info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Pioneer Anomaly 2017
318 views
Skip to first unread message
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Jan 26, 2017, 4:07:51 AM1/26/17
to
Pioneer Anomaly 2017
Stored here http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pioneer4.html
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pneer-fh.exe
is a FreeBasic compiled Qbasic file which is a vital inclusion
in this post. Ignore the warnings. Check that the file size is
199168 bytes. Or for the completely safe Qbasic program option,
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pner-bas.html
-------
____The Pioneer Anomaly described here
http://arxiv.org//abs/gr-qc/0104064
is a clear indication that currently accepted theory is seriously
flawed.____
See Wikipedia because all links to John Anderson's work have been
removed. Other 'evidence' based on suppositions and variations to
existing theory have thrown his work out the window. Is this so
called evidence so sound as to warrant such a positive reaction?
How can his work be deemed completely invalid in these
circumstances?
Anderson's work has been squished and twisted around to the point
where every detail has been dumped. This isn't physics.
The obvious proof that Anderson is right is the fact that with my
theory I can generated a curve which is a perfect match with the
Pioneer anomaly. How could that possibly be? My curve is an exact
match with a curve that was generated by random error. Does that
seem likely? No. It's almost impossible. It would have to be some
kind of miracle.
It's a good thing I'm not paranoid.
--------
The Pioneer anomaly is of course not an anomaly in nature, but an
illusion which stems from an error in our current understanding
of the universe. The anomaly stems from the discrepancy between
predictions of current theory and reality.
In order to compare with the Pioneer Anomaly, the sun's mass is
necessarily increased from 1.99e30 to 1.990155e30 kg, which is an
increase of 26 times the mass of the earth, while the apparent
radius between the sun and the Pioneer spacecraft is not as it
seems.
The gravity related time unit reduction is determined using this
equation, t'=GM/r/c^2. The value of c can also be determined if
t' is known : c=sqr(GM/r/t'). If t' is a constant .5 (or 2), the
value of c in every corner of the universe can be determined. The
equation can also be written as ; c=sqr(2GM/r).
If the mass of the universe is designated the value 8.498D+52 kg
and assuming that all matter is distributed globally at a 1.26e26
meter radius (13.3 billion light years), from the equations the
speed of light contribution from the universe is 299951477.56
m/sec. The result is the same if the average matter radius and
mass are reduced in exact proportions. e.g. r*.707 .. M*.707.
The Milky Way galaxy will have some input to the local speed of
light, but it's of little consequence. It adds unnecessary
complication here because the consequence of a Pioneer
spacecraft's motion relative to it is almost zero. The sun is the
most significant local contributor in this respect. The light
speed contribution on the sun's surface is; sqr(GM/r/.5) :
sqr(6.67e-11 * 1.99e30 / 697600000 / .5) = 616881 m/sec. Adding
that to c gives the total value of c at that point. A higher
speed of light sets a deeper depth of dimension.
Current theory dictates the sun's mass and orbit radii of its
planets. The sun is designated a lesser mass than it actually
is. The tiny gforce error is concealed beneath the relatively
enormous gforces in close proximity to the sun. It becomes
obvious at around 5 AU.
The following graph shows the gforce differences between current
theory and the zero origin concept.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pio-1a.jpg
The light blue curve represents the normal gforce change per
radius from the sun, while the black curve, which follows almost
the same path, gives the gforce change according to the zero
origin concept. The red curve is the difference between the blue
and black curves. Even on the Sun's surface the difference would
be barely noticeable. The gforce at that radius is 273 m/sec^2
while the difference is only .54 m/sec^2.
In every gravity well, the propagation base for light (the base
of dimension) is being drawn inward, creating an added depth of
dimension that's very difficult to comprehend. i.e. On the
surface of the earth the inflow of dimension is equal to the
light speed increase attributable to the earth's mass at that
radius. sqr(GM/r/.5) = 11155 m/sec.
___ Evidence supporting this proposal:
According to the triangle generated by a=sqr(c^2-b^2), for a
light source which is moving along the opposite leg at 11155
m/sec relative to the propagation base for light, a light pulse
will travel the adjacent leg at a slower rate than the same pulse
which travels a 3e8 meter hypotenuse.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/triangle.jpg
The adjacent length is 3e8 - 299999999.7926 = .2074 meters
shorter per second than the hypotenuse, which is .2074 / 3e8
= 6.913e-10 seconds per second shorter. The light pulse
perpendicular to the trajectory of the relatively moving frame
is running 6.913e-10 sec/sec slow. Which should easily be
recognized as the time rate change due to earth's gravity on its
surface. The propagation base is moving past the frame carrying
the triangle at 11155 m/sec, but it's moving into the earth.
1-SQR(c^2-v^2)/c = 6.913e-10
1-SQR(1-v^2/c^2) = 6.913e-10
The input to the speed of light from the sun at any point along
Pioneer's trajectory depends on its distance from the sun. That's
the only significant variable in the Sun-Pioneer relationship.
At a distance equal to the average orbit radius of the earth
around the sun, a 1.99e30 kg sun mass gives a gforce of
.00589924 m/sec^2. According to the next graph the gforce error
at that radius is -1.1e-6 m/sec^2, which is more than 5000 times
less than the gforce acting from the sun at that radius.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pio-1b.jpg
Next the error curve from the original graph is magnified 100000
times. A simulation of the Pioneer anomalous acceleration curve
from http://arxiv.org//abs/gr-qc/0104064 is also included. The
horizontal line representing zero error by current theory and the
curved line coincide at around 12.5 AU from the sun, where the
result switches from negative to positive.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pio-2.jpg
The current mass for the sun is determined by orbit radii and
orbital speeds of the planets and it will naturally be set to
give the best fit with the available evidence, according to
predictions of the chosen theory. Logically, the primary goal
would be to achieve the best fit for the earth.
These are the results given in the FreeBasic program for 1 AU
radius from the sun.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/results.jpg
Orbital speeds compare only at 3.02 AU radius from the sun.
Planets closer to the sun will orbit slightly slower while the
outer planets will orbit slightly faster than predicted by
current theory.
At the earth's orbit radius the gforce error in current theory is
-1.1e-6 m/s^2, causing an orbital speed error of -.81 m/sec. The
error would be completely annulled if an additional 1.1e-6 m/s^2
acceleration toward the sun from other sources could be
identified. But that would set the relative zero mark for current
theory at -1.1e-6 m/s on the graph, which is around 55 meters
below my computer screen at this magnification. The Pioneer
Anomaly would be gigantic. But there's really not much available
that will reduce the difference. Underestimating solar radiation
pressures would help a little.
This is the best we can do.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pner-fh2.jpg
(screen capture from the freebasic compiled program
(negative image)).
The zero line on the graph is shifted downward as far as possible
within any available means to achieve the best alignment, but it
can never satisfy all scenarios.
A mismatch between current theory and the Zero Origin Concept is
guaranteed. The fact that the mismatch can so closely resemble
the Pioneer anomaly is nothing short of a miracle if it's wrong.
Either http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pneer-fh.exe
or http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pner-bas.html
will complete the story.
-----
Max Keon
Stored here http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pioneer4.html
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pneer-fh.exe
is a FreeBasic compiled Qbasic file which is a vital inclusion
in this post. Ignore the warnings. Check that the file size is
199168 bytes. Or for the completely safe Qbasic program option,
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pner-bas.html
-------
____The Pioneer Anomaly described here
http://arxiv.org//abs/gr-qc/0104064
is a clear indication that currently accepted theory is seriously
flawed.____
See Wikipedia because all links to John Anderson's work have been
removed. Other 'evidence' based on suppositions and variations to
existing theory have thrown his work out the window. Is this so
called evidence so sound as to warrant such a positive reaction?
How can his work be deemed completely invalid in these
circumstances?
Anderson's work has been squished and twisted around to the point
where every detail has been dumped. This isn't physics.
The obvious proof that Anderson is right is the fact that with my
theory I can generated a curve which is a perfect match with the
Pioneer anomaly. How could that possibly be? My curve is an exact
match with a curve that was generated by random error. Does that
seem likely? No. It's almost impossible. It would have to be some
kind of miracle.
It's a good thing I'm not paranoid.
--------
The Pioneer anomaly is of course not an anomaly in nature, but an
illusion which stems from an error in our current understanding
of the universe. The anomaly stems from the discrepancy between
predictions of current theory and reality.
In order to compare with the Pioneer Anomaly, the sun's mass is
necessarily increased from 1.99e30 to 1.990155e30 kg, which is an
increase of 26 times the mass of the earth, while the apparent
radius between the sun and the Pioneer spacecraft is not as it
seems.
The gravity related time unit reduction is determined using this
equation, t'=GM/r/c^2. The value of c can also be determined if
t' is known : c=sqr(GM/r/t'). If t' is a constant .5 (or 2), the
value of c in every corner of the universe can be determined. The
equation can also be written as ; c=sqr(2GM/r).
If the mass of the universe is designated the value 8.498D+52 kg
and assuming that all matter is distributed globally at a 1.26e26
meter radius (13.3 billion light years), from the equations the
speed of light contribution from the universe is 299951477.56
m/sec. The result is the same if the average matter radius and
mass are reduced in exact proportions. e.g. r*.707 .. M*.707.
The Milky Way galaxy will have some input to the local speed of
light, but it's of little consequence. It adds unnecessary
complication here because the consequence of a Pioneer
spacecraft's motion relative to it is almost zero. The sun is the
most significant local contributor in this respect. The light
speed contribution on the sun's surface is; sqr(GM/r/.5) :
sqr(6.67e-11 * 1.99e30 / 697600000 / .5) = 616881 m/sec. Adding
that to c gives the total value of c at that point. A higher
speed of light sets a deeper depth of dimension.
Current theory dictates the sun's mass and orbit radii of its
planets. The sun is designated a lesser mass than it actually
is. The tiny gforce error is concealed beneath the relatively
enormous gforces in close proximity to the sun. It becomes
obvious at around 5 AU.
The following graph shows the gforce differences between current
theory and the zero origin concept.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pio-1a.jpg
The light blue curve represents the normal gforce change per
radius from the sun, while the black curve, which follows almost
the same path, gives the gforce change according to the zero
origin concept. The red curve is the difference between the blue
and black curves. Even on the Sun's surface the difference would
be barely noticeable. The gforce at that radius is 273 m/sec^2
while the difference is only .54 m/sec^2.
In every gravity well, the propagation base for light (the base
of dimension) is being drawn inward, creating an added depth of
dimension that's very difficult to comprehend. i.e. On the
surface of the earth the inflow of dimension is equal to the
light speed increase attributable to the earth's mass at that
radius. sqr(GM/r/.5) = 11155 m/sec.
___ Evidence supporting this proposal:
According to the triangle generated by a=sqr(c^2-b^2), for a
light source which is moving along the opposite leg at 11155
m/sec relative to the propagation base for light, a light pulse
will travel the adjacent leg at a slower rate than the same pulse
which travels a 3e8 meter hypotenuse.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/triangle.jpg
The adjacent length is 3e8 - 299999999.7926 = .2074 meters
shorter per second than the hypotenuse, which is .2074 / 3e8
= 6.913e-10 seconds per second shorter. The light pulse
perpendicular to the trajectory of the relatively moving frame
is running 6.913e-10 sec/sec slow. Which should easily be
recognized as the time rate change due to earth's gravity on its
surface. The propagation base is moving past the frame carrying
the triangle at 11155 m/sec, but it's moving into the earth.
1-SQR(c^2-v^2)/c = 6.913e-10
1-SQR(1-v^2/c^2) = 6.913e-10
The input to the speed of light from the sun at any point along
Pioneer's trajectory depends on its distance from the sun. That's
the only significant variable in the Sun-Pioneer relationship.
At a distance equal to the average orbit radius of the earth
around the sun, a 1.99e30 kg sun mass gives a gforce of
.00589924 m/sec^2. According to the next graph the gforce error
at that radius is -1.1e-6 m/sec^2, which is more than 5000 times
less than the gforce acting from the sun at that radius.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pio-1b.jpg
Next the error curve from the original graph is magnified 100000
times. A simulation of the Pioneer anomalous acceleration curve
from http://arxiv.org//abs/gr-qc/0104064 is also included. The
horizontal line representing zero error by current theory and the
curved line coincide at around 12.5 AU from the sun, where the
result switches from negative to positive.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pio-2.jpg
The current mass for the sun is determined by orbit radii and
orbital speeds of the planets and it will naturally be set to
give the best fit with the available evidence, according to
predictions of the chosen theory. Logically, the primary goal
would be to achieve the best fit for the earth.
These are the results given in the FreeBasic program for 1 AU
radius from the sun.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/results.jpg
Orbital speeds compare only at 3.02 AU radius from the sun.
Planets closer to the sun will orbit slightly slower while the
outer planets will orbit slightly faster than predicted by
current theory.
At the earth's orbit radius the gforce error in current theory is
-1.1e-6 m/s^2, causing an orbital speed error of -.81 m/sec. The
error would be completely annulled if an additional 1.1e-6 m/s^2
acceleration toward the sun from other sources could be
identified. But that would set the relative zero mark for current
theory at -1.1e-6 m/s on the graph, which is around 55 meters
below my computer screen at this magnification. The Pioneer
Anomaly would be gigantic. But there's really not much available
that will reduce the difference. Underestimating solar radiation
pressures would help a little.
This is the best we can do.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pner-fh2.jpg
(screen capture from the freebasic compiled program
(negative image)).
The zero line on the graph is shifted downward as far as possible
within any available means to achieve the best alignment, but it
can never satisfy all scenarios.
A mismatch between current theory and the Zero Origin Concept is
guaranteed. The fact that the mismatch can so closely resemble
the Pioneer anomaly is nothing short of a miracle if it's wrong.
Either http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pneer-fh.exe
or http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pner-bas.html
will complete the story.
-----
Max Keon
Craig Markwardt
Jan 26, 2017, 5:11:51 PM1/26/17
to
On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 4:07:51 AM UTC-5, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> ____The Pioneer Anomaly described here
> http://arxiv.org//abs/gr-qc/0104064
> is a clear indication that currently accepted theory is seriously
> flawed.____
>
> See Wikipedia because all links to John Anderson's work have been
> removed. ...
> ____The Pioneer Anomaly described here
> http://arxiv.org//abs/gr-qc/0104064
> is a clear indication that currently accepted theory is seriously
> flawed.____
>
> See Wikipedia because all links to John Anderson's work have been
Nope, the arxiv.org and journal articles have not been removed.
> The Pioneer anomaly is of course not an anomaly in nature, but an
> illusion which stems from an error in our current understanding
> of the universe. The anomaly stems from the discrepancy between
> predictions of current theory and reality.
[ deleting some detail ]
> ... The equation can also be written as ; c=sqr(2GM/r).
You are arguing that their is a variable speed of light. That theory is inconsistent with the Pioneer data. In fact you can check previous postings of sci.astro where I tested this, and it failed.
CM
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Jan 27, 2017, 6:32:53 PM1/27/17
to
On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 9:11:51 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 4:07:51 AM UTC-5, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> ____The Pioneer Anomaly described here
---
> On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 4:07:51 AM UTC-5, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> ____The Pioneer Anomaly described here
---
> [ deleting some detail ]
>> ... The equation can also be written as ; c=sqr(2GM/r).
> You are arguing that their is a variable speed of light. That theory is
> inconsistent with the Pioneer data. In fact you can check previous
> postings of sci.astro where I tested this, and it failed.
How could it not fail when it was based on theory which universally excludes
>> ... The equation can also be written as ; c=sqr(2GM/r).
> You are arguing that their is a variable speed of light. That theory is
> inconsistent with the Pioneer data. In fact you can check previous
> postings of sci.astro where I tested this, and it failed.
that possibility?
-----
Max Keon
Craig Markwardt
Jan 30, 2017, 12:33:52 PM1/30/17
to
CM
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Jan 31, 2017, 6:11:42 PM1/31/17
to
possible scenarios. This is one doesn't fail;
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/poineer4.html
-----
Max Keon
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Jan 31, 2017, 6:19:19 PM1/31/17
to
On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:11:42 AM UTC+11, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> The various scenarios may have failed but you haven't tested all
> possible scenarios. This is one doesn't fail;
> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/poineer4.html
Well this one doesn't
> The various scenarios may have failed but you haven't tested all
> possible scenarios. This is one doesn't fail;
> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/poineer4.html
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pioneer4.html
Craig Markwardt
Feb 14, 2017, 10:37:15 AM2/14/17
to
CM
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Feb 22, 2017, 6:47:50 PM2/22/17
to
detection are all analyzed according to theory that can't explain
the Pioneer anomaly? There are errors in current theory. i.e. The
sun's mass is greater than current theory predicts.
And this is why the delay occurs.
This light beam travels a straight line from >> to I
>>------------------------------------------I
The same beam passing over a gravity well travels a longer path.
inflowing dimension
\/ \/ \/
>>--- ______------I ends here
______------
______------
>>------ I starts here
\/ \/ \/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
gravitating mass (shifts upward with the beam)
The inflow of dimension on the earth's surface is sqr(2GM/r)
= 11155.14 m/sec. A light beam travels the hypotenuse at the
rate of 3e8 m/sec while the base of dimension shifts inward
along the opposite leg of the triangle at 11155.14 m/sec. The
adjacent leg is traveled at sqr(c^2-v^2) = 299999999.7926 m/sec.
The difference is .2074 meters. Divided by 3e8 = 6.913 sec/sec
time delay.
That rate only applies for a tiny fraction of a second of course.
This new link to the .exe file (199168 bytes) could change your
entire perception of the universe.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/pneer-fh.exe
-----
Max Keon
Craig Markwardt
Feb 23, 2017, 10:15:13 AM2/23/17
to
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:47:50 PM UTC-5, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 2:37:15 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 6:19:19 PM UTC-5, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:11:42 AM UTC+11, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >>> The various scenarios may have failed but you haven't tested all
> >>> possible scenarios. This is one doesn't fail;
> >>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/poineer4.html
> >>
> >> Well this one doesn't
> >> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pioneer4.html
> >
> > Definitely fails. The Pioneer data is sensitive to the "effective"
> > speed of light via the Shapiro delay at the ~1% level. Any
> > deviation from this relativistic effect would be clearly detectable.
>
> How could the deviation be detectable when the results of the
> detection are all analyzed according to theory that can't explain
> the Pioneer anomaly? There are errors in current theory. i.e. The
> sun's mass is greater than current theory predicts.
Two separate but related concepts.
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 2:37:15 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 6:19:19 PM UTC-5, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:11:42 AM UTC+11, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >>> The various scenarios may have failed but you haven't tested all
> >>> possible scenarios. This is one doesn't fail;
> >>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/poineer4.html
> >>
> >> Well this one doesn't
> >> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pioneer4.html
> >
> > Definitely fails. The Pioneer data is sensitive to the "effective"
> > speed of light via the Shapiro delay at the ~1% level. Any
> > deviation from this relativistic effect would be clearly detectable.
>
> How could the deviation be detectable when the results of the
> detection are all analyzed according to theory that can't explain
> the Pioneer anomaly? There are errors in current theory. i.e. The
> sun's mass is greater than current theory predicts.
1. I performed tests of alternate theories of propagation of light, including a change in the effective speed of light. These *ALL* made the pioneer Doppler solution WORSE, not better.
2. The Doppler data is clearly very, very, sensitive to changes in the speed of light, as evidenced by its sensitivity to the Shapiro effect.
CM
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Feb 25, 2017, 7:25:52 PM2/25/17
to
On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 2:15:13 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:47:50 PM UTC-5, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 2:37:15 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 6:19:19 PM UTC-5, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>>> The various scenarios may have failed but you haven't tested all
>>>> possible scenarios. This is one doesn't fail;
---
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:47:50 PM UTC-5, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 2:37:15 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 6:19:19 PM UTC-5, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>>> The various scenarios may have failed but you haven't tested all
>>>> possible scenarios. This is one doesn't fail;
---
>>>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pioneer4.html
>>>
>>> Definitely fails. The Pioneer data is sensitive to the "effective"
>>> speed of light via the Shapiro delay at the ~1% level. Any
>>> deviation from this relativistic effect would be clearly detectable.
>>
>> How could the deviation be detectable when the results of the
>> detection are all analyzed according to theory that can't explain
>> the Pioneer anomaly? There are errors in current theory. i.e. The
>> sun's mass is greater than current theory predicts.
>
> Two separate but related concepts.
>
> 1. I performed tests of alternate theories of propagation of light,
> including a change in the effective speed of light. These *ALL*
> made the pioneer Doppler solution WORSE, not better.
> 2. The Doppler data is clearly very, very, sensitive to changes in
> the speed of light, as evidenced by its sensitivity to the Shapiro
> effect.
Doppler residuals are the differences between the calculated and
>>>
>>> Definitely fails. The Pioneer data is sensitive to the "effective"
>>> speed of light via the Shapiro delay at the ~1% level. Any
>>> deviation from this relativistic effect would be clearly detectable.
>>
>> How could the deviation be detectable when the results of the
>> detection are all analyzed according to theory that can't explain
>> the Pioneer anomaly? There are errors in current theory. i.e. The
>> sun's mass is greater than current theory predicts.
>
> Two separate but related concepts.
>
> 1. I performed tests of alternate theories of propagation of light,
> including a change in the effective speed of light. These *ALL*
> made the pioneer Doppler solution WORSE, not better.
> 2. The Doppler data is clearly very, very, sensitive to changes in
> the speed of light, as evidenced by its sensitivity to the Shapiro
> effect.
observed. When they are converted to gforce acceleration the
Pioneer anomalous curve is the result. My curve is near enough
to a perfect match and it was generated by the gforce residuals
resulting from the difference between calculations according to
current theory and according to observation, which is according
to my theory. If the doppler data is affected by varying light
speeds, that factor is already included in the Pioneer anomaly.
And if it's related to the Shapiro delay it will be directly
related to gforce per radius from the sun.
The only adjustment required here is in the determination of the
error in current theory.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pioneer4.html
The exe file provides vital support.
Craig Markwardt
Feb 27, 2017, 10:20:22 AM2/27/17
to
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-5, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> > 1. I performed tests of alternate theories of propagation of light,
> > including a change in the effective speed of light. These *ALL*
> > made the pioneer Doppler solution WORSE, not better.
> > 2. The Doppler data is clearly very, very, sensitive to changes in
> > the speed of light, as evidenced by its sensitivity to the Shapiro
> > effect.
>
> Doppler residuals are the differences between the calculated and
> observed. When they are converted to gforce acceleration the
> Pioneer anomalous curve is the result. My curve is near enough
> to a perfect match and it was generated by the gforce residuals
> resulting from the difference between calculations according to
> current theory and according to observation, which is according
> to my theory. ...
> > 1. I performed tests of alternate theories of propagation of light,
> > including a change in the effective speed of light. These *ALL*
> > made the pioneer Doppler solution WORSE, not better.
> > 2. The Doppler data is clearly very, very, sensitive to changes in
> > the speed of light, as evidenced by its sensitivity to the Shapiro
> > effect.
>
> Doppler residuals are the differences between the calculated and
> observed. When they are converted to gforce acceleration the
> Pioneer anomalous curve is the result. My curve is near enough
> to a perfect match and it was generated by the gforce residuals
> resulting from the difference between calculations according to
> current theory and according to observation, which is according
Nope. Changing the speed of light does not result in the Pioneer anomaly. The range to the spacecraft changes by day (due to earth rotation) and by season (due to the earth revolving around the sun). By changing the speed of light, the round trip light time is altered on a daily and seasonal basis. It is not compatible with the Doppler data.
CM
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Mar 1, 2017, 5:41:34 AM3/1/17
to
On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 2:20:22 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-5, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>> 1. I performed tests of alternate theories of propagation of light,
>>> including a change in the effective speed of light. These *ALL*
>>> made the pioneer Doppler solution WORSE, not better.
>>> 2. The Doppler data is clearly very, very, sensitive to changes in
>>> the speed of light, as evidenced by its sensitivity to the Shapiro
>>> effect.
>>
>> Doppler residuals are the differences between the calculated and
>> observed. When they are converted to gforce acceleration the
>> Pioneer anomalous curve is the result. My curve is near enough
>> to a perfect match and it was generated by the gforce residuals
>> resulting from the difference between calculations according to
>> current theory and according to observation, which is according
>> to my theory. ...
>
> Nope. Changing the speed of light does not result in the Pioneer
> anomaly. The range to the spacecraft changes by day (due to
> earth rotation) and by season (due to the earth revolving around
> the sun).
Which is obviously factored into the doppler residuals.
> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-5, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>> 1. I performed tests of alternate theories of propagation of light,
>>> including a change in the effective speed of light. These *ALL*
>>> made the pioneer Doppler solution WORSE, not better.
>>> 2. The Doppler data is clearly very, very, sensitive to changes in
>>> the speed of light, as evidenced by its sensitivity to the Shapiro
>>> effect.
>>
>> Doppler residuals are the differences between the calculated and
>> observed. When they are converted to gforce acceleration the
>> Pioneer anomalous curve is the result. My curve is near enough
>> to a perfect match and it was generated by the gforce residuals
>> resulting from the difference between calculations according to
>> current theory and according to observation, which is according
>> to my theory. ...
>
> Nope. Changing the speed of light does not result in the Pioneer
> anomaly. The range to the spacecraft changes by day (due to
> earth rotation) and by season (due to the earth revolving around
> the sun).
> By changing the speed of light, the round trip light
> time is altered on a daily and seasonal basis. It is not
> compatible with the Doppler data.
the same error curve. The methodology I used to determine the
gforce residuals resulted in the Pioneer anomalous curve. Isn't
that obvious?
Your part paragraph from above is missing the point here.
_ 1. I performed tests of alternate theories of propagation of light,
_ including a change in the effective speed of light. These *ALL* made
_ the pioneer Doppler solution WORSE, not better.
That would be so if the radius between the sun and Pioneer hadn't
also increased. The gforce residuals are negative prior to 12.6
AU. Beyond that radius they become positive.
Run the .exe file. It describes how the gforce residuals were
generated
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/pneer-fh.exe
And this completes the story
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pioneer4.html
----
Max Keon
Craig Markwardt
Mar 13, 2017, 9:28:15 AM3/13/17
to
On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 5:41:34 AM UTC-5, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 2:20:22 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-5, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
> >>> 1. I performed tests of alternate theories of propagation of light,
> >>> including a change in the effective speed of light. These *ALL*
> >>> made the pioneer Doppler solution WORSE, not better.
> >>> 2. The Doppler data is clearly very, very, sensitive to changes in
> >>> the speed of light, as evidenced by its sensitivity to the Shapiro
> >>> effect.
> >>
> >> Doppler residuals are the differences between the calculated and
> >> observed. When they are converted to gforce acceleration the
> >> Pioneer anomalous curve is the result. My curve is near enough
> >> to a perfect match and it was generated by the gforce residuals
> >> resulting from the difference between calculations according to
> >> current theory and according to observation, which is according
> >> to my theory. ...
> >
> > Nope. Changing the speed of light does not result in the Pioneer
> > anomaly. The range to the spacecraft changes by day (due to
> > earth rotation) and by season (due to the earth revolving around
> > the sun).
>
> Which is obviously factored into the doppler residuals.
Well yes, the Doppler residuals capture "everything," and that is why your scenario fails. The Doppler residuals are,
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 2:20:22 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-5, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
> >>> 1. I performed tests of alternate theories of propagation of light,
> >>> including a change in the effective speed of light. These *ALL*
> >>> made the pioneer Doppler solution WORSE, not better.
> >>> 2. The Doppler data is clearly very, very, sensitive to changes in
> >>> the speed of light, as evidenced by its sensitivity to the Shapiro
> >>> effect.
> >>
> >> Doppler residuals are the differences between the calculated and
> >> observed. When they are converted to gforce acceleration the
> >> Pioneer anomalous curve is the result. My curve is near enough
> >> to a perfect match and it was generated by the gforce residuals
> >> resulting from the difference between calculations according to
> >> current theory and according to observation, which is according
> >> to my theory. ...
> >
> > Nope. Changing the speed of light does not result in the Pioneer
> > anomaly. The range to the spacecraft changes by day (due to
> > earth rotation) and by season (due to the earth revolving around
> > the sun).
>
> Which is obviously factored into the doppler residuals.
RESID = (observed doppler shift) - (modeled doppler shift)
The model contains the spacecraft trajectory, planetary motion, planetary rotation and orientation, station positions, the physics of light propagation, an arbitrary "anomalous" acceleration, and more. The "g-force" curve as you call it, is just one component in the doppler modeling.
The doppler shifts are accurately modeled with standard physics at the level of 0.002 Hz out of 2.2 billion Hz.
One can't just postulate that the speed of light (or orbit of earth) is different than the standard value, without having a dramatic effect on the Doppler residuals. Changing either by even a few parts per million creates Doppler error amounts of tens of Hertz (compare to 0.002 Hz accuracy above), with sub-daily, daily and annual periods. I know, because I did the actual analysis with actual Doppler data. With such huge errors, it's no longer possible to identify a "g-force" curve.
Your scenario is busted. You are using second-hand data ("g-force" data) which have a whole bunch of modeling assumptions behind them. That "g-force" data falls apart when one changes the assumptions about the speed of light and/or orbit of the earth.
CM
P.S. And let's not forget that the orbit of the earth is tied down to extreme precision via ranging to other spacecraft, other planets, and to objects outside our solar system (pulsar timing and VLBI quasars).
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Mar 18, 2017, 7:00:43 AM3/18/17
to
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 12:28:15 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 5:41:34 AM UTC-5, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 2:20:22 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
>>> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-5, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
---
> On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 5:41:34 AM UTC-5, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 2:20:22 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
>>> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-5, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
---
hasn't been easy for me either.
