the Pioneers are moving in opposite
directions is irrelevant because the Oort cloud could have other gaps
in it which allow dark energy particles into the solar sytem.
Jonathan Silverlight
Jun3-04, 04:07 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In message <mt2.0-7219-1086205159@star.bris.ac.uk>, alistair\n<alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk> writes\n>In message <mt2.0-5263-1085992623@star.bris.ac.uk>, alistair\n><alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk> writes\n>>Dark energy could be causing the anomalous acceleration of pioneer\n>10.\n>>The solar system is surrounded by the spherical Oort cloud.If dark\n>>energy consists of particles that flow into the galaxy, the Oort\n>cloud\n>>would shield\n>>the solar system from those particles.However a gap in the Oort cloud\n>>would allow some dark energy particles to flow into the solar system.\n>\n>\n>ANDRE?MICHAUD wrote:\n>\n>There are a few problems with this idea :-)\n>\n>The paper by Anderson et al. which everyone cites is available online\n>at\n><http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www....gr-qc/0104064>. It has figures\n>for the mass of\n>the Pioneers (223 kg dry mass) and their surface area (or at least\n>that\n>of the dish antenna, which accounts for nearly all of it. It\'s a 2.74\n>meter dish giving an area of 5.9 square meters.\n>Also, the two Pioneers are going in nearly opposite directions.\n>\n>\n>ALISTAIR writes:\n>\n>The mass and surface area you quote for Pioneer 10 would give an\n>acceleration for Pioneer 10 that is roughly only one third smaller\n>than the figure I calculated of 10^ -12 m/s^2.The correct figure NASA\n>gives is 10^-10 m /s^2.\n>However, if dark energy consists of particles with rest mass and these\n>particles in our part of the Milky Way move at 99.9999 per cent the\n>speed of light then there would be a relativistic mass increase by a\n>factor of 10000 compared to the average expectation for dark energy\n>mass which would have to be moving at a speed of around 1/3 that of\n>light.Whether or not dark energy actually has a different mass density\n>in galaxies compared to intergalactic space,I couldn\'t say.There is\n>also the possibility that dark energy coming through a gap in the Oort\n>cloud could pick up speed and mass if it has fluid like properties (\n>though I think such a Bernouilli flow is unlikely given how large the\n>mass increase would be).Both these factors could give the acceleration\n>NASA quotes.The fact that the Pioneers are moving in opposite\n>directions is irrelevant because the Oort cloud could have other gaps\n>in it which allow dark energy particles into the solar sytem.\n\nI hope you can sort out your attributions :-)\nThat\'s my reply you\'re quoting.\nAnd I have an even bigger problem with the nature of the particles\nmaking up your "dark energy". What sort of particle density are you\nassuming - how many per m^3, for instance?\nIt looks to me as though you\'re proposing some sort of relativistic\nparticle, a new sort of cosmic ray, and I\'m sure they would have been\ndetected in other ways. I don\'t see how they could be blocked by\nanything in the outer solar system to produce the sort of localised flux\nyou need, or how they could deliver momentum to the Pioneers.\nIt gets worse! I\'ve already mentioned Galileo, and the "Pioneer effect"\nhas also been reported for Ulysses. That\'s four probes in different\nparts of the solar system.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In message <mt2.0-7219-1086205159@star.bris.ac.uk>, alistair
<alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>In message <mt2.0-5263-1085992623@star.bris.ac.uk>, alistair
><alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>Dark energy could be causing the anomalous acceleration of pioneer
>10.
>>The solar system is surrounded by the spherical Oort cloud.If dark
>>energy consists of particles that flow into the galaxy, the Oort
>cloud
>>would shield
>>the solar system from those particles.However a gap in the Oort cloud
>>would allow some dark energy particles to flow into the solar system.
