Pioneer Effect

[nojocujo]

It appears that dark energy looks like the cosmological constant or so they say even Perlmutter. Einstein called it his biggest blunder due to the Hubble redshift. With dark energy the cosmological constant has enjoyed a rebirth.

 

[brellis]

Will the New Horizons craft be conducting any tests of the Pioneer effect? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[brellis]

Here's a post on a physics forum thread relating to this issue:<br /><br />"I attended a talk on the potential for the New Horizons mission for<br />measuring the Pioneer anomaly. Unfortunately, the design of New<br />Horizons is not conducive to a precision measurement, owing to the<br />placement of the RTGs near the spacecraft body and antenna. Also, the<br />mission profile (funding and activities) calls for long periods of<br />"hibernation" between maneuvers during the cruise phase, whereas an<br />accurate measurement of the Pioneer effect really demands many regular<br />tracking sessions between maneuvers." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[robnissen]

I had asked the same question a while back. The answer I got was that New Horizons could not be used to look for the Pioneer effect because it is spin stablized and Pioneer was not. (I may have it backwards, maybe Pioneer was spin stablized and New Horizons was not.)

 

[CalliArcale]

You have it backwards. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> The Pioneers were spin-stabilized. The upshot was that they very rarely had to fire any thrusters for attitude control, which means that they weren't adding delta-vee so often. The Voyagers, by contrast, use thrusters for attitude control, and must fire them fairly regularly. The amount of delta-vee added by doing this is not easy to calculate, but it's definitely greater than the Pioneer Effect -- in other words, the Pioneer Effect is lost in the "noise" produced by attitude control thrusters. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

>> as opposed to the expectations of General Relativity have been observationally falsified. <br /><br /><br />???<br />

 

[nduriri]

why this semantic debate? Let's talk physics. See the new Newton law<br />www.gravitomagnetism.com

 

[search]

Its quite absurd that Allais Effect remains a mistery. We have technology to do better and it will be done.<br /><br />From:<br />Propulsion Experiments<br />Foucault Pendulum Abnormalities<br /><br />The Foucault pendulum exhibits an effect such that the plane of the pendulum swing does not change. The apparent rotation of the plane of the pendulum is actually caused by the rotation of the Earth beneath the pendulum. Therefore the pendulum arc should show an apparent rotation of one cycle every 24 hours.<br /><br />Dr. Maurice Allias conducted some remarkable experiments with some pendulums several years ago, during which a cycle was found which was between 24 and 25 hours long. Allias's experiments were performed with a very high degree of accuracy with continuous readings of about a month, and in two widely separated locations.<br /><br />Also, during a total solar eclipse, the plane of the pendulum swing was noted to shift approximately 15 centesimal degrees exactly at the start of the eclipse. Near the end of the eclipse, the plane again shifted and returned to the normal periodic cycle it had been following previous to the eclipse. This gives a very definite impression of a screen effect.(CNC)<br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br />Analysis of the radio tracking data from the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft at distances between 20–70 AU from the Sun has consistently indicated the presence of a small but anomalous Doppler frequency drift. The drift can be interpreted as due to a constant acceleration aP= (8.74 +/- 1.33) x 10-8 cm/s2 directed towards the Sun. Jupiter is at 5.2AU so why wasn't it detected earlier?<br /><br />1995 September 30 - Last transmission received from Pioneer 11 -<br />Science operations and daily telemetry ceased when t

 

[brellis]

Thank you for an excellent post. This literate musician appreciates the clear, concise language in your presentation. <br /><br />The Pioneer-Chaos Theory study was another intriguing look at Pioneer 10. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

pioneer anolmaly is acceleration of solar system outwardly to meet the coasting, unaccelerating, pioneer craft. <br /><br />one day, pioneers will re-enter vicinity of the solar system.

 

[search]

Thanks. And thanks for the link. <br />Lets wait to see if Pioneer Effect gets tested soon.

 

[search]

Sorry bonzelite but I fail to understand your post.

