 Quote by twofish-quant
That's not true. Most theory papers don't have empirical evidence to support the theory, which is why it's theory. The point of a theory paper is to come up with suggestions for observationalists for what to look for.
Also you don't want to look for evidence to support your new theory. You want an experimental test that will conclusively kill it. To use an extreme example, I can argue that the big bang was caused by space turtle mating, and can find all sorts of evidence that supports that idea. The hard part is to come up with a conclusive argument that demonstrates clearly that the universe *wasn't* caused by giant turtles mating. Personally, I couldn't do it.
The other thing is to try to kill as many birds as you can with one paper. The interesting papers are those that present an experimental test for a whole class of theories. For example, a paper showing that theory A explains Pioneer would not be interesting. But a paper that shows that any theory that involves a change in gravity *couldn't* explain Pioneer would be slightly more interesting. For example, one thing that suggests that whatever caused Pioneer is something that is specific to Pioneer is the fact that if it was weird gravity, you'd also see it in Jupiter. So any new theory is not going to have to explain anolmaies but also non-anonaly and explaining a non-anomaly can be quite difficult.
|
This wouldn't be for a paper where the theory would be outlined, it would only test whether there is a correlation with the flyby anomaly magnitude and the direction of the Sun, the null hypothesis being that there isn't any. Even if that is true, it is still worth being in the body of knowledge. Thus I would be looking to kill the alternative hypothesis, that there is a correlation.
It may be buried in a paper somewhere, but I have not seen it specifically answered. This would not test anything about the Pioneer anomaly, I just wasn't aware that it was considered definitively solved and perhaps could have been an alternate line of inquiry.
The point of the video is that I was not aware that precession could be caused by negative mass (if there were such a thing). It isn't something you will find even in a text like Gravitation by Misner et al. This seems to be a research area by Hermann Bondi (type negative mass into google scholar if interested) and others. The interesting thing about negative mass is that it is repulsive, where if you were in a region all points would recede away from you, faster the farther they are away. That intrigues me.
As far as a paper that explains a whole host of problems with current physics, those seem to be far and few between in science and rightly so. I am not currently up to that task.
Similar Threads for: Looking for someone who can do calculations on flyby anomaly.