>
>
>ANDRE?MICHAUD wrote:
>
>There are a few problems with this idea :-)
>
>The paper by Anderson et al. which everyone cites is available online
>at
><http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www....http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064>. It has figures
>for the mass of
>the Pioneers (223 kg dry mass) and their surface area (or at least
>that
>of the dish antenna, which accounts for nearly all of it. It's a 2.74
>meter dish giving an area of 5.9 square meters.
>Also, the two Pioneers are going in nearly opposite directions.
>
>
>ALISTAIR writes:
>
>The mass and surface area you quote for Pioneer 10 would give an
>acceleration for Pioneer 10 that is roughly only one third smaller
>than the figure I calculated of 10^ -12 m/s^2.The correct figure NASA
>gives is 10^-10 m /s^2.
>However, if dark energy consists of particles with rest mass and these
>particles in our part of the Milky Way move at 99.9999 per cent the
>speed of light then there would be a relativistic mass increase by a
>factor of 10000 compared to the average expectation for dark energy
>mass which would have to be moving at a speed of around 1/3 that of
>light.Whether or not dark energy actually has a different mass density
>in galaxies compared to intergalactic space,I couldn't say.There is
>also the possibility that dark energy coming through a gap in the Oort
>cloud could pick up speed and mass if it has fluid like properties (
>though I think such a Bernouilli flow is unlikely given how large the
>mass increase would be).Both these factors could give the acceleration
>NASA quotes.The fact that the Pioneers are moving in opposite
>directions is irrelevant because the Oort cloud could have other gaps
>in it which allow dark energy particles into the solar sytem.
I hope you can sort out your attributions :-)
That's my reply you're quoting.
And I have an even bigger problem with the nature of the particles
making up your "dark energy". What sort of particle density are you
assuming - how many per m^3, for instance?
It looks to me as though you're proposing some sort of relativistic
particle, a new sort of cosmic ray, and I'm sure they would have been
detected in other ways. I don't see how they could be blocked by
anything in the outer solar system to produce the sort of localised flux
you need, or how they could deliver momentum to the Pioneers.
It gets worse! I've already mentioned Galileo, and the "Pioneer effect"
has also been reported for Ulysses. That's four probes in different
parts of the solar system.
alistair
Jun3-04, 06:05 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>JONATHAN SILVERLIGHT said in reply to ALISTAIR:\n\n>What sort of particle density are you\n>assuming - how many per m^3 for instance?\n>It looks to me as though you\'re proposing some sort of relativistic\n>particle, a new sort of cosmic ray, and I\'m sure they would have been\n>detected in other ways. I don\'t see how they could be blocked by\n>anything in the outer solar system to produce the sort of localised\nflux\n>you need, or how they could deliver momentum to the Pioneers.\n>It gets worse! I\'ve already mentioned Galileo, and the "Pioneer\neffect"\n>has also been reported for Ulysses. That\'s four probes in different\n>parts of the solar system.\n\nALISTAIR writes:\n\nI\'m assuming about 10^42 dark energy particles per cubic metre.\nI derived this figure from the following logic:\nIf dark energy particles at some time in the future will change\nthemselves in such a way as to either stop or reverse the acceleration\nof the universe, then presumably they will do this because they are\ncurrently in a high energy state that will become a lower energy\nstate.Assuming that no dark energy particles have lowered their\nenergy since the Big Bang which was 10 ^18 seconds from today,and\nusing Heisenberg\'s relation E x t = hbar, then 10^18 x E = 10^ -34\nso the energy change has a magnitude of 10^ -52 Joules per dark energy\nparticle.\nUsing E =mc^2 this amounts to a rest mass per dark energy particle of\n10^-69 kg .\nSince there is about 10^-27 kg of dark energy mass per cubic metre on\naverage throughout the universe, this means that there are 10^ - 27 /\n10^ -69 dark energy particles per cubic metre i.e 10^ 42 dark energy\nparticles / m ^3.\nSuch a large concentration of particles, some of them carrying a tiny\npositive electrical charge ( many orders of magnitude smaller than the\ncharge of an electron or proton) and some of them carrying a tiny\nnegative electric charge, could be "sticky" enough to flow like a\nfluid.The electric charges would enable the dark energy particles to\ntransfer momentum to the Pioneer 10.The number of probes in different\nparts of the\nsolar system does not falsify my idea because the Oort cloud is so\nlarge that it is highly likely to have gaps that dark energy can flow\nthrough all over its surface.\nIndividual dark energy particles would be very difficult to detect\nbecause they are so light and have such a weak electric charge and\npositive and negative charges could\nalso nearly cancel one another for large particle aggregations.\nSince dark energy has a density equal to roughly the mass of one\nproton per cubic metre, if a proton was split into 10^42 pieces, it\nwould yield particles of mass 10^-69 kg\nand assuming the ratio of charge to mass for a proton is preserved in\nthe particles then dark energy particles would carry a coulomb charge\nof 10^ - 61 Coulombs.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>JONATHAN SILVERLIGHT said in reply to ALISTAIR:
>What sort of particle density are you
>assuming - how many per m^3 for instance?
