View Full Version : Pioneer 10 acceleration
<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>Is there enough information to state the acceleration is directly towards the sun ?\n\nWhat if there is an acceleration towards the earth ?\n\nIsn\'t this worth investigating.\n\nSpud\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>Is there enough information to state the acceleration is directly towards the sun ?
What if there is an acceleration towards the earth ?
Isn't this worth investigating.
Spud
Sam Wormley
Jul6-04, 09:38 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>Background Pioneer 10 Anomalous Acceleration\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>Background Pioneer 10 Anomalous Acceleration
http://www.google.com/search?q=pioneer+10+site%3AarXiv.org
Andr? Michaud
Jul6-04, 11:37 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>omeganumber@yahoo.co.uk (Spud) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-11833-1089107031@star.bris.ac.uk>...\n> Is there enough information to state the acceleration is directly\n> towards the sun ?\n\nYes.\n\n> What if there is an acceleration towards the earth ?\n>\n> Isn\'t this worth investigating.\n\nThere is no need. Both crafts are on escape trajectories from\nthe Solar system in opposite directions, the Sun being the\ncentral body of the system.\n\nThe attraction of the Earth is totally negligible at the\ndistances involved.\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>omeganumber@yahoo.co.uk (Spud) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-11833-1089107031@star.bris.ac.uk>...
> Is there enough information to state the acceleration is directly
> towards the sun ?
Yes.
> What if there is an acceleration towards the earth ?
>
> Isn't this worth investigating.
There is no need. Both crafts are on escape trajectories from
the Solar system in opposite directions, the Sun being the
central body of the system.
The attraction of the Earth is totally negligible at the
distances involved.
André Michaud
G. R. L. Cowan
Jul6-04, 12:35 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>Andr? Michaud wrote:\n>\n> omeganumber@yahoo.co.uk (Spud) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-11833-1089107031@star.bris.ac.uk>...\n> > Is there enough information to state the acceleration is directly\n> > towards the sun ?\n>\n> Yes.\n>\n> > What if there is an acceleration towards the earth ?\n> >\n> > Isn\'t this worth investigating.\n>\n> There is no need. Both crafts are on escape trajectories from\n> the Solar system in opposite directions, the Sun being the\n> central body of the system.\n>\n> The attraction of the Earth is totally negligible at the\n> distances involved.\n\nAnd yet it was the target of the probes\' transmissions,\nand to aim their antennae, they aimed their whole bodies at it.\n\nSince the anomalous acceleration was so small,\nand the angle between Earth and the sun\nas seen from the probes was also small in most of the\nyears when the acceleration was being measured,\nit may well be that there is no way to tell\nwhether they were anomalously accelerating towards the Sun\ndue to some Solar-mass-dependent effect,\nor towards the Earth because of a force\naligned with one of their axes.\n\nIf you knew, and could show, that for sure\nno such force could have been acting,\nthen of course no investigation would be worthwhile.\nMaybe it still isn\'t, but the case for not looking\nis not made by assuming nothing can be there.\n\n\n--- Graham Cowan\nhttp://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --\nHow individual mobility gains nuclear cachet.\nLink if you want it to happen\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>Andr? Michaud wrote:
>
> omeganumber@yahoo.co.uk (Spud) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-11833-1089107031@star.bris.ac.uk>...
> > Is there enough information to state the acceleration is directly
> > towards the sun ?
>
> Yes.
>
> > What if there is an acceleration towards the earth ?
> >
> > Isn't this worth investigating.
>
> There is no need. Both crafts are on escape trajectories from
> the Solar system in opposite directions, the Sun being the
> central body of the system.
>
> The attraction of the Earth is totally negligible at the
> distances involved.
And yet it was the target of the probes' transmissions,
and to aim their antennae, they aimed their whole bodies at it.
Since the anomalous acceleration was so small,
and the angle between Earth and the sun
as seen from the probes was also small in most of the
years when the acceleration was being measured,
it may well be that there is no way to tell
whether they were anomalously accelerating towards the Sun
due to some Solar-mass-dependent effect,
or towards the Earth because of a force
aligned with one of their axes.
If you knew, and could show, that for sure
no such force could have been acting,
then of course no investigation would be worthwhile.
Maybe it still isn't, but the case for not looking
is not made by assuming nothing can be there.
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
How individual mobility gains nuclear cachet.