 

[vandivx]

I'd be curious to know how you kept the pendulum swinging for extended period of time<br /><br />is that Allais mystery related to Majorana effect (gravitation shielding) mentioned several posts above by SEARCH? <br />reading that post I failed to see how that can have anything to do with Pioneer effect btw, shielding if anything wouldn't act to increase gravitational acceleration towards the Sun but on the contrary, I must be missing something<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[search]

"The notion of gravitational shielding was investigated in the 1920s by the Italian physicist Quirino Majorana. So-called Majorana shielding is hypothetical effect by which large masses (such as the moon) can partially block the gravitational force from more distant objects (such as the sun). This might explain the unusual and highly controversial efforts observed by some researchers in the behavior of pendulums during solar eclipses."<br />http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/antigravity.html<br /><br />The Pioneer Effect was detected between 20AU and 70AU from earth but it is not known which mass caused it (Jupiter?) if the above cases are considered of course.<br /><br />Orbits (follow next or previous pages)<br />http://cohoweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/helios/book1/b1_38.html<br />

 

[vandivx]

"Hence, gravity, or least this kind of gravity, is not a force. That leaves the possibility that Einstein was right that it is geometry instead."<br />------<br /><br />IMO gravitation or any other 'force' can never be 'force at a distance' because that would be magic, force, any force whatsoever ALWAYS has to be transmited via some medium, magic just doesn't happen, that's all I can say<br /><br />and I don't see why influence transmited via a medium like Einstein's curved spacetime is not a force, that is just confusion building gobledygook speech and trying to look fancy and sophisticated and you can't save the day by calling it 'geometry', as if geometry could do anything, wake up to reality and don't make me laugh, if it has influence on dynamics of remote bodies, than it is force and nowt else and don't let mystics tell you otherwise<br /><br />geometry has to be geometry of something and that something is what is 'guiding' the influence, ie, the influence is being transmited via medium of some kind, reason Einstein went mystical with his geometry is he couldn't allow any transmiting medium into his theories - some might say he didn't need a medium, I say he couldn't afford it because it would upset his theories and he couldn't see how to accomodate anything like that, he ran out of ideas by then and was content to wrap up his GR theory mystical as it was<br /><br />bottom line is that every force is transmited force - that is transmited via some medium, no force can act across void in some immaterial fashion, we might as well believe in gods and demons if we would allow that<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rfoshaug]

If gravity is not a force, then why do you need to apply force to an object to counter gravity? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"Most unfortunately he died before he could finish the important conclusion to his work. Others had made suggestions. For example, Kaluza suggested looking to higher dimensions. Modern day String Theory persues this approach. But I think Einstein might have been looking for another way around the problem."<br />-----------------------<br /><br />from what I have read about Einsteins later life (Abraham Pais), Einstein didn't die only to have snatched some new progress from him by his death, on the contrary, he died when he was suffering futility in his endeavours for many many years, really decades (as attested to by many other sources near him), that is truth and I don't know what you are talking about when you say "Most unfortunately he died before he could finish the important conclusion to his work."<br />that is hoping for something that just wasn't there and it is totaly out of order to say something like that, please<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"If Einstein shared your faith that "it just wan't there", he would not have spent all those decades looking for it. He just did not find it."<br />---------------------------<br /><br />sorry but you misread my admitedly badly worded post, what I meant to say was that Einstein was in no way near any success (any breakthrough) just before he died, ie., that success 'just wasn't there' waiting in the wings for him so to speak, which death would have snatched from him, on the contrary he chewed and rechewed many possible ways of getting some GUTheory or at least partly unified theory but he died without hopes or any promising leads<br /><br />vanDivX<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[search]