--
From a viewpoint in deep space where the speed of light is the
minimum for this stage in the evolution of the universe, the
distance 0-o (and the 'o' line length) will be expanded in a
realm where the speed of light is increased. The lengths will
always be the same in both realms because they are measured
according to the speed of light.
-
- x
- o x
- o x
- o x
0 o x
- o x
- o x
- o x
- x
-
But the expanded dimension isn't an expansion outward, it's an
expansion inward below the zero base of the lesser evolved realm.
-x
- x
- - ox
- - ox
- - ox
0 0 ox
- - ox
- - ox
- - ox
- x
-x
Doppler ranging can never identify the length changes from a
fixed location where all measurements are made according to a
fixed speed of light. That's why the Pioneer anomaly exists.
The comparisons shown here only apply in the realm of light.
The square root of all measurements are required for comparisons
in the realm of matter. That fact was proven centuries ago by
Pythagoras. The right angle triangle leg comparisons in the realm
of light are a+b=c. The reason being is that every linear
dimension is a dual dimension. And that is proof that the dual
dimensions of the zero origin universe are real.
The comparisons are brought back to the realm of matter by taking
the square root of the results.
meter = sqr((cu+cs)/cu) is given in this link to determine the
true distance between a Pioneer spacecraft and the sun at every
stage of its journey. According to the above that is correct.
cu and cs are measurements of light speed and clearly reside in
the realm of light.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/pneer-fh.exe (199168 bytes)
These are NOT postulates in any way, they are fundamental
consequences of the zero origin. This is what it's all about.
-----
Max Keon
old...@yahoo.it
Mar 19, 2017, 5:37:10 AM3/19/17
to
1) the anomal acceleration is given in cm.. for sec ... ; if you report that number in km/sec .. for million years .. , that number becomes magically like the Constant Hubble ( or constant of bigbang'acceleration )
2) the pioneers had two ways of distance'reliefment and the choice of the right way is decisive for understand the acceleration-or-deceleration ..
3) the pioneers had also an yearly and dayly component of deviation ..; a good solution should clear also all that ! have good dreams !
Craig Markwardt
Mar 20, 2017, 9:08:57 AM3/20/17
to
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 7:00:43 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> The comparisons shown here only apply in the realm of light.
> The square root of all measurements are required for comparisons
> in the realm of matter. ...
> The comparisons shown here only apply in the realm of light.
> The square root of all measurements are required for comparisons
Nope, this is not sufficient. A few vague words about square roots and ASCII line-art drawings won't solve anything. Understanding and retrieving information from high-precision radiometric data requires a very detailed prescription of how to analyze it.
See for example, Moyer, "Formulation for Observed and Computed Values of Deep Space Network Data." The speed of light and other terms are *variables* the prescription which can potentially be adjusted. If you have an alternate prescription -- at the same level of detail -- it can be tested. Otherwise, it cannot be used to verify or refute the Pioneer anomaly.
CM
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Mar 22, 2017, 8:59:04 PM3/22/17
to
On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 12:08:57 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 7:00:43 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> The comparisons shown here only apply in the realm of light.
>> The square root of all measurements are required for comparisons
>> in the realm of matter. ...
>
> Nope, this is not sufficient. A few vague words about square
> roots and ASCII line-art drawings won't solve anything.
You really don't know what I'm talking about do you!
> On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 7:00:43 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> The comparisons shown here only apply in the realm of light.
>> The square root of all measurements are required for comparisons
>> in the realm of matter. ...
>
> Nope, this is not sufficient. A few vague words about square
> roots and ASCII line-art drawings won't solve anything.
> Understanding and retrieving
> information from high-precision radiometric data requires a very
> detailed prescription of how to analyze it.
>
> See for example, Moyer, "Formulation for Observed and Computed
> Values of Deep Space Network Data." The speed of light and other
> terms are *variables* the prescription which can potentially be
> adjusted. If you have an alternate prescription -- at the same
> level of detail -- it can be tested. Otherwise, it cannot be
> used to verify or refute the Pioneer anomaly.
right angle triangle. The equation is clearly stating that
area(a) + area(b) = area(c). So wherever that comparison is made;
a+b=c. But in what universe would linear measurements compare in
this way? That's easy. A universe consisting of two diametrically
opposed dimensions running parallel with each other. Linear
measurements involve both dimensions simultaneously.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/zerorign.html
The Pythagoras equation has provided an insight into the workings
of the real universe for centuries, yet we still blunder along
the same old path with our blinkers on.
The reason I mention this is because the same thing is happening
here. The Pioneer anomalous curve is matched exactly using
reasoning based on the same universe that we can't visibly
comprehend. The Pioneer anomaly is clear evidence that such a
universe exists. That and the Pythagoras equation is the only
kind of evidence you are going to find. What else do you expect?
-----
Max Keon
Craig Markwardt
Mar 24, 2017, 10:12:10 AM3/24/17
to
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 8:59:04 PM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 12:08:57 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 7:00:43 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >> The comparisons shown here only apply in the realm of light.
> >> The square root of all measurements are required for comparisons
> >> in the realm of matter. ...
> >
> > Nope, this is not sufficient. A few vague words about square
> > roots and ASCII line-art drawings won't solve anything.
>
> You really don't know what I'm talking about do you!
That's because the detailed presentation of physics is missing.
> On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 12:08:57 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 7:00:43 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >> The comparisons shown here only apply in the realm of light.
> >> The square root of all measurements are required for comparisons
> >> in the realm of matter. ...
> >
> > Nope, this is not sufficient. A few vague words about square
> > roots and ASCII line-art drawings won't solve anything.
>
> You really don't know what I'm talking about do you!
Let's summarize.
1. You claimed the incorrect speed of light was used for the Pioneer analysis. I have actually analyzed Pioneer data - the original Doppler data - and changing the speed of light by even one part per million makes the solution worse, not better. There is no better speed of light to use for Pioneer than "c."
2. All radiometric data analysis is based on a detailed physics model, which accounts for spacecraft trajectories, orbital physics, and light propagation. The presented "zero origin theory" is missing that, so there is no way it could prove or disprove anything regarding the Pioneer results.
3. The "Pioneer curve," as you like to call it, is actually a chart of a fitted acceleration parameter. It is based on the assumption and question: IF all known physics is true, PLUS there is an additional unexplained "constant" (*) spacecraft acceleration, THEN what is the magnitude of the acceleration? Using this model one obtains good fits to the data, and thus it is possible to retrieve the acceleration parameter. If one proposes to change the physics model, for example change the speed of light, that destructively worsens the solution, by factors of 1000x, and then it is no longer possible to retrieve the acceleration parameter. It thus makes no sense to talk about the "Pioneer curve."
And finally, let's recall that a paper from several years ago by Turyshev et al, which I helped contribute to, did indeed find a more mundane explanation to the Pioneer effect. When the thermal effects were more carefully considered, it was then understood that thermal emissions (and their associated radiation pressures) could explain the Pioneer accelerations, to within the tolerances of the thermal design.
CM
(*) "constant" here means a single constant acceleration per batch. Each batch has a 2-month duration I believe.
old...@yahoo.it
Mar 25, 2017, 4:44:58 AM3/25/17
to
... if you apply it to the Pioneer ' anomaly with the same amount of Hubble Constant ( cm to km , sec. to M.y. ) , you resolve each question ( also yearly and dayly changements )..
... if you apply it to the universe , the BigBang does't exists , all galaxies are where we look its and many other questions are easier ...
old...@yahoo.it
Mar 26, 2017, 9:21:27 AM3/26/17
to
2) we can discuss about acceleration-deceleration , but substantially the cloks in rakets is lowering its ticking , like a red -shifted 'galaxy....
3) a Raman scattering increases his efficiency in situations of very low pressure , very low temperature , very hight coherence 'wave , very small bodies ..... or not ?
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Mar 28, 2017, 1:47:34 AM3/28/17
to
On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 1:12:10 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 8:59:04 PM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 12:08:57 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 7:00:43 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>>> The comparisons shown here only apply in the realm of light.
>>>> The square root of all measurements are required for comparisons
>>>> in the realm of matter. ...
>>>
>>> Nope, this is not sufficient. A few vague words about square
>>> roots and ASCII line-art drawings won't solve anything.
>>
>> You really don't know what I'm talking about do you!
>
> That's because the detailed presentation of physics is missing.
>
> Let's summarize.
> 1. You claimed the incorrect speed of light was used for the
> Pioneer analysis. I have actually analyzed Pioneer data - the
> original Doppler data - and changing the speed of light by even
> one part per million makes the solution worse, not better.
> There is no better speed of light to use for Pioneer than "c."
No. I claimed that the speed of light and distance between the
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 8:59:04 PM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 12:08:57 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
>>> On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 7:00:43 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>>> The comparisons shown here only apply in the realm of light.
>>>> The square root of all measurements are required for comparisons
>>>> in the realm of matter. ...
>>>
>>> Nope, this is not sufficient. A few vague words about square
>>> roots and ASCII line-art drawings won't solve anything.
>>
>> You really don't know what I'm talking about do you!
>
> That's because the detailed presentation of physics is missing.
>
> Let's summarize.
> 1. You claimed the incorrect speed of light was used for the
> Pioneer analysis. I have actually analyzed Pioneer data - the
> original Doppler data - and changing the speed of light by even
> one part per million makes the solution worse, not better.
> There is no better speed of light to use for Pioneer than "c."
sun and Pioneer spacecraft are not as you or I would observe
from our fixed observation point on earth. Both the speed of
light and linear measurements do alter because the depth of
dimension increases in a gravity well, beyond what we assume to
be the base of dimension. I have already demonstrated how this
works. But I know it's not easy to comprehend.
> 2. All radiometric data analysis is based on a detailed physics
> model, which accounts for spacecraft trajectories, orbital
> physics, and light propagation. The presented "zero origin
> theory" is missing that, so there is no way it could prove or
> disprove anything regarding the Pioneer results.
measurements on what you assume is reality with a "seeing is
believing" approach. That will never work in the zero origin
universe. And that's why the anomaly exists.
> 3. The "Pioneer curve," as you like to call it, is actually a
> chart of a fitted acceleration parameter. It is based on the
> assumption and question: IF all known physics is true, PLUS
> there is an additional unexplained "constant" (*) spacecraft
> acceleration, THEN what is the magnitude of the acceleration?
> Using this model one obtains good fits to the data, and thus it
> is possible to retrieve the acceleration parameter. If one
> proposes to change the physics model, for example change the
> speed of light, that destructively worsens the solution, by
> factors of 1000x, and then it is no longer possible to retrieve
> the acceleration parameter. It thus makes no sense to talk about
> the "Pioneer curve."
>
> And finally, let's recall that a paper from several years ago by
> Turyshev et al, which I helped contribute to, did indeed find a
> more mundane explanation to the Pioneer effect. When the thermal
> effects were more carefully considered, it was then understood
> that thermal emissions (and their associated radiation pressures)
> could explain the Pioneer accelerations, to within the tolerances
> of the thermal design.
enlighten me here.
This is a comment from one of your earlier posts:
-Anderson et al's work from 2002 and before did not reckon
-properly that amount and direction of the force, to the point
-of hand-waving.
Does that comment apply for Anderson's work as well? I hope not.
Followed by this:
-Later work like Turyshev et al (2012) had a "better" theoretical
-model which more closely matched the reality (more accurate
-physics more accurate input data).
More accurate physics? What can I say.
More accurate input data? If you consider breaking the spacecraft
up into, 3300 surface elements, 3700 nodes and 8700 linear
conductors as being more accurate, you are kidding yourself.
Breaking everything down into tiny elements is the worst
solution because that generates many thousands of places where
tiny compounding errors can go unnoticed.
Why on earth did they do that?
John Anderson thoroughly analyzed every individual component of
the spacecraft separately. Do you really think he was so far off
the mark that some computer simulation which is potentially
seriously error prone is more realistic?
Why has this potentially inaccurate analysis been so readily
accepted over Anderson's? I think it's ridiculous.
-----
Max Keon
Craig Markwardt
Mar 31, 2017, 4:47:20 PM3/31/17
to
> > 2. All radiometric data analysis is based on a detailed physics
> > model, which accounts for spacecraft trajectories, orbital
> > physics, and light propagation. The presented "zero origin
> > theory" is missing that, so there is no way it could prove or
> > disprove anything regarding the Pioneer results.
>
> The theory misses nothing. You are basing all of your
> measurements on what you assume is reality with a "seeing is
> believing" approach. That will never work in the zero origin
> universe. And that's why the anomaly exists.
> > 3. The "Pioneer curve," as you like to call it, is actually a
> > chart of a fitted acceleration parameter. It is based on the
> > assumption and question: IF all known physics is true, PLUS
> > there is an additional unexplained "constant" (*) spacecraft
> > acceleration, THEN what is the magnitude of the acceleration?
> > Using this model one obtains good fits to the data, and thus it
> > is possible to retrieve the acceleration parameter. If one
> > proposes to change the physics model, for example change the
> > speed of light, that destructively worsens the solution, by
> > factors of 1000x, and then it is no longer possible to retrieve
> > the acceleration parameter. It thus makes no sense to talk about
> > the "Pioneer curve."
> > And finally, let's recall that a paper from several years ago by
> > Turyshev et al, which I helped contribute to, did indeed find a
> > more mundane explanation to the Pioneer effect. When the thermal
> > effects were more carefully considered, it was then understood
> > that thermal emissions (and their associated radiation pressures)
> > could explain the Pioneer accelerations, to within the tolerances
> > of the thermal design.
>
> I know your involvement wasn't intensive, but perhaps you could
> enlighten me here.
>
> This is a comment from one of your earlier posts:
> -Anderson et al's work from 2002 and before did not reckon
> -properly that amount and direction of the force, to the point
> -of hand-waving.
>
> Does that comment apply for Anderson's work as well? I hope not.
> Followed by this:
> -Later work like Turyshev et al (2012) had a "better" theoretical
> -model which more closely matched the reality (more accurate
> -physics more accurate input data).
>
> More accurate physics? What can I say.
> More accurate input data?
Yes, more accurate input data.
* use of actual optical/thermal properties of materials used in Pioneer spacecraft series (Anderson et al ~2 surfaces)
* use of actual Pioneer mechanical structure (Anderson et al treated plate and sphere approximations)
* use of flight RTG properties (power output) (Anderson et al assumed azimuthal symmetry)
* use of flight temperatures to validate the model (Anderson et al did not use these)
Also, the consideration of tolerances on the above items in order to derive a tolerance on the output model predictions. (Anderson et al did not consider tolerances)
> ... Breaking everything down into tiny elements is the worst
> solution because that generates many thousands of places where
> tiny compounding errors can go unnoticed.
Regardless of your feelings, this is a standard approach for spacecraft (and other) thermal modeling, with a long and validated history. Breaking a spacecraft into many pieces is required to accurately model the complex curved geometries. THEN, when that is all done with a priori inputs, the modelers compare the predicted temperatures to the actual temperatures as measured by in-flight sensors. Some small adjustments were required to bring the modeled results in line with the actual results. Thus, the results were validated. We can have confidence that if the thermal model accurately reproduces the in-flight temperatures, it should also accurately reflect the thermal emission which could contribute an effective thrust.
> tiny compounding errors can go unnoticed.
> John Anderson thoroughly analyzed every individual component of
> the spacecraft separately.
> Do you really think he was so far off
> the mark that some computer simulation which is potentially
> seriously error prone is more realistic?
I don't think you will find that John Anderson disagrees with very much that was done in Turyshev et al's paper.
CM
old...@yahoo.it
Apr 5, 2017, 4:14:11 AM4/5/17
to
So the main point : the absolute de-acceleration is a quantity just like to the Hubble constant and the sign was in discussion ... but the Pioneers clocks showed a clear lowering (1.5 Hz in 8 years ) and that sign had also to respect the sign of solar radiation beam and the radio beam reaction force (page 73) ...
.. a conclusion : the Pioneer acceleration is like the BigBang redshift .. but ,like the BB , is a virtual shift , probabely caused by the Raman scattering ..
Craig Markwardt
Apr 5, 2017, 10:31:58 AM4/5/17
to
On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 4:14:11 AM UTC-4, old...@yahoo.it wrote:
> So the main point : the absolute de-acceleration is a quantity just like to the Hubble constant and the sign was in discussion ...
Nope. The magnitude of the acceleration of Pioneer is equivalent to the magnitude of the Hubble acceleration at a distance equivalent to redshift z=1. This is a mistake in the original Anderson et al 2002 paper.
> So the main point : the absolute de-acceleration is a quantity just like to the Hubble constant and the sign was in discussion ...
> but the Pioneers clocks showed a clear lowering (1.5 Hz in 8 years )
> and that sign had also to respect the sign of solar radiation beam and the radio beam reaction force (page 73) ...
CM
old...@yahoo.it
Apr 6, 2017, 4:18:06 AM4/6/17
to
.. first point : is quantitatively similar the magnitude of acceleration of Pioneer and Hubble constant ?
.. i don't know the paper of Anderson 2002 .. modestly i know that the acceleration in the International Sistem is given in meter each sec * sec .. ..: if i translate the Pioneer 'datas 8.7cm * 10^-8 sec*sec in meter , i get 8.7 m *10^-10 sec*sec
..: if i tranlate the Hubble 'datas 25 km sec * M y , i get 25*10^3 sec *sec/ 3.1 *10^6 * 10 *6 or 8.2 m*10^-10 sec*sec ...and so the two accelerations are , in absolute value , very similar ..(NB: i have forgotten the M. y. l. , the l. of 'light' because also in Pioneer datas , this quantity was forgotten..)
Here i should like open a discussion over the Hubble Constant (many times called Hubble Inconstant ) just because this value in history (less than 100 years!) is easily changed up and down many times... personally i think that it is not a constant , but the resultat of a formula that we could read the contours . In the Pioneer it seems constant , because the contours are almost strictly definited , also in its yearly and dayly variations ..
Craig Markwardt
Apr 7, 2017, 10:03:50 AM4/7/17
to
On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 4:18:06 AM UTC-4, old...@yahoo.it wrote:
...
> .. i don't know the paper of Anderson 2002 .. modestly i know that the acceleration in the International Sistem is given in meter each sec * sec .. ..: if i translate the Pioneer 'datas 8.7cm * 10^-8 sec*sec in meter , i get 8.7 m *10^-10 sec*sec
Yes
> ..: if i tranlate the Hubble 'datas 25 km sec * M y , i get 25*10^3 sec *sec/ 3.1 *10^6 * 10 *6 or 8.2 m*10^-10 sec*sec ...and so the two accelerations are , in absolute value , very similar ..(NB: i have forgotten the M. y. l. , the l. of 'light' because also in Pioneer datas , this quantity was forgotten..)
Don't forget it, it's important. Hubble constant is about 75 km/s/Mpc (Mpc = megaparsec) That is a velocity change of 75 km/s for each megaparsec of distance increase. Typical escape speed for Pioneers is about 12 km/s, so (75 km/s/Mpc * 12 km/s) = 2.9e-14 m/s^2. No way this is close to 8.7e-10 m/s^2.
Now if Pioneers were traveling at the speed of light, then yes, the numbers would be comparable, but that is not the case.
CM
...
> .. Mr. Craig seems to me an interesting competitor .. we shall try to speak completely (?) in one point, each time ...
> .. first point : is quantitatively similar the magnitude of acceleration of Pioneer and Hubble constant ?
No
> .. first point : is quantitatively similar the magnitude of acceleration of Pioneer and Hubble constant ?
> .. i don't know the paper of Anderson 2002 .. modestly i know that the acceleration in the International Sistem is given in meter each sec * sec .. ..: if i translate the Pioneer 'datas 8.7cm * 10^-8 sec*sec in meter , i get 8.7 m *10^-10 sec*sec
> ..: if i tranlate the Hubble 'datas 25 km sec * M y , i get 25*10^3 sec *sec/ 3.1 *10^6 * 10 *6 or 8.2 m*10^-10 sec*sec ...and so the two accelerations are , in absolute value , very similar ..(NB: i have forgotten the M. y. l. , the l. of 'light' because also in Pioneer datas , this quantity was forgotten..)
Now if Pioneers were traveling at the speed of light, then yes, the numbers would be comparable, but that is not the case.
CM
old...@yahoo.it
Apr 9, 2017, 9:24:25 AM4/9/17
to
1) Turyshev wrote that an other people (like me) had noted the similarity of the quantity of the Pioneer acceleration and the Hubble constant ..
2) at page 32 of the paper , the formula 15 keeps at denominator the c ( migth that authorize to write M.y.l. only M.y. ?
3) of course , i take the datas from the arxiv'paper , but the measures of distance are done with signals coming of light'speed in the two cases ( Pioneer and Hubble)
.. the tipical escape'speed of 12 km.sec is not inside the question , because the anomaly is an extraspeed , out of the 12k.s. (initial speed) and the gravitational 'speed adjustments..
.. i understand so the anomaly :
we have a way to understand the Pioneer' distance : the times go-and-back..
we have a way for understanding the depart'speed : the frequency of the inside cloks ..
.. many positions of distance ( in succession ) can give also the Pioneer'speed... : the lack of coincidence of calculated positions by the signal ' times and by the clock is the anomaly ! or not ?
Craig Markwardt
Apr 10, 2017, 7:55:22 AM4/10/17
to
On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 9:24:25 AM UTC-4, old...@yahoo.it wrote:
> Il giorno venerdì 7 aprile 2017 16:03:50 UTC+2, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
> > On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 4:18:06 AM UTC-4, old...@yahoo.it wrote:
> > ...
> > > .. Mr. Craig seems to me an interesting competitor .. we shall try to speak completely (?) in one point, each time ...
> > > .. first point : is quantitatively similar the magnitude of acceleration of Pioneer and Hubble constant ?
> > No
> >
> > > .. i don't know the paper of Anderson 2002 .. modestly i know that the acceleration in the International Sistem is given in meter each sec * sec .. ..: if i translate the Pioneer 'datas 8.7cm * 10^-8 sec*sec in meter , i get 8.7 m *10^-10 sec*sec
> >
> > Yes
> >
> > > ..: if i tranlate the Hubble 'datas 25 km sec * M y , i get 25*10^3 sec *sec/ 3.1 *10^6 * 10 *6 or 8.2 m*10^-10 sec*sec ...and so the two accelerations are , in absolute value , very similar ..(NB: i have forgotten the M. y. l. , the l. of 'light' because also in Pioneer datas , this quantity was forgotten..)
> >
> > Don't forget it, it's important. Hubble constant is about 75 km/s/Mpc (Mpc = megaparsec) That is a velocity change of 75 km/s for each megaparsec of distance increase. Typical escape speed for Pioneers is about 12 km/s, so (75 km/s/Mpc * 12 km/s) = 2.9e-14 m/s^2. No way this is close to 8.7e-10 m/s^2.
> >
> > Now if Pioneers were traveling at the speed of light, then yes, the numbers would be comparable, but that is not the case.
> > CM
>
> ..i refer to the paper arxiv : gr ..q../010406..
> 1) Turyshev wrote that an other people (like me) had noted the similarity of the quantity of the Pioneer acceleration and the Hubble constant ..
> 2) at page 32 of the paper , the formula 15 keeps at denominator the c ( migth that authorize to write M.y.l. only M.y. ?
There is no equation 15 on page 32 of 0104064.pdf, but if you mean equation 57 on page 44... This was a throwaway line in the paper, and unfortunately stimulated too many people. It is meaningless numerology.
> Il giorno venerdì 7 aprile 2017 16:03:50 UTC+2, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
> > On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 4:18:06 AM UTC-4, old...@yahoo.it wrote:
> > ...
> > > .. Mr. Craig seems to me an interesting competitor .. we shall try to speak completely (?) in one point, each time ...
> > > .. first point : is quantitatively similar the magnitude of acceleration of Pioneer and Hubble constant ?
> > No
> >
> > > .. i don't know the paper of Anderson 2002 .. modestly i know that the acceleration in the International Sistem is given in meter each sec * sec .. ..: if i translate the Pioneer 'datas 8.7cm * 10^-8 sec*sec in meter , i get 8.7 m *10^-10 sec*sec
> >
> > Yes
> >
> > > ..: if i tranlate the Hubble 'datas 25 km sec * M y , i get 25*10^3 sec *sec/ 3.1 *10^6 * 10 *6 or 8.2 m*10^-10 sec*sec ...and so the two accelerations are , in absolute value , very similar ..(NB: i have forgotten the M. y. l. , the l. of 'light' because also in Pioneer datas , this quantity was forgotten..)
> >
> > Don't forget it, it's important. Hubble constant is about 75 km/s/Mpc (Mpc = megaparsec) That is a velocity change of 75 km/s for each megaparsec of distance increase. Typical escape speed for Pioneers is about 12 km/s, so (75 km/s/Mpc * 12 km/s) = 2.9e-14 m/s^2. No way this is close to 8.7e-10 m/s^2.
> >
> > Now if Pioneers were traveling at the speed of light, then yes, the numbers would be comparable, but that is not the case.
> > CM
>
> ..i refer to the paper arxiv : gr ..q../010406..
> 1) Turyshev wrote that an other people (like me) had noted the similarity of the quantity of the Pioneer acceleration and the Hubble constant ..
> 2) at page 32 of the paper , the formula 15 keeps at denominator the c ( migth that authorize to write M.y.l. only M.y. ?
> 3) of course , i take the datas from the arxiv'paper , but the measures of distance are done with signals coming of light'speed in the two cases ( Pioneer and Hubble)
> .. the tipical escape'speed of 12 km.sec is not inside the question , because the anomaly is an extraspeed , out of the 12k.s. (initial speed) and the gravitational 'speed adjustments..
But even then the explanation fails. If one takes the Hubble effect as it is conventionally understood, it is an expansion of space which carries objects along with it. Hubble expansion alone at a single distance could never lead to the Pioneer effect, because the Hubble effect is a constant velocity at fixed distance (i.e. no acceleration). Fail. However, Pioneer is moving from smaller distance to larger distance at about 12 km/s so it does sample regions of smaller, then large expansion. That *does* lead to differential Hubble expansion, i.e. acceleration, *but* the magnitude is too small as already noted.
Your appeal to light speed of the measurement is not founded upon anything known about the Hubble effect. The Hubble effect is still a amount of speed change *per distance*. The Pioneer spacecraft just doesn't have a large distance (and distance is not increasing at a large rate).
CM
old...@yahoo.it
Apr 11, 2017, 3:46:47 AM4/11/17
to
..the Pioneer anomaly is 8.5*10^-8 cm*s*s .. is that like 8.5*10^-10 m*s*s ? and so and so ..untill 25 km*s * M.y. ?
.. the distance of the Pioneers was considered in UA (in Km=space ) and in Hours/light'speed ( in time=space? ): they made the two things togheter and that could carry some confusion ..can i have right at 10% ?
..so we go to discuss the second question :the sign of de-acceleration .. then the third : is Hubble an acceleration ? ...at the end we could discuss the dayly and yearly variations , when its occur (times of the maximum and minimum) and the amounts .. ok ? of course , you can change this order ..and thanks for your patience ..
Craig Markwardt
Apr 11, 2017, 3:15:48 PM4/11/17
to
> .. the distance of the Pioneers was considered in UA (in Km=space ) and in Hours/light'speed ( in time=space? ): they made the two things togheter and that could carry some confusion ..can i have right at 10% ?
> ..so we go to discuss the second question :the sign of de-acceleration .. then the third : is Hubble an acceleration ? .
CM
old...@yahoo.it
Apr 12, 2017, 6:53:01 AM4/12/17
to
.. a Pioneer , sending e.m. signals , is clearly in only one place ...with only one speed !
.. but the indications of 1) the times go-and-back and 2) the Doppler shift are not coincident ..and the rocket slowering or increasing depends from the choice of the right referement , 1) or 2)? ...
I) i understood (correctly?) from Turishev that the Pioneer was like attracted by a possible mass in Kuiper belt ...: so its speed was increasing ..and the Doppler was lowering ..
II) at page 34 of my reference ' paper they wrote ''..a frequency drift about -(-!)6.. ,or 1.5Hz over 8 years .This equates to a clock acceleration -(-!) 2.8*10^18 '' ..: just like a clock lowering ..i can easily understand a discussion around the quantity , but difficultly around the sign ..
III) at page 73 ,again my paper, they consider the anomal acceleration 8.7*10^-8 cm*s^2 and that value can be increased by A)+0.03 for 'solar radiation pressure and mass' and B) +1.1 for 'radio beam reaction force' : these two effects can only push away from the sun ..there the anomaly is presented without sign ( it means + ..or not ?)..so the two contributions are increasing the rocket speed , like it is natural ...
.. is all ok? no ..because an underextimated effect gives an undeextimated speed (acceleration) , but always the rocket has to show only one (new) position and one (new) speed ..: that thing was not verified ! i think that the e.m. signals are affected by a shift ,travelling in the vacuum and at very temperature, caused by a kind of Raman effect , like told before , and over that i shall riturn ..
Craig Markwardt
Apr 12, 2017, 3:44:37 PM4/12/17
to
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 6:53:01 AM UTC-4, old...@yahoo.it wrote:
> ..... the sign of acceleration
I note no response.
> ..... the sign of acceleration
I take it you are done ignoring c?
> .. a Pioneer , sending e.m. signals , is clearly in only one place ...with only one speed !
[ examples deleted ]
Anderson et al considered many possible explanations, including both direction (sign) and amount (magnitude). But at the time none were sufficient to explain the measured sign or magnitude.
CM
old...@yahoo.it
Apr 14, 2017, 9:32:50 AM4/14/17
to
.. ok .. i can consider the c like a lost question for me , but the whole question is not clear ..
.. can you answer for an hipothetic question ? : if you discover in the Kuiper belt a disomogeity ( or a gas leakage in the rocket ) , the Pioneeer 'anomaly is resolved ! ... so , should be the trajectory of the times go-back and of the Doppler shift coincident ?