Link if you want it to happen
Andr? Michaud
Jul7-04, 05:50 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>"G. R. L. Cowan" <gcowan@eagle.ca> wrote in message news:<mt2.0-13946-1089135314@star.bris.ac.uk>...\n> Andr? Michaud wrote:\n> >\n> > omeganumber@yahoo.co.uk (Spud) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-11833-1089107031@star.bris.ac.uk>...\n> > > Is there enough information to state the acceleration is directly\n> > > towards the sun ?\n> >\n> > Yes.\n> >\n> > > What if there is an acceleration towards the earth ?\n> > >\n> > > Isn\'t this worth investigating.\n> >\n> > There is no need. Both crafts are on escape trajectories from\n> > the Solar system in opposite directions, the Sun being the\n> > central body of the system.\n> >\n> > The attraction of the Earth is totally negligible at the\n> > distances involved.\n>\n> And yet it was the target of the probes\' transmissions,\n> and to aim their antennae, they aimed their whole bodies at it.\n>\n> Since the anomalous acceleration was so small,\n> and the angle between Earth and the sun\n> as seen from the probes was also small in most of the\n> years when the acceleration was being measured,\n> it may well be that there is no way to tell\n> whether they were anomalously accelerating towards the Sun\n> due to some Solar-mass-dependent effect,\n> or towards the Earth because of a force\n> aligned with one of their axes.\n>\n> If you knew, and could show, that for sure\n> no such force could have been acting,\n> then of course no investigation would be worthwhile.\n> Maybe it still isn\'t, but the case for not looking\n> is not made by assuming nothing can be there.\n\nI see what you mean, and I agree in principle. We cannot\nassume stuff without analysis.\n\nI don\'t think that anyone can "prove" that no force\ncould have been acting between the Earth and the\nprobes.\n\nI just understand that the only known long range force\n(and only possible candidate force, from all we know)\nthat could have been acting between the Earth and the\nprobes, and which is gravitation, is negligible at such\ndistances compared to that acting from the Sun.\n\nAs for the Doppler analysis, it seems impossible to me\nthat compensation for the cyclic orbital motion of the Earth\nwould not have been the very first correction to have been\napplied to the data.\n\n>From all the papers published, it seems to me that just\nabout all possible avenues not jeopardyzing GR and SR have\nby now been explored and rejected as unsatisfactory or\nshelved as non conclusive or impossible to verify.\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>"G. R. L. Cowan" <gcowan@eagle.ca> wrote in message news:<mt2.0-13946-1089135314@star.bris.ac.uk>...
> Andr? Michaud wrote:
> >
> > omeganumber@yahoo.co.uk (Spud) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-11833-1089107031@star.bris.ac.uk>...
> > > Is there enough information to state the acceleration is directly
> > > towards the sun ?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > What if there is an acceleration towards the earth ?
> > >
> > > Isn't this worth investigating.
> >
> > There is no need. Both crafts are on escape trajectories from
> > the Solar system in opposite directions, the Sun being the
> > central body of the system.
> >
> > The attraction of the Earth is totally negligible at the
> > distances involved.
>
> And yet it was the target of the probes' transmissions,
> and to aim their antennae, they aimed their whole bodies at it.
>
> Since the anomalous acceleration was so small,
> and the angle between Earth and the sun
> as seen from the probes was also small in most of the
> years when the acceleration was being measured,
> it may well be that there is no way to tell
> whether they were anomalously accelerating towards the Sun
> due to some Solar-mass-dependent effect,
> or towards the Earth because of a force
> aligned with one of their axes.
>
> If you knew, and could show, that for sure
> no such force could have been acting,
> then of course no investigation would be worthwhile.
> Maybe it still isn't, but the case for not looking
> is not made by assuming nothing can be there.
I see what you mean, and I agree in principle. We cannot
assume stuff without analysis.
I don't think that anyone can "prove" that no force
could have been acting between the Earth and the
probes.
I just understand that the only known long range force
(and only possible candidate force, from all we know)
that could have been acting between the Earth and the
probes, and which is gravitation, is negligible at such
distances compared to that acting from the Sun.
As for the Doppler analysis, it seems impossible to me
that compensation for the cyclic orbital motion of the Earth
would not have been the very first correction to have been
applied to the data.
