Pioneer Effect

[vandivx]

<font color="orange">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. </font><br /><br />I don't do that sort of physcics that you talk about, I wouldn't understand it<br /><br />what is new physics and what is not is not terribly clear cut, I suppose there are degrees of it like if you applied known physics in new area nobody thought about so far and it can go to the very extreme of coming up with new physical principles or laws and everything in between<br /><br />new physics means we would learn something new about the nature the knowledge of which has so far escaped us<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

Borman,<br /><br />What is your opinion about density of normal matter in KB? I am carrrying some work on TNOs and find indications of larger densities.<br />If overall mass of KB is, as I think, underestimated, that would give a resultant sunwards on a probe that is outside the main KB and running outwards, without much immediate effect on TNOs trajectories (especially those of the main KB).

 

[h2ouniverse]

Apparently the MOG theory has claimed successes too, including not only galaxy rotations but too the Pioneer Anomaly...<br />(crossing finger for it not be just a spacecraft-related artifact!)

 

[robnissen]

Borman,<br /><br />Although I only understand about 1/3 of what you write, I really like your posts. Especially the ones on the Pioneer effect. Keep up the good work.

 

[h2ouniverse]

In your opinion Borman, is there a possibility for that GM London Moment to exert some force on the KBOs? <br />(I mention KBOs because they have a low kinetic energy that can make them ideal to trace effects of potential weak non-gravitational forces)

 

[h2ouniverse]

in reply to<br />-------<br />If the Pioneer Anomaly is real, and the spacecraft continue to persistently see the Anomaly, they are not going fast enough to escape the solar system. <br />--------<br /><br />Thanks for the answer. This being said I am afraid to be highly skeptical of the above quoted assertion. The Pioneer "drag" (or apparent drag) is at best in the 1e-9 m/s2 range, far smaller than the deceleration due to the Sun (<< 1%). I can't see how a potential "Pioneer effect" would prevent the probe from reaching escape velocity

 

[MeteorWayne]

Good stuff.<br />Just wanted to mention, that since there is still some debate as to whether the Pioneer effect even exists, and the spacecraft itself has not been exonerated, at this point we might be chasing fairies.<br /><br />Still, as it is an opportunity to examine Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, and test our understanding of cosmology at the very limits of detectability, it's an active area for investigation.<br /><br />Every day we learn more. <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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Yeah, I wasn't too clear, perhaps it was my misinterpretation.<br /><br />The Pioneer effect can mean two things.<br /><br />1. The anomoly in the Pioneer position and velocity data<br /><br />2. A cause that demonstrates that our current understanding of the Universe needs adjustment.<br /><br />I agree that point 1 is nearly proven.<br /><br />The second part is what we are delving in to. I love it <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />IMHO, at this point, people are deriving theories that can produce the observed data. With all the assumptions and ideas involved, there are a lot of possible explanations.<br /><br />But the measurable (within error and modeling) accuracy and lack of understanding of the cause leaves a lot of possibilities afloat.<br /><br />The idea is to get your theory to define a set of expectation, then hope that future data makes yours the best explanation.<br /><br />It's Science at it's best. <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>

 

[h2ouniverse]

Thanks for answer,<br /><br />Though, 9 light years is about 570,000 AU. Way outside Solar System... At such distance there is no more reason for the object to fall back on Sun and not on closer stars.<br /><br /> In reaction to<br />---------<br />"the Pioneers monitor that the central mass distribution seems to persisitently increase in a smooth way to give the illusion of inverse linear law as they go outward"<br />---------<br />This is what you would get if the entire Solar System was bathing in a homogenous massy cloud centered on Sun. Close to Sun, especially when moving radially, you would have a negligible influence of the off-centering.<br />Further, you would get a sun-ward force.<br />I am skeptical about dark matter being new particles but let's assume WIMPs exist. Wouldn't they tend to form a very large, low-density, pressure-balanced, sun-centered cloud during Solar System's formation? E.g. 20000AU-diameter? and 1e31kg massed (five times normal matter)?<br /> <br />Note that if instead of WIMPS you consider dwarf planets distributed evenly in a 10000AU-radius sphere, you get the 1e31kg value for one Pluto mass every 17.5 AU. This is not that much isn't it?