.. i rephrase : the two trajectories 'construction with go-back times and with Doppler shift should be always coincident , also without the knoledge of the path , i think ...
.. but not if , in the space ' travel , the Doppler frequency is changed by some effect ( or some effect is changing the ticking of the clock inside the rocket ) .. you might think about in the Eastern holiday .. best wishes
Craig Markwardt
Apr 14, 2017, 5:08:19 PM4/14/17
to
> .. can you answer for an hipothetic question ? : if you discover in the Kuiper belt a disomogeity ( or a gas leakage in the rocket ) , the Pioneeer 'anomaly is resolved ! ... so , should be the trajectory of the times go-back and of the Doppler shift coincident ?
...
I am not certain of your question. If one has a model of the Kuiper belt, or of the gas leaks, then yes one can go back and re-analyze the Doppler data.
Anderson et al. did consider these particular topics.
CM
old...@yahoo.it
Apr 18, 2017, 3:05:25 AM4/18/17
to
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Apr 19, 2017, 5:50:36 AM4/19/17
to
On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 7:47:20 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
---
---
Stored here for convenience:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/solr-rad.html
Fig.2 from this link
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1
apparently suggests that the Pioneer anomaly may only be the
result of mismodelling of the solar thermal contribution. But
such an error can't reside in the mismodelling of the solar
reflection/absorption characteristics of the HGA dish because
that was accurately determined prior to launch, and further
refined in the early stages of the mission. So where would it
be?
It's obvious that either Turyshev or Anderson made a fairly
significant error. But it's strange that Anderson is deemed
wrong when a significant number of others also demonstrated the
existence of the anomaly, including yourself (2002)? Why should
this new result override all others when the average result from
all contributors well and truly favors the anomaly's existence?
That's a funny way to do physics.
If Fig.2 from the above link was magnified by at least 20X the
true curve shapes for all the above elements would be more
obvious. Every one of them would follow a uniformly changing
curved path which can be traced right back to the sun. And the
same applies for every other source of acceleration to or from
the sun. The RTG's and on board thermal energy sources will
trace paths according to the rate at which their energies
diminish. The curves will never compare with the Pioneer
anomaly because there's nothing symmetrical about that curve
shape at all.
This image shows the relationship between the Pioneer anomaly and
solar radiation pressure, which can include any mix of residual
radiation from solar heating. Regardless of the mix, the general
curve shape never alters. The purpose of the raised curve is to
give a better comparison with the Pioneer anomaly (blue).
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pnersolr.jpg
For John Anderson's analysis, each data point was obviously
generated using a common logic. There's no reason why anything
should change at any stage of the mission. The obvious point of
failure in Turyshev's analysis is between the sun and 20AU. How
can they possibly claim success while the very obvious change in
the "curve" direction between 5.2 and 6.9 AU, **which was
determined by Anderson's invariant logic,** is not addressed!!
The details in this image were generated from info given in
Fig.2 (above link).
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/watts.jpg
For reasons which should be obvious, the relationship between
solar heating and reflected solar radiation is taken from the
+50 watts line.
Reflected solar radiation contributes 60% of the driving force
away from the sun while solar heating emissions from the sun
facing surfaces contribute 40% of the total in that direction.
Which sets the total absorption rate at 400 watts on the graph
because thermal energy will freely conduct straight through the
HGA dish and into all contacting components of the clutter
attached to it. The reflection/absorption ratio is in fact 43%
reflection to 57% absorption.
If the dish alone was involved, absorbed solar radiation forces
driving to and from the sun would be equal. Reducing the HGA
reflection capability only slightly will affect the 8.74e-10
m/s^2 component of the Pioneer anomaly by almost 100% of the
change. Removing the anomaly would be a breeze.
An absorption rate of 57% of the total solar contribution doesn't
seem right to me either.
The Turyshev team have perhaps managed to squeeze out a positive
result within the error bars, but they certainly haven't managed
to remove the problem. They could only shift it down a little at
best.
The Pioneer anomaly is still a significant problem for current
theory. But an even bigger problem is that I can explain the
anomaly.
Two assumed realities can be compared as shown in this graph.
Gforce calculations for the true reality should trace a straight
line path along the zero line to the sun and the two theories
would compare as shown. The erroneous theory will not pass this
test. **Anomalies will emerge.**
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pnerslr3.jpg
Theory 1 scribes the curve path shown while theory 2 follows a
straight line to the sun. Or theory 2 scribes the curved path
while theory 1 follows the straight line to the sun.
For the next graph, theory 1 is my theory and it plots the
straight line to the sun (zero gforce error) while current
theory (theory 2) plots the curved path (gforce errors). The zero
point for theory 2 is shifted downward. But it's actually shifted
upward from the zero point at the curve origin on the sun's
surface. At 1AU the curve passes by at 1.1e-6 m/s^2 below the
true zero point, which is only .00019 of the sun gforce at that
radius.
Current theory sets a new zero point at 6.34e-10 m/s^2 below the
true zero point. The data points for 5.2 and 6.9 AU are carried
upward with the curve.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pnerslr4.jpg
Increasing the mass of the sun will increase the orbital speed
for theory 2. But the increase is insignificant. And there's no
reason at all why it should be noticed.
e.g.
Sun mass = 1.99e30 kg (M)
Orbital speed v is proportional to sqr(G*M/r)
If the sun's mass = 1.99015522e+30 kg (Mx) in order to
maintain a common orbital speed, orbit radius (r2) boils
down to being proportional to Mx/(M/r).
The orbital speed at a 1.5e11 meter radius (r) around a
mass M, is 29747.045 m/sec. The same orbit speed is
generated for Mx at a radius of; Mx/(M/r) = 1.500117e+11
meters. Which is r2-r = 11700000 meters greater than r,
or .44 of a GPS satellite orbit radius.
Nobody would expect a radius increase, so why would anyone bother
looking for one so small?
The problem here is that the orbit cycle time is increased by 41
minutes. The obvious fix is to use the lesser orbit radius of
1.5e11 meters.
Any self consistent closed math loop can be designed with
absolute precision so that every element is perfectly
synchronized according to the chosen theory. But the loop will
be offset from reality if just one element is even slightly
inaccurate. One can't use the absolute precision of the loop as
some kind of proof of the credibility of each element.
i.e.
1.99e30 is far from being a precise figure for the mass of the
sun. The chances of 27 zeros aligning behind the 199 is almost
zero. It could just as well be 1990155220000000000000000000000
kg. It can all be varied to suit any theory. Nothing can be
proven here.
A theory will only fail when anomalies begin to appear in
nature.
-----
Max Keon
---
---
> The question is what tolerance was required for the analysis. Anderson
> et al's analysis was quite back of the envelope. A few Watts makes a
> difference, so it was important to treat the analysis in more detail.
Solar Radiation Pressure and the Pioneer Anomaly
> et al's analysis was quite back of the envelope. A few Watts makes a
> difference, so it was important to treat the analysis in more detail.
Stored here for convenience:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/solr-rad.html
Fig.2 from this link
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1
apparently suggests that the Pioneer anomaly may only be the
result of mismodelling of the solar thermal contribution. But
such an error can't reside in the mismodelling of the solar
reflection/absorption characteristics of the HGA dish because
that was accurately determined prior to launch, and further
refined in the early stages of the mission. So where would it
be?
It's obvious that either Turyshev or Anderson made a fairly
significant error. But it's strange that Anderson is deemed
wrong when a significant number of others also demonstrated the
existence of the anomaly, including yourself (2002)? Why should
this new result override all others when the average result from
all contributors well and truly favors the anomaly's existence?
That's a funny way to do physics.
If Fig.2 from the above link was magnified by at least 20X the
true curve shapes for all the above elements would be more
obvious. Every one of them would follow a uniformly changing
curved path which can be traced right back to the sun. And the
same applies for every other source of acceleration to or from
the sun. The RTG's and on board thermal energy sources will
trace paths according to the rate at which their energies
diminish. The curves will never compare with the Pioneer
anomaly because there's nothing symmetrical about that curve
shape at all.
This image shows the relationship between the Pioneer anomaly and
solar radiation pressure, which can include any mix of residual
radiation from solar heating. Regardless of the mix, the general
curve shape never alters. The purpose of the raised curve is to
give a better comparison with the Pioneer anomaly (blue).
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pnersolr.jpg
For John Anderson's analysis, each data point was obviously
generated using a common logic. There's no reason why anything
should change at any stage of the mission. The obvious point of
failure in Turyshev's analysis is between the sun and 20AU. How
can they possibly claim success while the very obvious change in
the "curve" direction between 5.2 and 6.9 AU, **which was
determined by Anderson's invariant logic,** is not addressed!!
The details in this image were generated from info given in
Fig.2 (above link).
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/watts.jpg
For reasons which should be obvious, the relationship between
solar heating and reflected solar radiation is taken from the
+50 watts line.
Reflected solar radiation contributes 60% of the driving force
away from the sun while solar heating emissions from the sun
facing surfaces contribute 40% of the total in that direction.
Which sets the total absorption rate at 400 watts on the graph
because thermal energy will freely conduct straight through the
HGA dish and into all contacting components of the clutter
attached to it. The reflection/absorption ratio is in fact 43%
reflection to 57% absorption.
If the dish alone was involved, absorbed solar radiation forces
driving to and from the sun would be equal. Reducing the HGA
reflection capability only slightly will affect the 8.74e-10
m/s^2 component of the Pioneer anomaly by almost 100% of the
change. Removing the anomaly would be a breeze.
An absorption rate of 57% of the total solar contribution doesn't
seem right to me either.
The Turyshev team have perhaps managed to squeeze out a positive
result within the error bars, but they certainly haven't managed
to remove the problem. They could only shift it down a little at
best.
The Pioneer anomaly is still a significant problem for current
theory. But an even bigger problem is that I can explain the
anomaly.
Two assumed realities can be compared as shown in this graph.
Gforce calculations for the true reality should trace a straight
line path along the zero line to the sun and the two theories
would compare as shown. The erroneous theory will not pass this
test. **Anomalies will emerge.**
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pnerslr3.jpg
Theory 1 scribes the curve path shown while theory 2 follows a
straight line to the sun. Or theory 2 scribes the curved path
while theory 1 follows the straight line to the sun.
For the next graph, theory 1 is my theory and it plots the
straight line to the sun (zero gforce error) while current
theory (theory 2) plots the curved path (gforce errors). The zero
point for theory 2 is shifted downward. But it's actually shifted
upward from the zero point at the curve origin on the sun's
surface. At 1AU the curve passes by at 1.1e-6 m/s^2 below the
true zero point, which is only .00019 of the sun gforce at that
radius.
Current theory sets a new zero point at 6.34e-10 m/s^2 below the
true zero point. The data points for 5.2 and 6.9 AU are carried
upward with the curve.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pnerslr4.jpg
Increasing the mass of the sun will increase the orbital speed
for theory 2. But the increase is insignificant. And there's no
reason at all why it should be noticed.
e.g.
Sun mass = 1.99e30 kg (M)
Orbital speed v is proportional to sqr(G*M/r)
If the sun's mass = 1.99015522e+30 kg (Mx) in order to
maintain a common orbital speed, orbit radius (r2) boils
down to being proportional to Mx/(M/r).
The orbital speed at a 1.5e11 meter radius (r) around a
mass M, is 29747.045 m/sec. The same orbit speed is
generated for Mx at a radius of; Mx/(M/r) = 1.500117e+11
meters. Which is r2-r = 11700000 meters greater than r,
or .44 of a GPS satellite orbit radius.
Nobody would expect a radius increase, so why would anyone bother
looking for one so small?
The problem here is that the orbit cycle time is increased by 41
minutes. The obvious fix is to use the lesser orbit radius of
1.5e11 meters.
Any self consistent closed math loop can be designed with
absolute precision so that every element is perfectly
synchronized according to the chosen theory. But the loop will
be offset from reality if just one element is even slightly
inaccurate. One can't use the absolute precision of the loop as
some kind of proof of the credibility of each element.
i.e.
1.99e30 is far from being a precise figure for the mass of the
sun. The chances of 27 zeros aligning behind the 199 is almost
zero. It could just as well be 1990155220000000000000000000000
kg. It can all be varied to suit any theory. Nothing can be
proven here.
A theory will only fail when anomalies begin to appear in
nature.
-----
Max Keon
Craig Markwardt
Apr 19, 2017, 5:36:10 PM4/19/17
to
On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:50:36 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 7:47:20 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> ---
> ---
> > The question is what tolerance was required for the analysis. Anderson
> > et al's analysis was quite back of the envelope. A few Watts makes a
> > difference, so it was important to treat the analysis in more detail.
...
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 7:47:20 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> ---
> ---
> > The question is what tolerance was required for the analysis. Anderson
> > et al's analysis was quite back of the envelope. A few Watts makes a
> > difference, so it was important to treat the analysis in more detail.
> Fig.2 from this link
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1
> apparently suggests that the Pioneer anomaly may only be the
> result of mismodelling of the solar thermal contribution.
Your interpretation of this paper is incorrect. This paper (Turyshev et al 2002) demonstrates that most if not all of the "anomalous" acceleration can be attributed to *internal* thermal emission, generated by the RTGs and internal electronics.
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1
> apparently suggests that the Pioneer anomaly may only be the
> result of mismodelling of the solar thermal contribution.
> But such an error can't reside in the mismodelling of the solar
> reflection/absorption characteristics of the HGA dish because
> that was accurately determined prior to launch,
> It's obvious that either Turyshev or Anderson made a fairly
> significant error. But it's strange that Anderson is deemed
> wrong when a significant number of others also demonstrated the
> existence of the anomaly, including yourself (2002)? Why should
> this new result override all others when the average result from
> all contributors well and truly favors the anomaly's existence?
> That's a funny way to do physics.
But actually it's not true to say no one else was considering thermal. The work of Bertolami et al 2008 (Phys. Rev. D 78, 103001) attempted to do a better job at thermal modeling and found that thermal could contribute a significant amount towards the "anomaly." But even then, they were still treating simplifying point-like, sphere-like and plate-like approximation, and not validating their radiation transfer against the actual in-flight temperature records, which Turyshev et al (2012) did do. But please do not pretend that every analyst was concluding the "anomalous" acceleration was the same as Anderson et al.
> If Fig.2 from the above link ...
> ... The curves will never compare with the Pioneer
> anomaly because there's nothing symmetrical about that curve
> shape at all.
Symmetric is not quite the best way to judge. However, the open circle curve, is the best representation of the "pioneer anomaly," and traces the anomalous acceleration curve measured via Doppler, as well as can be done.
> shape at all.
The data points you display in your own "curve" are from different years, different analysts, and different rigor of Doppler analysis. The Anderson paper showed them as some kind of indication of what may be an "onset" of the effect, but they cannot be used with the same level of confidence as later analysis, which were done with the same quality selections, in one complete batch, with the same analyst.
> For John Anderson's analysis, each data point was obviously
Absolutely not. The data points you are referring to in your own plot are taken from Anderson's paper, Figure 7. If you had read the Anderson et al 2002 paper more carefully you would have understood that this figure represented the early analysis, of analysts working in an operational environment and trying to navigate the spacecraft. The analysis was not performed in a totally rigorous way by the same analysts or with the same criteria.
As they pointed out in the paper, when the spacecraft reached about 20 AU, the search for unmodeled accelerations could begin in more earnest, and more attention to detail was made... but 20 AU is way past the so-called "onset" around 5AU! At the time of the Anderson et al 2002 paper, the early data was lost (unavailable) and only those graphical figures remained, not the original data. Thus, when it came time to do new, more careful work, their group had to begin with data starting about 1980, and there was no way to look for a putative onset around 5 AU which occurred in the early 1970s. [ Later, after Anderson's work, a small amount of earlier data was recovered. ]
Just to be clear, during the early to mid 1970s, the data formats, the software, and the analysis teams were in much more flux. NASA was in the business of navigating spacecraft (and not high sensitivity spacecraft physics), and was just learning how powerful the radiometric techniques could be. You can go back and read all of the DSN status documents if you want: they are public and online. But the point is that what we know and do today to navigate spacecraft, does not and did not apply to what was done in the early 1970s when this was a new field. You cannot say that anything was done with a "common logic" or "invariant" comparing today to then.
> The Turyshev team have perhaps managed to squeeze out a positive
> result within the error bars, but they certainly haven't managed
> to remove the problem. They could only shift it down a little at
> best.
CM
old...@yahoo.it
Apr 22, 2017, 5:20:38 AM4/22/17
to
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Apr 24, 2017, 7:17:03 AM4/24/17
to
physical laws that analysts of today are not familiar with. But
that's not the case at all. Even if modifications have been made
to some of the physical laws the analysts of today would still
know exactly how the first data points showing the onset of the
anomaly were derived.
The first data points indicating a discrepancy between current
theory and observation were noticed while the Pioneer missions
were in progress. Both Pioneer missions experienced exactly the
same problem. The analysts weren't stupid back then, they noticed
this error and reported it. They couldn't explain it and neither
could anyone else. Your suggestion that the analyst were too busy
trying to navigate the spacecraft to properly analyze the
evidence is absurd. They weren't exactly alone in the world were
they!
Even if the data from that era is missing, it can be resurrected
based on the physical laws the analyst were **known** to be
using. Whether you like it or not, an unresolved problem still
remains.
According to you, "when the spacecraft reached about 20 AU, the
search for unmodelled accelerations could begin in more earnest,
and more attention to detail was made". Why do you think a more
precise analysis of the more distant data points will be of any
use? It becomes quickly apparent where the curve is heading. But
so what? The horse has already bolted.
Ignoring the bolted horse problem, all one needs to do is pull
the data point at 20 AU downward enough to sneak within the
unnecessarily huge error margin, and the anomaly can just barely
be squeezed out of existence in some circumstances. ???
The unnecessarily huge error margin I'm referring to is of course
the 25% generated by the unknown performance of the RTG coating.
Precise details of the coating are well known, so why hasn't this
question been addressed years ago. In Turyshev's paper it was
stated that "the properties of the RTG paint are, in principle,
measurable by a thermal vacuum chamber test of a hot RTG
analogue". So how can this huge error still exist? After more
than 40 years!
Another Pioneer type mission may not be a practical option. But
the cost of this experiment would be virtually nothing. I could
do it for you if you can get me some 238/94 plutonium.
Why do I get the impression that huge error margins are a good
thing in the case of the Pioneer anomaly?
>> The Turyshev team have perhaps managed to squeeze out a positive
>> result within the error bars, but they certainly haven't managed
>> to remove the problem. They could only shift it down a little at
>> best.
>
> You can believe what you wish, but the Turyshev result shows that
> the thermal and doppler solutions are consistent - within the
> tolerances (see their Figure 4).
-----
Max Keon
Craig Markwardt
Apr 25, 2017, 1:15:29 PM4/25/17
to
On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 7:17:03 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 7:36:10 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:50:36 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 7:47:20 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> >> ---
> >> ---
> >>> The question is what tolerance was required for the analysis. Anderson
> >>> et al's analysis was quite back of the envelope. A few Watts makes a
> >>> difference, so it was important to treat the analysis in more detail.
> >...
> >> Fig.2 from this link
> >> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1
> >> apparently suggests that the Pioneer anomaly may only be the
> >> result of mismodelling of the solar thermal contribution.
> >
> > Your interpretation of this paper is incorrect. This paper
> > (Turyshev et al 2002) demonstrates that most if not all of the
> > "anomalous" acceleration can be attributed to *internal* thermal
> > emission, generated by the RTGs and internal electronics.
I note no response.
> On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 7:36:10 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:50:36 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 7:47:20 AM UTC+11, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> >> ---
> >> ---
> >>> The question is what tolerance was required for the analysis. Anderson
> >>> et al's analysis was quite back of the envelope. A few Watts makes a
> >>> difference, so it was important to treat the analysis in more detail.
> >...
> >> Fig.2 from this link
> >> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1
> >> apparently suggests that the Pioneer anomaly may only be the
> >> result of mismodelling of the solar thermal contribution.
> >
> > Your interpretation of this paper is incorrect. This paper
> > (Turyshev et al 2002) demonstrates that most if not all of the
> > "anomalous" acceleration can be attributed to *internal* thermal
> > emission, generated by the RTGs and internal electronics.
> >> But such an error can't reside in the mismodelling of the solar
> >> reflection/absorption characteristics of the HGA dish because
> >> that was accurately determined prior to launch,
> >
> > Just a side note, but thermal coatings do degrade over time, due
> > to exposure to solar UV as well as ionizing radiation (white
> > coatings become darker). So one can't be so certain about these
> > properties. That was one of the aspects covered by the thermal
> > analysis reported in Turyshev et al's 2012 paper.
> >
> >> It's obvious that either Turyshev or Anderson made a fairly
> >> significant error. But it's strange that Anderson is deemed
> >> wrong when a significant number of others also demonstrated the
> >> existence of the anomaly, including yourself (2002)? Why should
> >> this new result override all others when the average result from
> >> all contributors well and truly favors the anomaly's existence?
> >> That's a funny way to do physics.
> >
> > What would be funny is to ALWAYS assume that the "average" of some
I note no response.
> > But actually it's not true to say no one else was considering
I note no response.
...
Furthermore, let's be clear what was happening in the early 1970s. The Pioneer spacecraft were the first spacecraft to be sent to the outer solar system, with long cruise phases. Earlier spacecraft were kept inside the Earth-Moon system, or directed to the inner solar system. This new direction required new attention to detail and modeling of the physical effects of the space environment. No, the physical laws did not change, but the modeling capability within the software that was used did not capture all of the physics with the same fidelity.
Effects such as spacecraft spin and new relativistic physics were being incorporated at that time. You can read the paper of Wong & Lubeley from 1974 (AIAA Paper No. 74-845) which demonstrates how the orbit determination groups were incorporating new software with better capabilities.
Effects such as spacecraft propellant valve leaks were harder to understand, and navigation analysts had to make do. What physical laws does one apply to a valve that is leaky???
Before encountering Jupiter, both Pioneer spacecraft performed frequent maneuvers (every few weeks), which disturbed the orbit determination process, and also introduced more possibilities for leaks.
Within the first 20 AU, the solar system radiation pressure is significant. In fact, before Jupiter approach, the radiation pressure is dominant over most of the force terms and is many times the "anomalous" acceleration. You pointed out thermal coatings, but let us not forget that the exact geometry of the spacecraft has an effect. Is the antenna treated as parabolic or flat-plate? What about the cut-outs and antenna feeds, how are those treated? These are not simple "physical law" issues. They have to do with how accurately the spacecraft systems can be modeled. Early in the mission, with computing power limited, some short cuts were inevitably taken.
I would also like to point out that the planetary positions, which we know so accurately today, were not known as accurately at the time. In fact, the Pioneer and Voyager encounters were used to refine the positions of the planets based on the fly-by data. But, before the fly-by, the knowledge of the planet positions ... and the corresponding acceleartions ... were less well known. Thus, there is some uncertainty there too.
So, please do not pretend that the state of affairs in the early 1970s can really be compared to the state today.
The figure which you have referred to which shows the "onset" of the acceleration, you have replotted. What you failed to show was the uncertainty range (error bars) of the points. If you had displayed those as well, you would have seen that the bars are very large and that early data is not necessarily as stringent as you say.
> ... The analysts weren't stupid back then, they noticed
> this error and reported it. They couldn't explain it and neither
> could anyone else. Your suggestion that the analyst were too busy
> trying to navigate the spacecraft to properly analyze the
> evidence is absurd. They weren't exactly alone in the world were
> they!
Please let me clear. The Pioneer navigators were brilliant for their time. I referred you to one paper. There are several, and it is evident that they were highly skilled at their craft. BUT... they were also not able to fully exploit the capability of the radiometric data they were using. This was evident in their own records which show they were upgrading the software steadily with new capabilities. That early data MAY NOT have been as accurate as desired.
> could anyone else. Your suggestion that the analyst were too busy
> trying to navigate the spacecraft to properly analyze the
> evidence is absurd. They weren't exactly alone in the world were
> they!
I also want to say that I am in no way criticizing John Anderson or his team of co-authors. His science track record is quite excellent, and it is clear that they are very capable as well. BUT AGAIN... the question is how good does someone have to be. And the Turyshev paper demonstrated that a higher quality thermal analysis can resolve the Pioneer "anomaly."
...
> According to you, "when the spacecraft reached about 20 AU, the
> search for unmodelled accelerations could begin in more earnest,
> and more attention to detail was made". Why do you think a more
> precise analysis of the more distant data points will be of any
> use? It becomes quickly apparent where the curve is heading. But
> so what? The horse has already bolted.
First of all, the quote is actually what Anderson et al. said in their paper, not me. And second of all, what is your point? If the goal is to accurately measure the "onset" of the anomaly, then the early data which would or could have shown that is largely lost forever. If the goal is to get an accurate measure of the anomaly in late days (>20 AU) then the Anderson et al 2002 paper is just fine... but it doesn't prove or disprove any of your claims then. Anderson's paper claims the acceleration is consistent with being constant, quite the opposite of your claim!
> search for unmodelled accelerations could begin in more earnest,
> and more attention to detail was made". Why do you think a more
> precise analysis of the more distant data points will be of any
> use? It becomes quickly apparent where the curve is heading. But
> so what? The horse has already bolted.
> The unnecessarily huge error margin I'm referring to is of course
> the 25% generated by the unknown performance of the RTG coating.
> Precise details of the coating are well known, so why hasn't this
> question been addressed years ago. In Turyshev's paper it was
> stated that "the properties of the RTG paint are, in principle,
> measurable by a thermal vacuum chamber test of a hot RTG
> analogue". So how can this huge error still exist? After more
> than 40 years!
Problem 2. The space environment destroys thermal coatings. Do you have access all of the relevant space environments? (UV light, ionizing radation, extreme temperatures)
Problem 3. Funding. Doing the job properly requires access to facilities that are expensive, and technicians that are expensive. No money is available for this.
You doing a vacuum test with Plutonium is rather laughable, but please do not: Plutonium is toxic.
> Why do I get the impression that huge error margins are a good
> thing in the case of the Pioneer anomaly?
> >> The Turyshev team have perhaps managed to squeeze out a positive
> >> result within the error bars, but they certainly haven't managed
> >> to remove the problem. They could only shift it down a little at
> >> best.
> >
> > You can believe what you wish, but the Turyshev result shows that
> > the thermal and doppler solutions are consistent - within the
> > tolerances (see their Figure 4).
>
> "believe" is the key word here isn't it.
CM
old...@yahoo.it
Apr 28, 2017, 12:06:57 PM4/28/17
to
Craig Markwardt
Apr 28, 2017, 12:49:32 PM4/28/17
to
On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 12:06:57 PM UTC-4, old...@yahoo.it wrote:
> ... rerephrasing the last question : is Cassini having a Dppler shift like Pioneer , and yearly and dayly ?
It's an interesting question. No effect similar to the Pioneer anomaly has been detected with the Cassini doppler data. Cassini is indeed a more complicated spacecraft, and there are more trajectory disturbances for Cassini than for Pioneer. The very detailed PhD work of Benedetto was able to rule out a Pioneer-like anomaly using the full Cassini data set.
> ... rerephrasing the last question : is Cassini having a Dppler shift like Pioneer , and yearly and dayly ?
CM
old...@yahoo.it
Apr 30, 2017, 3:22:46 AM4/30/17
to
.. maybe the Voyager I was a better example : have you controlled in that Doppler shift an analogy with the Pioneer anomaly ?
msk...@optusnet.com.au
May 1, 2017, 8:25:16 AM5/1/17
to
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:15:29 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 7:17:03 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 7:36:10 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:50:36 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
---
> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 7:17:03 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 7:36:10 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:50:36 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
---
>>>> Fig.2 from this link
>>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1
>>>> apparently suggests that the Pioneer anomaly may only be the
>>>> result of mismodelling of the solar thermal contribution.
>>>
>>> Your interpretation of this paper is incorrect. This paper
>>> (Turyshev et al 2002) demonstrates that most if not all of the
>>> "anomalous" acceleration can be attributed to *internal* thermal
>>> emission, generated by the RTGs and internal electronics.
>
> I note no response.
Your comments were noted, but you were referring to the wrong
>>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1
>>>> apparently suggests that the Pioneer anomaly may only be the
>>>> result of mismodelling of the solar thermal contribution.
>>>
>>> Your interpretation of this paper is incorrect. This paper
>>> (Turyshev et al 2002) demonstrates that most if not all of the
>>> "anomalous" acceleration can be attributed to *internal* thermal
>>> emission, generated by the RTGs and internal electronics.
>
> I note no response.
paper.
This is the exact wording from the 2012 version linked above:
Third, Fig. 2 is strongly suggestive that the previously reported
"onset" of the Pioneer anomaly may in fact be a simple result of
mismodeling of the solar thermal contribution; this question may
be resolved with further analysis of early trajectory data.
>>>> But such an error can't reside in the mismodelling of the solar
>>>> reflection/absorption characteristics of the HGA dish because
>>>> that was accurately determined prior to launch,
>>>
>>> Just a side note, but thermal coatings do degrade over time, due
>>> to exposure to solar UV as well as ionizing radiation (white
>>> coatings become darker). So one can't be so certain about these
>>> properties. That was one of the aspects covered by the thermal
>>> analysis reported in Turyshev et al's 2012 paper.
over time due to both solar radiation and radiation from within
the RTG's. But if in the unlikely event where RTG radiation
increases reflectivity, solar radiation would do likewise.
