Pioneer Effect

[search]

I guees we will have to wait until 2008<br /><br />b) The New Horizons mission to Pluto <br />On 19 Jan 2006 the New Horizons mission to Pluto and the Kuiper Belt was launched from Cape <br />Canaveral. Although it was not designed for precision tracking, it might be able to yield useful <br />information. <br />The first problem will be the on-board heat systematics. The large RTG is mounted on the side <br />of the craft, and produced ~4,500 W of heat at launch. A rough calculation shows that a <br />systematic of ~20 cm/s2 or larger will be produced. Since the post-launch modeling of heat <br />systematics is notoriously difficult, this makes this systematic an important problem to <br />overcome. <br /> <br /> Technically it is along the vector sum of the spacecraft velocity and the dark matter’s change in velocity.<br />A saving grace may be that soon after launch a 180 degree “Earth acquisition manoeuvre” <br />rotation was performed, to aim the main antenna at the Earth. The difference in the Doppler shift <br />immediately before and after the rotation can in principle yield a difference measurement of the <br />heat acceleration which would be pointed first in one direction and then in the opposite. But a <br />determination may be difficult because of the high solar radiation pressure (which will vary <br />somewhat in the two orientations) and the relatively small data set before the manoeuvre. <br />More gratifyingly, New Horizons will be in spin-stabilization mode for about the six months <br />before the Jupiter observing period (January-June, 2007, with encounter on 28 Feb. 2007). It <br />also will be spin-stabilized for much of the period after June 2007 until soon before the Pluto <br />encounter on 14 July 2015. This is designed to save fuel so it can be used to aim later at a <br />Kuiper Belt Object. With luck the Doppler and range data from these periods will supply a test, <br />at some level, of the Pioneer

 

[vandivx]

<font color="yellow">Even if GR should fail some future test, Newton’s theory will never come back to replace it.</font><br />thx for the high school level lecture and yes it won't replace it, I never imagined it could<br /><br />my whole point is that 'force' is a generic term and is valid even for events caused by 'geometry' as you put it (never mind that geometry can't be the cause of anything, same as mathematics can't, I take it that terminology of yours is geometry of space, ie, curvature of space - which is another nonsense term but anyway, geometry or gremlins, point is that bodies change their relative speeds and that is force <br /><br />you insists gravitation is not a force but your children and their children will be tought at school F=Gmm/r(sq) ... lets put it this way then, gravitation is a force induced by geometry of space<br /><br />after all, we talk about electric and magentic forces, about various nuclear forces etc, and nobody thinks those forces are some contact forces, like when you get fist punch in face, for all we know they might also be caused by some kind of space distortion - some type of altered geometry of space (and of course all that implies that space is something real, physical, although few care to think that far ahead)<br /><br />I thought that my previous post would have made plenty clear that I understand your geometry idea and why do I then get treated to that lecture of yours as response, I suppose my post proved inpenetrable for you<br /><br />I will repeat that by invoking force I don't advocate returning back to Newton's idea of gravitation and I don't think it implies such return also<br /><br />I should also add that I regard GR as sound theory as far as its mathematics go but its physical interpretation can't stand up to rigorous reasoning but in that way it is no different from most theories of physics nowadays, mathematicians have run amuck and physicists have been left far behind and it needs a correction if we are t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Well the flyby has happened. <br />I'm sure ESA will release results eventually <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />Actually some nice images from the flyby here <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The deflected pendula are not having their direction changed by anything that resembles a classical force.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />that's because their direction doesn't change at all (in the reference frame of stars)<br /><br />in principle, the pendulum in this experiment behaves like a gyroscope (at least when positioned at one of the Earth's poles to make things most simple) and in the Foucault's pendulum experimental setup (when the suspension point is let free to swivel) the plane of the pendulum swing remains stationary - relative to star reference frame, the pendulum is a sort of subset of gyroscope flywheel whose plane of spining flywheel also remains stationary relative to star reference frame<br /><br />therefore I would naturally expect all pendula of various bob weight to complete their full circles at the same time, same as gyroscopes would all work fine with flywheels of different mass <br /><br />however enough of that, thanks for having patience with me<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"Essentially, a transform changes which star is going to be the North Star other than Polaris for pendula to obey."<br /><br />ok, I used that chit about 'reference frame of stars' to comply with those old tired physics they teach one in schools because I didn't want to divert discussion but now that's sort of settled I can say that personally I don't believe that background stars make <font color="red">in principle</font>any better reference frame than does the Sun or its planets (of course in practice the stars are better choice), we only cheat ourselves taking them for static reference frame, that's only so because of their great distances, pendula or gyroscopes don't 'obey' any stars but instead they obey the inertial frame of reference of the absolute space, the absolute space of Newton to be exact<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