From LINK<br />Pioneer anomaly put to the test<br />Physics in Action: September 2004<br />The European Space Agency is considering a unique experiment that could explain strange gravitational phenomena in the outer solar system<br /><br />Since 1998 astronomers have known that the space probes Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 are following trajectories that cannot be explained by conventional physics. Launched in 1972 and 1973, respectively, to explore the outer planets, the Pioneer craft are now at the edge of the solar system, with Pioneer 10 being some 86 astronomical units (about 13 billion kilometres) from the Sun. But they are not quite where they should be, based on the gravitational pull of the known bodies in the solar system.<br /><br /><br />Anomalous trajectory<br />When the craft were at distances of between 20 and 70 astronomical units, researchers found that the Doppler frequency of microwave signals that were bounced off the craft drifted at a small, constant rate (see "Spacecraft anomalies put gravity to the test"). This drift meant that the craft were experiencing a constant acceleration directed towards the Sun, at a level that is 10 billion times weaker that the Earth's gravitational pull. The most obvious explanation for this anomalous deceleration is some mundane systematic effect, such as heat radiating from the craft or leakage from the propulsion thrusters. But no such mechanism has been found.<br /><br />Attempts to test the anomaly using other spacecraft such as Galileo and the Voyager probes have proved unsuccessful, and the deep-space missions that are currently being developed - for example the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) and the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO) - will not be designed to test the properties of the Pioneer anomaly. Given this situation, we concluded that the anomaly could no longer be ignored.<br /><br />At its Cosmic Vision workshop in Paris this month,

 

[search]

From LINK<br /><br />JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT AND ROCKETS <br />Vol. 43, No. 4, July–August 2006 <br />Options for a Nondedicated Mission to Test the Pioneer Anomaly <br />Andreas Rathke? <br />EADS Astrium GmbH, 88039 Friedrichshafen, Germany <br />and <br />Dario Izzo† <br />ESA, 2201 AZ Noordwijk, The Netherlands <br /><br />The Doppler-tracking data of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft show an unmodeled constant acceleration in the <br />direction of the inner solar system. Serious efforts have been undertaken to find a conventional explanation for <br />this effect, all without success at the time of writing. Hence, the effect, commonly dubbed the Pioneer anomaly, <br />is attracting considerable attention. Unfortunately, no other space mission has reached the long-term navigation <br />accuracy to yield an independent test of the effect. To fill this gap, strategies are discussed for an experimental ver- <br />ification of the anomaly via an upcoming space mission. Emphasis is put on two plausible scenarios: nondedicated <br />concepts employing either a planetary exploration mission to the outer solar system or a piggybacked microspace- <br />craft to be launched from a mother spacecraft traveling to Saturn or Jupiter. The impact of a Pioneer anomaly <br />test on the system and trajectory design for these two paradigms is analyzed. It is found that both paradigms are <br />capable of verifying the Pioneer anomaly and determine its magnitude at 10% level. Moreover, the concepts can <br />discriminate between the most plausible classes of models of the anomaly, a central force, a blueshift of the radio <br />signal, and a draglike force. The necessary adaptions of the system and mission design do not impair the planetary <br />exploration goals of the missions.

 

[search]

LATOR Experiment using the Space Station and other satelites<br /><br />Audio story<br /><br />March 26, 2004: Sooner or later, the reign of Einstein, like the reign of Newton before him, will come to an end. An upheaval in the world of physics that will overthrow our notions of basic reality is inevitable, most scientists believe, and currently a horse race is underway between a handful of theories competing to be the successor to the throne.<br /><br />In the running are such mind-bending ideas as an 11-dimensional universe, universal "constants" (such as the strength of gravity) that vary over space and time and only remain truly fixed in an unseen 5th dimension, infinitesimal vibrating strings as the fundamental constituents of reality, and a fabric of space and time that's not smooth and continuous, as Einstein believed, but divided into discrete, indivisible chunks of vanishingly small size. Experiment will ultimately determine which triumphs.<br /><br />Right: According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, the sun's gravity causes starlight to bend, shifting the apparent position of stars in the sky.<br /><br />A new concept for an experiment to test the predictions of Einstein's relativity more precisely than ever before is being developed by scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). Their mission, which effectively uses our solar system as a giant laboratory, would help narrow the field of vying theories and bring us one step closer to the next revolution in physics.<br /><br />A House Divided<br /><br /><br /><br />Sign up for EXPRESS SCIENCE NEWS delivery<br />It may not weigh heavily on most people's minds, but a great schism has long plagued our fundamental understanding of the universe. Two ways of explaining the nature and behavior of space, time, matter, and e

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>borman: Einstein was looking for the next logical step to form the Very General Relativity Theory. Regardless of false starts and contemporary opinion that he would not have found the theory, he still persevered. It is the dogged persistence that may lead to success. So he was well positioned to make the advance just because of his atitude and self reliance upon his intuition.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I see it differently, young Einstein was thinking physically (his famous thought experiments), he wasn't massaging differential equations and thinking of n-dimensions and covariances when he wrote his papers in 1905 in contrast to old Einstein who did only that to extreme degree<br /><br />'dogged persistence' only bears fruits when one is at least generally on right tracks which Einstein wasn't when he worked on his unified field theory in the last decades of his life trying to obtain some magical equations that would be holy grail of physics<br /><br />I know it is hard to see it this way for those admiring the man but IMO he was way too demonized to be seen how he really was<br /><br />as to the pioneer effect, I am surprised that anybody still thinks it might turn up to be those 'systematics', that is no new physics although that is understandable if one can't think of any new physics <br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>On the other hand, if instead of a real impulse force, a geodesic transformation is transmitted that can be sensed by freefall or a pendulum, then your path will also be altered, but you will feel nothing!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />whatever you feel or don't, point remains that f=ma, if you place in free space a planet and a small body nearby it so that they are in relative rest in respect to each other, before long the body and the planet will accelerate towards each other and the small body will end up smashing into the planet, that is force acting if it is anything, you got acceleration being developped and what else but a force (felt or not felt) can be responsible for that<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"F=ma only has to do with what is happening upon the stage, not what is happening to the stage. Any question as to whether gravity is a force or if it is geometry is finally settled by the experiments."<br />-------------------<br />you just choose (artificially IMO) to distinguish between contact or deformation forces on the one hand and mass accelerating property of space (which you call geometry) on the other, I personally prefer to see the gravitation as 'force inducing geometrical condition of space', that is as a force of certain special kind but still a force<br /><br />I like to preserve the concept of force for generic universal usage, be it the special case of a contact force acting 'on the stage' on some particular bodies in a collision or the force of gravitation with its whole 'stage acting' as you put it<br /><br />its not like this 'geometry' of yours is not felt as a force, I feel it right now as I sit in my chair well pressed into it by that geometry and my legs suffer from it too if I stand up too long<br /><br />indeed you make it look as if there was some chance that gravitation underneath it all was some sort of contact force and that the experiment with that pendula that you talk about disposed of that, I have never doubted Einstein's basic idea that the force of gravitation is induced by some condition in the space medium (space manifold or space curvature or geometry of space as it is called) although I believe his physical interpretation of it is not right never mind that the mathematics of GR do hold up (Einstein was never too hot in his later life on any physical interpretation of his theories and he stuck with the 'gravitation is geometry' idea although he suspected that there is something very much physical doing the gravitating job <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> )<br /><br />point is that 'space curvature' is invalid use of the two concepts as they stand together, given that space is 3D phenomenon (that is, if we talk about actual reality ou <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[search]

Regarding:<br /><font color="yellow">It might be worth noting that one of the above Nieto abstracts mentions that the New Horizon mission will have a period of about 6 months prior to Jupiter and a period after Jupiter that the craft will be spin stabilized. If the Pioneer Anomaly should present itself for monitoring in the doppler returns, one can see if the anomaly requires spin stabilization as a precondition. One can also check the sign of the anomaly as regards Jupiter as a source, i.e., whether the anomaly vector points towards Jupiter rather than the sun.</font><br /><br />From:<br />http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2006-07/msg0074893.html<br /><br />Alas, the spacecraft will very likely be unsuitable for Pioneer Effect<br />experiments for another reason: "Unfortunately, New Horizons suffers<br />from a similar drawback in this respect to the Cassini spacecraft -<br />namely, that its RTGs are mounted close to the spacecraft's body, so<br />infrared radiation from them, bouncing off the spacecraft, will produce<br />a systematic thrust of a not-easily predicted magnitude, several times<br />as large as the Pioneer effect."