From RTG based darkening alone, all RTG surfaces will fade at the
same almost linear rate. The consequent solar radiation pressure
shortfall will deviate from the normally expected pressure and
reduce at that same rate as well. The pressure gradient will
follow the RTG line, **not the solar radiation pressure curve.**
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/solrtg.jpg
But surface darkening attributable to solar radiation will alter
exponentially. Theory may predict that this darkening will
significantly add to the inward acceleration closer to the sun
and taper off in a manner which compares with the Pioneer
anomaly over increasing distance, but that's not the case at all.
The darker sun facing surface will now radiate more of the RTG
internal thermal energy than the back face, overwhelming the
absorption capability of the solar radiation, thus driving the
spacecraft outward.
Don't tell me it won't.
Another problem is that absorbed solar thermal energy will also
radiate more readily from the darkened face. That applies to the
HGA dish as well.
The fix is to claim increased reflectability over time.
Probability: 1/1000000
>>>> It's obvious that either Turyshev or Anderson made a fairly
>>>> significant error. But it's strange that Anderson is deemed
>>>> wrong when a significant number of others also demonstrated the
>>>> existence of the anomaly, including yourself (2002)? Why should
>>>> this new result override all others when the average result from
>>>> all contributors well and truly favors the anomaly's existence?
>>>> That's a funny way to do physics.
>>>
>>> What would be funny is to ALWAYS assume that the "average" of some
>>> papers is relevant. ...
>
> I note no response.
>
>>> But actually it's not true to say no one else was considering
>>> thermal. ...
>
> I note no response.
> ...
---
---
>> You act as though analysts from the 1970's were using a set of
>> physical laws that analysts of today are not familiar with. But
>> that's not the case at all. Even if modifications have been made
>> to some of the physical laws the analysts of today would still
>> know exactly how the first data points showing the onset of the
>> anomaly were derived.
> This is unsubstantiated. I am an analyst today of the Pioneer
> doppler data, and I do not have enough information from that one
> "onset" chart to understand how it was derived.
according to the prevailing physics at the time was clearly
noted, and it continued to increase until the spacecraft reached
the 20 AU mark. It didn't start out big. The anomaly was reported
by responsible physicist you know. They weren't just hand waving
to attract attention.
in depth description of the processes involved if the analysis
was expected to be taken seriously.
Which raises some questions here.
What data was plugged into the 2012 Turyshev computer simulation?
Were the RTG emissions and solar radiation pressures correctly
represented? Or were they in fact mismodeled as was the
assumption regarding Anderson's work?
Does the simulation software contribute toward the outcome? If
so, what was the programmer's information source? Was the
programmer or the source biased in any way? How could anyone
know any of this?
In the end it comes down to unconditional belief.
anomaly which indicated a deviation from well known standard
physics at the time.
---
---
>>>> The Turyshev team have perhaps managed to squeeze out a positive
>>>> result within the error bars, but they certainly haven't managed
>>>> to remove the problem. They could only shift it down a little at
>>>> best.
>>>
>>> You can believe what you wish, but the Turyshev result shows that
>>> the thermal and doppler solutions are consistent - within the
>>> tolerances (see their Figure 4).
>>
>> "believe" is the key word here isn't it.
>
> I don't see you providing an alternate analysis of the thermal or
> doppler data. And, other researchers working independently have
> found similar results (see Bertolami's work that I pointed out
> earlier). Turyshev et al's work demonstrates within the evidence
> and known tolerances that the Pioneer "anomaly" has largely been
> resolved.
gigantic overstatement. There's only a slight chance that the
anomaly no longer exists because it can only barely squeeze
between the questionable error margins. But at least nobody is
claiming absolute proof any more.
-----
Max Keon
Craig Markwardt
May 1, 2017, 4:52:52 PM5/1/17
to
Opening note...
On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:25:16 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:15:29 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> > On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 7:17:03 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >> On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 7:36:10 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:50:36 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> ---
> ---
> >>>> Fig.2 from this link
> >>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1
> >>>> apparently suggests that the Pioneer anomaly may only be the
> >>>> result of mismodelling of the solar thermal contribution.
> >>>
> >>> Your interpretation of this paper is incorrect. This paper
> >>> (Turyshev et al 2002) demonstrates that most if not all of the
> >>> "anomalous" acceleration can be attributed to *internal* thermal
> >>> emission, generated by the RTGs and internal electronics.
> >
> > I note no response.
>
> Your comments were noted, but you were referring to the wrong
> paper.
>
> This is the exact wording from the 2012 version linked above:
> Third, Fig. 2 is strongly suggestive that the previously reported
> "onset" of the Pioneer anomaly may in fact be a simple result of
> mismodeling of the solar thermal contribution; this question may
> be resolved with further analysis of early trajectory data.
Nope, you are incorrect. The 2012 paper concludes that "thermal recoil" is the explanation for the Pioneer anomaly. But not *solar* thermal. Or rather, the *new* thing of that paper is that by including the *internal* thermal effects (RTGs and electrical compartment dissipation) the anomaly is resolved. Previous work *ALWAYS* considered solar thermal recoil forces, and could not explain the anomaly. Again, the new thing in the Turyshev et al 2012 paper was inclusion of internally-generated thermal terms, and this is what "tipped the balance."
> >>>> But such an error can't reside in the mismodelling of the solar
> >>>> reflection/absorption characteristics of the HGA dish because
> >>>> that was accurately determined prior to launch,
> >>>
> >>> Just a side note, but thermal coatings do degrade over time, due
> >>> to exposure to solar UV as well as ionizing radiation (white
> >>> coatings become darker). So one can't be so certain about these
> >>> properties. That was one of the aspects covered by the thermal
> >>> analysis reported in Turyshev et al's 2012 paper.
>
> You apparently agree that the RTG surface coating becomes darker
> over time due to both solar radiation and radiation from within
> the RTG's. ... The pressure gradient will
> follow the RTG line, **not the solar radiation pressure curve.** ...
Your writing appears to be motivated by intuition, but that is not the case. You can find a more correct and physics- and engineering-motivated discussion in books like "Spacecraft Thermal Control Handbook." Also, there are quite a few reference books on the degradation of thermal coatings from the time in the public domain.
Almost all known thermal coatings degrade w.r.t. the optical properties (the "alpha" coefficient), but do *not* significantly change w.r.t the infrared emission properties (the "epsilon" coefficient), including the coatings used on Pioneer. Therefore, your assumptions are irrelevant.
But bringing back to your original point before you distracted... you wondered why analysts could not know the thermal/optical properties of the Pioneer coatings exactly today. I guess you concede now that it's more difficult than you first wondered.
> >>>> It's obvious that either Turyshev or Anderson made a fairly
> >>>> significant error. But it's strange that Anderson is deemed
> >>>> wrong when a significant number of others also demonstrated the
> >>>> existence of the anomaly, including yourself (2002)? Why should
> >>>> this new result override all others when the average result from
> >>>> all contributors well and truly favors the anomaly's existence?
> >>>> That's a funny way to do physics.
> >>>
> >>> What would be funny is to ALWAYS assume that the "average" of some
> >>> papers is relevant. ...
> >
> > I note no response.
Still no response.
> >>> But actually it's not true to say no one else was considering
> >>> thermal. ...
> >
> > I note no response.
>
> Most folk can understand that the thermal solution doesn't work.
"Most folk?" That's a rather unsubstantiated throwaway claim. It was *you* who claimed that everybody except for Turyshev et al 2012 had ignored the thermal origin, and I had to point out the error of your statement.
> >> You act as though analysts from the 1970's were using a set of
> >> physical laws that analysts of today are not familiar with. But
> >> that's not the case at all. Even if modifications have been made
> >> to some of the physical laws the analysts of today would still
> >> know exactly how the first data points showing the onset of the
> >> anomaly were derived.
>
> > This is unsubstantiated. I am an analyst today of the Pioneer
> > doppler data, and I do not have enough information from that one
> > "onset" chart to understand how it was derived.
>
> But a discrepancy between observation and what was expected
> according to the prevailing physics at the time was clearly
> noted, and it continued to increase until the spacecraft reached
> the 20 AU mark. ...
Non-sequitur. Your statement doesn't make it any easier for a Doppler analyst to reconstruct how the data analysis was done with early data.
And... if you read Anderson's paper, the discrepancy was clearly noted... in the 1980s far after the spacecraft had passed 20AU. There is nothing in the paper that I can find which references earlier times, aside from the figures you point out of unknown provenance.
Exactly. In the early 1970s, the computing power did not exist to do the in-depth analysis required. The operational need did not exist either. But I see now that you understand that the process is not just about physical laws, but something more.
> Which raises some questions here.
> What data was plugged into the 2012 Turyshev computer simulation?
The answers are in the Turyshev 2012 paper and its predecessors.
> Were the RTG emissions and solar radiation pressures correctly
> represented?
Discussed in the Turyshev 2012 paper. "Correct" is a matter of tolerance.
> Or were they in fact mismodeled as was the
> assumption regarding Anderson's work?
Thanks for the loaded question. Anderson et al did not "mismodel" anything intentionally. The level of fidelity was lower and they did not have the thermal data available at the time required to check, which Turyshev et al did have by 2012.
> Does the simulation software contribute toward the outcome? If
> so, what was the programmer's information source?
The software is validated against all the missions supported by JPL for radiometric navigation, and the thermal modeling software is standard in the industry. That's why I say it has been validated: it has successfully been used thousands of times to correctly predict temperatures and emission profiles of equipment under test. And, let's not forget that Anderson et al 2002 compared multiple independent software suites, to guard against software errors.
Thermal modeling software also has many inputs. All the inputs for thermal/optical properties were taken from Pioneer engineering documentation, but error tolerances were also considered. *AND*, then the simulations were validated against actual spacecraft measured temperatures. This temperature record was not readily available for Anderson et al to use in 2001, but was for later work.
> In the end it comes down to unconditional belief.
Please. It comes down to a consideration of an analysis using established techniques, which has been validated against known data (both other spacecraft and Pioneer itself). There are mountains of documentation on this, which you ignored or barely skimmed over. It's easy for you to just cast out that claim without substantiation, and I reject it.
> > So, please do not pretend that the state of affairs in the early
> > 1970s can really be compared to the state today.
Again, no response.
> > The figure which you have referred to which shows the "onset" of
> > the acceleration, you have replotted. What you failed to show
> > was the uncertainty range (error bars) of the points. If you had
> > displayed those as well, you would have seen that the bars are
> > very large and that early data is not necessarily as stringent as
> > you say.
Again, no response.
...
Again, I note that Anderson's claim is that the Pioneer anomaly is consistent with being constant. There was no evidence in the data available for something varying with time. This completely undercuts your own conclusion.
CM
> Don't tell me it won't.
Hey bud, this is an open discussion forum. Whatever you think I should or should not say is completely irrelevant.
On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:25:16 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:15:29 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> > On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 7:17:03 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >> On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 7:36:10 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:50:36 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> ---
> ---
> >>>> Fig.2 from this link
> >>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1
> >>>> apparently suggests that the Pioneer anomaly may only be the
> >>>> result of mismodelling of the solar thermal contribution.
> >>>
> >>> Your interpretation of this paper is incorrect. This paper
> >>> (Turyshev et al 2002) demonstrates that most if not all of the
> >>> "anomalous" acceleration can be attributed to *internal* thermal
> >>> emission, generated by the RTGs and internal electronics.
> >
> > I note no response.
>
> Your comments were noted, but you were referring to the wrong
> paper.
>
> This is the exact wording from the 2012 version linked above:
> Third, Fig. 2 is strongly suggestive that the previously reported
> "onset" of the Pioneer anomaly may in fact be a simple result of
> mismodeling of the solar thermal contribution; this question may
> be resolved with further analysis of early trajectory data.
> >>>> But such an error can't reside in the mismodelling of the solar
> >>>> reflection/absorption characteristics of the HGA dish because
> >>>> that was accurately determined prior to launch,
> >>>
> >>> Just a side note, but thermal coatings do degrade over time, due
> >>> to exposure to solar UV as well as ionizing radiation (white
> >>> coatings become darker). So one can't be so certain about these
> >>> properties. That was one of the aspects covered by the thermal
> >>> analysis reported in Turyshev et al's 2012 paper.
>
> You apparently agree that the RTG surface coating becomes darker
> over time due to both solar radiation and radiation from within
> follow the RTG line, **not the solar radiation pressure curve.** ...
Your writing appears to be motivated by intuition, but that is not the case. You can find a more correct and physics- and engineering-motivated discussion in books like "Spacecraft Thermal Control Handbook." Also, there are quite a few reference books on the degradation of thermal coatings from the time in the public domain.
Almost all known thermal coatings degrade w.r.t. the optical properties (the "alpha" coefficient), but do *not* significantly change w.r.t the infrared emission properties (the "epsilon" coefficient), including the coatings used on Pioneer. Therefore, your assumptions are irrelevant.
But bringing back to your original point before you distracted... you wondered why analysts could not know the thermal/optical properties of the Pioneer coatings exactly today. I guess you concede now that it's more difficult than you first wondered.
> >>>> It's obvious that either Turyshev or Anderson made a fairly
> >>>> significant error. But it's strange that Anderson is deemed
> >>>> wrong when a significant number of others also demonstrated the
> >>>> existence of the anomaly, including yourself (2002)? Why should
> >>>> this new result override all others when the average result from
> >>>> all contributors well and truly favors the anomaly's existence?
> >>>> That's a funny way to do physics.
> >>>
> >>> What would be funny is to ALWAYS assume that the "average" of some
> >>> papers is relevant. ...
> >
> > I note no response.
> >>> But actually it's not true to say no one else was considering
> >>> thermal. ...
> >
> > I note no response.
>
> Most folk can understand that the thermal solution doesn't work.
> >> You act as though analysts from the 1970's were using a set of
> >> physical laws that analysts of today are not familiar with. But
> >> that's not the case at all. Even if modifications have been made
> >> to some of the physical laws the analysts of today would still
> >> know exactly how the first data points showing the onset of the
> >> anomaly were derived.
>
> > This is unsubstantiated. I am an analyst today of the Pioneer
> > doppler data, and I do not have enough information from that one
> > "onset" chart to understand how it was derived.
>
> But a discrepancy between observation and what was expected
> according to the prevailing physics at the time was clearly
> noted, and it continued to increase until the spacecraft reached
Non-sequitur. Your statement doesn't make it any easier for a Doppler analyst to reconstruct how the data analysis was done with early data.
And... if you read Anderson's paper, the discrepancy was clearly noted... in the 1980s far after the spacecraft had passed 20AU. There is nothing in the paper that I can find which references earlier times, aside from the figures you point out of unknown provenance.
> Which raises some questions here.
> What data was plugged into the 2012 Turyshev computer simulation?
> Were the RTG emissions and solar radiation pressures correctly
> represented?
> Or were they in fact mismodeled as was the
> assumption regarding Anderson's work?
> Does the simulation software contribute toward the outcome? If
> so, what was the programmer's information source?
Thermal modeling software also has many inputs. All the inputs for thermal/optical properties were taken from Pioneer engineering documentation, but error tolerances were also considered. *AND*, then the simulations were validated against actual spacecraft measured temperatures. This temperature record was not readily available for Anderson et al to use in 2001, but was for later work.
> In the end it comes down to unconditional belief.
> > So, please do not pretend that the state of affairs in the early
> > 1970s can really be compared to the state today.
> > The figure which you have referred to which shows the "onset" of
> > the acceleration, you have replotted. What you failed to show
> > was the uncertainty range (error bars) of the points. If you had
> > displayed those as well, you would have seen that the bars are
> > very large and that early data is not necessarily as stringent as
> > you say.
...
> > First of all, the quote is actually what Anderson et al. said in
> > their paper, not me. And second of all, what is your point?
> > If the goal is to accurately measure the "onset" of the anomaly,
> > then the early data which would or could have shown that is
> > largely lost forever. If the goal is to get an accurate measure
> > of the anomaly in late days (>20 AU) then the Anderson et al 2002
> > paper is just fine... but it doesn't prove or disprove any of
> > your claims then. Anderson's paper claims the acceleration is
> > consistent with being constant, quite the opposite of your claim!
>
> But he does acknowledge that there was an observed onset of the
> anomaly which indicated a deviation from well known standard
> physics at the time.
Who acknowledges it? As I noted above, aside from the figures from unknown sources which you care to reproduce deceptively (see above), Anderson et al 2002 do not mention an "onset" in the paper.
> > their paper, not me. And second of all, what is your point?
> > If the goal is to accurately measure the "onset" of the anomaly,
> > then the early data which would or could have shown that is
> > largely lost forever. If the goal is to get an accurate measure
> > of the anomaly in late days (>20 AU) then the Anderson et al 2002
> > paper is just fine... but it doesn't prove or disprove any of
> > your claims then. Anderson's paper claims the acceleration is
> > consistent with being constant, quite the opposite of your claim!
>
> But he does acknowledge that there was an observed onset of the
> anomaly which indicated a deviation from well known standard
> physics at the time.
Again, I note that Anderson's claim is that the Pioneer anomaly is consistent with being constant. There was no evidence in the data available for something varying with time. This completely undercuts your own conclusion.
CM
old...@yahoo.it
May 5, 2017, 4:07:49 AM5/5/17
to
.. could somebody give to me the email address of Mauro De Benedetto , rocket trajectory 'analist ?
msk...@optusnet.com.au
May 5, 2017, 8:08:05 PM5/5/17
to
On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 6:52:52 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
---
---
My paragraph above is exactly as presented in Turyshev's paper.
You will find it in the conclusion section.
> Previous work *ALWAYS* considered solar thermal recoil forces,
> and could not explain the anomaly. Again, the new thing in the
> Turyshev et al 2012 paper was inclusion of internally-generated
> thermal terms, and this is what "tipped the balance."
What exactly are the physical properties of these thermal terms?
Do they represent new physics that Anderson was unaware of back
in 2002?
>>>>>> But such an error can't reside in the mismodelling of the solar
>>>>>> reflection/absorption characteristics of the HGA dish because
>>>>>> that was accurately determined prior to launch,
>>>>>
>>>>> Just a side note, but thermal coatings do degrade over time, due
>>>>> to exposure to solar UV as well as ionizing radiation (white
>>>>> coatings become darker). So one can't be so certain about these
>>>>> properties. That was one of the aspects covered by the thermal
>>>>> analysis reported in Turyshev et al's 2012 paper.
>>
>> You apparently agree that the RTG surface coating becomes darker
>>> over time due to both solar radiation and radiation from within
>> the RTG's. ... The pressure gradient will
>> follow the RTG line, **not the solar radiation pressure curve.** ...
I'll re-write the paragraphs you've intentionally corrupted
because they demonstrate Turyshev's error exactly. You could
perhaps explain how your "thermal terms" overcome these problems.
+ You apparently agree that the RTG surface coating becomes darker
+ over time due to both solar radiation and radiation from within
+ the RTG's. But if in the unlikely event where RTG radiation
+ increases reflectivity, solar radiation would do likewise.
+
+ From RTG based darkening alone, all RTG surfaces will fade at the
+ same almost linear rate. The consequent solar radiation pressure
+ shortfall will deviate from the normally expected pressure and
+ reduce at that same rate as well. The pressure gradient will
+ follow the RTG line, **not the solar radiation pressure curve.**
+
+ http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/solrtg.jpg
+
+ But surface darkening attributable to solar radiation will alter
+ exponentially. Theory may predict that this darkening will
+ significantly add to the inward acceleration closer to the sun
+ and taper off in a manner which compares with the Pioneer
+ anomaly over increasing distance, but that's not the case at all.
+ The darker sun facing surface will now radiate more of the RTG
+ internal thermal energy than the back face, overwhelming the
+ absorption capability of the solar radiation, thus driving the
+ spacecraft outward.
If you tell me it won't, I won't believe you.
> Your writing appears to be motivated by intuition, but that is not
> the case. You can find a more correct and physics- and
> engineering-motivated discussion in books like "Spacecraft Thermal
> Control Handbook." Also, there are quite a few reference books
> on the degradation of thermal coatings from the time in the public
> domain.
>
> Almost all known thermal coatings degrade w.r.t. the optical
> properties (the "alpha" coefficient), but do *not* significantly
> change w.r.t the infrared emission properties (the "epsilon"
> coefficient), including the coatings used on Pioneer. Therefore,
> your assumptions are irrelevant.
However you wish to define "optical properties", one thing
that's certain is that if a paint surface deteriorates and
becomes more absorptive, it will also become equally more
emissive. And that's where the Turyshev solution fails. He has
obviously made wrong assumptions in this area.
> But bringing back to your original point before you distracted...
> you wondered why analysts could not know the thermal/optical
> properties of the Pioneer coatings exactly today. I guess you
> concede now that it's more difficult than you first wondered.
So what! If the paint surfaces facing the sun increased solar
thermal absorption into the RTG's by any amount, solar radiation
pressure will be reduced, but the emissive power emanating from
those surfaces will still be greater than the absorption and the
spacecraft will be driven away from the sun.
The only way the spacecraft can be driven toward the sun is if
the sun facing surfaces become more reflective. And that's not
a viable option.
>>>>>> It's obvious that either Turyshev or Anderson made a fairly
>>>>>> significant error. But it's strange that Anderson is deemed
>>>>>> wrong when a significant number of others also demonstrated the
>>>>>> existence of the anomaly, including yourself (2002)? Why should
>>>>>> this new result override all others when the average result from
>>>>>> all contributors well and truly favors the anomaly's existence?
>>>>>> That's a funny way to do physics.
>>>>>
>>>>> What would be funny is to ALWAYS assume that the "average" of some
>>>>> papers is relevant. ...
>>>
>>> I note no response.
>
> Still no response.
This does warrant a reply.
I was once given this response when I questioned the validity of
one of the religious beliefs; "There are literally millions of
scriptures confirming what I believe, so it must be true." But
you and I both know that no matter how full the wheelbarrow is,
it can never be a measure of reality.
>>>>> But actually it's not true to say no one else was considering
>>>>> thermal. ...
>>>
>>> I note no response.
>>
>> Most folk can understand that the thermal solution doesn't work.
>
> "Most folk?" That's a rather unsubstantiated throwaway claim.
> It was *you* who claimed that everybody except for Turyshev et
> al 2012 had ignored the thermal origin, and I had to point out
> the error of your statement.
Did you??? Where did I say they ignored it?
>>>> You act as though analysts from the 1970's were using a set of
>>>> physical laws that analysts of today are not familiar with. But
>>>> that's not the case at all. Even if modifications have been made
>>>> to some of the physical laws the analysts of today would still
>>>> know exactly how the first data points showing the onset of the
>>>> anomaly were derived.
>>
>>> This is unsubstantiated. I am an analyst today of the Pioneer
>>> doppler data, and I do not have enough information from that one
>>> "onset" chart to understand how it was derived.
>>
>>> But a discrepancy between observation and what was expected
>> according to the prevailing physics at the time was clearly
>> noted, and it continued to increase until the spacecraft reached
>> the 20 AU mark. ...
>
> Non-sequitur. Your statement doesn't make it any easier for a
> Doppler analyst to reconstruct how the data analysis was done with
> early data.
>
> And... if you read Anderson's paper, the discrepancy was clearly
> noted... in the 1980s far after the spacecraft had passed 20AU.
> There is nothing in the paper that I can find which references
> earlier times, aside from the figures you point out of unknown
> provenance.
Check the graph Anderson provides. It clearly shows the onset
of the anomaly. He may not have done the calculations for the
first few data points but they still warranted inclusion.
John Anderson et al: Study of the anomalous acceleration of
Pioneer 10 and 11
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064v5
There's nothing constant about that curve. The only difference
between that and my graph is the in the x/y ratio.
---
Snip more of the same.
---
-----
Max Keon
---
---
You will find it in the conclusion section.
> Previous work *ALWAYS* considered solar thermal recoil forces,
> and could not explain the anomaly. Again, the new thing in the
> Turyshev et al 2012 paper was inclusion of internally-generated
> thermal terms, and this is what "tipped the balance."
Do they represent new physics that Anderson was unaware of back
in 2002?
>>>>>> But such an error can't reside in the mismodelling of the solar
>>>>>> reflection/absorption characteristics of the HGA dish because
>>>>>> that was accurately determined prior to launch,
>>>>>
>>>>> Just a side note, but thermal coatings do degrade over time, due
>>>>> to exposure to solar UV as well as ionizing radiation (white
>>>>> coatings become darker). So one can't be so certain about these
>>>>> properties. That was one of the aspects covered by the thermal
>>>>> analysis reported in Turyshev et al's 2012 paper.
>>
>> You apparently agree that the RTG surface coating becomes darker
>>> over time due to both solar radiation and radiation from within
>> the RTG's. ... The pressure gradient will
>> follow the RTG line, **not the solar radiation pressure curve.** ...
because they demonstrate Turyshev's error exactly. You could
perhaps explain how your "thermal terms" overcome these problems.
+ You apparently agree that the RTG surface coating becomes darker
+ over time due to both solar radiation and radiation from within
+ the RTG's. But if in the unlikely event where RTG radiation
+ increases reflectivity, solar radiation would do likewise.
+
+ From RTG based darkening alone, all RTG surfaces will fade at the
+ same almost linear rate. The consequent solar radiation pressure
+ shortfall will deviate from the normally expected pressure and
+ reduce at that same rate as well. The pressure gradient will
+ follow the RTG line, **not the solar radiation pressure curve.**
+
+ http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/solrtg.jpg
+
+ But surface darkening attributable to solar radiation will alter
+ exponentially. Theory may predict that this darkening will
+ significantly add to the inward acceleration closer to the sun
+ and taper off in a manner which compares with the Pioneer
+ anomaly over increasing distance, but that's not the case at all.
+ The darker sun facing surface will now radiate more of the RTG
+ internal thermal energy than the back face, overwhelming the
+ absorption capability of the solar radiation, thus driving the
+ spacecraft outward.
If you tell me it won't, I won't believe you.
> Your writing appears to be motivated by intuition, but that is not
> the case. You can find a more correct and physics- and
> engineering-motivated discussion in books like "Spacecraft Thermal
> Control Handbook." Also, there are quite a few reference books
> on the degradation of thermal coatings from the time in the public
> domain.
>
> Almost all known thermal coatings degrade w.r.t. the optical
> properties (the "alpha" coefficient), but do *not* significantly
> change w.r.t the infrared emission properties (the "epsilon"
> coefficient), including the coatings used on Pioneer. Therefore,
> your assumptions are irrelevant.
that's certain is that if a paint surface deteriorates and
becomes more absorptive, it will also become equally more
emissive. And that's where the Turyshev solution fails. He has
obviously made wrong assumptions in this area.
> But bringing back to your original point before you distracted...
> you wondered why analysts could not know the thermal/optical
> properties of the Pioneer coatings exactly today. I guess you
> concede now that it's more difficult than you first wondered.
thermal absorption into the RTG's by any amount, solar radiation
pressure will be reduced, but the emissive power emanating from
those surfaces will still be greater than the absorption and the
spacecraft will be driven away from the sun.
The only way the spacecraft can be driven toward the sun is if
the sun facing surfaces become more reflective. And that's not
a viable option.
>>>>>> It's obvious that either Turyshev or Anderson made a fairly
>>>>>> significant error. But it's strange that Anderson is deemed
>>>>>> wrong when a significant number of others also demonstrated the
>>>>>> existence of the anomaly, including yourself (2002)? Why should
>>>>>> this new result override all others when the average result from
>>>>>> all contributors well and truly favors the anomaly's existence?
>>>>>> That's a funny way to do physics.
>>>>>
>>>>> What would be funny is to ALWAYS assume that the "average" of some
>>>>> papers is relevant. ...
>>>
>>> I note no response.
>
> Still no response.
I was once given this response when I questioned the validity of
one of the religious beliefs; "There are literally millions of
scriptures confirming what I believe, so it must be true." But
you and I both know that no matter how full the wheelbarrow is,
it can never be a measure of reality.
>>>>> But actually it's not true to say no one else was considering
>>>>> thermal. ...
>>>
>>> I note no response.
>>
>> Most folk can understand that the thermal solution doesn't work.
>
> "Most folk?" That's a rather unsubstantiated throwaway claim.
> It was *you* who claimed that everybody except for Turyshev et
> al 2012 had ignored the thermal origin, and I had to point out
> the error of your statement.
>>>> You act as though analysts from the 1970's were using a set of
>>>> physical laws that analysts of today are not familiar with. But
>>>> that's not the case at all. Even if modifications have been made
>>>> to some of the physical laws the analysts of today would still
>>>> know exactly how the first data points showing the onset of the
>>>> anomaly were derived.
>>
>>> This is unsubstantiated. I am an analyst today of the Pioneer
>>> doppler data, and I do not have enough information from that one
>>> "onset" chart to understand how it was derived.
>>
>>> But a discrepancy between observation and what was expected
>> according to the prevailing physics at the time was clearly
>> noted, and it continued to increase until the spacecraft reached
>> the 20 AU mark. ...
>
> Non-sequitur. Your statement doesn't make it any easier for a
> Doppler analyst to reconstruct how the data analysis was done with
> early data.
>
> And... if you read Anderson's paper, the discrepancy was clearly
> noted... in the 1980s far after the spacecraft had passed 20AU.
> There is nothing in the paper that I can find which references
> earlier times, aside from the figures you point out of unknown
> provenance.
of the anomaly. He may not have done the calculations for the
first few data points but they still warranted inclusion.
John Anderson et al: Study of the anomalous acceleration of
Pioneer 10 and 11
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064v5
There's nothing constant about that curve. The only difference
between that and my graph is the in the x/y ratio.
---
Snip more of the same.
---
-----
Max Keon
Craig Markwardt
May 8, 2017, 5:27:45 PM5/8/17
to
The quote you are referring to is a single sentence in the entire paper. It *SUGGESTS* that the "early data" points in the chart you like to refer to, *may* be because the early analysts erroneously did not account for internal heat generation. Not the entire anomaly, as you originally stated, but the early data. And it is a speculative suggestion in the final words of the paper. You don't see any quantitative or detailed substantiation of that speculation; rather, the authors forsaw perhaps further work as a way to flesh it out more.