quote from the article you linked<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The painstakingly reconstructed dataset should be ready for analysis around June 2007. It will supply the precise direction in which the anomaly acted and any changes in its strength over time.<br /><br />If the direction is towards the Earth, it almost certainly indicates the anomaly was caused by faulty technology or an artefact of receiving the data at the ground stations. If, however, the direction is towards the Sun, new gravitational physics may be needed to explain the effect.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />it will be towards the Sun or to be more precise, it will be directly opposite the direction the probe is moving<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Not directly. The probes are in hyperbolic orbits, not straight lines, so they are not moving direct away from the sun.<br /><br />Close <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"Not directly. The probes are in hyperbolic orbits, not straight lines, so they are not moving direct away from the sun."<br />...<br />yeah, that's why I added in that second part but even that is ambiguous as the direction is changing too as you say<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"A lot of experiments seem to confirm that absolute space does not exist, but space-time instead. If you think Special Relativity is wrong, good luck in trying to figue out how muons have different decay rates."<br />----<br />I wouldn't say SR is all wrong, I'd say its facts are for the most part quite correct and its mathematical side is pretty well all correct but its physical interpretation, that is its physical picture or model is all wrong (to the extent there is any physical model at all, it is no secret it is badly lacking, that's why I used the term 'interpretation' instead)<br /><br />also absolute space won't be confirmed by experiments testing for it but by building up a theory which will be so cogent and seen (eventually) as necessary that it will be accepted because it will be seen as true, I am quite sure if absolute space was something open to direct experimental determination it would have been proved to exist long ago (or disproved as the case may be), I don't have such low meaning of experimentalists at all especially in the light that I rely on them fully in my theorizing and am quite conscious of that)<br /><br />when I said you can't make a direct experimental proof of the existence of absoulute space I didn't want to claim that the theory I talk about is pure product of thought, on the contrary it is based on multitude of experiments done over centuries but those experiments hadn't been done to prove or disprove the absolute space but other things in physics (except for M&M experiment the results of which were misinterpreted)<br /><br />reason you can't test absolute space in some direct (positive) or even indirect fashion is that it exists on a hierarchy one step lower than matter which should be logical if you consider that matter exists in it, moves in it etc., it was precisely the failure to understand this in 19th century that absolute space had to make way for relativity and I admit it is not an easy concept since it has no counterpart in ou <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Most scientists are of a pragmatic type. Theories are only theories which may eventually shown to be wrong by experiment. Meanwhile, the theory that makes the most accurate predictions to the highest number of decimals is used until it is shown to be flawed. [...] <br />You might save yourself some time by first reviewing the historical challenges already faced by relativity to see if you are not repeating what was already done in the past.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I am not challenging relativity theories on some decimal points, there's literaly tons of bright mathematically able bodied phds out there hungry to generate that next decimal point, did you also notice that despite of that surplus of computational abilities physics seems to be stuck - lacking any major advances that used to be happening almost a century ago every few years?<br /><br />I wouldn't even call it challenging it but more like clearing up all kinds of puzzles and mysteries and unexplained things that all theories have in abundance, like the deepest mystery of relativity is the constancy of speed of light, once one accepts that everything else follows easily enough, I should think there is somebody out there who might want to know or are they all content to be like zombies? or are they all interested only in some extra decimal points? <br /><br />that theory also has 'twin paradox' that any two scientists to this day can't agree on how it is really, also Einstein died and never figured out the puzzle of the inertia of matter - where does it come from, and yet it is so central to his theory of general relativity since gravitation and inertia are so intimately related through the principle of equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, other theories like QM are deep mystery all around, nobody understands them physically, just mathematically and most have resigned to live that way and die never knowing better, so much for your pack of zombi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