>From all the papers published, it seems to me that just
about all possible avenues not jeopardyzing GR and SR have
by now been explored and rejected as unsatisfactory or
shelved as non conclusive or impossible to verify.
André Michaud
<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:<mt2.0-13616-1089131848@star.bris.ac.uk>...\n> omeganumber@yahoo.co.uk (Spud) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-11833-1089107031@star.bris.ac.uk>...\n> > Is there enough information to state the acceleration is directly\n> > towards the sun ?\n>\n> Yes.\n>\n> > What if there is an acceleration towards the earth ?\n> >\n> > Isn\'t this worth investigating.\n>\n> There is no need. Both crafts are on escape trajectories from\n> the Solar system in opposite directions, the Sun being the\n> central body of the system.\n>\n> The attraction of the Earth is totally negligible at the\n> distances involved.\n>\n> André Michaud\n\nThe reason why it matters, and is a viable target for investigation,\nwhether the acceleration is heliocentric or Earth-centric is not\nbecause one thinks it might be a real effect. But because the most\nprobably systematic experimental errors would give an apparent\nEarth-centric effect rather than heliocentric.\n\nSomething no-one seems to mention in the classic paper at\n<http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www....gr-qc/0104064>.\nis that they see a systematic DIURNAL acceleration approximately 100\ntimes as great as the overall long-term average they are purporting to\nmeasure. Which they cannot find any explanation for, and ignore after\n1 paragraph of discussion.\n\nLet me repeat. There is no way they could see ANY diurnal effect, let\nalone 100 times greater than the long-term one, unless at this level\nof accuracy there was a serious systematic error in the direction of\nthe assumed Earth-station -> spacecraft vector.\n\nActually I think the explanation is probably quite mundane for the\nwhole effect. Either the position of the Earth antenna is not exactly\nwhere the GPS calculations put it (working in the industry, I know how\nfew people ever bother about the proper conversion between WGS-84\nellipsoidal co-ordinates and ECEF). Or the spacecraft has a position\nco-ordinate tangential to the Earth-spacecraft line not exactly where\nthey think. Remember, only the RANGE is known to within metres.\n\nEither way, that puts the observation vector off at an angle, which\nintroduces a small diurnal variation and probably a small systematic\nerror.\n\nAlso, there is the fact that the RANGE itself is not well-defined in\ntheir measurement procedure (although the rate of change ought to be).\nThis is because of the PLL which is used to "reflect" the outgoing\ntransmission at the spacecraft. The assumption is that the spacecraft\ntransmitted frequency is instantaneously equal to N times the received\nfrequency. Of course, we don\'t have the engineering details, but the\nspacecraft PLL is almost certainly second-order, and the phase noise\nspec given in the paper mandates the PLL bandwidth to be sub-1 Hz. The\nimplication is that for the PLL to "converge", the output frequency\nequals N times the input frequency as it was at least 1 second ago.\nHowever, the PLL bandwidth -> signal lag will remain constant over\ntime.\n\nSimilarly, the modulated ranging signal (as opposed to Doppler) has a\nfinite latency through the spacecraft, which does not seem to have\nbeen modelled. These are small errors, but when the claimed accuracy\nis ~10^-10 m/s^2........\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:<mt2.0-13616-1089131848@star.bris.ac.uk>...
> omeganumber@yahoo.co.uk (Spud) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-11833-1089107031@star.bris.ac.uk>...
> > Is there enough information to state the acceleration is directly
> > towards the sun ?
>
> Yes.
>
> > What if there is an acceleration towards the earth ?
> >
> > Isn't this worth investigating.
>
> There is no need. Both crafts are on escape trajectories from
> the Solar system in opposite directions, the Sun being the
> central body of the system.
>
> The attraction of the Earth is totally negligible at the
> distances involved.
>
> André Michaud
The reason why it matters, and is a viable target for investigation,
whether the acceleration is heliocentric or Earth-centric is not
because one thinks it might be a real effect. But because the most
probably systematic experimental errors would give an apparent
Earth-centric effect rather than heliocentric.
Something no-one seems to mention in the classic paper at
<http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www....http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064>.
is that they see a systematic DIURNAL acceleration approximately 100
times as great as the overall long-term average they are purporting to
measure. Which they cannot find any explanation for, and ignore after
1 paragraph of discussion.
Let me repeat. There is no way they could see ANY diurnal effect, let
alone 100 times greater than the long-term one, unless at this level
of accuracy there was a serious systematic error in the direction of
the assumed Earth-station -> spacecraft vector.