> > Previous work *ALWAYS* considered solar thermal recoil forces,
> > and could not explain the anomaly. Again, the new thing in the
> > Turyshev et al 2012 paper was inclusion of internally-generated
> > thermal terms, and this is what "tipped the balance."
>
> What exactly are the physical properties of these thermal terms?
> Do they represent new physics that Anderson was unaware of back
> in 2002?
And, if you had bothered to read my other responses, you would be aware that (a) Anderson et al in 2002 did a more simplified modeling analysis (i.e. it was not "new physics," but rather model fidelity) (b) Anderson did not have access to temperature and other thermal data during the actual mission, that did become available later (Viktor Toth spent a large amount of time recovering old data disks with mission data). (c) The team "discovered" or at least had more time to consider pre-launch thermal engineering documents that Anderson did not. And (d) there was time to develop a high fidelity thermal model of the Pioneer spacecraft and validate it against actual mission temperature data.
> >>>>>> But such an error can't reside in the mismodelling of the solar
> >>>>>> reflection/absorption characteristics of the HGA dish because
> >>>>>> that was accurately determined prior to launch,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just a side note, but thermal coatings do degrade over time, due
> >>>>> to exposure to solar UV as well as ionizing radiation (white
> >>>>> coatings become darker). So one can't be so certain about these
> >>>>> properties. That was one of the aspects covered by the thermal
> >>>>> analysis reported in Turyshev et al's 2012 paper.
> >>
> >> You apparently agree that the RTG surface coating becomes darker
> >>> over time due to both solar radiation and radiation from within
> >> the RTG's. ... The pressure gradient will
> >> follow the RTG line, **not the solar radiation pressure curve.** ...
>
> I'll re-write the paragraphs you've intentionally corrupted
> because they demonstrate Turyshev's error exactly. You could
> perhaps explain how your "thermal terms" overcome these problems.
> > Almost all known thermal coatings degrade w.r.t. the optical
> > properties (the "alpha" coefficient), but do *not* significantly
> > change w.r.t the infrared emission properties (the "epsilon"
> > coefficient), including the coatings used on Pioneer. Therefore,
> > your assumptions are irrelevant.
>
> However you wish to define "optical properties", one thing
> that's certain is that if a paint surface deteriorates and
> becomes more absorptive, it will also become equally more
Incorrect. Optical (reflective) properties of most thermal coatings, including the coatings in question for Pioneer, do degrade. But the infrared emissivity properties do *NOT* change significantly. I referred you to a textbook on the matter, but you ignored it.
Here, let me quote for you,
"Thermal-control finishes are affected in orbit by charged particles, ultraviolet (UV) radiation, high vacuum, and the contaminant films that deposit out on almost all spacecraft surfaces. The general result of these processes is an increase in solar absorptivity with little or no effect on IR emittance." (Spacecraft Thermal Control Handbook, 2002, p. 143) But if you read onward, there are like twenty pages about degradation, why it occurs, etc.
There have been long-term studies of degradation on the International space station (Fig 4.12) which show optical but not infrared degradation.
There have been detailed studies of the reflective properties of the Cassini high gain reflector (which has temperature sensing; di Bennetto, "The non-gravitational accelerations of the Cassini spacecraft ..." 2001) which show the same.
There was work in the late 1960s and early 1970s which showed the same for the exact thermal coatings used by Pioneer (e.g. Mayer et al. 1969, "Investigation of Spacecraft Coatings," NASA CR-61267; Broadway 1971, "Radiation Effects Design Handbook, Section 2. Thermal-Control Coatings").
So whatever you do or don't want me to tell you, your intuition is incorrect, so there's no need for me to re-quote your paragraphs or engage further in your unfounded speculations about Turyshev's work. And let me say, if you claim to be serious about this, then would be well-advised to learn about all of these effects. I did.
> > But bringing back to your original point before you distracted...
> > you wondered why analysts could not know the thermal/optical
> > properties of the Pioneer coatings exactly today. I guess you
> > concede now that it's more difficult than you first wondered.
>
Interesting rebuttal. I'm so glad you acknowledge that your original speculation about knowing Pioneer thermal/optical properties exactly today was not substantiated.
> >>>>>> It's obvious that either Turyshev or Anderson made a fairly
> >>>>>> significant error. But it's strange that Anderson is deemed
> >>>>>> wrong when a significant number of others also demonstrated the
> >>>>>> existence of the anomaly, including yourself (2002)? Why should
> >>>>>> this new result override all others when the average result from
> >>>>>> all contributors well and truly favors the anomaly's existence?
> >>>>>> That's a funny way to do physics.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What would be funny is to ALWAYS assume that the "average" of some
> >>>>> papers is relevant. ...
> >>>
> >>> I note no response.
> >
> > Still no response.
>
> This does warrant a reply.
> I was once given this response when I questioned the validity of
> one of the religious beliefs; "There are literally millions of
> scriptures confirming what I believe, so it must be true." But
> you and I both know that no matter how full the wheelbarrow is,
> it can never be a measure of reality.
> >>>>> But actually it's not true to say no one else was considering
> >>>>> thermal. ...
> >>>
> >>> I note no response.
> >>
> >> Most folk can understand that the thermal solution doesn't work.
> >
> > "Most folk?" That's a rather unsubstantiated throwaway claim.
> > It was *you* who claimed that everybody except for Turyshev et
> > al 2012 had ignored the thermal origin, and I had to point out
> > the error of your statement.
>
> Did you??? Where did I say they ignored it?
> >>>> You act as though analysts from the 1970's were using a set of
> >>>> physical laws that analysts of today are not familiar with. But
> >>>> that's not the case at all. Even if modifications have been made
> >>>> to some of the physical laws the analysts of today would still
> >>>> know exactly how the first data points showing the onset of the
> >>>> anomaly were derived.
> >>
> >>> This is unsubstantiated. I am an analyst today of the Pioneer
> >>> doppler data, and I do not have enough information from that one
> >>> "onset" chart to understand how it was derived.
> >>
> >>> But a discrepancy between observation and what was expected
> >> according to the prevailing physics at the time was clearly
> >> noted, and it continued to increase until the spacecraft reached
> >> the 20 AU mark. ...
> >
> > Non-sequitur. Your statement doesn't make it any easier for a
> > Doppler analyst to reconstruct how the data analysis was done with
> > early data.
> > And... if you read Anderson's paper, the discrepancy was clearly
> > noted... in the 1980s far after the spacecraft had passed 20AU.
> > There is nothing in the paper that I can find which references
> > earlier times, aside from the figures you point out of unknown
> > provenance.
>
> Check the graph Anderson provides. It clearly shows the onset
> of the anomaly. He may not have done the calculations for the
> first few data points but they still warranted inclusion.
> John Anderson et al: Study of the anomalous acceleration of
> Pioneer 10 and 11
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064v5
>
> There's nothing constant about that curve. The only difference
> between that and my graph is the in the x/y ratio.
But that is also quite beside the point. The reason that Anderson placed that graph in the paper was for historical context. To paraphrase, "Past analysts' work suggested there may be an onset." That's about it! There is no quantitative or detailed discussion about the contents those figures. And no reproduction of the results of those figures. Those two figures are neither confirmed nor refuted by Anderson's actual work.
And, if you had actually bothered to get past the historical context section, you would have found the authors spent a lot of effort to measure a change of "anomalous acceleration," and they were *NOT* able to do so with the data at hand (they broke it into batches, etc). I did a different approach, which is to consider a "jerk" to the acceleration, which is equivalent to a smoothly changing acceleration. But I did not detect such a thing.
As I pointed out many times before, by the time of 2012, Turshev had several advantages. New radiometric tracking data became available for analysis, including several more years of "deep space" cruise, as well as Saturn and Jupiter encounter data (Turyshev et al 2011). The original thermal engineering documents came to light, which were not available to Anderson et al (Turyshev et al 2012). The actual mission thermal telemetry became available, when it was not available to Anderson et al (Toth & Turyshev 2006).
I'm guessing you're going revert to some variation of the "we'll just have to take it on unconditional faith" argument. But I 'll reiterate that Turyshev's effort was validated based on the use of standard software, verified many times; using documented thermal engineering properties; and validated against the actual Pioneer temperature data. This is not faith, but substantiated and validated thermal modeling.
CM
old...@yahoo.it
May 14, 2017, 3:50:09 AM5/14/17
to
msk...@optusnet.com.au
May 14, 2017, 7:13:47 AM5/14/17
to
On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 7:27:45 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 8:08:05 PM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 6:52:52 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:25:16 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
---
> On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 8:08:05 PM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 6:52:52 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:25:16 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
---
>>>> Your comments were noted, but you were referring to the wrong
>>>> paper.
>>>>
>>>> This is the exact wording from the 2012 version linked above:
>>>> Third, Fig. 2 is strongly suggestive that the previously reported
>>>> "onset" of the Pioneer anomaly may in fact be a simple result of
>>>> mismodeling of the solar thermal contribution; this question may
>>>> be resolved with further analysis of early trajectory data.
>>>
>>> Nope, you are incorrect. The 2012 paper concludes that "thermal
>>> recoil" is the explanation for the Pioneer anomaly. But not
>>> *solar* thermal. Or rather, the *new* thing of that paper is
>>> that by including the *internal* thermal effects (RTGs and
>>> electrical compartment dissipation) the anomaly is resolved.
>>
>> My paragraph above is exactly as presented in Turyshev's paper.
>> You will find it in the conclusion section.
>
> OK, I acknowledge that quote now, but you are still incorrect.
> The conclusion of the paper is that *internally generated*
> thermal recoil force is a signifcant effect that has to be newly
> reckoned.
>
> The quote you are referring to is a single sentence in the entire
> paper. It *SUGGESTS* that the "early data" points in the chart
> you like to refer to, *may* be because the early analysts
> erroneously did not account for internal heat generation. Not
> the entire anomaly, as you originally stated, but the early data.
But Anderson did include a fairly convincing argument in his
>>>> paper.
>>>>
>>>> This is the exact wording from the 2012 version linked above:
>>>> Third, Fig. 2 is strongly suggestive that the previously reported
>>>> "onset" of the Pioneer anomaly may in fact be a simple result of
>>>> mismodeling of the solar thermal contribution; this question may
>>>> be resolved with further analysis of early trajectory data.
>>>
>>> Nope, you are incorrect. The 2012 paper concludes that "thermal
>>> recoil" is the explanation for the Pioneer anomaly. But not
>>> *solar* thermal. Or rather, the *new* thing of that paper is
>>> that by including the *internal* thermal effects (RTGs and
>>> electrical compartment dissipation) the anomaly is resolved.
>>
>> My paragraph above is exactly as presented in Turyshev's paper.
>> You will find it in the conclusion section.
>
> OK, I acknowledge that quote now, but you are still incorrect.
> The conclusion of the paper is that *internally generated*
> thermal recoil force is a signifcant effect that has to be newly
> reckoned.
>
> The quote you are referring to is a single sentence in the entire
> paper. It *SUGGESTS* that the "early data" points in the chart
> you like to refer to, *may* be because the early analysts
> erroneously did not account for internal heat generation. Not
> the entire anomaly, as you originally stated, but the early data.
analysis which demonstrated that internally generated heat could
not cause the Pioneer anomaly.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064v5
"V111. SOURCES OF SYSTEMATIC ERROR INTERNAL TO THE SPACECRAFT"
I can't imagine how the anomaly could be generated within the
scope of the possible errors he could have made. I certainly
can't see this. And in this following paragraph, what exactly
"tipped the balance" ? I'm still lost here.
---
---
>>> Previous work *ALWAYS* considered solar thermal recoil forces,
>>> and could not explain the anomaly. Again, the new thing in the
>>> Turyshev et al 2012 paper was inclusion of internally-generated
>>> thermal terms, and this is what "tipped the balance."
>>
>> What exactly are the physical properties of these thermal terms?
>> Do they represent new physics that Anderson was unaware of back
>> in 2002?
>
> Hey, you asked this question, I responded that you could read
> Turyshev et al's 2012 paper for details, and you conveniently
> deleted that response. Why do you ask again?
>
> And, if you had bothered to read my other responses, you would
> be aware that (a) Anderson et al in 2002 did a more simplified
> modeling analysis (i.e. it was not "new physics," but rather
> model fidelity) (b) Anderson did not have access to temperature
> and other thermal data during the actual mission, that did become
> available later (Viktor Toth spent a large amount of time
> recovering old data disks with mission data). (c) The team
> "discovered" or at least had more time to consider pre-launch
> thermal engineering documents that Anderson did not. And (d)
> there was time to develop a high fidelity thermal model of the
> Pioneer spacecraft and validate it against actual mission
> temperature data.
None of that can override Anderson's very fundamental logic. It's
>>> and could not explain the anomaly. Again, the new thing in the
>>> Turyshev et al 2012 paper was inclusion of internally-generated
>>> thermal terms, and this is what "tipped the balance."
>>
>> What exactly are the physical properties of these thermal terms?
>> Do they represent new physics that Anderson was unaware of back
>> in 2002?
>
> Hey, you asked this question, I responded that you could read
> Turyshev et al's 2012 paper for details, and you conveniently
> deleted that response. Why do you ask again?
>
> And, if you had bothered to read my other responses, you would
> be aware that (a) Anderson et al in 2002 did a more simplified
> modeling analysis (i.e. it was not "new physics," but rather
> model fidelity) (b) Anderson did not have access to temperature
> and other thermal data during the actual mission, that did become
> available later (Viktor Toth spent a large amount of time
> recovering old data disks with mission data). (c) The team
> "discovered" or at least had more time to consider pre-launch
> thermal engineering documents that Anderson did not. And (d)
> there was time to develop a high fidelity thermal model of the
> Pioneer spacecraft and validate it against actual mission
> temperature data.
not handwaving by any means. So which part did he get wrong??
"V111. SOURCES OF SYSTEMATIC ERROR INTERNAL TO THE SPACECRAFT"
---
---
>>> Almost all known thermal coatings degrade w.r.t. the optical
>>> properties (the "alpha" coefficient), but do *not* significantly
>>> change w.r.t the infrared emission properties (the "epsilon"
>>> coefficient), including the coatings used on Pioneer. Therefore,
>>> your assumptions are irrelevant.
>>
>> However you wish to define "optical properties", one thing
>> that's certain is that if a paint surface deteriorates and
>> becomes more absorptive, it will also become equally more
>> emissive. ...
>
> Incorrect. Optical (reflective) properties of most thermal
> coatings, including the coatings in question for Pioneer, do
> degrade. But the infrared emissivity properties do *NOT*
> change significantly. I referred you to a textbook on the
> matter, but you ignored it.
>
> Here, let me quote for you,
> "Thermal-control finishes are affected in orbit by charged
> particles, ultraviolet (UV) radiation, high vacuum, and the
> contaminant films that deposit out on almost all spacecraft
> surfaces. The general result of these processes is an increase
> in solar absorptivity with little or no effect on IR
> emittance."
increased solar absorptivity, there's no doubt at all that the
energy must come out again. Otherwise the temperature of the
affected object will increase forever. Or is the reference to an
onboard energy source, where the emittance remains constant as
the surfaces degrade? I'll assume this to be the case.
> (Spacecraft Thermal Control Handbook, 2002, p. 143)
> But if you read onward, there are like twenty pages about
> degradation, why it occurs, etc.
>
> There have been long-term studies of degradation on the
> International space station (Fig 4.12) which show optical but
> not infrared degradation.
circumstances?
Let's bring it all back to the earth's surface and apply normal
physical principles.
My solar hot water system provides a proper insight into the
consequences of the principles involved. It's a "stand alone"
system which consists of an array of six solar panels connected
in parallel, giving a maximum total output of 50 amps at 32 volts
(1600 watts). The heating element wire diameter is 2.57mm and
that's formed into a coil which is 2mm diameter less than the
bore of the tube into which it's fitted.
Earlier elements failed because they were placed inside a ceramic
tube, which obviously required a much greater core temperature so
that the 1600 watt input could be transferred to the water. They
failed because the required core temperature was too high.
**There's no doubt that if 1600 watts is put in, 1600 watts will
eventually come out**.
If the element tube is placed in an open air environment the
tube temperature will rise until 1600 watts of thermal energy
is transferred at the tube/air interface. Temperature sensors
placed around the tube would all read the same.
If (e.g.) 1/2 of the element circumference is shielded by a long
ceramic insulator, placed inside the tube, a lesser temperature
will be recorded adjacent to the insulator. But the total must
still add up to 1600 watts.
Now place the part shielded element tube in a vacuum. The only
means of transferring the thermal energy is via radiation. The
whole assembly would of course melt long before 1600 watts could
be transferred via the vacuum. But now there's a significant time
delay involved in the process of pumping the temperature up to
the required level. Thermal conduction around the tube housing
would quickly smooth out the temperature asymmetries.
So it really doesn't matter where the sun is relative to a
Pioneer spacecraft. All absorbed solar thermal energy will
conduct throughout all contacting surfaces, adding to the general
temperature. It would take some time before full emissive
capability could be achieved. In the meantime, thermal energy is
conducting to the lower temperature areas, ironing out the bumps.
The ratio of conducted thermal energy per radiative thermal
energy for a given temperature is not 1/1. Nothing like it. The
temperature differential between the two means of transferring
energy vastly favors conduction, so the temperature will continue
to rise fairly uniformly throughout all contacting parts of the
spacecraft until the absorbed energy rate is matched by the
emission rate. And it will be emitted globally from all parts of
the spacecraft at roughly the same rate. So, apart from a reduced
solar radiation pressure, the drive from absorbed solar thermal
energy is virtually zero.
These two statements were derived from chapter V111 in the above
link;
(1) The RTG coating was designed to give .9 emissivity and .2
absorptivity.
(2) The fore and aft emissivity would need to change by 10% to
account for the Pioneer anomaly.
So all that's left to drive the spacecraft inward are, the RTG
reflections off the back of the HGA dish which diminish in power
as the rear surfaces deteriorate, a solar radiation pressure
error which becomes less significant with distance, and an
emissivity difference between the fore and aft faces of the
RTG's, even though your earlier quote appears to reject such a
thing; "contaminant films deposit out on almost all spacecraft
surfaces. The general result of these processes is an increase
in solar absorptivity with little or no effect on IR emittance".
Changing the absorptivity of any RTG face isn't going to affect
in solar absorptivity with little or no effect on IR emittance".
the emissive power generated from within the RTG's. Decreasing IR
emittance from the front face of the RTG's is the only way to
cancel the anomaly. And solar radiation is all that's left to do
the job. The rate of degradation of the RTG sun facing surfaces
would then follow a solar radiation pressure style curve. But
that doesn't compare with the Pioneer anomaly at all.
Even if the front face of the HGA dish was affected by solar
radiation in a manner that would increase solar thermal
absorptivity the same curve would result.
The reflective surface of the HGA dish was also covered in the
same contaminates as the rest of the spacecraft yet it was still
capable of reflecting audible signals to the onboard receiver at
distances beyond 80 AU. The reflective surface certainly hadn't
deteriorated too much.
-----
Max Keon
Craig Markwardt
May 15, 2017, 1:34:55 PM5/15/17
to
On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 3:50:09 AM UTC-4, old...@yahoo.it wrote:
> ... are you again there ? .... consider the point of max anomaly or the point of max changement of anomaly ! .. and so you understand the uselessness to discuss around the RTG or similar things for resolving the Pioneer anomaly .. i think ..
Not really. From the best available Doppler tracking data, dating from about 1980 and onward, the "anomaly" is quite constant. But also, the generated heat is rather constant as well, so it is difficult to disentangle these two effects. Turyshev's 2012 work showed that the emissive heat is compatible with the Doppler tracking data.
> ... are you again there ? .... consider the point of max anomaly or the point of max changement of anomaly ! .. and so you understand the uselessness to discuss around the RTG or similar things for resolving the Pioneer anomaly .. i think ..
CM
Craig Markwardt
May 15, 2017, 2:36:17 PM5/15/17
to
> But Anderson did include a fairly convincing argument in his
> analysis which demonstrated that internally generated heat could
> not cause the Pioneer anomaly.
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064v5
> "V111. SOURCES OF SYSTEMATIC ERROR INTERNAL TO THE SPACECRAFT"
>
> I can't imagine how the anomaly could be generated within the
> scope of the possible errors he could have made. I certainly
> can't see this. And in this following paragraph, what exactly
> "tipped the balance" ? I'm still lost here.
I think the key thing that Anderson’s discussion could not have known at the time, is that whether or not the equipment compartment louvers are open or closed, most of the heat generated inside the compartment escapes out the fore platform surface, and that is enough to account for much of the anomaly.
> > Here, let me quote for you,
> > "Thermal-control finishes are affected in orbit by charged
> > particles, ultraviolet (UV) radiation, high vacuum, and the
> > contaminant films that deposit out on almost all spacecraft
> > surfaces. The general result of these processes is an increase
> > in solar absorptivity with little or no effect on IR
> > emittance."
>
> That makes no sense. If energy is continually pumped in through
> increased solar absorptivity, there's no doubt at all that the
> energy must come out again. Otherwise the temperature of the
It’s unfortunate it doesn’t make sense to you. Yes, there is a thermal balance between energy received (related to optical absorptance alpha), energy emitted (related to infrared emittance epsilon) and temperature. If alpha increases while epsilon is constant, then yes, the temperature increases.
> So it really doesn't matter where the sun is relative to a
> Pioneer spacecraft. All absorbed solar thermal energy will
> conduct throughout all contacting surfaces, adding to the general
> temperature.
But let’s summarize the issues you seem to be “lost” about.
1. You continue to mention that somehow Turyshev’s 2012 work is about “solar thermal” when that is incorrect. It is about solar thermal yes, but mostly about internally-generated thermal. When noted, you ignore or distract.
2. You continue to ask about what is in the Turyshev 2012 paper. I continue to refer you to it, but you ignore or distract.
3. You continue to ask about what is different between the Anderson 2001 and Turyshev 2012 works. I reply with detailed points, but you ignore or distract.
4. You continue to appeal to authority of Anderson’s work for thermal aspects. However, Anderson’s work in this topic is rather crude, and limited to point-like and plate-like approximations. Even Anderson noted that a higher fidelity model could be useful and Turyshev’s 2012 work accomplished it! You continue to ignore or distract from this point.
5. You continue to speculate how spacecraft thermal systems work based on your intuition. I’ve referred you to authoritative works, but you ignore.
6. You’ve speculated that somehow the curve of the anomaly “onset” from Anderson’s paper is somehow rock solid, when in fact nobody has been able to show the provenance of that curve, or to replicate it. You ignore this fact.
7. To bolster your case that the anomaly “onset” curve is real, you’ve decided that analysts from the 1970s were special wizards with more skill than today’s analysts. In fact, the opposite was the case: analysts of the time were still learning the craft. I provided citations to published papers about this. You conveniently ignore it.
8. You’ve tried to discount Turyshev’s 2012 work by claiming that it’s an outlier and that every other researcher could not agree with a thermal original. But these are false. Other researchers were considering a thermal origin and consistent with Turyshev’s 2012 work. You continue to ignore this.
9. You’ve speculated that it should be easy to know about or replicate the thermal quantities of the Pioneer systems. When the error of this statement was pointed out, you ignored or distracted.
So I ask again: if this is so important to you, why don’t you stop ignoring important things? This is a difficult and challenging subject. I took the time to learn what I needed to learn. Why don’t you?
CM
old...@yahoo.it
May 22, 2017, 4:01:01 AM5/22/17
to
The anomaly has yearly some changements ... changements of the 10-15% ..: the sun can stay between the earth and the Pioneer or the earth can look directly the rocket without the sun interposition ... so the difference in the anomaly'value becomes the 20-30% ... conclusion : if the earth should remain fixed in special positions , we should have differences in the anomaly of the 20-30% ... without discussing of RTG or interior leakages , can we do an hipothesis ? : the anomaly should be given by the distances that the rocket is marking .. and that is so true that the larger increasing (changement) of the anomaly'value is just when the earth is changing the speed relatively to the rochet of 30 km/s (sinusoidal inflection) ...
hypothesis in the hypothesis : it is the Raman effect ( scattering ) aging in the distance and vacuum differences ... nope, nope ... yespe , yespe ..
Craig Markwardt
May 22, 2017, 10:28:56 AM5/22/17
to
> The anomaly has yearly some changements ... changements of the 10-15% ..: the sun can stay between the earth and the Pioneer or the earth can look directly the rocket without the sun interposition ... so the difference in the anomaly'value becomes the 20-30%
This is not a correct assessment of the Pioneer "anomaly." There are no such changes of the magnitude of the anomaly with sun-earth-probe angle. What is the basis for your supposition?
CM
old...@yahoo.it
May 23, 2017, 6:36:48 AM5/23/17
to
Craig Markwardt
May 23, 2017, 3:40:24 PM5/23/17
to
The conclusion of the Anderson et al work is that the anomaly was constant to within the measurement tolerances. However, after the thermal result, the Turyshev et al work in 2012 concluded that the small variations in the measured "anomaly" were consistent with the thermal origin.
CM
msk...@optusnet.com.au
May 24, 2017, 11:42:40 PM5/24/17
to
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 4:36:17 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
>> But Anderson did include a fairly convincing argument in his
>> analysis which demonstrated that internally generated heat could
>> not cause the Pioneer anomaly.
>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064v5
>> "V111. SOURCES OF SYSTEMATIC ERROR INTERNAL TO THE SPACECRAFT"
>>
>> I can't imagine how the anomaly could be generated within the
>> scope of the possible errors he could have made. I certainly
>> can't see this. And in this following paragraph, what exactly
>> "tipped the balance" ? I'm still lost here.
>
> Actually, you are right, Anderson's arguments were fairly convincing
> FOR THE TIME. What happened is that the Turyshev et al 2012 work
> came up with *more convincing* evidence of what's going on. Heck,
> the section you quote says, "complete thermal/physical model of
>> But Anderson did include a fairly convincing argument in his
>> analysis which demonstrated that internally generated heat could
>> not cause the Pioneer anomaly.
>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064v5
>> "V111. SOURCES OF SYSTEMATIC ERROR INTERNAL TO THE SPACECRAFT"
>>
>> I can't imagine how the anomaly could be generated within the
>> scope of the possible errors he could have made. I certainly
>> can't see this. And in this following paragraph, what exactly
>> "tipped the balance" ? I'm still lost here.
>
> Actually, you are right, Anderson's arguments were fairly convincing
> FOR THE TIME. What happened is that the Turyshev et al 2012 work
> came up with *more convincing* evidence of what's going on. Heck,
> the spacecraft might be able to ascertain if there are any other
> unsuspected heat systematics," but then dismisses it. It turns out
> that was a premature dismissal. It doesn't take much to see that
> Anderson did a very crude estimate using simple geometry, when it
> is now clear a higher fidelity approach was required.
That's not so at all. Anderson dismissed the idea because it was
> unsuspected heat systematics," but then dismisses it. It turns out
> that was a premature dismissal. It doesn't take much to see that
> Anderson did a very crude estimate using simple geometry, when it
> is now clear a higher fidelity approach was required.
**CLEARLY** incapable of generating the Pioneer anomaly. Perhaps
you should read it again.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064v5
"V111. SOURCES OF SYSTEMATIC ERROR INTERNAL TO THE SPACECRAFT"
It's very clear that the key to Turyshev's success is in his
"V111. SOURCES OF SYSTEMATIC ERROR INTERNAL TO THE SPACECRAFT"
determination of the error margins relating to the RTG surface
coatings because the uncertainty provides 20% of the total error
budget.
In section X1 of Anderson's paper; POSSIBLE ORIGINS OF THE
SIGNAL; he lists many theories, ranging from slight variations to
known physics to completely new physics which attempt to explain
the anomaly, and they all get the thumbs down. Turyshev's
analysis is seriously flawed as well.
---
I've reinstalled the following three paragraphs from your
previous reply.
>>> There have been long-term studies of degradation on the International
>>> space station (Fig 4.12) which show optical but not infrared degradation.
be relevant here? i.e. If the amount of solar thermal energy
reflected off the ISS surfaces reduces, absorbed thermal energy
must increase by that amount. Otherwise where has the missing
thermal energy gone? If all surfaces have degraded equally and
the added thermal energy isn't freely emitted from the surfaces
the internal temperature will rise until it is. Infrared
emissions will always be exactly as expected.
Even if a local thermal energy source is absorbed into the
degraded surface it will still be immediately emitted because
the internal temperature is already altered to accommodate the
degraded emissive properties.
>>> There have been detailed studies of the reflective properties of the
>>> Cassini high gain reflector (which has temperature sensing; di Bennetto,
>>> "The non-gravitational accelerations of the Cassini spacecraft ..." 2001)
>>> which show the same.
The non-gravitational accelerations of the Cassini spacecraft
mission parameters didn't include extended flight times beyond
Saturn. But that's irrelevant to the proposal that the Pioneer
anomaly is generated by mismodelling of the thermal
characteristics of the onboard power sources. Radial velocity
is of no consequence either. So if Turyshev is right, the same
anomaly should be noted for Cassini, **at very least**. From
Anderson's paper the Cassini RTG's are much closer to the
spacecraft body than for Pioneer. If that distance is halved,
the consequences of reflection off the rear of the HGA dish will
be four times greater.
So how do you explain the non-gravitational acceleration of
Cassini ???
My proposal isn't related to radial velocity either. But the
Cassini mission is confirmation that it's correct. Run the
application file and you will notice that the anomaly is only
just beginning to really make its presence known at 9.5 AU.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/pneer-fh.exe
The Pioneer anomaly onset is very obvious. And it's nothing
like the sun focused curve Turyshev's analysis would generate.