>It looks to me as though you're proposing some sort of relativistic
>particle, a new sort of cosmic ray, and I'm sure they would have been
>detected in other ways. I don't see how they could be blocked by
>anything in the outer solar system to produce the sort of localised
flux
>you need, or how they could deliver momentum to the Pioneers.
>It gets worse! I've already mentioned Galileo, and the "Pioneer
effect"
>has also been reported for Ulysses. That's four probes in different
>parts of the solar system.
ALISTAIR writes:
I'm assuming about 10^42 dark energy particles per cubic metre.
I derived this figure from the following logic:
If dark energy particles at some time in the future will change
themselves in such a way as to either stop or reverse the acceleration
of the universe, then presumably they will do this because they are
currently in a high energy state that will become a lower energy
state.Assuming that no dark energy particles have lowered their
energy since the Big Bang which was 10 ^18 seconds from today,and
using Heisenberg's relation E x t = \hbar, then 10^18 x E = 10^ -34
so the energy change has a magnitude of 10^ -52 Joules per dark energy
particle.
Using E =mc^2 this amounts to a rest mass per dark energy particle of
10^-69 kg .
Since there is about 10^-27 kg of dark energy mass per cubic metre on
average throughout the universe, this means that there are 10^ - 27 /10^ -69 dark energy particles per cubic metre i.e 10^ 42 dark energy
particles / m ^3.
Such a large concentration of particles, some of them carrying a tiny
positive electrical charge ( many orders of magnitude smaller than the
charge of an electron or proton) and some of them carrying a tiny
negative electric charge, could be "sticky" enough to flow like a
fluid.The electric charges would enable the dark energy particles to
transfer momentum to the Pioneer 10.The number of probes in different
parts of the
solar system does not falsify my idea because the Oort cloud is so
large that it is highly likely to have gaps that dark energy can flow
through all over its surface.
Individual dark energy particles would be very difficult to detect
because they are so light and have such a weak electric charge and
positive and negative charges could
also nearly cancel one another for large particle aggregations.
Since dark energy has a density equal to roughly the mass of one
proton per cubic metre, if a proton was split into 10^42 pieces, it
would yield particles of mass 10^-69 kg
and assuming the ratio of charge to mass for a proton is preserved in
the particles then dark energy particles would carry a coulomb charge
of 10^ - 61 Coulombs.