you are obsessed with support or invalidation of a theory which comes from constantly having to fend of attacks on it from serious or unserious quarters and can't imagine that somebody is not out to get another kick at it, also you are a master at passing me argumentatively by in all our posts, evidently you are completely somewhere else than I am<br /><br />when Einstein and Bohr were pondering the questions of quantum world on that famous photo of theirs, did they do it only as relaxing pastime and didn't they hope for any benficial fallout for their theories that could even improve them or advance them faster than was historically the case<br /><br />if anybody could explain how can it be that the speed of light can be constant in all ref. frames I can only imagine it couldn't but strengthen the validity of SRT because now it is like magic at the base of the whole theory... but for you its only decimal points that matter, you are one of that new breed of mathematicians of physics that succeeded the older generation that was curious and wanted answers, wanted to understand above all, not necessarily having as holy grail next decimal point in their theories<br /><br /><font color="yellow">As regards the principle of equivalence, Einstein did not say gravitational mass was equivalent to inertial mass, but proportional to it.</font><br />when you start catching me on words like here it is sign to me that you are 'out to get me' from the position of one who is stepped in precise history and terminologies, which is so arch-typical for people who sense they can't themselves come up with something new in science and so they make damn sure they can recite the offical science by heart in order to be able to shoot down anything that shows sign of coming up with anything new, all ready to hammer them in on technicalities<br /><br />not saying yet that is your case but it certainly seems to be so<br /><br />equivalence-proportionality... today's usage is 'equivalence' unless <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<font color="yellow">Whether we understand or not why the speed of light is constant for all observers is not likely to have a bearing upon the Pioneer Anomaly.</font><br /><br />thank you for the word 'likely'<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The distinction between two quantities being equivalent or proportional is not trivial, however.</font><br /><br />if you put it this way then I can't but agree, though as I see it, people who want to have the proportionality instead of equivalence are those grasping at every straw in desperate attempt to keep afloat and keep the door open, I hope to show the equivalence to hold 100% before I am done<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Newton's theory of gravity was experimentally falsified in 1919. R.I.P.</font><br /><br />I can see you would see it that way from your 'decimal points' point of view and I also see that it would be futile trying to budge you on this point wrong as you are, thankfully I know when I am defeated and so I won't push my point of view any further with you on this issue <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Einstein's theory is in potential trouble because one can not derive the Pioneer Anomaly from it yet.</font><br /><br />in a way, this is exactly the same issue as previous point I just made above here re: RIP...<br />your view is too absolutistic: either 'one rules as a total despot or one is defeated' is the way you see it<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Also the the Dark Matter problem has brought ideas of Cold Dark Matter as some kind of particle spread out in a halo to make up for the apparent deficiencies of GR to predict the flat rotation curves and lensing found in clusters.<font color="yellow"><br /><br />we just have to wait which way the dice will fall, personally I suspect that after the dust settles, DMatter (whatever the solution to it will be) will definitely imply some consequences for GR but it shouldn't kill it, ditto for Pioneer anomaly, however that is all in eye of b</font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[robnissen]

I agree with you on at least one point. I think the following statements are incorrect <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Newton's theory of gravity was experimentally falsified in 1919. R.I.P. . . . [and]<br />Einstein's theory is in potential trouble because one can not derive the Pioneer Anomaly from it yet. </font><br /><br />Newton's theory was not killed in 1919, it was merely proven to be incomplete. Similarly, it is possible that the Pioneer effect may show Einstein's theory is incomplete. <br /><br />If a theory correctly predicts 100% of its currently known world, and 99% of the world as it is discovered in the future, I believe it is incorrect to call it dead, rather it is merely incomplete.<br /><br />The fact of the matter is that Newton's theory is still generally used today with extremely good results. I believe it was an Apollo 8 astronaut who said that he got to the moon thanks to Newton. Newton's theory is perfectly fine for sending a person to the moon, thus it is not dead. But if you want to use it predict the orbit of Mercury you will not get accurate results, thus it is incomplete -- it accurately describes most of the physical world but not all of it.

 

[robnissen]

According to this article, there has been a lot of new Pioneer data found.<br /><br />http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070327_scitues_pioneeranom.html<br /><br />BTW, the JPL astrophysicist quoted here certainly disagrees with your contemptuous dismissal of Newton.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Finding a physical source will not only<b> prove Newton right</b>, but also allow engineers to cancel out the Pioneer Anomaly on future spacecraft to make them more stable, added Turyshev, who said that he is striving to remain unbiased to the anomaly’s cause.</font><br /><br />

 

[vandivx]

yes, it is patently ridiulous to call something that made modern science possible incl Einstein's theories 'false' because that means that we (mankind) got to where we are today on falsities all around and if that is not ridiculous idea I don't know what is<br /><br />Newton's theory of gravitation is contained in Einstein's relativity becaue he built on it (and had the grace to even recognize it which is so untypical with some people today), without Newton's theory of gravitation, who knows what would Einstein have done, without that 'false theory' we wouldn't be where we are today, that's for sure unless somebody came up with a 'false' theory to enable to build upon it, paradox ain't it<br /><br />by such poor logic, we might as well call Einstein's theory false now because obviously it doesn't work on galactic scales (DM)<br /><br />my wooden meter stick is not false even if it wouldn't measure up to the standard meter stored away someplace in France or where, it is all about context, a trully false theory is not wrong in degree but in principle and from day one, ie., you don't derive correct results from such theory, Ptolemy's geocentric universe is an example of false theory (it was never so) but Copernican heliocentric theory is a true theory, not false, although it has failings by today's standards<br /><br />as for Pioneer anomaly, that is new physics but it will end up as with other new physics phenomena - DM & DE, it will just eat up grant money and the equivalents of decimal crunchers will live off it for indefinite time<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[robnissen]