>>> There was work in the late 1960s and early 1970s which showed the same for
>>> the exact thermal coatings used by Pioneer (e.g. Mayer et al. 1969,
>>> "Investigation of Spacecraft Coatings," NASA CR-61267; Broadway 1971,
>>> "Radiation Effects Design Handbook, Section 2. Thermal-Control Coatings").
Turyshev didn't?
---
> I think the key thing that Anderson's discussion could not have
> known at the time, is that whether or not the equipment compartment
> louvers are open or closed, most of the heat generated inside the
> compartment escapes out the fore platform surface, and that is
> enough to account for much of the anomaly.
much has been answered. So how much does it contribute toward
removing the anomaly? In which direction did the error bars
shrink?
>>> Here, let me quote for you,
>>> "Thermal-control finishes are affected in orbit by charged
>>> particles, ultraviolet (UV) radiation, high vacuum, and the
>>> contaminant films that deposit out on almost all spacecraft
>>> surfaces. The general result of these processes is an increase
>>> in solar absorptivity with little or no effect on IR
>>> emittance."
>>
>> That makes no sense. If energy is continually pumped in through
>> increased solar absorptivity, there's no doubt at all that the
>> energy must come out again. Otherwise the temperature of the
>> affected object will increase forever.
>
> It's unfortunate it doesn't make sense to you. Yes, there is a
> thermal balance between energy received (related to optical
> absorptance alpha), energy emitted (related to infrared emittance
> epsilon) and temperature. If alpha increases while epsilon is
> constant, then yes, the temperature increases.
>
>> So it really doesn't matter where the sun is relative to a
>> Pioneer spacecraft. All absorbed solar thermal energy will
>> conduct throughout all contacting surfaces, adding to the general
>> temperature.
>
> Nope, that's mostly incorrect. The sun-absorbing face of the
> spacecraft is the high-gain antenna, plus some of the RTGs.
> These bodies are thermally insulated from the rest of the
So the anomaly canceling effect from a hotter than expected HGA
dish can't be considered. i.e. If the fore/aft surfaces of the
dish were identical the added thermal energy would be emitted
equally in opposite directions, but because the aft (reflective
surface) is known to be much less emissive than the fore surface
a substantial inward drive would be expected. Your claim that
the anomaly has been explained would have a lot more credibility
if it could be shown that Anderson had overlooked something like
this.
A discrepancy between current theory and my theory is guaranteed.
The difference is determined by how inaccurate current theory is,
or by how inaccurate my theory is. The Pioneer anomaly, fact or
fiction, is the key to truth.
Either way, I don't care. I would be over the moon if my theory
could be proven wrong. Reality according to current theory and
my theory is vastly different. You wouldn't like mine.
> The HGA primarily comes
> to thermal equilibrium via emission. It's true that
> non-sun-facing (fore) side of the HGA which is adjacent to the
> equipment compartment, and is the same temperature as the
> sun-facing side because of conduction. But since the emissivity
> of the sun-facing side is 10-20x more than the fore side, most
> of the solar heating is re-emitted toward the sun. Very little
> of it is emitted toward the direction of the anomaly.
reflection.
Anyway all of the above was tested prior to launch and has
obviously been considered in Anderson analysis.
---
If the sun facing RTG coating has degraded to the point where
the internally generated heat emission is at the error bar limit
while all other anomaly negatives have been set at their most
negative limits, some error bars overlap and the anomaly is
proclaimed dead.
You're a scientist, what do you think of that proclamation?
Do you honestly believe it's justified?
I say it's absolutely ridiculous.
My conclusion:
The cards just keep on falling into place.
-----
Max Keon
Craig Markwardt
May 25, 2017, 11:26:26 AM5/25/17
to
On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 11:42:40 PM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 4:36:17 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> >> But Anderson did include a fairly convincing argument in his
> >> analysis which demonstrated that internally generated heat could
> >> not cause the Pioneer anomaly.
> >> https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064v5
> >> "V111. SOURCES OF SYSTEMATIC ERROR INTERNAL TO THE SPACECRAFT"
> >>
> >> I can't imagine how the anomaly could be generated within the
> >> scope of the possible errors he could have made. I certainly
> >> can't see this. And in this following paragraph, what exactly
> >> "tipped the balance" ? I'm still lost here.
> >
> > Actually, you are right, Anderson's arguments were fairly convincing
> > FOR THE TIME. What happened is that the Turyshev et al 2012 work
> > came up with *more convincing* evidence of what's going on. Heck,
> > the section you quote says, "complete thermal/physical model of
> > the spacecraft might be able to ascertain if there are any other
> > unsuspected heat systematics," but then dismisses it. It turns out
> > that was a premature dismissal. It doesn't take much to see that
> > Anderson did a very crude estimate using simple geometry, when it
> > is now clear a higher fidelity approach was required.
>
> That's not so at all. Anderson dismissed the idea because it was
> **CLEARLY** incapable of generating the Pioneer anomaly. Perhaps
> you should read it again.
Again, your appeal to authority. See #2 below. You don't deny that Anderson's work was simplistic and crude compared to Turyshev's.
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 4:36:17 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> >> But Anderson did include a fairly convincing argument in his
> >> analysis which demonstrated that internally generated heat could
> >> not cause the Pioneer anomaly.
> >> https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064v5
> >> "V111. SOURCES OF SYSTEMATIC ERROR INTERNAL TO THE SPACECRAFT"
> >>
> >> I can't imagine how the anomaly could be generated within the
> >> scope of the possible errors he could have made. I certainly
> >> can't see this. And in this following paragraph, what exactly
> >> "tipped the balance" ? I'm still lost here.
> >
> > Actually, you are right, Anderson's arguments were fairly convincing
> > FOR THE TIME. What happened is that the Turyshev et al 2012 work
> > came up with *more convincing* evidence of what's going on. Heck,
> > the section you quote says, "complete thermal/physical model of
> > the spacecraft might be able to ascertain if there are any other
> > unsuspected heat systematics," but then dismisses it. It turns out
> > that was a premature dismissal. It doesn't take much to see that
> > Anderson did a very crude estimate using simple geometry, when it
> > is now clear a higher fidelity approach was required.
>
> That's not so at all. Anderson dismissed the idea because it was
> **CLEARLY** incapable of generating the Pioneer anomaly. Perhaps
> you should read it again.
> In section X1 of Anderson's paper; POSSIBLE ORIGINS OF THE
> SIGNAL; he lists many theories, ranging from slight variations to
> known physics to completely new physics which attempt to explain
> the anomaly, and they all get the thumbs down. Turyshev's
> analysis is seriously flawed as well.
....
> If all surfaces have degraded equally and
> the added thermal energy isn't freely emitted from the surfaces
> the internal temperature will rise until it is. Infrared
> emissions will always be exactly as expected.
Please learn about the difference between thermal emission and thermal emissivity. (#5 below) It is the emissivity which changes.
> the added thermal energy isn't freely emitted from the surfaces
> the internal temperature will rise until it is. Infrared
> emissions will always be exactly as expected.
> >>> There have been detailed studies of the reflective properties of the
> >>> Cassini high gain reflector (which has temperature sensing; di Bennetto,
> >>> "The non-gravitational accelerations of the Cassini spacecraft ..." 2001)
> >>> which show the same.
>
> The non-gravitational accelerations of the Cassini spacecraft
> ... So if Turyshev is right, the same
> anomaly should be noted for Cassini, **at very least**. From
> Anderson's paper the Cassini RTG's are much closer to the
> spacecraft body than for Pioneer. If that distance is halved,
> the consequences of reflection off the rear of the HGA dish will
> be four times greater.
>
> So how do you explain the non-gravitational acceleration of
> Cassini ???
Why are you asking me when you could read de Bennedetto's work yourself? If you had bothered to, you would find that de Bennedetto has a very careful discussion of thermal effects, including RTGs and the HGA. In other words, a fairly detailed thermal analysis... just as Turyshev was able to accomplish for the Pioneers.
> Anderson's paper the Cassini RTG's are much closer to the
> spacecraft body than for Pioneer. If that distance is halved,
> the consequences of reflection off the rear of the HGA dish will
> be four times greater.
>
> So how do you explain the non-gravitational acceleration of
> Cassini ???
> >>> There was work in the late 1960s and early 1970s which showed the same for
> >>> the exact thermal coatings used by Pioneer (e.g. Mayer et al. 1969,
> >>> "Investigation of Spacecraft Coatings," NASA CR-61267; Broadway 1971,
> >>> "Radiation Effects Design Handbook, Section 2. Thermal-Control Coatings").
>
> "exact thermal coatings used by Pioneer"? Did they know something
> Turyshev didn't?
> > I think the key thing that Anderson's discussion could not have
> > known at the time, is that whether or not the equipment compartment
> > louvers are open or closed, most of the heat generated inside the
> > compartment escapes out the fore platform surface, and that is
> > enough to account for much of the anomaly.
>
> If that info has recently become available the question of how
> much has been answered. So how much does it contribute toward
> removing the anomaly? In which direction did the error bars
> shrink?
> > Nope, that's mostly incorrect. The sun-absorbing face of the
> > spacecraft is the high-gain antenna, plus some of the RTGs.
> > These bodies are thermally insulated from the rest of the
> > spacecraft, so they do not "conduct".
>
> So the anomaly canceling effect from a hotter than expected HGA
> dish can't be considered.
> If the sun facing RTG coating has degraded to the point where
> the internally generated heat emission is at the error bar limit
> while all other anomaly negatives have been set at their most
> negative limits, some error bars overlap and the anomaly is
> proclaimed dead.
In this case we cannot reject the thermal origin theory.
And by the principle of Occam's razor, if we have a "new physics" theory and a "basic physics" theory which are both consistent with the data, then we choose the basic physics. This is basic science. Why would we pick new physics when mundane physics will suffice?
But let’s summarize the issues you seem to be willfully ignoring.
1. You continue to mention that somehow Turyshev’s 2012 work is about “solar thermal” when that is incorrect. It is about solar thermal yes, but mostly about internally-generated thermal. When noted, you ignore or distract.
2. You continue to ask about what is in the Turyshev 2012 paper. I continue to refer you to it, but you ignore or distract.
3. You continue to ask about what is different between the Anderson 2001 and Turyshev 2012 works. I reply with detailed points, but you ignore or distract.
4. You continue to appeal to authority of Anderson’s work for thermal aspects. However, Anderson’s work in this topic is rather crude, and limited to point-like and plate-like approximations. Even Anderson noted that a higher fidelity model could be useful and Turyshev’s 2012 work accomplished it! You continue to ignore or distract from this point.
5. You continue to speculate how spacecraft thermal systems work based on your intuition. I’ve referred you to authoritative works, but you ignore.
6. You’ve speculated that somehow the curve of the anomaly “onset” from Anderson’s paper is somehow rock solid, when in fact nobody has been able to show the provenance of that curve, or to replicate it. You ignore this fact.
7. To bolster your case that the anomaly “onset” curve is real, you’ve decided that analysts from the 1970s were special wizards with more skill than today’s analysts. In fact, the opposite was the case: analysts of the time were still learning the craft. I provided citations to published papers about this. You conveniently ignore it.
8. You’ve tried to discount Turyshev’s 2012 work by claiming that it’s an outlier and that every other researcher could not agree with a thermal original. But these are false. Other researchers were considering a thermal origin and consistent with Turyshev’s 2012 work. You continue to ignore this.
9. You’ve speculated that it should be easy to know about or replicate the thermal quantities of the Pioneer systems. When the error of this statement was pointed out, you ignored or distracted.
CM
old...@yahoo.it
May 31, 2017, 4:26:13 AM5/31/17
to
Craig Markwardt
May 31, 2017, 4:00:17 PM5/31/17
to
On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 4:26:13 AM UTC-4, old...@yahoo.it wrote:
> .. Craig - msk.. you are much higther than me in the cohomprension of the Pioneer 'anomaly .. at this point , i go back home near the fire ,.. i have only one question : why in the historical figure 6 , the sun 'pressure is of opposite sign ( + sun'pressure and - the anomaly'acceleration ) regards to the anomaly and in the last pages of the same report , the 'sun'pressure' and the 'radio beam reaction force' have , ofcourse , the same sign + , but -there- also the anomaly has their same sign + ( also in the precedent page , their quantities are added to the anomaly ) ? ..thanks ..
You're right, Anderson et al do not really report all values with a consistent sign convention. They just say in words that the "anomaly" is an inward acceleration, whereas the other terms you mention are outward. The numbers reported are absolute values, not signed.
> .. Craig - msk.. you are much higther than me in the cohomprension of the Pioneer 'anomaly .. at this point , i go back home near the fire ,.. i have only one question : why in the historical figure 6 , the sun 'pressure is of opposite sign ( + sun'pressure and - the anomaly'acceleration ) regards to the anomaly and in the last pages of the same report , the 'sun'pressure' and the 'radio beam reaction force' have , ofcourse , the same sign + , but -there- also the anomaly has their same sign + ( also in the precedent page , their quantities are added to the anomaly ) ? ..thanks ..
CM
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Jun 1, 2017, 6:44:11 AM6/1/17
to
On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 1:26:26 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
---
---
The following paragraph is exactly as written in Anderson's
paper.
---
The radio Doppler and range data from the Cassini mission could
offer a potential contribution. This mission was launched on 15
October 1997. The potential data arc will be the cruise phase
from after the Jupiter flyby (30 December 2000) to the vicinity
of Saturn (just before the Huygens probe release) in July 2004.
Even though the Cassini spacecraft is in three-axis-stabilization
mode, using on-board active thrusters, it was built with very
sophisticated radio-tracking capabilities, with X-band being the
main navigation frequency. (There will also be S- and K-band
links.) Further, during much of the cruise phase, reaction wheels
will be used for stabilization instead of thrusters. Their use
will aid relativity experiments at solar conjunction and
gravitational wave experiments at solar opposition. (Observe,
however, that the relatively large systematic from the close in
Cassini RTGs will have to be accounted for.)
---
And this part paragraph was taken from one of your replies on
this subject.
represents FIG.2 of Turyshev's paper. How it appears will of
course depend on your newsreader. Or visit
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1
According to Turyshev the acceleration rate toward the sun
generated by the thermal emission advantage that's pointing away
from the sun is greater between jupiter and saturn than it is at
20 AU. And that's the reverse of the much lesser anomaly
**onset** noted by the Pioneer analysts when Pioneer was
traveling between jupiter and saturn. Why would they not easily
notice an even larger discrepancy between observation and
expectations according to current theory at the time, which
obviously didn't involve such things as Turyshev's thermal
solution? Anderson's analysis would have been based on much the
same logic as well.
10 20 30 40 AU
.....<.....<.....<.....<...
100 I_o________________________
I o
WattsI ^ ^ o o o o (negative anomaly)
I ^ ^
0 I__^__^____________________
I ^ ^
I ^ ^Saturn (Cassini arrives 2004)
I ^Jupiter
-100 I__________________________
---^-------^-------^-------^--
1975 1980 1985 1990
The Cassini HGA dish properties would be much the same as those
for Pioneer. As would be the RTG surface coatings. Even if they
weren't, their properties would have been established prior to
launch. Then there's the "relatively large systematic from the
close in Cassini RTGs" to be considered.
If Turyshev's thermal solution accounts for the Pioneer anomaly,
why isn't it also required to account for a Cassini anomaly?
How do you explain the non-gravitational acceleration of
Cassini (as predicted by my theory) ???
> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 11:42:40 PM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 4:36:17 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
---
---
analysis is **absolutely brilliant**. Complicating a process
isn't necessarily more constructive, but it can certainly be more
confusing.
---
---
>> "exact thermal coatings used by Pioneer"? Did they know something
>> Turyshev didn't?
>
> Cute. Rather that learning about thermal emissivity properties,
> you instead decide to invent a conspiracy theory (see #5 below).
> The thermal coatings were documented, and *some* UV and radiation
> tests were performed on those coatings in laboratories, but they
> did not mimic the exact space environment the Pioneers
> experienced. So do we really know the amount of degradation
> experienced? What we do know is that most thermal coatings
> degrade by changing their optical reflectivity (absorptivity) but
> have very little change to the infrared emissivity. You could have
> read about this but did not.
Increased absorptivity with no change in emissivity only reduces
solar radiation pressure. It has no effect whatever on the
fore/aft drive ratio from the internally generated RTG thermal
energy. Think about it. The emissivity of the surfaces hasn't
changed at all. And without the sunward drive asymmetry the
thermal solution fails.
The only way the thermal solution can work is if the RTG surface
coating reduces emissivity as it degrades as a result of solar
radiation. But logic tells me that an absorptivity increase is
directly linked to an emissivity increase, not an emissivity
decrease. I can accept that it could decrease slightly, but in
order to satisfy the thermal solution the emissivity decrease
needs to be roughly equal to the negative of the absorptivity
increase. Which is ridiculous.
Where would one find such a coating? What on earth have they fed
into that computer simulation?
---
---
>> If the sun facing RTG coating has degraded to the point where
>> the internally generated heat emission is at the error bar limit
>> while all other anomaly negatives have been set at their most
>> negative limits, some error bars overlap and the anomaly is
>> proclaimed dead.
>
> That's kind of how science works. Compare the tolerances of
> the experiment with the tolerances of the theory, and if they
> overlap, then we cannot reject the theory.
>
> In this case we cannot reject the thermal origin theory.
That theory has clearly failed.
> And by the principle of Occam's razor, if we have a "new physics"
> theory and a "basic physics" theory which are both consistent
> with the data, then we choose the basic physics. This is basic
> science. Why would we pick new physics when mundane physics will
> suffice?
You're apparently not referring to Anderson's analysis of the
Pioneer anomaly because it's based on old mundane physics as
well. But old mundane physics clearly fails to explain the
Pioneer anomaly. Perhaps we can at last move on beyond the
dark ages of physics.
-----
Max Keon
---
---
The following paragraph is exactly as written in Anderson's
paper.
---
The radio Doppler and range data from the Cassini mission could
offer a potential contribution. This mission was launched on 15
October 1997. The potential data arc will be the cruise phase
from after the Jupiter flyby (30 December 2000) to the vicinity
of Saturn (just before the Huygens probe release) in July 2004.
Even though the Cassini spacecraft is in three-axis-stabilization
mode, using on-board active thrusters, it was built with very
sophisticated radio-tracking capabilities, with X-band being the
main navigation frequency. (There will also be S- and K-band
links.) Further, during much of the cruise phase, reaction wheels
will be used for stabilization instead of thrusters. Their use
will aid relativity experiments at solar conjunction and
gravitational wave experiments at solar opposition. (Observe,
however, that the relatively large systematic from the close in
Cassini RTGs will have to be accounted for.)
---
And this part paragraph was taken from one of your replies on
this subject.
"No effect similar to the Pioneer anomaly has been detected with
the Cassini doppler data."
The ASCII diagram below (excluding the Cassini reference)
the Cassini doppler data."
represents FIG.2 of Turyshev's paper. How it appears will of
course depend on your newsreader. Or visit
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1
According to Turyshev the acceleration rate toward the sun
generated by the thermal emission advantage that's pointing away
from the sun is greater between jupiter and saturn than it is at
20 AU. And that's the reverse of the much lesser anomaly
**onset** noted by the Pioneer analysts when Pioneer was
traveling between jupiter and saturn. Why would they not easily
notice an even larger discrepancy between observation and
expectations according to current theory at the time, which
obviously didn't involve such things as Turyshev's thermal
solution? Anderson's analysis would have been based on much the
same logic as well.
10 20 30 40 AU
.....<.....<.....<.....<...
100 I_o________________________
I o
WattsI ^ ^ o o o o (negative anomaly)
I ^ ^
0 I__^__^____________________
I ^ ^
I ^ ^Saturn (Cassini arrives 2004)
I ^Jupiter
-100 I__________________________
---^-------^-------^-------^--
1975 1980 1985 1990
The Cassini HGA dish properties would be much the same as those
for Pioneer. As would be the RTG surface coatings. Even if they
weren't, their properties would have been established prior to
launch. Then there's the "relatively large systematic from the
close in Cassini RTGs" to be considered.
If Turyshev's thermal solution accounts for the Pioneer anomaly,
why isn't it also required to account for a Cassini anomaly?
How do you explain the non-gravitational acceleration of
Cassini (as predicted by my theory) ???
> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 11:42:40 PM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 4:36:17 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
---
>>> Actually, you are right, Anderson's arguments were fairly convincing
>>> FOR THE TIME. What happened is that the Turyshev et al 2012 work
>>> came up with *more convincing* evidence of what's going on. Heck,
>>> the section you quote says, "complete thermal/physical model of
>>> the spacecraft might be able to ascertain if there are any other
>>> unsuspected heat systematics," but then dismisses it. It turns out
>>> that was a premature dismissal. It doesn't take much to see that
>>> Anderson did a very crude estimate using simple geometry, when it
>>> is now clear a higher fidelity approach was required.
>>
>> That's not so at all. Anderson dismissed the idea because it was
>> **CLEARLY** incapable of generating the Pioneer anomaly. Perhaps
>> you should read it again.
>
> Again, your appeal to authority. See #2 below. You don't deny
> that Anderson's work was simplistic and crude compared to
> Turyshev's.
I don't know how you arrive at "simplistic and crude". Anderson's
>>> FOR THE TIME. What happened is that the Turyshev et al 2012 work
>>> came up with *more convincing* evidence of what's going on. Heck,
>>> the section you quote says, "complete thermal/physical model of
>>> the spacecraft might be able to ascertain if there are any other
>>> unsuspected heat systematics," but then dismisses it. It turns out
>>> that was a premature dismissal. It doesn't take much to see that
>>> Anderson did a very crude estimate using simple geometry, when it
>>> is now clear a higher fidelity approach was required.
>>
>> That's not so at all. Anderson dismissed the idea because it was
>> **CLEARLY** incapable of generating the Pioneer anomaly. Perhaps
>> you should read it again.
>
> Again, your appeal to authority. See #2 below. You don't deny
> that Anderson's work was simplistic and crude compared to
> Turyshev's.
analysis is **absolutely brilliant**. Complicating a process
isn't necessarily more constructive, but it can certainly be more
confusing.
---
---
>> "exact thermal coatings used by Pioneer"? Did they know something
>> Turyshev didn't?
>
> Cute. Rather that learning about thermal emissivity properties,
> you instead decide to invent a conspiracy theory (see #5 below).
> The thermal coatings were documented, and *some* UV and radiation
> tests were performed on those coatings in laboratories, but they
> did not mimic the exact space environment the Pioneers
> experienced. So do we really know the amount of degradation
> experienced? What we do know is that most thermal coatings
> degrade by changing their optical reflectivity (absorptivity) but
> have very little change to the infrared emissivity. You could have
> read about this but did not.
solar radiation pressure. It has no effect whatever on the
fore/aft drive ratio from the internally generated RTG thermal
energy. Think about it. The emissivity of the surfaces hasn't
changed at all. And without the sunward drive asymmetry the
thermal solution fails.
The only way the thermal solution can work is if the RTG surface
coating reduces emissivity as it degrades as a result of solar
radiation. But logic tells me that an absorptivity increase is
directly linked to an emissivity increase, not an emissivity
decrease. I can accept that it could decrease slightly, but in
order to satisfy the thermal solution the emissivity decrease
needs to be roughly equal to the negative of the absorptivity
increase. Which is ridiculous.
Where would one find such a coating? What on earth have they fed
into that computer simulation?
---
---
>> If the sun facing RTG coating has degraded to the point where
>> the internally generated heat emission is at the error bar limit
>> while all other anomaly negatives have been set at their most
>> negative limits, some error bars overlap and the anomaly is
>> proclaimed dead.
>
> That's kind of how science works. Compare the tolerances of
> the experiment with the tolerances of the theory, and if they
> overlap, then we cannot reject the theory.
>
> In this case we cannot reject the thermal origin theory.
> And by the principle of Occam's razor, if we have a "new physics"
> theory and a "basic physics" theory which are both consistent
> with the data, then we choose the basic physics. This is basic
> science. Why would we pick new physics when mundane physics will
> suffice?
Pioneer anomaly because it's based on old mundane physics as
well. But old mundane physics clearly fails to explain the
Pioneer anomaly. Perhaps we can at last move on beyond the
dark ages of physics.
-----
Max Keon
old...@yahoo.it
Jun 1, 2017, 10:19:22 AM6/1/17
to
.. i repeit a reveiled (to me) position of Turishev many years ago (2000?) ..: he thought that an (attractive) disomogeneity of the Kuiper'Belt could justify the anomaly !
( at page 34 of the report that i have : 5.2 First Aerospace study.. , they wrote '' This CHAMP analisys of Pioneer 10 data also showed an unmodeled acceleration ..toward the sun .. value 8.65*10.. '' ; the following phrase says '' Without using the apparent acceleration , CHAMP shows a steady frequency drift of about -6*10.. Hz/s , or 1.5 Hz over 8 years . This equates to a clock acceleration of -2.8*10.. '' .. the clock is slowering like if the rocket is going away from the sun !
How they can speak about an unmodeled acceleration toward the sun ?
Craig Markwardt
Jun 5, 2017, 11:03:10 AM6/5/17
to
On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 10:19:22 AM UTC-4, old...@yahoo.it wrote:
> Il giorno mercoledì 31 maggio 2017 22:00:17 UTC+2, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
> > On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 4:26:13 AM UTC-4, old...@yahoo.it wrote:
...
> Il giorno mercoledì 31 maggio 2017 22:00:17 UTC+2, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
> > On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 4:26:13 AM UTC-4, old...@yahoo.it wrote:
> .. i beg your pardon .. i agree that the numbers could be in absolute value , witout sign .. also that the fig 6 can be an historical fig .. but in conclusion (final pages 72-73) : the numbers(values) of Sun'pressure and Radio-beam-reaction are added and its(two) have the effect of pushing away from the sun ... its are added to the anomaly ('' 7.84 + 0.9 = 8.74 extimate of total bias/error'' ) for giving the final effect : is this total effect an escape from the sun ?
Can you please download a more recent version of the paper? Your page numbers are not recognizable to me. (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064)
The items in Table II are listed as positive (+) is an outward bias and negative (-) is an inward bias. The net bias in that table, +0.90, is outward. If one is *expecting* an outward signal of +0.90, and *measure* an inward signal of -7.84, then the actual "anomaly" would be an inward amount of -8.74 (in the units of the paper). Their math works, in absolute value, because they knew the signs of the quantities.
> ... This equates to a clock acceleration of -2.8*10.. '' .. the clock is slowering like if the rocket is going away from the sun !
> How they can speak about an unmodeled acceleration toward the sun ?
They are speaking of a hypothetical clock error on the ground stations (receiving and transmitting stations), not of the spacecraft. The spacecraft clock is irrelevant in coherent mode.
CM
Craig Markwardt
Jun 5, 2017, 12:36:34 PM6/5/17
to
On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 6:44:11 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> The following paragraph is exactly as written in Anderson's
> paper.
... trim for brevity ...
> The following paragraph is exactly as written in Anderson's
> paper.
> The Cassini HGA dish properties would be much the same as those
> for Pioneer. As would be the RTG surface coatings. Even if they
> weren't, their properties would have been established prior to
> launch. Then there's the "relatively large systematic from the
> close in Cassini RTGs" to be considered.
>
> If Turyshev's thermal solution accounts for the Pioneer anomaly,
> why isn't it also required to account for a Cassini anomaly?
> How do you explain the non-gravitational acceleration of
> Cassini (as predicted by my theory) ???
Why don't you consult the PhD Thesis of "The non-gravitational accelerations of the Cassini spacecraft and the nature of the Pioneer anomaly" by Mauro di Benedetto. You've been referred to it several times, but conveniently ignore it.
> for Pioneer. As would be the RTG surface coatings. Even if they
> weren't, their properties would have been established prior to
> launch. Then there's the "relatively large systematic from the
> close in Cassini RTGs" to be considered.
>
> If Turyshev's thermal solution accounts for the Pioneer anomaly,
> why isn't it also required to account for a Cassini anomaly?
> How do you explain the non-gravitational acceleration of
> Cassini (as predicted by my theory) ???
Whatever your unsubstantiated assumptions, the Pioneers and Cassini are not identical. There are several quite substantial differences.
First of all, no-one has done a thermal model of Cassini for the purposes of asymmetric radiation patterns, so it is not possible to comment either way if they should be significant. These calculations depend somewhat sensitively on where the power-producing and -consuming components are located and the view factors to other bodies and to space. Cassini is configured in a much different way than the Pioneers so we cannot assume similarity. You just decided to speculate without substantiation that Cassini is similar to the Pioneers, but why do that without evidence?
Second of all, there are things we *know* are very different. Cassini is ~10x more massive than Pioneers. The Pioneers area to mass ratio is about 10 times larger than the Cassini area to mass ratio. This means that *accelerations* due to solar and internally-generated thermal are about 10x smaller for the same input signal.
If you had bothered to read the di Benedetto thesis you would have found extensive discussions of the RTGs, which are quite different than the Pioneers’ RTGs.
The Cassinis were equipt with temperature sensors on the HGA which provide independent knowledge of the solar absorptivity. Pioneers have no such thing. You could have read about this but did not.
The thermal coatings, while both *white*, are quite different. The Cassini HGA coating is known as PCBZ, and was chosen after careful study to meet mission requirements (Fabiani & Constable 1997). The chemical compositions are quite different (Zinc-based topcoat of PCBZ vs TiO2 of Thermatrol). So why assume they are very similar without substantiation?
> > Again, your appeal to authority. See #2 below. You don't deny
> > that Anderson's work was simplistic and crude compared to
> > Turyshev's.
>
> I don't know how you arrive at "simplistic and crude". Anderson's
> analysis is **absolutely brilliant**. Complicating a process
> isn't necessarily more constructive, but it can certainly be more
> confusing.