alistair
Jun3-04, 09:18 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>JONATHAN SILVERLIGHT said in reply to ALISTAIR:\n\n>What sort of particle density are you\n>assuming - how many per m^3 for instance?\n>It looks to me as though you\'re proposing some sort of relativistic\n>particle, a new sort of cosmic ray, and I\'m sure they would have been\n>detected in other ways. I don\'t see how they could be blocked by\n>anything in the outer solar system to produce the sort of localised\nflux\n>you need, or how they could deliver momentum to the Pioneers.\n>It gets worse! I\'ve already mentioned Galileo, and the "Pioneer\neffect"\n>has also been reported for Ulysses. That\'s four probes in different\n>parts of the solar system.\n\nALISTAIR writes:\n\nI\'m assuming 10^42 dark energy particles per cubic metre.\nThis is why:\nIf dark energy particles carry electric charge and spin and exist in a\nmagnetic field associated with the universe as a whole,\nthen some of those particles will be in a higher energy spin state\nthan the others.\nSince the universe is 10^18 seconds old and using E x t = hbar\nwe get E = x 10^18 = 10^ -34\nE = 10^ -52 J.\n\nAssuming dark energy particles were put in high energy spin states at\nthe time of the Big Bang and are still in high energy states, this\nmeans that the maximum energy a dark energy particle can emit is\n10^-52 J.It can\'t emit more energy than is associated with its own\nrest mass.So a dark energy particle would have a rest energy of at\nleast 10^-52 J.This is at least 10^-69 kg (using E=mc^2).\nNow since dark energy has a density of 10^-27 kg / m^3 this means\nthere is a maximum of 10^-27 / 10^-69 dark energy particles per cubic\nmetre.\ni.e 10^42 particles per cubic metre.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>JONATHAN SILVERLIGHT said in reply to ALISTAIR:
>What sort of particle density are you
>assuming - how many per m^3 for instance?
>It looks to me as though you're proposing some sort of relativistic
>particle, a new sort of cosmic ray, and I'm sure they would have been
>detected in other ways. I don't see how they could be blocked by
>anything in the outer solar system to produce the sort of localised
flux
>you need, or how they could deliver momentum to the Pioneers.
>It gets worse! I've already mentioned Galileo, and the "Pioneer
effect"
>has also been reported for Ulysses. That's four probes in different
>parts of the solar system.
ALISTAIR writes:
I'm assuming 10^42 dark energy particles per cubic metre.
This is why:
If dark energy particles carry electric charge and spin and exist in a
magnetic field associated with the universe as a whole,
then some of those particles will be in a higher energy spin state
than the others.
Since the universe is 10^18 seconds old and using E x t = \hbar
we get E = x 10^18 = 10^ -34E = 10^ -52 J.
Assuming dark energy particles were put in high energy spin states at
the time of the Big Bang and are still in high energy states, this
means that the maximum energy a dark energy particle can emit is
10^-52 J.It can't emit more energy than is associated with its own
rest mass.So a dark energy particle would have a rest energy of at
least 10^-52 J.This is at least 10^-69 kg (using E=mc^2).
Now since dark energy has a density of 10^-27 kg / m^3 this means
there is a maximum of 10^-27 / 10^-69 dark energy particles per cubic
metre.
i.e 10^42 particles per cubic metre.
alistair
Jun3-04, 11:30 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>JONATHAN SILVERLIGHT asked ALISTAIR:\n> "How many dark energy particles are there per m^3"\n\nALISTAIR replies:\n\nIf the cosmic microwave background is losing energy because dark\nenergy is gradually absorbing microwave photons, the answer goes as\nfollows,assuming the universe has a small net magnetic field,and dark\nenergy particles have spin and charge and mass and can be promoted\nfrom one spin energy state to another\nby cmbr photons.\nThe average cmbr photon energy is about 10^-22 Joules.\nSo the difference in energy between dark energy particle spin states\nin the magnetic field of the universe needs to be 10^ - 22 Joules.\nAn electron has a spin energy difference in a magnetic field of 10^ -\n24 J/Tesla.\nLooking at the equation for the magnetic moment of an electron:\n\nu1 -u2 = (1/2 + 1/2) x g e h / 2 m = 10^ - 24\n\nIf we leave everything the same for dark energy particles but change\nthe mass\nto 10^ -2 x mass of electron = 10^ -33 kg\nthen u1 -u2 for the dark energy particle = 10^ - 22 = energy of cmbr\nphoton\n\nThis is for a field of 1 Tesla.\nThe magnetic field of the universe as a whole is about 10^ -14 Tesla.\n\nSo u1 - u2 for the dark energy particle OF mass 10^ - 33 kg is\n10^ - 22 x 10^ -14 = 10 ^ -36 J.\n\nTherefore to absorb a cmbr photon with energy 10^ - 22 J the dark\nenergy particle must have a mass 10^ - 22/ 10^ - 36 times smaller = 10\n^ 14 times smaller.This would be 10 ^ - 47 kg.\n\nSince the density of dark energy particles is 10^ - 27 kg / m^3 then\nthere would be 10^ - 27 / 10 ^ -47 particles / m^3.\nThis is 10^ 20 particles/ m ^ 3\n\nAbout 1000 dark energy particles for every millimetre in distance.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>JONATHAN SILVERLIGHT asked ALISTAIR:
> "How many dark energy particles are there per m^3"
ALISTAIR replies:
If the cosmic microwave background is losing energy because dark
energy is gradually absorbing microwave photons, the answer goes as
follows,assuming the universe has a small net magnetic field,and dark
energy particles have spin and charge and mass and can be promoted
from one spin energy state to another
by cmbr photons.