Actually I think the explanation is probably quite mundane for the
whole effect. Either the position of the Earth antenna is not exactly
where the GPS calculations put it (working in the industry, I know how
few people ever bother about the proper conversion between WGS-84
ellipsoidal co-ordinates and ECEF). Or the spacecraft has a position
co-ordinate tangential to the Earth-spacecraft line not exactly where
they think. Remember, only the RANGE is known to within metres.
Either way, that puts the observation vector off at an angle, which
introduces a small diurnal variation and probably a small systematic
error.
Also, there is the fact that the RANGE itself is not well-defined in
their measurement procedure (although the rate of change ought to be).
This is because of the PLL which is used to "reflect" the outgoing
transmission at the spacecraft. The assumption is that the spacecraft
transmitted frequency is instantaneously equal to N times the received
frequency. Of course, we don't have the engineering details, but the
spacecraft PLL is almost certainly second-order, and the phase noise
spec given in the paper mandates the PLL bandwidth to be sub-1 Hz. The
implication is that for the PLL to "converge", the output frequency
equals N times the input frequency as it was at least 1 second ago.
However, the PLL bandwidth -> signal lag will remain constant over
time.
Similarly, the modulated ranging signal (as opposed to Doppler) has a
finite latency through the spacecraft, which does not seem to have
been modelled. These are small errors, but when the claimed accuracy
is ~10^-10 m/s^2........
Carlos L
Jul8-04, 03:24 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>omeganumber@yahoo.co.uk (Spud) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-11833-1089107031@star.bris.ac.uk>...\n\n> Is there enough information to state the acceleration is directly towards the sun ?\n> What if there is an acceleration towards the earth ?\n\n>From the article of John D. Anderson et al\nhttp://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064\nexplaining the details of the anomaly observed in the Pioneers 10 and\n11, "I understand" that the available information is not enough\nprecise to discriminate if the supposed acceleration is towards the\nSun or towards the Earth. More precisely, since they also detect\nannual and diurnal variations in the effect that they suspect are due\nto:\n\n<Quotes>\n"...modeling errors in the Earth\'s ephemeris, the orientation of the\nEarth\'s spin axis (precession and nutation), or in the station\ncoordinates (polar motion and length of day variations), the\nleast-squares process (which determines best-fit values of the three\ndirection cosines) will leave small diurnal and annual components in\nthe Doppler residuals..." ...\n\n"...We conclude that for both Pioneer 10 and 11, there are small\nperiodic errors in solar system modeling that are largely masked by\nmaneuvers and by the overall plasma noise. But because these sinusoids\nare essentially uncorrelated with the constant aP , they do not\npresent important sources of systematic error. The characteristic\nsignature of aP is a linear drift in the Doppler, not annual/diurnal\nsignatures..."\n</Quotes>\n\nmy interpretation is that the authors believe that it is impossible to\nelucidate your question under the present circumstances.\n\n> Isn\'t this worth investigating.\n\nIt would be interesting to investigate but I don\'t think the available\ndata of the Pioneers 10 and 11 are precise enough to extract such\ninformation.\n\nBut actually I don\'t even believe that the observed anomalous\nacceleration is real but only apparent as I tried to explain in\nanother thread some time ago.\nAlthough I am aware that there are many authors that claim to have\nexplained the anomaly using orthodox Physics I nevertheless ask again\nfor comments to my non-orthodox explanation that received no comments\nwhen I posted it (except the typical barking from Uncle Al that I\nalways ignore). This is the URL:\n\ngroups.google.com/groups?selm=ac68ac75.0302101315.22c7d470@posting.g oogle.com\n\n> Spud\n\nBest regards\nCarlos L.\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>omeganumber@yahoo.co.uk (Spud) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-11833-1089107031@star.bris.ac.uk>...
> Is there enough information to state the acceleration is directly towards the sun ?
> What if there is an acceleration towards the earth ?
>From the article of John D. Anderson et al
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064
explaining the details of the anomaly observed in the Pioneers 10 and
11, "I understand" that the available information is not enough
precise to discriminate if the supposed acceleration is towards the
Sun or towards the Earth. More precisely, since they also detect
annual and diurnal variations in the effect that they suspect are due
to:
<Quotes>
"...modeling errors in the Earth's ephemeris, the orientation of the
Earth's spin axis (precession and nutation), or in the station
coordinates (polar motion and length of day variations), the
least-squares process (which determines best-fit values of the three
direction cosines) will leave small diurnal and annual components in
the Doppler residuals..." ...