Anderson et al very capably performed simple plate-like and point-like approximations, but no more. They argue by analogy. They argue verbally but not quantitatively. For example, in section VIII.D. (non-isotropic radiation), Anderson argues that because the “anomaly” is constant but the compartment power is not, we can dismiss this explanation. But Anderson et al do not treat the tolerances of either quantity, and these are crucial. Turyshev *did* treat them, in a much more careful way.
What happened in 2011 is that Turyshev Toth Ellis & Markwardt retrieved additional data from the 1979-1986 range, that added to the total arcs for both Pioneers. You can read about it if you want. And we found that with that additional data, we could no longer claim that the “anomaly” was constant, but rather varied slowly. So a fundamental assumption by Anderson was incorrect.
And, the Turyshev et al 2012 paper found that the variations in the measured “anomaly” were consistent with those expected from the combinations of solar pressure, RTGs and electric power dissipated in instrument compartments.
So, sorry to burst your bubble, but it turned out that Anderson et al’s conclusions from 2001 were too simple and speculative, and also not born out by the data or the detailed thermal modeling. Why you insist on hugging that result when more refined results and Doppler data have followed is close to madness.
> >> "exact thermal coatings used by Pioneer"? Did they know something
> >> Turyshev didn't?
> >
> > Cute. Rather that learning about thermal emissivity properties,
> > you instead decide to invent a conspiracy theory (see #5 below).
> > The thermal coatings were documented, and *some* UV and radiation
> > tests were performed on those coatings in laboratories, but they
> > did not mimic the exact space environment the Pioneers
> > experienced. So do we really know the amount of degradation
> > experienced? What we do know is that most thermal coatings
> > degrade by changing their optical reflectivity (absorptivity) but
> > have very little change to the infrared emissivity. You could have
> > read about this but did not.
>
> Increased absorptivity with no change in emissivity only reduces
> solar radiation pressure. It has no effect whatever on the
> fore/aft drive ratio from the internally generated RTG thermal
> energy. Think about it. The emissivity of the surfaces hasn't
> changed at all. And without the sunward drive asymmetry the
> thermal solution fails.
> >> If the sun facing RTG coating has degraded to the point where
> >> the internally generated heat emission is at the error bar limit
> >> while all other anomaly negatives have been set at their most
> >> negative limits, some error bars overlap and the anomaly is
> >> proclaimed dead.
> >
> > That's kind of how science works. Compare the tolerances of
> > the experiment with the tolerances of the theory, and if they
> > overlap, then we cannot reject the theory.
> >
> > In this case we cannot reject the thermal origin theory.
>
> That theory has clearly failed.
> > And by the principle of Occam's razor, if we have a "new physics"
> > theory and a "basic physics" theory which are both consistent
> > with the data, then we choose the basic physics. This is basic
> > science. Why would we pick new physics when mundane physics will
> > suffice?
>
> You're apparently not referring to Anderson's analysis of the
> Pioneer anomaly because it's based on old mundane physics as
> well. But old mundane physics clearly fails to explain the
> Pioneer anomaly. Perhaps we can at last move on beyond the
> dark ages of physics.
But let’s summarize the issues you seem to be willfully ignoring.
2. You continue to ask about what is in the Turyshev 2012 paper. I continue to refer you to it, but you ignore or distract.
3. You continue to ask about what is different between the Anderson 2001 and Turyshev 2012 works. I reply with detailed points, but you ignore or distract.
4. You continue to appeal to authority of Anderson’s work for thermal aspects. However, Anderson’s work in this topic is rather crude, and limited to point-like and plate-like approximations. Even Anderson noted that a higher fidelity model could be useful and Turyshev’s 2012 work accomplished it! You continue to ignore or distract from this point.
5. You continue to speculate how spacecraft thermal systems work based on your intuition. I’ve referred you to authoritative works, but you ignore.
6. You’ve speculated that somehow the curve of the anomaly “onset” from Anderson’s paper is somehow rock solid, when in fact nobody has been able to show the provenance of that curve, or to replicate it. You ignore this fact.
7. To bolster your case that the anomaly “onset” curve is real, you’ve decided that analysts from the 1970s were special wizards with more skill than today’s analysts. In fact, the opposite was the case: analysts of the time were still learning the craft. I provided citations to published papers about this. You conveniently ignore it.
8. You’ve tried to discount Turyshev’s 2012 work by claiming that it’s an outlier and that every other researcher could not agree with a thermal original. But these are false. Other researchers were considering a thermal origin and consistent with Turyshev’s 2012 work. You continue to ignore this.
9. You’ve speculated that it should be easy to know about or replicate the thermal quantities of the Pioneer systems. When the error of this statement was pointed out, you ignored or distracted.
old...@yahoo.it
Jun 7, 2017, 10:15:41 AM6/7/17
to
.. i read the reference' paper that you showed to me (2005) .. this paper says at page 42 '' the Radio Beam Reaction produces the largest bias to our result 1,10 ... It makes the Pioneer effect larger .'' the question : is the Radio Beam pushing highter away from the sun ( because the Radio Beam push away?! )? so , is the anomaly away from the sun ?
.. at page 30 , like you say correctly , they are speaking of the terrestrial (ground) clocks ; at page 31 , they conclude that this clocks were good , without contributing factor .. the clock inside was good .. : but , i conclude , the bigger drift (anomaly) was 'like if the rocket was escaping speedder from the sun' .. my suggested solution is that the bias (anomaly) is depending to the distance ( highter distance , highter bias ) ... like it happen in the Bigbang .. caused-probably- by the Raman effect (or Raman scattering) functioning (a little, like the 'tired light') in conditions of very low temperature and pressure as in very hight vacuum ...
Craig Markwardt
Jun 7, 2017, 4:30:33 PM6/7/17
to
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 10:15:41 AM UTC-4, old...@yahoo.it wrote:
> .. i read the reference' paper that you showed to me (2005) .. this paper says at page 42 '' the Radio Beam Reaction produces the largest bias to our result 1,10 ... It makes the Pioneer effect larger .'' the question : is the Radio Beam pushing highter away from the sun ( because the Radio Beam push away?! )? so , is the anomaly away from the sun ?
The high gain antenna faces the earth (and approximately, faces the sun). Radio beam emissions directed inward toward the earth will act to push the craft outward. This is conservation of momentum, basic physics.
> .. i read the reference' paper that you showed to me (2005) .. this paper says at page 42 '' the Radio Beam Reaction produces the largest bias to our result 1,10 ... It makes the Pioneer effect larger .'' the question : is the Radio Beam pushing highter away from the sun ( because the Radio Beam push away?! )? so , is the anomaly away from the sun ?
So here's the situation. We *expected* an outward acceleration of 0.9, and instead measured an *inward* acceleration of 7.84. The differences between these two, in a vector sense, is 8.74. They "add" because the measured vector is in the opposite direction from the expectation.
CM
Craig Markwardt
Jun 7, 2017, 5:18:50 PM6/7/17
to
I would like to add something, which I had not fully appreciated until now.
It has to do with how the effective reflectivity of the high gain antenna was determined, but it has everything to do with the "onset" of the anomaly. As we know, there was some a priori information about the high gain antenna optical properties, but there was also the expectation of some degradation.
Anderson et al (2002) demonstrate how this was done. In footnote [91], they note that based on pre-launch optical data, the expected "K0" factor was 1.71. "K" is the effective reflective+emissive forcing factor as shown in their equation (25).
However, it was understood that the radiative properties of the dish could change. Therefore, the "K" factor was treated as a "solve-for" parameter. That is, based on a set of data, *assume* the non-gravitational accelerations are due to solar radiation pressure only, and solve for "K." This is stated explicitly in the sentence below Anderson et al's equation (26).
Namely, that the non-gravitational acceleration reported in equation (26) near Jupiter of 70 +/- 3.5 x 10^{-8} cm/s2, is set equal to the solar radiation pressure formula in equation (25), resulting in K = 1.77. Note that this is different than the pre-launch value, K0=1.71.
Thus, there is an *assumption* that no other non-gravitational forces are acting at 5AU. None from gas leaks. None from emission from compartments. None from RTG emission. None from any "anomaly."
Any anomaly was essentially zeroed out by this analysis technique. It's not a surprise that the "anomaly" in Anderson's Figures 6 & 7 are nearly zero near 5AU. That's because the anomaly was set to zero at 5 AU explicitly in the analysis.
The "onset" in those figures is an artifact of the way the analysis was done. The assumption made was not necessarily correct. We *know* there was additional non-gravitational acceleration due to the electronic compartments. This was not accounted for. Thus, we cannot rely upon the results in Anderson's Figure 6 or 7, since they assumed what you are now claiming to discover.
CM
It has to do with how the effective reflectivity of the high gain antenna was determined, but it has everything to do with the "onset" of the anomaly. As we know, there was some a priori information about the high gain antenna optical properties, but there was also the expectation of some degradation.
Anderson et al (2002) demonstrate how this was done. In footnote [91], they note that based on pre-launch optical data, the expected "K0" factor was 1.71. "K" is the effective reflective+emissive forcing factor as shown in their equation (25).
However, it was understood that the radiative properties of the dish could change. Therefore, the "K" factor was treated as a "solve-for" parameter. That is, based on a set of data, *assume* the non-gravitational accelerations are due to solar radiation pressure only, and solve for "K." This is stated explicitly in the sentence below Anderson et al's equation (26).
Namely, that the non-gravitational acceleration reported in equation (26) near Jupiter of 70 +/- 3.5 x 10^{-8} cm/s2, is set equal to the solar radiation pressure formula in equation (25), resulting in K = 1.77. Note that this is different than the pre-launch value, K0=1.71.
Thus, there is an *assumption* that no other non-gravitational forces are acting at 5AU. None from gas leaks. None from emission from compartments. None from RTG emission. None from any "anomaly."
Any anomaly was essentially zeroed out by this analysis technique. It's not a surprise that the "anomaly" in Anderson's Figures 6 & 7 are nearly zero near 5AU. That's because the anomaly was set to zero at 5 AU explicitly in the analysis.
The "onset" in those figures is an artifact of the way the analysis was done. The assumption made was not necessarily correct. We *know* there was additional non-gravitational acceleration due to the electronic compartments. This was not accounted for. Thus, we cannot rely upon the results in Anderson's Figure 6 or 7, since they assumed what you are now claiming to discover.
CM
old...@yahoo.it
Jun 9, 2017, 5:40:00 AM6/9/17
to
..but i try again to understand : on the beginning , without the suspected anomaly , they observed like a deceleration of their ground clocks .. but the ground and in-rocket cloks were good .. is it so the history ? ... or like the rocket was sending a frequency , but this frequency was lower than the waited-one ... is it so ?
Craig Markwardt
Jun 9, 2017, 7:26:53 AM6/9/17
to
On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 5:40:00 AM UTC-4, old...@yahoo.it wrote:
> ..but i try again to understand : on the beginning , without the suspected anomaly , they observed like a deceleration of their ground clocks .. but the ground and in-rocket cloks were good .. is it so the history ? ... or like the rocket was sending a frequency , but this frequency was lower than the waited-one ... is it so ?
Actually it's possible to see what navigators and analysts were thinking about at the time because they wrote about their concerns regularly and published it in a journal. It's called the DSN Progress Report, and all of the issues are online dating back to 1971 (just google for the term). They were thinking about clocks, yes, but also anything else that could bias the signal. Gas leaks in the propulsion system was a big concern, and were known to be active at some times early in the mission. Modeling of solar radiation pressure was a big deal and analysts were perfecting the process, but there was always the concern about the change in optical properties of the spacecraft coatings (darkening of white coatings), etc.
> ..but i try again to understand : on the beginning , without the suspected anomaly , they observed like a deceleration of their ground clocks .. but the ground and in-rocket cloks were good .. is it so the history ? ... or like the rocket was sending a frequency , but this frequency was lower than the waited-one ... is it so ?
CM
old...@yahoo.it
Jun 10, 2017, 4:01:14 AM6/10/17
to
.. i put the final(?) anwear in other way : if some phenomena should make lower the frequencies sent in the spatial vacuum , could that phenomena explain our misterious anomaly ?
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Jun 10, 2017, 8:38:54 PM6/10/17
to
On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 2:36:34 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 6:44:11 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> The following paragraph is exactly as written in Anderson's
>> paper.
> ... trim for brevity ...
>> The Cassini HGA dish properties would be much the same as those
>> for Pioneer. As would be the RTG surface coatings. Even if they
>> weren't, their properties would have been established prior to
>> launch. Then there's the "relatively large systematic from the
>> close in Cassini RTGs" to be considered.
>>
>> If Turyshev's thermal solution accounts for the Pioneer anomaly,
>> why isn't it also required to account for a Cassini anomaly?
>> How do you explain the non-gravitational acceleration of
>> Cassini (as predicted by my theory) ???
>
> Why don't you consult the PhD Thesis of "The non-gravitational
> accelerations of the Cassini spacecraft and the nature of the
> Pioneer anomaly" by Mauro di Benedetto. You've been referred to
> it several times, but conveniently ignore it.
You're an analyst and your assessment of Mauro di Benedetto's
> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 6:44:11 AM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> The following paragraph is exactly as written in Anderson's
>> paper.
> ... trim for brevity ...
>> The Cassini HGA dish properties would be much the same as those
>> for Pioneer. As would be the RTG surface coatings. Even if they
>> weren't, their properties would have been established prior to
>> launch. Then there's the "relatively large systematic from the
>> close in Cassini RTGs" to be considered.
>>
>> If Turyshev's thermal solution accounts for the Pioneer anomaly,
>> why isn't it also required to account for a Cassini anomaly?
>> How do you explain the non-gravitational acceleration of
>> Cassini (as predicted by my theory) ???
>
> Why don't you consult the PhD Thesis of "The non-gravitational
> accelerations of the Cassini spacecraft and the nature of the
> Pioneer anomaly" by Mauro di Benedetto. You've been referred to
> it several times, but conveniently ignore it.
work should be fairly accurate. On 29-4-17 in your reply to a
question from old...@yahoo> you wrote this paragraph;
"It's an interesting question. No effect similar to the Pioneer
anomaly has been detected with the Cassini doppler data. Cassini
is indeed a more complicated spacecraft, and there are more
trajectory disturbances for Cassini than for Pioneer. The very
detailed PhD work of Benedetto was able to rule out a
Pioneer-like anomaly using the full Cassini data set."
So, did Benedetto rule out a Pioneer-like anomaly or not?
You don't seem so sure any more.
> Whatever your unsubstantiated assumptions, the Pioneers and
> Cassini are not identical. There are several quite substantial
> differences.
>
> First of all, no-one has done a thermal model of Cassini for the
> purposes of asymmetric radiation patterns, so it is not possible
> to comment either way if they should be significant. These
> calculations depend somewhat sensitively on where the
> power-producing and -consuming components are located and the
> view factors to other bodies and to space. Cassini is configured
> in a much different way than the Pioneers so we cannot assume
> similarity. You just decided to speculate without substantiation
> that Cassini is similar to the Pioneers, but why do that without
> evidence?
>
> Second of all, there are things we *know* are very different.
> Cassini is ~10x more massive than Pioneers. The Pioneers area to
> mass ratio is about 10 times larger than the Cassini area to mass
> ratio. This means that *accelerations* due to solar and
> internally-generated thermal are about 10x smaller for the same
> input signal.
>
> If you had bothered to read the di Benedetto thesis you would
> have found extensive discussions of the RTGs, which are quite
---
---
>>>> "exact thermal coatings used by Pioneer"? Did they know something
>>>> Turyshev didn't?
>>>
>>> Cute. Rather that learning about thermal emissivity properties,
>>> you instead decide to invent a conspiracy theory (see #5 below).
>>> The thermal coatings were documented, and *some* UV and radiation
>>> tests were performed on those coatings in laboratories, but they
>>> did not mimic the exact space environment the Pioneers
>>> experienced. So do we really know the amount of degradation
>>> experienced? What we do know is that most thermal coatings
>>> degrade by changing their optical reflectivity (absorptivity) but
>>> have very little change to the infrared emissivity. You could have
>>> read about this but did not.
>>
>> Increased absorptivity with no change in emissivity only reduces
>> solar radiation pressure. It has no effect whatever on the
>> fore/aft drive ratio from the internally generated RTG thermal
>> energy. Think about it. The emissivity of the surfaces hasn't
>> changed at all. And without the sunward drive asymmetry the
>> thermal solution fails.
>
> You seem fixated upon the RTGs.
paragraph you replied to.
This part paragraph is from Turyshev's paper:
"Approximately 25% of the RTG coated surfaces were exposed to
solar irradiation. A calculation that takes into account the
relative contribution of RTG heat to the total anisotropy yields
a corresponding error figure of 25% in the overall error budget."
It's impossible for the RTG's to provide anything like 25% of
in the overall error budget.
The uncertainties in the surface coating does **not** help the
thermal solution at all. If absorptivity increases, emissivity
normally increases as well and the emissivity of the fore surface
will be greater than the aft surface. So the RTG's will be driven
away from the sun by the internally produced thermal energy,
which overwhelms any residual inward drive generated from solar
thermal energy absorption.
Or if the sun facing RTG surface coating was such that the
effects of solar radiation causes an absorptivity increase with
zero emissivity change, the RTG's would only be driven sunward
according to the small solar thermal absorption/emissivity
imbalance. Because the emissivity of all surfaces remains
unchanged the RTG generated thermal energy will be emitted
equally in all directions. Which gives zero drive from that
source (ignoring the reflections off the rear of the HGA dish).
The RTG's will only be driven to the sun by the internally
produced thermal energy if the sun facing surface emissivity
decreases. And in order to generate 25% of the overall error
budget the decrease would need to be substantial. But according
to Turyshev the maximum negative emissivity generated from the
irradiated sun facing surfaces is only 5%. That's the maximum
fore/aft emissivity difference for the RTG's **AND IT'S NOWHERE
NEAR ENOUGH.**
---
---
> But let's summarize the issues you seem to be willfully ignoring.
(irrelevant content snipped again)
---
> So I ask again: if this is so important to you, why don't you
> stop ignoring important things? It's clear you have your own
> theory to hawk, and are willing to ignore anything that
> disagrees with it. So why should we listen to you?
anomaly doesn't exist, but sadly I've proven you wrong instead.
And yes, I do have a theory. But it's so far removed from current
theory that I don't think they could coexist in the same forum.
The tendency would be to attempt to unify the two and that's
impossible. So I'm left with a dilemma. How do I convince the
physics world to throw out just about everything they've come to
accept as reality and replace it with completely different
physics? There's no possibility of the theories competing on a
level playing field either because that field is comparable to
Mount Everest.
The only way forward would seem to be via some rouge university
peddling the zero origin universe exclusively. That university
would rise from the dust while all others fade away.
-----
Max Keon
old...@yahoo.it
Jun 12, 2017, 4:02:16 AM6/12/17
to
.. if i understood well , he (MK) wants to explain an acceleration anomaly making the sun with a bigger mass than suspected-one .. if that-bigger sun- was true , all solar sistem should be changed , but our anomaly is rising relatively to the unchanged sistem which we observe now .. something is not turning well , for me..
Craig Markwardt
Jun 12, 2017, 5:13:29 PM6/12/17
to
What I object to is your apparent wish to be spoon-fed interpretations of the serious work of others so you can dismiss them, apparently without even reading them yourself. (see items 1-10 below). *YOU* made the unsubstantiated assumption about how simple it would be for someone to thermally model the Cassini spacecraft and how similar it would be to the Pioneers (item 10 below). Why don't you substantiate your claims?
>
> > Whatever your unsubstantiated assumptions, the Pioneers and
> > Cassini are not identical. There are several quite substantial
> > differences.
> >
> > First of all, no-one has done a thermal model of Cassini for the
> > purposes of asymmetric radiation patterns, so it is not possible
> > to comment either way if they should be significant. These
> > calculations depend somewhat sensitively on where the
> > power-producing and -consuming components are located and the
> > view factors to other bodies and to space. Cassini is configured
> > in a much different way than the Pioneers so we cannot assume
> > similarity. You just decided to speculate without substantiation
> > that Cassini is similar to the Pioneers, but why do that without
> > evidence?
> >
> > Second of all, there are things we *know* are very different.
> > Cassini is ~10x more massive than Pioneers. The Pioneers area to
> > mass ratio is about 10 times larger than the Cassini area to mass
> > ratio. This means that *accelerations* due to solar and
> > internally-generated thermal are about 10x smaller for the same
> > input signal.
> >
> > If you had bothered to read the di Benedetto thesis you would
> > have found extensive discussions of the RTGs, which are quite
> > different than the Pioneer's RTGs.
[ re-inserting the summary of discussion that you conveniently deleted. ]
> So, sorry to burst your bubble, but it turned out that Anderson et al’s
> conclusions from 2001 were too simple and speculative, and also not born out
> by the data or the detailed thermal modeling. Why you insist on hugging that
> result when more refined results and Doppler data have followed is close to
> madness.
I note that you conveniently deleted and ignored this crucial discussion. Anderson made simplifying assumptions that turned out to be incorrect or too simple. (see item #4 below)
> conclusions from 2001 were too simple and speculative, and also not born out
> by the data or the detailed thermal modeling. Why you insist on hugging that
> result when more refined results and Doppler data have followed is close to
> madness.
> >>>> "exact thermal coatings used by Pioneer"? Did they know something
> >>>> Turyshev didn't?
> >>>
> >>> Cute. Rather that learning about thermal emissivity properties,
> >>> you instead decide to invent a conspiracy theory (see #5 below).
> >>> The thermal coatings were documented, and *some* UV and radiation
> >>> tests were performed on those coatings in laboratories, but they
> >>> did not mimic the exact space environment the Pioneers
> >>> experienced. So do we really know the amount of degradation
> >>> experienced? What we do know is that most thermal coatings
> >>> degrade by changing their optical reflectivity (absorptivity) but
> >>> have very little change to the infrared emissivity. You could have
> >>> read about this but did not.
> >>
> >> Increased absorptivity with no change in emissivity only reduces
> >> solar radiation pressure. It has no effect whatever on the
> >> fore/aft drive ratio from the internally generated RTG thermal
> >> energy. Think about it. The emissivity of the surfaces hasn't
> >> changed at all. And without the sunward drive asymmetry the
> >> thermal solution fails.
> >
> > You seem fixated upon the RTGs.
>
> Exactly! That's where the thermal solution fails. Read the
> paragraph you replied to.
>
" Similar paints [13] have experienced both an increase and a decrease of up to 5% in infrared emissivity."
> "Approximately 25% of the RTG coated surfaces were exposed to
> solar irradiation. A calculation that takes into account the
> relative contribution of RTG heat to the total anisotropy yields
> a corresponding error figure of 25% in the overall error budget."
>
> It's impossible for the RTG's to provide anything like 25% of
> in the overall error budget.
>
> The uncertainties in the surface coating does **not** help the
> thermal solution at all. If absorptivity increases, emissivity
> normally increases as well and the emissivity of the fore surface
> will be greater than the aft surface. So the RTG's will be driven
> away from the sun by the internally produced thermal energy,
> which overwhelms any residual inward drive generated from solar
> thermal energy absorption.
Let's get this out of the way. For the RTGs the effects of solar illumination and optical absorptivity/reflectivity are less important than for the HGA. This is because the energy input from the sun is about (using fsun=1367 W/m^ at 1AU)
> solar irradiation. A calculation that takes into account the
> relative contribution of RTG heat to the total anisotropy yields
> a corresponding error figure of 25% in the overall error budget."
>
> It's impossible for the RTG's to provide anything like 25% of
> in the overall error budget.
>
> The uncertainties in the surface coating does **not** help the
> thermal solution at all. If absorptivity increases, emissivity
> normally increases as well and the emissivity of the fore surface
> will be greater than the aft surface. So the RTG's will be driven
> away from the sun by the internally produced thermal energy,
> which overwhelms any residual inward drive generated from solar
> thermal energy absorption.
fsun = 54 W/m^2 at 5AU (Jupiter)
= 14 W/m^2 at 10AU (Saturn)
= 0.5 W/m^2 at 50AU (escape)
of which 10-50% is absorbed by the white thermal coating (alpha=0.1-0.5).
Whereas the total internal RTG heat flux escaping is approximately,
frtg = 500 W/m^2 at launch
= 400 W/m^2 at 50AU (escape)
(basis: SNAP-19 Pioneer F & G final report for geometry and wattage)
In other words, the internally generated heat is dominant over the received solar flux by a factor of 20-1000x.
The total power generated by the Pioneers' RTGs is about 2500 W at beginning of life, and about 2000 W at end of life.
Now, one can solve the radiation transfer for a RTG fin which is illuminated by sun. I did this long ago based on my research on spacecraft thermal properties and established thermal principles. This included two sides of the fins with different emissivities on each side, e1 and e2.
After solving the equations, the resulting fractional flux anisotropy turns out to be,
(f1 - f2)/faverage = (e1-e2)/eaverage
The left side is the *fractional* flux difference, compared to the average of both sides, and the right side is the difference in emissivity, compared the average emissivity. This right hand number, by the way, is exactly the fractional +/- 5% increase/decrease discussed by Turyshev et al in 2012.
So the total emitted anisotropy in a pure planar geometry would be,
(P1 - P2) = 0.5*(2000W to 2500W) * (+/- 5%)
= +/- (50 W to 63 W)
By the way, this is *exactly* what Anderson et al derive in their section VIII.C. (they find a 1% emissivity difference produces 10W, I find 5% emissivity difference produces 50W: exactly the same).
This is in a simplified pure planar flat plate geometry. In reality there are non-planar "cosine" effects as noted by Anderson that limit the total anisotropy (factor 61%), and as well only a fraction of the RTG surface was exposed to sunlight (factor 25%). The total anisotropy thus estimated is about 10 W, or about 1.5e-8 cm2/s radiation pressure acceleration. Compared to the thermally modeled acceleration of about 6.5e-8, this is about +/-23%.
We can argue whether +/-23% or +/-25% is the right number. We can argue whether a more refined calculation can be done with improved view factors. But the basic physics is there.
1. There are known similar coatings which exhibit +/- 5% emissivity factors
(cf. Broadway 1971)
2. Such an emissivity difference is enough to produce about +/-25% difference
on the thermal emission model.
3. +/- 23% or +/- 25% does not qualitatively change the consistency beween
the thermal and doppler solutions.
Thus, it appears that the Turyshev et al (2012) model is on track.
By the way, if you revere the Anderson et al work so much, why do you so handily discard Anderson's work in this case, and not others? Basically Turyshev's work agrees with Anderson's work exactly on the sensitivity of the RTGs to differential emissivity of a certain percentage. But while Anderson et al assumed only 1% differential, Turyshev et al showed that similar paints, under solar irradiation test could exhibit as much as 5% differential emissivity. Turyshev produced facts and citations. What did you do?
[ re-inserting commentary from my follow-up post which you conveniently ignored ]
> The "onset" in those figures is an artifact of the way the analysis was done.
> The assumption made was not necessarily correct. We *know* there was
> additional non-gravitational acceleration due to the electronic compartments.
> This was not accounted for. Thus, we cannot rely upon the results in
> Anderson's Figure 6 or 7, since they assumed what you are now claiming to
> discover.
1. You continue to mention that somehow Turyshev’s 2012 work is about “solar thermal” or RTGs, when that is incorrect. It is about solar thermal and RTGs yes, but mostly about internally-generated thermal. When noted, you ignore or distract.
2. You continue to ask about what is in the Turyshev 2012 paper. I continue to refer you to it, but you ignore or distract.
3. You continue to ask about what is different between the Anderson 2001 and Turyshev 2012 works. I reply with detailed points, but you ignore or distract.
- Anderson made assumptions about the constancy of the "anomalous" force
that were not born out by actual data Pioneer data.
- Anderson made simplifying assumptions about the geometry and louvre
which turned out not to be valid
- Anderson made simplifying assumptions about how to estimate the
optical coefficients at D=5AU, which turned out to artificially
create the "onset" in his charts.
5. You continue to speculate how spacecraft thermal systems work based on your intuition. I’ve referred you to authoritative works, but you ignore.
and emissivity are connected... without substantiation.
- you also speculate about how much of an effect and emissivity difference
would be without substantiation, when in fact, Turyshev's RTG differential
emissivity estimates are close to a naive estimate.
6. You’ve speculated that somehow the curve of the anomaly “onset” from Anderson’s paper is somehow rock solid, when in fact it can be explained as an artifact of how the solar radiation pressure was solved by Anderson et al. (i.e. by assuming that all other forces were zero at D=5AU, including the anomaly)
7. To bolster your case that the anomaly “onset” curve is real, you’ve decided that analysts from the 1970s were special wizards with more skill than today’s analysts. In fact, the opposite was the case: analysts of the time were still learning the craft. I provided citations to published papers about this. You conveniently ignore it.
8. You’ve tried to discount Turyshev’s 2012 work by claiming that it’s an outlier and that every other researcher could not agree with a thermal original. But these are false. Other researchers were considering a thermal origin and consistent with Turyshev’s 2012 work. You continue to ignore this.
9. You’ve speculated that it should be easy to know about or replicate the thermal quantities of the Pioneer systems. When the error of this statement was pointed out, you ignored or distracted.
10. You’ve speculated about the performance of the Cassini spacecraft and argue by analogy that Pioneer and Cassini work can be interchanged blindly. That is not true: the spacecraft were quite different and in a careful treatment must be considered separately. You’ve been referred to papers about Cassini but continue to ignore.
So I ask again: if this is so important to you, why don’t you stop ignoring important things? It's clear you have your own theory to hawk, and are willing to ignore anything that disagrees with it. So why should we listen to you?