Great analogy on the meter stick. I disagree, however, with your apparant disapproval of research on things we don't currently understand. DM. DE and the Pioneer Anomaly may end up being deadends, but we won't know until we research further. The inability of 19th century scientists to explain the sun's energy source led to relativity. It is possible, albeit probably not likely, that our current inability to explain DM, DE or the Pioneer anomaly may lead to future brilliant discoveries.

 

[vandivx]

~~~~~~~<br />"It is possible, albeit probably not likely, that our current inability to explain DM, DE or the Pioneer anomaly may lead to future brilliant discoveries."<br />~~~~~~~<br /><br />my point is that those 'brilliant discoveries' (in which I personally believe will happen in each of those unsolved problems) won't be made possible by those who pursue the old tired roadways of science but precisely by those who will prove immune to those ways, by those who never went along such roads but such people are extremely few and far in between in the best of times<br /><br />you talk about 'brilliant discoveries' but if today's legions of scientists succeeded in their efforts, for example in the case of DM where by far the most research goes into some type of particle explanation, then it wouldn't be brilliant discovery but anticlimax (ie., depression due to dashed big expectations) if it turned out to be those neutrinos or whatever particles, such discovery wouldn't change physics as finding about energy quanta or that light travels at constant speeed did, that is not to say many scientists wouldn't welcome such solution because it would confirm and sanction what they are doing and what they are only capable of doing, unfortunately for them science is not typically so mercifull if it ever is to its practitioners, in the end it always turns up that somebody comes in from totally unexpected direction and without even many titles if any to his name and shows the world they were barking up the wrong tree<br /><br />it is obvious today we are waiting for the successor to Newton and young Einstein type of person who would put the physics on the keel again and opened up the way to be followed for another century or even several centuries to come as it happened after Newton<br /><br />Pioneer anomaly is extremely exciting, imagine what we have here - mankind's first probes ever to travel that far out and they both don't move as they should by our current understanding of the world a <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[robnissen]

<font color="yellow"><br />If you want to read what Turyshev has to say directly you might want to read his letter to the Planetary Society: <br /><br />A Letter From the Project Director <br /><br />http://planetary.org/programs/projects/pioneer_anomaly/update_20070328.html <br /><br /></font><br /><br />Thx for the link. Very interesting.

 

[vandivx]

<font color="yellow">Very interesting.</font><br /><br />but all he talks about is how they overcame obstacles recovering or reading or interpreting those old data, he adds nothing to the problem at hand and only reiterates the systematics which seem to him to be the holy grail (or perhaps he is pushed to stand by them because he feels no hope for personal success if it should turn up to be new physics<br /><br />everybody dreads new physics, they know they are sterile, bereft of trully new ideas, like Einstein was in the second half of his life<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ajna]

Borman:<br />"It is important to rule out the more prosaic explanations before considering more exotic solutions."<br /><br />Why? Why not explore both at once and learn new physics at the same time? At the end of the day a solution will be found; its irrelevant which path was taken to get there. A bias towards prosaic is just as unscientific as a bias towards exotic.<br /><br />I for one would like to know what the gravity/temporal/EM environment is like at 92AU? That far from the sun its timeframe would be 'faster' than further in. To conserve interdimensional energy its kinetic energy must reduce, hence it is 250,000mi back in its position. The probes are moving out of a spherical gravity well, so I would not expect that this effect has been constant, but has become more pronounced the farther out it travels, up to an asymptotic limit that is yet to be achieved.<br /><br />In fact this is not new physics, just a further confirmation of general relativity with a link to special relativity the same way that Mercury did.

 

[vandivx]

new physics is actually being explored and had been for a long time now but the results are unsatisfactory so far <br /><br />the relativistic solution you mention I'd imagine would have been considered long ago as there are tons of specialists out there who would have applied their knowledge to the anomaly problem, in this way I'd trust and rely on physics community, they are not deficient when it comes to applying the old established physics, problem is to come up with new physics because it always turns up just a regurgitation of old physics underneath it all while it verges on sci-fi...<br /><br />BTW while I don't believe in the traditional solution here it doesn't mean I am against analysis of all the available data as those peple are doing because it likely (almost certainly) will be needed to support any solution involving new physics, the thing is that rarely are new ideas so compelling as to be accepted without everything possible having been taken into account, in fact most new physics are typically accepted out of dire need, as a last resort, like being pulled by tugging on small hairs and even then there are those who never accept the new ideas and have to die to make place for them <br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ajna]