"...We conclude that for both Pioneer 10 and 11, there are small
periodic errors in solar system modeling that are largely masked by
maneuvers and by the overall plasma noise. But because these sinusoids
are essentially uncorrelated with the constant aP , they do not
present important sources of systematic error. The characteristic
signature of aP is a linear drift in the Doppler, not annual/diurnal
signatures..."
</Quotes>
my interpretation is that the authors believe that it is impossible to
elucidate your question under the present circumstances.
> Isn't this worth investigating.
It would be interesting to investigate but I don't think the available
data of the Pioneers 10 and 11 are precise enough to extract such
information.
But actually I don't even believe that the observed anomalous
acceleration is real but only apparent as I tried to explain in
another thread some time ago.
Although I am aware that there are many authors that claim to have
explained the anomaly using orthodox Physics I nevertheless ask again
for comments to my non-orthodox explanation that received no comments
when I posted it (except the typical barking from Uncle Al that I
always ignore). This is the URL:
groups.google.com/groups?selm=ac68ac75.0302101315.22c7d470@posting.g oogle.com
> Spud
Best regards
Carlos L.
Andr? Michaud
Jul8-04, 03:25 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>jdff1001@hotmail.com (jdff) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-18122-1089205292@star.bris.ac.uk>...\n> Actually I think the explanation is probably quite mundane for the\n> whole effect. Either the position of the Earth antenna is not exactly\n> where the GPS calculations put it (working in the industry, I know how\n> few people ever bother about the proper conversion between WGS-84\n> ellipsoidal co-ordinates and ECEF). Or the spacecraft has a position\n> co-ordinate tangential to the Earth-spacecraft line not exactly where\n> they think. Remember, only the RANGE is known to within metres.\n>\n> Either way, that puts the observation vector off at an angle, which\n> introduces a small diurnal variation and probably a small systematic\n> error.\n\n[s.a.r. mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- please do this yourself -- mjh]\n\nI was not aware of that particular twist in the case.\n\nThanks for the link and explanation.\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>jdff1001@hotmail.com (jdff) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-18122-1089205292@star.bris.ac.uk>...
> Actually I think the explanation is probably quite mundane for the
> whole effect. Either the position of the Earth antenna is not exactly
> where the GPS calculations put it (working in the industry, I know how
> few people ever bother about the proper conversion between WGS-84
> ellipsoidal co-ordinates and ECEF). Or the spacecraft has a position
> co-ordinate tangential to the Earth-spacecraft line not exactly where
> they think. Remember, only the RANGE is known to within metres.
>
> Either way, that puts the observation vector off at an angle, which
> introduces a small diurnal variation and probably a small systematic
> error.
[s.a.r. mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- please do this yourself -- mjh]
I was not aware of that particular twist in the case.
Thanks for the link and explanation.
André Michaud
Andr? Michaud
Jul8-04, 04:48 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>carlosla@lix.intercom.es (Carlos L) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-22098-1089275083@star.bris.ac.uk>...\n> Although I am aware that there are many authors that claim to have\n> explained the anomaly using orthodox Physics I nevertheless ask again\n> for comments to my non-orthodox explanation that received no comments\n> when I posted it (except the typical barking from Uncle Al that I\n> always ignore). This is the URL:\n>\n> groups.google.com/groups?selm=ac68ac75.0302101315.22c7d470@posting.g oogle.com\n>\n> > Spud\n>\n> Best regards\n> Carlos L.\n\nI had a look.\n\nHere is my comment. It is pretty well established without any\ndoubt that the speed of light of photons is invariant in vacuum\nand completely independant of the velocity of the source, which\nis precisely why Doppler ranging can be used at all.\n\nAs for the doppler data, if it were not to be trusted in this case,\nthis would make this case the only one on record where Doppler data\nwould be found not to be totally precise.\n\nTo my knowledge, all cases where verification by other means could\nbe used, the precision cannot be questioned.\n\nWhen orthodox theories can\'t explain some phenomenon, it is common\npractice to distrust and finally discard the data as being tainted.\n\nNothin new under the Sun.\n\nAndré Michaud\n\n[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- 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>carlosla@lix.intercom.es (Carlos L) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-22098-1089275083@star.bris.ac.uk>...