The average cmbr photon energy is about 10^-22 Joules.
So the difference in energy between dark energy particle spin states
in the magnetic field of the universe needs to be 10^ - 22 Joules.
An electron has a spin energy difference in a magnetic field of 10^ -
24 J/Tesla.
Looking at the equation for the magnetic moment of an electron:
u1 -u2 = (1/2 + 1/2) x g e h / 2 m = 10^ - 24
If we leave everything the same for dark energy particles but change
the mass
to 10^ -2 x mass of electron = 10^ -33 kg
then u1 -u2 for the dark energy particle = 10^ - 22 = energy of cmbr
photon
This is for a field of 1 Tesla.
The magnetic field of the universe as a whole is about 10^ -14 Tesla.
So u1 - u2 for the dark energy particle OF mass 10^ - 33 kg is
10^ - 22 x 10^ -14 = 10 ^ -36 J.
Therefore to absorb a cmbr photon with energy 10^ - 22 J the dark
energy particle must have a mass 10^ - 22/ 10^ - 36 times smaller = 10^ 14 times smaller.This would be 10 ^ - 47 kg.
Since the density of dark energy particles is 10^ - 27 kg / m^3 then
there would be 10^ - 27 / 10 ^ -47 particles / m^3.
This is 10^ 20 particles/ m ^ 3
About 1000 dark energy particles for every millimetre in distance.
alistair
Jun4-04, 04:15 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-10951-1086272319@star.bris.ac.uk>...\n> JONATHAN SILVERLIGHT said in reply to ALISTAIR:\n>\n> >What sort of particle density are you\n> >assuming - how many per m^3 for instance?\n> >It looks to me as though you\'re proposing some sort of relativistic\n> >particle, a new sort of cosmic ray, and I\'m sure they would have been\n> >detected in other ways. I don\'t see how they could be blocked by\n> >anything in the outer solar system to produce the sort of localised\n> flux\n> >you need, or how they could deliver momentum to the Pioneers.\n> >It gets worse! I\'ve already mentioned Galileo, and the "Pioneer\n> effect"\n> >has also been reported for Ulysses. That\'s four probes in different\n> >parts of the solar system.\n>\n> ALISTAIR writes:\n>\n> I\'m assuming 10^42 dark energy particles per cubic metre.\n> This is why:\n> If dark energy particles carry electric charge and spin and exist in a\n> magnetic field associated with the universe as a whole,\n> then some of those particles will be in a higher energy spin state\n> than the others.\n> Since the universe is 10^18 seconds old and using E x t = hbar\n> we get E = x 10^18 = 10^ -34\n> E = 10^ -52 J.\n>\n> Assuming dark energy particles were put in high energy spin states at\n> the time of the Big Bang and are still in high energy states, this\n> means that the maximum energy a dark energy particle can emit is\n> 10^-52 J.It can\'t emit more energy than is associated with its own\n> rest mass.So a dark energy particle would have a rest energy of at\n> least 10^-52 J.This is at least 10^-69 kg (using E=mc^2).\n> Now since dark energy has a density of 10^-27 kg / m^3 this means\n> there is a maximum of 10^-27 / 10^-69 dark energy particles per cubic\n> metre.\n> i.e 10^42 particles per cubic metre.\n\n\nCORRECTIONS TO ALISTAIR\'S post:\n\nThe first three lines of the following text are nonesense:\n\nAssuming dark energy particles were put in high energy spin states at\n> the time of the Big Bang and are still in high energy states, this\n> means that the maximum energy a dark energy particle can emit is\n> 10^-52 J.It can\'t emit more energy than is associated with its own\n> rest mass.So a dark energy particle would have a rest energy of at\n> least 10^-52 J.This is at least 10^-69 kg (using E=mc^2).\n> Now since dark energy has a density of 10^-27 kg / m^3 this means\n> there is a maximum of 10^-27 / 10^-69 dark energy particles per cubic\n> metre.\n> i.e 10^42 particles per cubic metre.\n\nTHE TEXT SHOULD READ:\n\nA dark energy particle can\'t emit more energy than is associated with its own\n> rest mass.So a dark energy particle would have a rest energy of at\n> least 10^-52 J.This is at least 10^-69 kg (using E=mc^2).\n> Now since dark energy has a density of 10^-27 kg / m^3 this means\n> there is a maximum of 10^-27 / 10^-69 dark energy particles per cubic\n> metre.\n> i.e 10^42 particles per cubic metre.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-10951-1086272319@star.bris.ac.uk>...
> JONATHAN SILVERLIGHT said in reply to ALISTAIR:
>
> >What sort of particle density are you
> >assuming - how many per m^3 for instance?
> >It looks to me as though you're proposing some sort of relativistic
> >particle, a new sort of cosmic ray, and I'm sure they would have been
> >detected in other ways. I don't see how they could be blocked by
> >anything in the outer solar system to produce the sort of localised
> flux
> >you need, or how they could deliver momentum to the Pioneers.
> >It gets worse! I've already mentioned Galileo, and the "Pioneer
> effect"
> >has also been reported for Ulysses. That's four probes in different
> >parts of the solar system.
>
> ALISTAIR writes:
>
> I'm assuming 10^42 dark energy particles per cubic metre.
> This is why:
> If dark energy particles carry electric charge and spin and exist in a
> magnetic field associated with the universe as a whole,
> then some of those particles will be in a higher energy spin state
> than the others.
> Since the universe is 10^18 seconds old and using E x t = \hbar
> we get E = x 10^18 = 10^ -34
> E = 10^ -52 J.
>
> Assuming dark energy particles were put in high energy spin states at
> the time of the Big Bang and are still in high energy states, this
> means that the maximum energy a dark energy particle can emit is
> 10^-52 J.It can't emit more energy than is associated with its own
> rest mass.So a dark energy particle would have a rest energy of at
> least 10^-52 J.This is at least 10^-69 kg (using E=mc^2).
> Now since dark energy has a density of 10^-27 kg / m^3 this means
> there is a maximum of 10^-27 / 10^-69 dark energy particles per cubic
> metre.
> i.e 10^42 particles per cubic metre.
CORRECTIONS TO ALISTAIR'S post:
The first three lines of the following text are nonesense:
Assuming dark energy particles were put in high energy spin states at
> the time of the Big Bang and are still in high energy states, this
> means that the maximum energy a dark energy particle can emit is
> 10^-52 J.It can't emit more energy than is associated with its own
> rest mass.So a dark energy particle would have a rest energy of at
> least 10^-52 J.This is at least 10^-69 kg (using E=mc^2).
> Now since dark energy has a density of 10^-27 kg / m^3 this means
> there is a maximum of 10^-27 / 10^-69 dark energy particles per cubic
> metre.
> i.e 10^42 particles per cubic metre.
THE TEXT SHOULD READ:
A dark energy particle can't emit more energy than is associated with its own
> rest mass.So a dark energy particle would have a rest energy of at
> least 10^-52 J.This is at least 10^-69 kg (using E=mc^2).
> Now since dark energy has a density of 10^-27 kg / m^3 this means
> there is a maximum of 10^-27 / 10^-69 dark energy particles per cubic
> metre.
> i.e 10^42 particles per cubic metre.
Andr? Michaud
Jun4-04, 04:15 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Jonathan Silverlight <jsilver@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<mt2.0-9440-1086253641@star.bris.ac.uk>...\n\n> >\n> >ANDRE?MICHAUD wrote:\n\n....\n\n> I hope you can sort out your attributions :-)\n\nI have no idea how my name got into this post.\n\nI made no contribution whatsoever to this conversation.\n\nAndré Michaud\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Jonathan Silverlight <jsilver@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<mt2.0-9440-1086253641@star.bris.ac.uk>...
> >
> >ANDRE?MICHAUD wrote:
....
> I hope you can sort out your attributions :-)
I have no idea how my name got into this post.
I made no contribution whatsoever to this conversation.
André Michaud
Jonathan Silverlight
Jun9-04, 03:03 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In message <mt2.0-22458-1085218436@star.bris.ac.uk>, Sam Wormley\n<swormley1@mchsi.com> writes\n>Suggest reading the papers by all\n> http://www.google.com/search?q=pioneer+10+site%3AarXiv.org\n\nI missed this the first time round, but that should keep everyone out of\nmischief!\n--\nmail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In message <mt2.0-22458-1085218436@star.bris.ac.uk>, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> writes
>Suggest reading the papers by all
> http://www.google.com/search?q=pioneer+10+site%3AarXiv.org
I missed this the first time round, but that should keep everyone out of
mischief!
--
mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome
Robin Whittle
Jul5-04, 03:49 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Jerry W. Jenson proposes an explanation of the Pioneer 10 observations\nwith his and Jacques Moret-Bailly\'s CREIL (Coherent Raman Effects on\nIncoherent Light) theory:\n\nPropagation of electromagnetic waves in space plasma\nJerry Jensen, Jacques Moret-Bailly 2004 Jan 25\nhttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401529\n\nSupernovae Light Curves: An Argument for a New Distance Modulus\nJerry W. Jensen 2004 Apr 9\nhttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404207\n\nand in a discussion forum:\n\nhttp://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=14433\n\nMy rough understanding of the CREIL mechanism is that it involves\nlight (or any electromagnetic radiation) travelling through plasma or\natomic/molecular gas and being both attenuated and redshifted or\nblueshifted, according to the other electromagnetic radiation which is\nincident on the plasma or gas, and according to other factors such as\ndensity, pressure etc.\n\nI am not arguing for or against this or other theories about the\nPioneer 10 observations. I will write to Jerry Jenson, referring him\nto this discussion, and ask him what his theory predicts about the\nCassini observations.\n\n- Robin http://astroneu.com\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Jerry W. Jenson proposes an explanation of the Pioneer 10 observations
with his and Jacques Moret-Bailly's CREIL (Coherent Raman Effects on
Incoherent Light) theory:
Propagation of electromagnetic waves in space plasma
Jerry Jensen, Jacques Moret-Bailly 2004 Jan 25
http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401529
Supernovae Light Curves: An Argument for a New Distance Modulus
Jerry W. Jensen 2004 Apr 9
http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404207
and in a discussion forum:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=14433
My rough understanding of the CREIL mechanism is that it involves
light (or any electromagnetic radiation) travelling through plasma or
atomic/molecular gas and being both attenuated and redshifted or
blueshifted, according to the other electromagnetic radiation which is
incident on the plasma or gas, and according to other factors such as
density, pressure etc.
I am not arguing for or against this or other theories about the
Pioneer 10 observations. I will write to Jerry Jenson, referring him
to this discussion, and ask him what his theory predicts about the
Cassini observations.
- Robin http://astroneu.com
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.