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p>{bump} Not found in search, but here's the thread.</p><p>MW</p> <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>

 

[3488]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>{bump} <font color="#ff0000">Not found in search, but here's the thread.MW <br />Posted by meteorwayne</font></DIV></p><p><font size="2" color="#333300"><strong>Like yourself, I still reckon that it is not real & it was a tracking error.</strong></font></p><p><font size="2" color="#333300"><strong>Andrew Brown.</strong></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[arkady]

<p>As mentioned a few times in this thread, speculations as to the cause of the Pioneer anomaly has been problematic, as the data set is limited to just one single observation.</p><p>Recently however researchers have discovered similar anomalies going over data from other more recent space probes. I stumbled upon an article on the subject during the recent downtime,&nbsp;but sadly can't recall where exactly, as it was a bit more detailed than the link below as to what the scientific community makes of all this. From what I recall the rotation of the Earth might somehow be a likely suspect.</p><p>Following is an exerpt from a&nbsp;FOXNews article.</p><p><em>The researchers looked at five deep-space probes &mdash; Galileo to Jupiter, the NEAR mission to the asteroid Eros, the Rosetta probe to a comet, </em><em>Cassini to Saturn</em><em> and the MESSENGER craft to Mercury.</em></p><p><em>Each spacecraft flew past our planet to either gain or lose orbital energy in their quests to reach their eventual targets. (Galileo made two flybys.)</em></p><p><em>In five of the six flybys, the scientists have confirmed anomalies.</em></p><p><em>"I am feeling both humble and perplexed by this," said Anderson, who is now working as a retiree. "There is something very strange going on with spacecraft motions. We have no convincing explanation for either the Pioneer anomaly or the flyby anomaly."</em></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[arkady]

<p>Doh, was a SDC article of course </p><p>It was this bit that caught my eye:</p><p>"<em>The fact this effect seems most evident with flybys most asymmetrical with respect to Earth's equator "suggests that the anomaly is related to </em><em>Earth's rotation ... </em><em>"</em></p><p>Does the surface of the Earth spin fast enough as to require relativity to be taken into account? Or perhaps the Earth somehow "warps" space around itself as a result of the spinning motion?</p><p>(just wild speculations on my part, as my understanding of physics is rather limited)&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Of course there's no evidence that this&nbsp;directly relates to the Pioneer effect, but as the article mentions it seems rather probable. This certainly prompts further investigation. Perhaps we'll see a mission dedicated to this mystery soon.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Edit: shortened links, and added a paragraph or two.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Doh, was a SDC article of course It was this bit that caught my eye:"The fact this effect seems most evident with flybys most asymmetrical with respect to Earth's equator "suggests that the anomaly is related to Earth's rotation ... "Does the surface of the Earth spin fast enough as to require relativity to be taken into account? Or perhaps the Earth somehow "warps" space around itself as a result of the spinning motion?(just wild speculations on my part, as my understanding of physics is rather limited)&nbsp;&nbsp;Of course there's no evidence that this&nbsp;directly relates to the Pioneer effect, but as the article mentions it seems rather probable. This certainly prompts further investigation. Perhaps we'll see a mission dedicated to this mystery soon.&nbsp;Edit: shortened links, and added a paragraph or two. <br />Posted by arkady</DIV></p><p>Another thought that occurs to me is that the mass on the earth is not perfectly symmetrical. There are mass variations across the surface. Perhaps these tiny variations are not factored in? When calculating planetary encounters, perhaps the earth is treated as a symmetrical geoid, when actuall it is not. Might these be large enough to cause slight variations? If that is the case, then the earth's rotation might magnify these effects.<br /></p> <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>

 

[arkady]

<p>Maybe so. Anyways, these findings seems to point towards a somewhat more "mundane" explanation than most&nbsp;speculations I've come across so far. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>