> Although I am aware that there are many authors that claim to have
> explained the anomaly using orthodox Physics I nevertheless ask again
> for comments to my non-orthodox explanation that received no comments
> when I posted it (except the typical barking from Uncle Al that I
> always ignore). This is the URL:
>
> groups.google.com/groups?selm=ac68ac75.0302101315.22c7d470@posting.g oogle.com
>
> > Spud
>
> Best regards
> Carlos L.
I had a look.
Here is my comment. It is pretty well established without any
doubt that the speed of light of photons is invariant in vacuum
and completely independant of the velocity of the source, which
is precisely why Doppler ranging can be used at all.
As for the doppler data, if it were not to be trusted in this case,
this would make this case the only one on record where Doppler data
would be found not to be totally precise.
To my knowledge, all cases where verification by other means could
be used, the precision cannot be questioned.
When orthodox theories can't explain some phenomenon, it is common
practice to distrust and finally discard the data as being tainted.
Nothin new under the Sun.
André Michaud
[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- mjh]
<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>jdff1001@hotmail.com (jdff) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-18122-1089205292@star.bris.ac.uk>...\n[snip]\n> Also, there is the fact that the RANGE itself is not well-defined in\n> their measurement procedure (although the rate of change ought to be).\n> This is because of the PLL which is used to "reflect" the outgoing\n> transmission at the spacecraft. The assumption is that the spacecraft\n> transmitted frequency is instantaneously equal to N times the received\n> frequency. Of course, we don\'t have the engineering details, but the\n> spacecraft PLL is almost certainly second-order, and the phase noise\n> spec given in the paper mandates the PLL bandwidth to be sub-1 Hz. The\n> implication is that for the PLL to "converge", the output frequency\n> equals N times the input frequency as it was at least 1 second ago.\n> However, the PLL bandwidth -> signal lag will remain constant over\n> time.\n>\n> Similarly, the modulated ranging signal (as opposed to Doppler) has a\n> finite latency through the spacecraft, which does not seem to have\n> been modelled. These are small errors, but when the claimed accuracy\n> is ~10^-10 m/s^2........\n\nWould the acceleration towards the earth (if measured) point to a\npossible acceleration of time for pioneer 10.\n\nIf so how would it be possible to confirm ?\n\nSpud\n\n[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed. Please do this yourself -- 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>jdff1001@hotmail.com (jdff) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-18122-1089205292@star.bris.ac.uk>...
[snip]
> Also, there is the fact that the RANGE itself is not well-defined in
> their measurement procedure (although the rate of change ought to be).
> This is because of the PLL which is used to "reflect" the outgoing
> transmission at the spacecraft. The assumption is that the spacecraft
> transmitted frequency is instantaneously equal to N times the received
> frequency. Of course, we don't have the engineering details, but the
> spacecraft PLL is almost certainly second-order, and the phase noise
> spec given in the paper mandates the PLL bandwidth to be sub-1 Hz. The
> implication is that for the PLL to "converge", the output frequency
> equals N times the input frequency as it was at least 1 second ago.
> However, the PLL bandwidth -> signal lag will remain constant over
> time.
>
> Similarly, the modulated ranging signal (as opposed to Doppler) has a
> finite latency through the spacecraft, which does not seem to have
> been modelled. These are small errors, but when the claimed accuracy
> is ~10^-10 m/s^2........
Would the acceleration towards the earth (if measured) point to a
possible acceleration of time for pioneer 10.
If so how would it be possible to confirm ?