Hey Borman thanks for your answer, I understand now that its not a bias as much as a method. If anything I'm biased. I'd like to add to some things you posted:<br /><br />"By the way, the drag vector potentially caused by preferential deposition and evaporation of any water vapors present in the ecliptic, essentially a "windshield" effect where not only depostion but "push back" by evaporation would add to anomaly could be tested and ruled out by their simulation. It is not heat, but evaporation and Newton's second law in case the vector is along the path of motion."<br />Me: I get what you're saying about the drag effect of this, just wondering, wouldn't entropy increase be more likely to go into cooling the antenna in evaporation at least? I hope the sim takes this into account.<br />Also, the acceleration vector is not likely to be along the path of motion, as this would either have the antenna facing the incoming dust (and not aligned with Earth), or facing back towards Earth. Was the antenna aligned this way throughout thejourneys of the probes? If the antenna is acting as a sail, the effect would more likely be a deviation laterally from its course due to the position of the antenna, yet I haven't read of this, unless anyone else knows.<br /><br />"The distance issue you mention has been tried, either as kuiper dust or as scalar-tensor-vector theories. The dust idea fails as the anomaly is constant over distances that do not relate to this disatnce..."<br />Me: I love this, it opens up a lot, notwithstanding what you said after about planetary data not matching with probe data.<br />Do the scalar-tensor-vector theories leave room for a universal null energy that is the base energy of all dimensions and states? A null-energy would provide amazing amounts of energy if twigged cosmologically. If there is a 'constant/fixed' energy intermingled with gravity/time, we would expect to see such a 'constant' effect within local regions of spacetime, as with the probes. However

 

[ajna]

Hey vanDivX, what do you mean by 'new physics'? For me its interdimensionality of energy/forces etc, only there will we find the GUF... Curious as to what else is out there.<br /><br />It just occured to me that I, as an optimist and exoticist, put up a relativistic explanation, and yet as you and Borman pointed out, these influences would have been pounced upon by many a professional and enthusiast and taken into account. In effect though you have both confirmed my hunch that there is new physics involved, as the 'antenna-effect' or the radiation from the power unit has no answer to what is seen. Also, the effect here is so small the Voyager spacecraft can't pick it up. (Have I read that correctly?)<br /><br />If not 'antenna sail', and not relativistic effects, what next?<br /><br />Thought Experiment:<br />Lets say that a universal, 'constant' energy exists and has shown in the probe data. The planetary data and probe data do not match wrt this information. <br />Consider: we have built our models of the orbits without the knowledge of, but with the influence of, this 'constant' energy. <br />What if we were to take this supposed constant/null energy into account for the planetary orbits, guided by the pioneer data? Would this alter the orbits by much? How much faster than the orbital speed of the planets do the craft travel?

 

[ajna]

Thanks borman, I'm going to use point form because I've had a few beers, not bein rude...<br /><br />1. Why do they have to determine a vector? Hasn't it already shown itself to be directed backward along the hyperbolic trajectory? Or is it directed squarely at the sun? That would tell a lot on its own. The article states that all that needs to be added is a constant acceleration towards the sun, in other words, it should be off course. I don't know enough about orbital mechanics to understand this.<br /><br />2. If the effect is a null-energy effect, then it depends on distance from the primary gravity source, in other words, planets would exhibit little of it. Comets should show this as well if they travel with speeds comparable to the probes. If they don't, my theory is bunk...

 

[ajna]

Your last sentence said it all for me, I thought it was taken for granted that this occurs. I just think the effect of it is different to what we predicted because we still haven't tied up multi-dimensionality with gravity/spacetime/forces yet. When we do there will be no anomaly.<br /><br />The null energy I'm thinking of is much deeper than vacuum energy. Considering M-theory, the 11th dimension brings all the other dimensions together in a common framework. This is meant to be a 2D (I think) brane, comprising our universe. I would think that the null-energy arises out of the dynamic balance of this brane between its respective sides/faces. to engineer this to produce energy flow would be a matter of manipulating the dimensions, and dynamic EM fields can do that. Anyway, rigour would demand that we explore this and attempt to rule it out, if not its interesting physics <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />