Pioneer Effect

CalliArcale · Dec 20, 2005

That's why I put it in quotes. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> There is a sort of "wind", but it's more a case of the solar system moving through the interstellar medium than the other way around. Scientists have predicted that there should be a bow shock somewhere in front of the heliosphere's leading side, and shortly before Voyager 1's camera failed altogether, they did manage to get a picture of what *might* be the bow shock -- basically, a faint glow. Nothing to look at, really, but there all the same. This is a product of what might, for want of a better phrase, be called the interstellar "wind". As an addendum to what I posted last night, scientists are trying to correlate data from Voyager 1, Voyager 2, Ulysses, Cassini, Galileo (historical data only, obviously), and SOHO. The heliosphere might grow and shrink in response to changes in the solar wind, so it should be possible to correlate changes in the various data sets. I don't recall all the details, but they did manage to correlate data from SOHO and Cassini to track a CME all the way out to Saturn. It's tough to crunch all of this data, but the hope is to find patterns that would show something like the heliopause growing when the Sun is more active. Of course, since we've got a grand total of one spacecraft in a good position to tell us anything about the heliopause, and even that one's mainly down to luck, it does limit the conclusions they can reach. But Voyager 2 is still moving. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> It'll get far enough out eventually. And next month, New Horizons will be launched; it's mission is to study Pluto and the Kuiper Belt, but it should still be working when it reaches the heliopause. Now that's cool! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

mlorrey · Dec 20, 2005

"This may also have something to do with the interstellar "wind" acting upon the heliopause, just as the solar wind acts upon the Earth's magnetosphere, but on a different scale. you mean interstellar plasma. there is no wind. " On the contrary, the solar wind varies in intensity from day to day. The heliopause, being a boundary shock between interstellar plasma and solar wind, would vary in distance with variances in solar wind intensity. There could be another explaination: if Nemesis is a small red dwarf, it would also have its own heliopause boundary, which may overlap that of the Sun. This would, however, indicate that Nemesis is much closer than 1 ly at the present time. This is a long shot.

bonzelite · Dec 20, 2005

it is from my understanding that the fourth state of matter is not wind. i should have said interplanetary, not interstellar, plasma in this case. i think to continue calling the solar plasma a wind is a misleading and antiquated idea. it should just be called for what it is, as it is not a bizarre concept in need of a metaphor. it is an actual simple physical process. it could be likely, too, that, expounding upon your idea about Nemesis, stars could be like cells. with their cell walls, as semipermeable membranes, being their termination shock boundaries (as i use simile and metaphor): the central star is the nucleus, and the planets, asteriods, KBOs, comets, are the mitochondria. this way, when the turgor pressure of the solar system changes, contracts or expands, everything moves with this motion. because the distances and elapsed times are so vast, this movement is detected certainly, but gradually as in the case of the Pioneer spacecraft. as well, Nemesis could be closer than is currently thought by traditional measuring ideas. many things could be.

CalliArcale · Dec 20, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />it is from my understanding that the fourth state of matter is not wind. i should have said interplanetary, not interstellar, plasma in this case. i think to continue calling the solar plasma a wind is a misleading and antiquated idea. it should just be called for what it is, as it is not a bizarre concept in need of a metaphor. it is an actual simple physical process.<hr /></blockquote> Ah, now I understand your objection. You are correct -- the fourth state of matter is plasma, not wind. But "wind" in this case isn't referring to the state of the matter but its perceived motion relative to some object moving through it. In fact, even wind on Earth shouldn't be understood as a state of matter. There is no "wind" phase. Wind is merely matter in motion. The technical terms for the stuff that's out there vary, depending on context. The word "medium" is often used. It's not all plasma, so calling it interstellar plasma isn't entirely accurate. It's the stuff between star systems. Some of it does penetrate the heliosphere; the Stardust spacecraft has captured some of these particles and will be returning them to Earth for study next month. (Cross your fingers and hope for a safe landing! It uses the same reentry system as Genesis did. Fortunately it's not as fragile.) As the Sun plows through space, it passes through this medium. We therefore perceive a drift in it equivalent to the Sun's forward motion. This effect is what is called the interstellar wind -- the "breeze" we feel of the interstellar medium as we move through it. It's similar to the breeze you feel if you run forwards on a calm day. The solar wind is the drift in solar particles propelled outwards from the Sun. It's mostly plasma, and mostly hydrogen plasma at that. The particles are accelerated away from the Sun by various processes, which are not all completely understood; there is a l <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Dec 20, 2005

right. we know. but i'm saying they use "wind" to avoid, at all cost, mentioning plasma. it is a seemingly innocent semantic that profoundly misleads. so this way, curious youngsters grow up under the wind and not the plasma. so it marginalizes it when the solar plasma may be merely the beginning point of departure in a far broader plasma campaign discussion.

CalliArcale · Dec 20, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />but i'm saying they use "wind" to avoid, at all cost, mentioning plasma.<hr /></blockquote> Are you suggesting a conspiracy to hide the fact that there's plasma out there? I'm sorry, bonzelite, but that's absurd. For one thing, "wind" is the most accurate word there is for what they're trying to convey. It's stuff moving. "Current" would be the only other word I could think of to express it. It's not static; it's dynamic, and that's extremely important. Just calling it plasma doesn't express any of that, and is frankly, even more misleading. Wind has a velocity vector; that's crucial to what wind is. Is it inaccurate to call straight line winds "wind"? Or is the Weather Channel hiding the fact that it's really a gas with a liquid suspension in it? Of course not, and to suggest so would be absurd. It's no less absurd to suggest that it's wrong to call the solar wind "wind". It's moving. It's wind. Now, if you want to talk about the stuff of it totally apart from its motion, you can call it interplanetary medium, or solar particles, or somesuch. But when talking about possible motion of the heliopause, its velocity is extremely significant -- and so "wind" is appropriate. To look at it another way, there's a difference between the words "water" and "wave", but a wave can be made up of water. Similarly, "plasma" and "wind" are definitely not the same things, but you can have a wind in a medium made of plasma. There's no campaign to mislead curious youngsters, nor to somehow hide the fact that the Sun is made of plasma. I have no clue where you got that idea. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

jatslo · Dec 20, 2005

"...F(p)=ma(p) = m(dv/dt) + v(dm/dt).." F = Force m = Mass a = Acceleration d = Distance, or Displacement? t = Time v = Velocity p = ???? Clearly (F = ma) breaks down, and furthered experiments should tempt us to make a journey to another STAR, other than our own. JUST DO IT!!!

vogon13 · Dec 20, 2005

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is no gravitational force felt within a sphere due to a spehrical (sp) shell of mass. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For a spherical shell of uniform thickness and density, the no-grav spot is exactly at the center. As you approach one side more closely, there will be a net attraction. {assuming the sphere is in free fall} <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

kmarinas86 · Dec 21, 2005

"...F(p)=ma(p) = m(dv/dt) + v(dm/dt)..." a=dv/dt dv is the derivitative of the velocity a.k.a. the change of velocity or delta v. dt is the derivitative of the time a.k.a. the change of time or delta t. v(dm/dt)=0 Because there isn't a change of mass, that is, delta m is 0. The equation above is valid because it follows the product rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_rule I don't know what the p means but F(p) here is written instead of dF, the derivate, or change in the force.

jatslo · Dec 21, 2005

(p) is something he is adding or subtracting to account for the anomaly, I think? I am taking statistics and probability now in college, yuck.

bonzelite · Dec 21, 2005

not according to Newton Newton was an alchemist.

najab · Dec 22, 2005

Not according to Newton. Yes according to Newton.

bonzelite · Dec 22, 2005

a genius, he was as well influenced by the architectural proportions of the Temple of Solomon and was a religious man; associated with the freemasons. http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=phenomena&Number=395850&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart= http://www.southerncrossreview.org/28/newton.htm ...He thought that he could reach God, or could achieve some sort of closeness to God by studying nature, and he would look anywhere that he could to find those secrets. He wasn't restricted by just mathematics, or just experiment. He would look anywhere. And he even delved into the occult and spent most of his life researching alchemy, which then of course was considered occult... he was extremely open-minded to all sorts of knowledge. it is unfortunate that such philosophy of science is nearly completely lost today.

bonzelite · Dec 22, 2005

the heliosphere is inhaling Pioneer 10.

bonzelite · Dec 22, 2005

who ever mentioned the heliosphere being inside jupiter's orbit???

jatslo · Dec 22, 2005

borman said, "Mass accretion rather than central force That is interesting, but I am more or less looking at the following scenarios: [1] Excretion/Accretion of matter and energy is pushing [2] Gravity diminishes as we move away from our star, possibly preventing interstellar space travel all together. [3] The interstellar medium is more/less dense [4] ... [5] ...and/or all of the above "The p in F(p) does stand for the force due to the pioneer anomaly. Usually, when there is no accretion or mass loss due to fuel expenditure the term v(dm/dt) is ignored because it is equal to 0. But it is still part of the total equation: m(a)=m(dv/dt)+v(dm/dt). [F = (F = ma) + p], this is because I believe that gravity fades away as opposed to burning out. Gravity is not constant until you drop off a cliff. This makes traveling to a star that much better, because F = ma relaxes, meaning that it takes less force to propel an object. "Those who consider a central force or cosmological role for the Pioneer anomaly are mostly concerned that something is going on with the m(dv/dt) portion and ignore the v(dm/dt) part, since dm/dt would equal 0 with constant mass. I pioneer accelerating or decelerating? If it is decelerating then the particles that are impacting pioneer have more of an impact, because F = ma breaks down. If Pioneer is accelerating, then the interstellar medium is becoming less dense and Pioneer's momentum is shifting because F = ma is breaking down. "The role of dust as altering momentum by both accretion and drag has been considered but densities have not been uniform enough to correlate with the uniformity of the force. So pioneer is decelerating then? "It might be that there i

nojocujo · Dec 23, 2005

So it sounds like you are leaning towards a spacetime expansion?