Spud
[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed. Please do this yourself -- mjh]
Craig Markwardt
Jul9-04, 08:05 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>omeganumber@yahoo.co.uk (Spud) writes:\n> > Similarly, the modulated ranging signal (as opposed to Doppler) has a\n> > finite latency through the spacecraft, which does not seem to have\n> > been modelled. These are small errors, but when the claimed accuracy\n> > is ~10^-10 m/s^2........\n>\n> Would the acceleration towards the earth (if measured) point to a\n> possible acceleration of time for pioneer 10.\n>\n> If so how would it be possible to confirm ?\n\nAn attempt to distinguish an acceleration towards the earth, vs. the\nsun has been attempted, but was not successful, by Markwardt (2003,\ngr-qc/0208046). The earth is simply too close to the sun to make the\ndistinction between the two.\n\nAnderson et al in their large paper, consider possible\ntime-acceleration models. The time on the spacecraft is essentially\nirrelevant, since it merely retransponds the signal back to the earth\nwithout reference to absolute time.\n\nCraig\n\n--\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\nCraig B. Markwardt, Ph.D. EMAIL: craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu\nAstrophysics , IDL, Finance, Derivatives | Remove "net" for better response\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>omeganumber@yahoo.co.uk (Spud) writes:
> > Similarly, the modulated ranging signal (as opposed to Doppler) has a
> > finite latency through the spacecraft, which does not seem to have
> > been modelled. These are small errors, but when the claimed accuracy
> > is ~10^-10 m/s^2........
>
> Would the acceleration towards the earth (if measured) point to a
> possible acceleration of time for pioneer 10.
>
> If so how would it be possible to confirm ?
An attempt to distinguish an acceleration towards the earth, vs. the
sun has been attempted, but was not successful, by Markwardt (2003,
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208046). The earth is simply too close to the sun to make the
distinction between the two.
Anderson et al in their large paper, consider possible
time-acceleration models. The time on the spacecraft is essentially
irrelevant, since it merely retransponds the signal back to the earth
without reference to absolute time.
Craig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig B. Markwardt, Ph.D. EMAIL: craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu
Astrophysics, IDL, Finance, Derivatives | Remove "net" for better response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
<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>\n"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message\nnews:mt2.0-12998-1089124726@star.bris.ac.uk...\n> Background Pioneer 10 Anomalous Acceleration\n> http://www.google.com/search?q=pioneer+10+site%3AarXiv.org\n\nIs galactic dark matter (assuming it exists) expected to have a\nlocally increased (helio-centric) density distribution?\nIf so, what are the \'anomalous\' accelerations associated with that?\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>"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:mt2.0-12998-1089124726@star.bris.ac.uk...
> Background Pioneer 10 Anomalous Acceleration
> http://www.google.com/search?q=pioneer+10+site%3AarXiv.org
Is galactic dark matter (assuming it exists) expected to have a
locally increased (helio-centric) density distribution?
If so, what are the 'anomalous' accelerations associated with that?
Carlos L
Jul15-04, 03:09 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>srp@microtec.net (Andr? Michaud) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-24975-1089323298@star.bris.ac.uk>...\n> carlosla@lix.intercom.es (Carlos L) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-22098-1089275083@star.bris.ac.uk>...\n\nThanks André for having looked and for your comments about my\nnon-orthodox explanation that was posted in the thread "Pioneer\nAnomaly" URL: http://\ngroups.google.com/groups?selm=ac68ac75.0302101315.22c7d470@posting.g oogle.com\n\n> Here is my comment. It is pretty well established without any\n> doubt that the speed of light of photons is invariant in vacuum\n> and completely independant of the velocity of the source, which\n> is precisely why Doppler ranging can be used at all.\n\nI know "that" and I believe it is true. Unfortunately everybody finds\ndifficult to understand my (very simple) interpretation of the\nconstancy of the speed of light in vacuum. (It must be that I don\'t\nexplain myself clearly enough). I try again:\nI do believe that the speed of light is independent of the speed of\nthe source. But I believe that the speed of light in vacuum is always\nc *relative to the physical apparatus* that detects it. The speed of\nlight will also be c relative to the reference frame of description if\nthe detector is at rest in it (as is generally the case). But since SR\ndoes not dare forbid to use detectors that move relative to the\nreference frame of description, I assume that in these cases the speed\nof light will no longer be c relative to the frame of description\n(until some experiment, in vacuum, proves me wrong). An implication of\nsuch interpretation is that since "all" detectors, whatever their\nspeed relative to the source, are known to receive light from moving\nsources it must be assumed that a typical source emits light-type\ndisturbance at a continuum of speeds. (I don\'t want to discuss in this\nthread the details of the *other* implications or problems with this\nidea). My hope here was to find some reader able to believe in the\npossibility that such idea is compatible with the experimental facts\nand be willing to discuss my interpretation of the Pioneers anomalies.\n\n> As for the doppler data, if it were not to be trusted in this case,\n> this would make this case the only one on record where Doppler data\n> would be found not to be totally precise.\n\nI also believe that this case (of the Pioneers) is indeed the first in\nwhich the Doppler data do not agree with the expected position of a\nbody governed by the very trustable celestial mechanics laws. But this\nis a special case because, for the Pioneers: (1) the position (as a\nfunction of time, therefore including velocity, acceleration, ...) is\n(supposedly) known with enormous precision and the experimenter is not\nallowed to say "the disagreement with our Doppler data must be due to\nour imprecise knowledge of their position". (2) the velocities of the\nobserved bodies (the Pioneers) have a "big" component v along the line\nof sight, and according to my interpretation, the effect is\nproportional to such component. That is not the case for the moon that\nis AFAIK the only other celestial body whose position is known with\nsuch precision.\n\n> To my knowledge, all cases where verification by other means could\n> be used, the precision cannot be questioned.\n\nI believe that also.\n\n> When orthodox theories can\'t explain some phenomenon, it is common\n> practice to distrust and finally discard the data as being tainted.\n\nWell, after having studied and discarded all other "reasonable"\nexplanations, I suppose that it is the best thing to do. Mine has not\nbeen considered yet except by you that has not fully understood it,\n(my fault).\nBut anyway, thanks again.\n\nCarlos L.\n\n> Nothin new under the Sun.\n>\n> André Michaud\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>srp@microtec.net (Andr? Michaud) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-24975-1089323298@star.bris.ac.uk>...
> carlosla@lix.intercom.es (Carlos L) wrote in message news:<mt2.0-22098-1089275083@star.bris.ac.uk>...
Thanks André for having looked and for your comments about my
non-orthodox explanation that was posted in the thread "Pioneer
Anomaly" URL: http://
groups.google.com/groups?selm=ac68ac75.0302101315.22c7d470@posting.g oogle.com
> Here is my comment. It is pretty well established without any
> doubt that the speed of light of photons is invariant in vacuum
> and completely independant of the velocity of the source, which
> is precisely why Doppler ranging can be used at all.
I know "that" and I believe it is true. Unfortunately everybody finds
difficult to understand my (very simple) interpretation of the
constancy of the speed of light in vacuum. (It must be that I don't
explain myself clearly enough). I try again:
I do believe that the speed of light is independent of the speed of
the source. But I believe that the speed of light in vacuum is always
c *relative to the physical apparatus* that detects it. The speed of
light will also be c relative to the reference frame of description if
the detector is at rest in it (as is generally the case). But since SR
does not dare forbid to use detectors that move relative to the
reference frame of description, I assume that in these cases the speed
of light will no longer be c relative to the frame of description
(until some experiment, in vacuum, proves me wrong). An implication of
such interpretation is that since "all" detectors, whatever their
speed relative to the source, are known to receive light from moving
sources it must be assumed that a typical source emits light-type
disturbance at a continuum of speeds. (I don't want to discuss in this
thread the details of the *other* implications or problems with this
idea). My hope here was to find some reader able to believe in the
possibility that such idea is compatible with the experimental facts
and be willing to discuss my interpretation of the Pioneers anomalies.
> As for the doppler data, if it were not to be trusted in this case,
> this would make this case the only one on record where Doppler data
> would be found not to be totally precise.
I also believe that this case (of the Pioneers) is indeed the first in
which the Doppler data do not agree with the expected position of a
body governed by the very trustable celestial mechanics laws. But this
is a special case because, for the Pioneers: (1) the position (as a
function of time, therefore including velocity, acceleration, ...) is
(supposedly) known with enormous precision and the experimenter is not
allowed to say "the disagreement with our Doppler data must be due to
our imprecise knowledge of their position". (2) the velocities of the
observed bodies (the Pioneers) have a "big" component v along the line
of sight, and according to my interpretation, the effect is
proportional to such component. That is not the case for the moon that
is AFAIK the only other celestial body whose position is known with
such precision.
> To my knowledge, all cases where verification by other means could
> be used, the precision cannot be questioned.
I believe that also.
> When orthodox theories can't explain some phenomenon, it is common
> practice to distrust and finally discard the data as being tainted.
Well, after having studied and discarded all other "reasonable"
explanations, I suppose that it is the best thing to do. Mine has not
been considered yet except by you that has not fully understood it,
(my fault).
But anyway, thanks again.
Carlos L.
> Nothin new under the Sun.
>
> André Michaud
>
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.