bonzelite · Dec 24, 2005

Gravity is always there as though it were geometry. Everything moves as straight as they can in a curved world. There is no attendant angel to turn it on or off when needed. When you are not falling, you feel weight because you are no longer following the straightest line (geodesic). When you do follow the straightest line you feel no weight. The best ideas seem to treat gravity as geometry rather than force. yes. gravity IS geometry. it is not a force. it is a dimension. in this vein, the spactime around the Pioneers could be contracting as the heliopause contracts, pushing them back. as i guess, there may be an intimate interelationship between the gravitational geometric dimension and interstellar plasma (EM), ie, heliospheric propagation. a communication between the plasma medium and the gravitational envelopment may be intimately interconnected in highly misunderstood ways, in perhaps entirely unknown ways. gravity may have different components (as redshift may have different components): gravity may as well exhibit wave-like propagation, "gravitational radiation," yet is entirely beyond wave physics in it's larger geometric sense.

bonzelite · Feb 18, 2006

bear in mind that Newtonian gravity/mechanics is useless after a certain point and/or context. it fails to explain, for example, galactic rotation. gravity is not understood, and Newtonian principles do not describe the actual essence of gravity or what it is. it is useful insofar as geometric computation for trajectory design to the planets but the pioneer effect directly and physically reflects the falibility of this tool. as well, Newtonain principles are based upon Keplerian geometry anyway, and these laws are purely geometric and do not require the existence of gravity for accurate computation of trajectories. the Pioneer effect directly violates conservation of momentum and energy.

Saiph · Feb 18, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Newtonain principles are based upon Keplerian geometry anyway <hr /></blockquote> actually, keplars laws were originally empirical. Then newtons laws of motion, and gravity, are able to derive keplars laws. So newtonian principles of gravity are not based upon keplar's work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Feb 18, 2006

yeah they are. you are wrong. Kepler's stuff pre-dated Newton. Newton simply mathematically re-presented them. and then invented the principle of gravity thereafter. Newton's laws are not entirely his own. they are lifted directly from Kepler.

Saiph · Feb 18, 2006

I call BS. Newtons laws of motion, and gravity, can be used to derive keplars three laws of orbital motion. I've done the derivations myself. here's a link to someone's lecture notes on the subject: http://www.shef.ac.uk/physics/people/vdhillon/teaching/phy105/phy105_derivation.html Keplar had no writings matching the general overall laws of motion that newton presents. His were based solely, on matching empirical data. I.e., he looked at the data (for a long, long time) and told people how the planets actually move. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Feb 18, 2006

it is not BS. you can reverse engineer Newton to get Kepler. but Kepler was the seed. not Newton. Newton did not arrive at these principles alone. he lifted the ideas. Kepler's laws are purely geometric and do not require gravity. Kepler derived the motions of the planets first. this is fact. he pre-dated Newton. regardless, gravity is un-necessary in planetary motion computation. nowhere in Kepler does gravity exist. it cannot because it predates Newton. Pioneer effect violates conservation of momentum and energy.

Saiph · Feb 18, 2006

you aren't reverse engineering newtons work to get kepler. You are using a coherent, general explaination of physical motion to derive planetary motion. These give you the same answers as keplers empirical work. Now, keplers work was not solely geometrical. Equal area in equal time (his..second? law) cannot be obtained purely from geometry. There is no reason, geometrically, why the object must move faster the closer to the sun. Keplers work was empirical. Furthermore, without newtons work, there is no reason why keplers laws should work at all (we only know that they do, due to their accuracy). So, did kepler produce the laws that govern orbital motion first? Yes. Does that mean newtons work is based on kepler? No. Does newtons work independently verify kepler's? Yes. Does newton get sole credit for orbital mechanics? NO, he shares it with keplar and a few others. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

kmarinas86 · Feb 18, 2006

Newtonain principles are based upon Keplerian geometry anyway actually, keplars laws were originally empirical. Then newtons laws of motion, and gravity, are able to derive keplars laws. So newtonian principles of gravity are not based upon keplar's work. What do you mean by "based". It is clear to me that this is underlying source disagreement. Perhaps it means something specific in scientific terminology (despite having an "obvious" meaning). Is wiki lying? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton Sir Isaac Newton, PRS, (4 January [O.S. 25 December 1642] 1643 – 31 March [O.S. 20 March] 1727) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, alchemist, inventor and natural philosopher who is generally regarded as one of the most influential scientists in history. Newton wrote the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica wherein he described universal gravitation and the three laws of motion, laying the groundwork for classical mechanics. By deriving Kepler's laws of planetary motion from this system, he was the first to show that the motion of bodies on Earth and of celestial bodies are governed by the same set of natural laws. The unifying and deterministic power of his laws was integral to the scientific revolution and the advancement of heliocentrism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion Johannes Kepler's primary contributions to astronomy/astrophysics were his three laws of planetary motion. Kepler, a nearly blind though brilliant German mathematician, derived these laws, in part, by studying the observations of the keen-sighted Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe. The article on Johannes Keple

Pioneer Effect

CalliArcale

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

jatslo

Guest

vogon13

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

jatslo

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

najab

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

jatslo

Guest

nojocujo

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page