> I was hoping you could provide me with some real proof that the
> anomaly doesn't exist, but sadly I've proven you wrong instead.
Actually, I've provided details, citations to research, facts, quantitative analysis. I've pointed out where Anderson's work went wrong in several areas. You have for the most part conveniently ignored those points and provided your own unsubstantiated speculation instead.
> I was hoping you could provide me with some real proof that the
> anomaly doesn't exist, but sadly I've proven you wrong instead.
> And yes, I do have a theory. But it's so far removed from current
> theory that I don't think they could coexist in the same forum.
What other true theories do is quantify, use evidence, refer to previous work, build a substantiated case. And yes, speculate where the evidence allows. What you are doing is just speculating while willfully ignoring the evidence. Good luck with that.
CM
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Jun 12, 2017, 10:23:48 PM6/12/17
to
demonstrates that I'm not "claiming to discover" any such thing.
But you've just shot yourself in the foot by acknowledging the
existence of an onset.
Analysts involved in describing the Pioneer anomaly set the zero
mark for the onset at around 5 AU, which gave a positive anomaly
for all radii beyond that point. If zero was set at i.e. 20 AU
the anomaly would be negative at lesser radii, and that would
throw your thermal solution out the window. Your challenge would
then be to explain a **negative** anomaly where Pioneer is
anomalously accelerated away from the sun. Or if the zero mark
was set at 1 AU the anomaly would increase by 1.1e-6 m/s^2 to
1.10874e-6 m/s^2. But wherever the zero mark is set the same
anomaly is still present.
The reason 5 AU was chosen as zero is because it gave the best
fit according to current theory.
The mismatch between my theory and current theory is always
exactly the same regardless of where the zero mark is set.
-----
Max Keon
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Jun 13, 2017, 10:17:03 PM6/13/17
to
On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 6:02:16 PM UTC+10, old...@yahoo.it wrote:
---
---
---
> ... a personal question perhaps very stupid for Max Keon ..
> .. if i understood well , he (MK) wants to explain an acceleration
> anomaly making the sun with a bigger mass than suspected-one .. if
> that-bigger sun- was true , all solar sistem should be changed , but
> our anomaly is rising relatively to the unchanged sistem which we
> observe now .. something is not turning well , for me..
In the zero origin universe, the speed of light, passage of time
and linear measurements are all interlinked. Nothing is constant
and that makes the math very complicated. A different combination
of the three variables are required for every step of the way
throughout Pioneer's travels. The true distance to Pioneer can
only be established through the compounding results.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/pneer-fh.exe
is an application file which describes the processes involved
for each step. The Pioneer anomaly is the difference between
these results and those generated by current theory.
Unfortunately it's written in English and can't be directly
converted to your language. So I've listed the set of figures
generated for close to 1 AU radius from the sun, and I've
included a description of the math involved for each element.
You may be able to follow the graph plot for the entire anomaly
if this can be converted to your language.
The file is guaranteed clean. Norton will give it an immediate
tick of approval if you happen to be using that software.
---
41973.41849524161 c per sun at 1.004544 AU radius.
SQR(G * M / r / t)
M = sun's mass (1.99e30 kg)
r = radius from center of mass
t is the time constant (.5 in this case)
299993450.975931 total c at this point in space.
Total light speed = cs + cu
cs = light speed contribution from the sun.
cu = light speed contribution from the universe.
150681600000 normal radius (1).
normal radius = current radius + ds
ds = sun radius = 697600000 meters.
Calculations are in sun radius steps.
150701660108.3475 adjusted radius (2).
store1 holds the adjusted radius.
store1 = store1 + ds * meter
meter = sqr((cs + cu) / cu)
Each step length is adjusted accordingly.
20060108.34747314 meter difference.
Extended radius carried in store1 - normal radius.
(less than a GPS satellite orbit radius increase in this case)
5.845995331137613D-03 gforce(1) m/sec^2.
5.844894317653062D-03 gforce(2) m/sec^2.
gforce(1) is based on the normal sun mass and observed radius.
gforce(2) is based on the increased sun mass and extended radius.
-1.101013484551029D-06 gforce(2) - gforce(1).
29679.6888475662 orbital speed for sun mass at apparent radius.
(G*M/r1)^.5
29678.8691972616 orbital speed for increased mass at true radius.
(G*Mx/r2)^.5 (Mx=1.990155e30 kg)
---
Orbital speed difference for this radius is only .82 m/sec.
If an observer at 1 AU from the sun measures the orbit radius as
being 150681600000 meters the orbital speed will be .82 m/sec
slower than it should be. Using the normal sun mass (1.99e30 kg)
that's equivalent to an orbit radius error of only 8,323 km. That
difference would be undetectable in the earth's orbit radius.
The web page is an essential component here as well, and it can
be translated.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pioneer4.html
And thanks for asking the question.
-----
Max Keon
---
---
>> And yes, I do have a theory. But it's so far removed from current
>> theory that I don't think they could coexist in the same forum.
>> The tendency would be to attempt to unify the two and that's
>> impossible. So I'm left with a dilemma.
---
>> theory that I don't think they could coexist in the same forum.
>> The tendency would be to attempt to unify the two and that's
>> impossible. So I'm left with a dilemma.
---
> ... a personal question perhaps very stupid for Max Keon ..
> .. if i understood well , he (MK) wants to explain an acceleration
> anomaly making the sun with a bigger mass than suspected-one .. if
> that-bigger sun- was true , all solar sistem should be changed , but
> our anomaly is rising relatively to the unchanged sistem which we
> observe now .. something is not turning well , for me..
and linear measurements are all interlinked. Nothing is constant
and that makes the math very complicated. A different combination
of the three variables are required for every step of the way
throughout Pioneer's travels. The true distance to Pioneer can
only be established through the compounding results.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/pneer-fh.exe
is an application file which describes the processes involved
for each step. The Pioneer anomaly is the difference between
these results and those generated by current theory.
Unfortunately it's written in English and can't be directly
converted to your language. So I've listed the set of figures
generated for close to 1 AU radius from the sun, and I've
included a description of the math involved for each element.
You may be able to follow the graph plot for the entire anomaly
if this can be converted to your language.
The file is guaranteed clean. Norton will give it an immediate
tick of approval if you happen to be using that software.
---
41973.41849524161 c per sun at 1.004544 AU radius.
SQR(G * M / r / t)
M = sun's mass (1.99e30 kg)
r = radius from center of mass
t is the time constant (.5 in this case)
299993450.975931 total c at this point in space.
Total light speed = cs + cu
cs = light speed contribution from the sun.
cu = light speed contribution from the universe.
150681600000 normal radius (1).
normal radius = current radius + ds
ds = sun radius = 697600000 meters.
Calculations are in sun radius steps.
150701660108.3475 adjusted radius (2).
store1 holds the adjusted radius.
store1 = store1 + ds * meter
meter = sqr((cs + cu) / cu)
Each step length is adjusted accordingly.
20060108.34747314 meter difference.
Extended radius carried in store1 - normal radius.
(less than a GPS satellite orbit radius increase in this case)
5.845995331137613D-03 gforce(1) m/sec^2.
5.844894317653062D-03 gforce(2) m/sec^2.
gforce(1) is based on the normal sun mass and observed radius.
gforce(2) is based on the increased sun mass and extended radius.
-1.101013484551029D-06 gforce(2) - gforce(1).
29679.6888475662 orbital speed for sun mass at apparent radius.
(G*M/r1)^.5
29678.8691972616 orbital speed for increased mass at true radius.
(G*Mx/r2)^.5 (Mx=1.990155e30 kg)
---
Orbital speed difference for this radius is only .82 m/sec.
If an observer at 1 AU from the sun measures the orbit radius as
being 150681600000 meters the orbital speed will be .82 m/sec
slower than it should be. Using the normal sun mass (1.99e30 kg)
that's equivalent to an orbit radius error of only 8,323 km. That
difference would be undetectable in the earth's orbit radius.
The web page is an essential component here as well, and it can
be translated.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pioneer4.html
And thanks for asking the question.
-----
Max Keon
old...@yahoo.it
Jun 15, 2017, 9:59:37 AM6/15/17
to
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Jun 15, 2017, 7:49:07 PM6/15/17
to
On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 7:13:29 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 8:38:54 PM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 2:36:34 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
---
> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 8:38:54 PM UTC-4, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 2:36:34 AM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
---
reduction generated from solar radiation when Anderson has very
soundly rejected such a huge amount. Anderson's analysis in
section V111.C; "Differential emissivity of the RTG's" isn't
handwaving by any means. It's based on **very sound logic**. So
whether or not Turyshev had evidence that the emissivity of
similar surface coatings degrade by 5% in a solar environment is
irrelevant because **that's not what happened here**.
And even if it was a possibility the error margin is increased
to only just barely encapsulate the anomaly. The odds on the RTG
surface coating being the one with the -5% emissivity would be
at most 1 in 20. How does that prove the Pioneer anomaly extinct
beyond any doubt?
That's not how it's supposed to work.
-----
Max Keon
Craig Markwardt
Jun 16, 2017, 9:54:33 AM6/16/17
to
> I note that you conveniently deleted and ignored this crucial discussion.
> Anderson made simplifying assumptions that turned out to be incorrect or
> too simple.
I note no response. (see item #4 below)
> Anderson made simplifying assumptions that turned out to be incorrect or
> too simple.
> I would still like to know how Turyshev arrived at 5% emissivity
If you had bothered to the check the footnote in Turyshev et al's text, you might have. (see item #2 below). It’s also probably because the Anderson authors were exclusively navigation analysts, and did not have significant thermal experience.
> Anderson's analysis in
> section V111.C; "Differential emissivity of the RTG's" isn't
> handwaving by any means. It's based on **very sound logic**.
Paragraph 1. Introduction.
Paragraph 2. “Given our knowledge of the solar wind and the interplanetary dust (see Section XI A), we find that this amount of a radiant change would be difficult to explain, even if it were of the right sign.” Note, no substantiation or quantitative reasoning is given for this statement. No sound logic.
Paragraph 3. Conclusions based on optical lenses on Voyager. No quantitative evidence provided. No reasoning of why Voyager optical lenses apply to Pioneer RTG infrared thermal coatings. Speculation only upon solar wind / dust and not solar UV damage. No sound logic.
Paragraph 4. Discussion based upon radiation damage in the Jupiter environment. No discussion of solar UV damage.
Paragraph 5. Useful quantitative discussion of the effects of IR emissivity changes, but no quantitative motivation for the 1% value chosen. No sound logic.
Paragraph 6. Discussion of the temporal behavior of an RTG emissivity based effect. Anderson rules out a differential emissivity effect because the “anomaly” is constant. However, as found by Turyshev Toth Ellis & Markwardt (2010), there *is* evidence for a temporally varying acceleration. So the fundamental assumption of Anderson turned out to be incorrect. No sound logic.
Therefore, while much of this discussion by Anderson et al was *plausible* at the time, it was still mostly unmotivated and lacking in quantitative basis. And, none of what Anderson discusses really pertains to solar UV damage which is the primary degradation mechanism identified in Turyshev et al (2012) and Broadway (1971). Therefore you are incorrect (see item #4 below)
Furthermore, while Anderson et al were trying to discount the RTGs as the source of the *total* Pioneer “anomaly” magnitude, Turyshev et al (2012) only attempted to tally an uncertainty due to RTG coating degradations, which is a smaller fraction than the full anomaly. They didn’t “need” to reach 100% anomaly level, as Anderson did to explain the anomaly.
> So whether or not Turyshev had evidence that the emissivity of
> similar surface coatings degrade by 5% in a solar environment is
> irrelevant because **that's not what happened here**.
> And even if it was a possibility the error margin is increased
> to only just barely encapsulate the anomaly.
> The odds on the RTG
> surface coating being the one with the -5% emissivity would be
> at most 1 in 20.
> How does that prove the Pioneer anomaly extinct
> beyond any doubt?
[ From your other message ]
> But you've just shot yourself in the foot by acknowledging the
> existence of an onset.
I never claimed there was no "onset," but that those historical figures were presented by Anderson with little or no substantiation, and with no way to verify. As I pointed out, analysts at the time were working with more limited knowledge, and the setting of the solar constant K at 5 AU may have influenced the appearance of an “onset.”
> existence of an onset.
> Analysts involved in describing the Pioneer anomaly set the zero
> mark for the onset at around 5 AU, which gave a positive anomaly
> for all radii beyond that point. If zero was set at i.e. 20 AU
> the anomaly would be negative at lesser radii, and that would
> throw your thermal solution out the window.
> The reason 5 AU was chosen as zero is because it gave the best
> fit according to current theory.
...
Let’s summarize the issues you seem to be willfully ignoring.
1. You continue to mention that somehow Turyshev’s 2012 work is about “solar thermal” or RTGs, when that is incorrect. It is about solar thermal and RTGs yes, but mostly about internally-generated thermal. When noted, you ignore or distract.
2. You continue to ask about what is in the Turyshev 2012 paper. I continue to refer you to it, but you ignore or distract.
3. You continue to ask about what is different between the Anderson 2001 and Turyshev 2012 works. I reply with detailed points, but you ignore or distract.
4. You continue to appeal to authority of Anderson’s work for thermal aspects. However, Anderson’s work in this topic is rather crude, and limited to point-like and plate-like approximations. Even Anderson noted that a higher fidelity model could be useful and Turyshev’s 2012 work accomplished it! You continue to conveniently ignore or distract from this point. More to the point:
- Anderson made assumptions about the constancy of the "anomalous" force
that were not born out by actual data Pioneer data.
- Anderson made simplifying assumptions about the geometry and louvre
which turned out not to be valid
- Anderson made simplifying assumptions about how to estimate the
optical coefficients at D=5AU, which turned out to artificially
create the "onset" in his charts.
quantitatively unsubstantiated and irrelevant to the actually issues of
how much degradation the RTG coatings experienced.
5. You continue to speculate how spacecraft thermal systems work based on your intuition. I’ve referred you to authoritative works, but you ignore.
- specifically you continue to speculate about how optical absorptivity
and emissivity are connected... without substantiation.
- you also speculate about how much of an effect and emissivity difference
would be without substantiation, when in fact, Turyshev's RTG differential
emissivity estimates are close to a naive estimate.
6. You’ve speculated that somehow the curve of the anomaly “onset” from Anderson’s paper is somehow rock solid, when in fact it can be explained as an artifact of how the solar radiation pressure was solved by Anderson et al. (i.e. by assuming that all other forces were zero at D=5AU, including the anomaly)
7. To bolster your case that the anomaly “onset” curve is real, you’ve decided that analysts from the 1970s were special wizards with more skill than today’s analysts. In fact, the opposite was the case: analysts of the time were still learning the craft. I provided citations to published papers about this. You conveniently ignore it.
8. You’ve tried to discount Turyshev’s 2012 work by claiming that it’s an outlier and that every other researcher could not agree with a thermal original. But these are false. Other researchers were considering a thermal origin and consistent with Turyshev’s 2012 work. You continue to ignore this.
9. You’ve speculated that it should be easy to know about or replicate the thermal quantities of the Pioneer systems. When the error of this statement was pointed out, you ignored or distracted.
10. You’ve speculated about the performance of the Cassini spacecraft and argue by analogy that Pioneer and Cassini work can be interchanged blindly. That is not true: the spacecraft were quite different and in a careful treatment must be considered separately. You’ve been referred to papers about Cassini but continue to ignore.
So I ask again: if this is so important to you, why don’t you stop ignoring important things? It's clear you have your own theory to hawk, and are willing to ignore anything that disagrees with it. So why should we listen to you?
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Jun 21, 2017, 11:27:58 PM6/21/17
to
On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 11:54:33 PM UTC+10, Craig Markwardt wrote:
>> I note that you conveniently deleted and ignored this crucial discussion.
>> Anderson made simplifying assumptions that turned out to be incorrect or
>> too simple.
>
> I note no response. (see item #4 below)
>
>> I would still like to know how Turyshev arrived at 5% emissivity
>> reduction generated from solar radiation...
>
> If you had bothered to the check the footnote in Turyshev et al's
> text, you might have. (see item #2 below). It's also probably
> because the Anderson authors were exclusively navigation analysts,
> and did not have significant thermal experience.
>
>> Anderson's analysis in
>> section V111.C; "Differential emissivity of the RTG's" isn't
>> handwaving by any means. It's based on **very sound logic**.
>
> Really? Let's see what is argued in that section.
>
> Paragraph 1. Introduction.
>
> Paragraph 2. "Given our knowledge of the solar wind and the
> interplanetary dust (see Section XI A), we find that this amount
> of a radiant change would be difficult to explain, even if it
> were of the right sign." Note, no substantiation or quantitative
> reasoning is given for this statement. No sound logic.
A couple of sentences extracted from a paragraph is useless.
>> I note that you conveniently deleted and ignored this crucial discussion.
>> Anderson made simplifying assumptions that turned out to be incorrect or
>> too simple.
>
> I note no response. (see item #4 below)
>
>> I would still like to know how Turyshev arrived at 5% emissivity
>> reduction generated from solar radiation...
>
> If you had bothered to the check the footnote in Turyshev et al's
> text, you might have. (see item #2 below). It's also probably
> because the Anderson authors were exclusively navigation analysts,
> and did not have significant thermal experience.
>
>> Anderson's analysis in
>> section V111.C; "Differential emissivity of the RTG's" isn't
>> handwaving by any means. It's based on **very sound logic**.
>
> Really? Let's see what is argued in that section.
>
> Paragraph 1. Introduction.
>
> Paragraph 2. "Given our knowledge of the solar wind and the
> interplanetary dust (see Section XI A), we find that this amount
> of a radiant change would be difficult to explain, even if it
> were of the right sign." Note, no substantiation or quantitative
> reasoning is given for this statement. No sound logic.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064v5
Section V111.C. tells the story properly.
---
---
> Paragraph 6. Discussion of the temporal behavior of an RTG
> emissivity based effect. Anderson rules out a differential
> emissivity effect because the "anomaly" is constant. However,
> as found by Turyshev Toth Ellis & Markwardt (2010), there *is*
> evidence for a temporally varying acceleration. So the
> fundamental assumption of Anderson turned out to be incorrect.
> No sound logic.
> Therefore, while much of this discussion by Anderson et al was
> *plausible* at the time, it was still mostly unmotivated and
> lacking in quantitative basis. And, none of what Anderson
> discusses really pertains to solar UV damage which is the primary
> degradation mechanism identified in Turyshev et al (2012) and
> Broadway (1971). Therefore you are incorrect (see item #4 below)
>
> Furthermore, while Anderson et al were trying to discount the
> RTGs as the source of the *total* Pioneer "anomaly" magnitude,
> Turyshev et al (2012) only attempted to tally an uncertainty due
> to RTG coating degradations, which is a smaller fraction than the
> full anomaly. They didn't "need" to reach 100% anomaly level, as
> Anderson did to explain the anomaly.
It's clear to me that Anderson set a "100% anomaly level" as
an example. He was well aware that there were other areas of
concern. He gave **an example** for a -1% relative fore/aft
emissivity on the RTG surfaces as well, which resulted in 10
watts of drive toward the sun. -10% emissivity fore/aft
difference would generate 100 watts, which would be enough to
counteract the entire anomaly. You yourself gave a 50 watt
sunward drive for -5% emissivity change on the sun facing
surface, so Anderson was obviously using exactly the same
math then as you are today.
>> So whether or not Turyshev had evidence that the emissivity of
>> similar surface coatings degrade by 5% in a solar environment is
>> irrelevant because **that's not what happened here**.
>
> I note you have absolutely zero evidence of this. Anderson et
> occur due to solar UV damage. (see item #4 below)
>
>> And even if it was a possibility the error margin is increased
>> to only just barely encapsulate the anomaly.
>
> You are incorrect. Figure 4 of Turyshev et al (2012)
> demonstrates that there is very significant overlap between the
> 1-sigma thermal solution and the 1-sigma doppler solution. You
> could have read about this but did not (see item #2 below).
>
>> The odds on the RTG
>> surface coating being the one with the -5% emissivity would be
>> at most 1 in 20.
>
> The change of IR emissivity of about 5% was actually measured in
> several samples, after only a few hundred equivalent sun hours of
> exposure. This was not a rare change. And bear in mind that
> the cruise to Jupiter takes many *thousands* of hours.
Equivalent at what radius? Whatever the case the change in
>
>> And even if it was a possibility the error margin is increased
>> to only just barely encapsulate the anomaly.
>
> You are incorrect. Figure 4 of Turyshev et al (2012)
> demonstrates that there is very significant overlap between the
> 1-sigma thermal solution and the 1-sigma doppler solution. You
> could have read about this but did not (see item #2 below).
>
>> The odds on the RTG
>> surface coating being the one with the -5% emissivity would be
>> at most 1 in 20.
>
> The change of IR emissivity of about 5% was actually measured in
> several samples, after only a few hundred equivalent sun hours of
> exposure. This was not a rare change. And bear in mind that
> the cruise to Jupiter takes many *thousands* of hours.
emissivity is obviously not linear. I would expect that after a
few hundred hours of solar radiation the process will have slowed
considerably. If the process was linear, it wouldn't instantly
stop at 5% change, and the consequences would be easily noted as
a constantly increasing or decreasing anomaly, depending on the
sign. Increasingly -x% emissivity change on the RTG sun facing
surfaces, at the rate you have described, would give a very
obvious rising anomaly per time. Increasingly +x% would give an
equivalent falling anomaly.
According to FIG.3 from Turyshev's paper, and FIGs 6 and 7 from
Anderson's paper the anomalous acceleration reduces over time
(beyond 20 AU for Anderson). Which is evidence that the RTG
surface coating is of the +x% variety. That's only if the need
arises of course.
> So your claim
> of 1 in 20 is unsubstantiated.
>
>> How does that prove the Pioneer anomaly extinct
>> beyond any doubt?
>
> You have the wrong statistical standard. If the thermal and
> Doppler solutions overlap by about 50% at the 1-sigma confidence
> level, then they are essentially consistent with each other. The
> Pioneer data are consistent with "standard physics," so there is
> no statistical need to invoke an anomaly.
differential, giving 25 watts of drive from the RTG's, which
adds enough to the total to explain the anomaly. If the error
bar was from 0% to -5% that gives a 50\50 chance that the anomaly
doesn't exist. But since the range of coatings extends to -5%
the confidence level becomes 100% . The problem here is that the
error bar is from +5% to -5% . So the confidence level goes back
50% again. You have clearly failed to meet the conditions set
out in your statistical standard.
This is another area where the thermal solution fails:
If the entire range of RTG surface coating possibilities were
tested, on a graph depicting solar induced emissivity changes
between +5% and -5% , how would they be distributed? Would the
distribution be uniform right up to the limits of the error bar,
or would the graph be more realistic and follow more of a
sinewave shape where the distribution around the limits is
sparse, with the vast majority falling around the central point
(0%) ? Of course it would.
Your 50\50 chance has diminished considerably.
> [ From your other message ]
>> But you've just shot yourself in the foot by acknowledging the
>> existence of an onset.
>
> I never claimed there was no "onset," but that those historical
> figures were presented by Anderson with little or no
> substantiation, and with no way to verify. As I pointed out,
> analysts at the time were working with more limited knowledge,
> and the setting of the solar constant K at 5 AU may have
> influenced the appearance of an "onset."
>
>> Analysts involved in describing the Pioneer anomaly set the zero
>> mark for the onset at around 5 AU, which gave a positive anomaly
>> for all radii beyond that point. If zero was set at i.e. 20 AU
>> the anomaly would be negative at lesser radii, and that would
>> throw your thermal solution out the window.
>
> You are correct that the choice of when/where to set the solar
> reflectivity constant K of the Pioneer will set the zero point of
> the anomaly. Anderson et al (2002) was not really aware of how
> much directional heat flux was present, which would have
> erroneously biased that selection. The presence of the thermal
> solution doesn't throw anything out the window.
mark for the onset is set at 20 AU because the anomaly would be
entirely negative and the anomalous acceleration **away** from
the sun would need to be explained. If the zero mark is set at
1 AU the anomaly would be substantially greater than it is, thus
creating a much greater problem for the thermal solution.
> The Turyshev
> authors were well aware that by estimating spacecraft properties
> using early or beginning-of-life data, could bias the solution.
> This is why they jointly re-solved the doppler and thermal
> equations and spacecraft parameters.
the beginning of the mission at around 1.43e-9 m/s^2. It falls to
8.74e-10 m/s^2 at around 10 AU, falling to less than 6e-10 m/s^2
just prior to 75 AU. Zero for the "solar reflectivity constant"
obviously has nothing to do with the zero used to counteract the
Pioneer anomaly.
>> The reason 5 AU was chosen as zero is because it gave the best
>> fit according to current theory.
>
> I note that you did not substantiate this claim. Anderson et al
> (2002) presented this selection as a fait accompli without
> explanation. (item #4 below)
>
> ...
>
> Let's summarize the issues you seem to be willfully ignoring.
(snipping irrelevant diversionary tactic)
---
> So I ask again: if this is so important to you, why don't you
> stop ignoring important things? It's clear you have your own
> theory to hawk, and are willing to ignore anything that disagrees
> with it. So why should we listen to you?
would probably never know that I existed. It's doubtful that our
paths would ever cross. Unfortunately there's a very sinister
message embedded in that theory and that's what drives me to
annoy you.
Incidentally, that theory generates a curve which is a perfect
match with the Pioneer anomaly as was described by those early
analysts who's contributions you deem unreliable because they
were too inexperienced. But I find it hard to believe that NASA
would launch a billion dollar mission while the analysts are
asking which button to push. They would have known **exactly**
what they were doing. That was proven when they reported the
anomaly. They weren't required to explain how or why it was
there, they only reported what they found.
According to my theory, in current theory, solar radiation
pressure is overestimated to overcome the discrepancy between
the two theories at a radius of 5 AU from the sun. At that radius
the increasing error per lesser radius can be concealed within
the environment local to the sun. But from 5 AU outward, no such
concealment mechanism exists and Pioneer begins an **apparent**
acceleration toward the sun.
The zero mark can be set anywhere by adopting the apparent
(according to current theory) solar radiation pressure at that
point as the standard. At around 12.6 AU the gforce difference
between the two theories is zero. I have suggested that this
should be the zero mark for current theory, but the true zero
line is the Pioneer anomaly as generated by my theory. It
traces a path back to the sun, which passes the 1 AU mark at
1.1e-6 m/sec^2. Setting a fixed zero mark at this point would
generate a relatively enormous anomaly.
There's no doubt at all that the Pioneer anomaly is very much
alive and well.
-----
Max Keon
Richard D. Saam
Jun 27, 2017, 9:36:22 PM6/27/17
to
For your consideration and something missing from previous analysis,
the Pioneers' were probing the fringes of interstellar space
and not limited by heliocentric and geocentric thinking
that drives the JPL statement
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507
"no statistically significant acceleration anomaly exists."
This JPL statement is based on incomplete analysis of the data
assuming the decay for Pioneer acceleration aP
daP/dt = -k*aP model one
This fits the assumption that
the thousands of analyzed aP thermal components
are tied to the RTG half life with aP decay approaching zero with time.
A better fit to trajectory data is the 'aPinfinity' effect
as the Pioneers approached interstellar space:
daP/dt = -k*(aP - aPinfinity) model two
Initially, as the Pioneers pass Jupiter,
the thermal emission overwhelms
the anomalous acceleration (aPinfinity)
making it statistically insignificant in this initial trajectory phase
but diminishes with time(model one)
with aP decay approaching aPinfinity
with time (model two)
as the Pioneers probe interstellar, intergalactic space
on leaving the solar system
with diminished internal thermal and external solar wind
considerations previously considered.
Statistically significant aPinfinity values are:
Pioneer 10 aPinfinity 7.0x10^-10 m/sec^2
Pioneer 11 aPinfinity 8.2x10^-10 m/sec^2
These values may represent a constant for interstellar medium
within some standard deviation
or actually represent different values based on
differing Pioneer 10 and 11 directional probes of interstellar medium.
The interstellar medium may not be uniform.
Logically, in as much as aPinfinity
is a measure of space-Pioneer momentum transfer (spacetime viscosity)
then all transiting object motion would be affected.
This has implication for galactic and planetary system formation.
Apparently there is still some unpublished Pioneer data
to further test this hypothesis.
Considering this data's importance to the scientific community,
it should be published.
RDS
Richard D. Saam
Jun 29, 2017, 4:05:36 PM6/29/17
to Craig Markwardt
On 6/16/17 8:54 AM, Craig Markwardt wrote:
> If the thermal and Doppler solutions overlap by about 50% at the
1-sigma confidence level,
> then they are essentially consistent with each other.
> The Pioneer data are consistent with “standard physics,” so there is
no statistical need to invoke an anomaly.
> CM
> If the thermal and Doppler solutions overlap by about 50% at the
1-sigma confidence level,
> then they are essentially consistent with each other.
> The Pioneer data are consistent with “standard physics,” so there is
no statistical need to invoke an anomaly.
This one time overlap represents the error in the JPL 2012 analysis
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507
in that it does not reflect the thermal and Doppler solutions over time.
With time, the constant Doppler solution
dominates the decaying thermal solution
as the Pioneeps approach interstellar space.
The Doppler solution is real
versus
the 1000s of calculated decaying internal finite element
diminishing contributions.
This JPL analysis failure unnecessarily negates a major contribution
to science.
I am not talking about new physics but a confirmation of space time.
The JPL analysis is based on incomplete analysis of the data
old...@yahoo.it
Jun 30, 2017, 4:00:06 AM6/30/17
to
.. but , strangely , it reminds me an old story of the greek Esopus : the fox and the grapefruit .. or to put the powder under the carpet
.. of course , that is only a question of mine ..: the question of approaching to a question
..: if my mind cannot resolve , there is an hight probability that the problem does't exist .. for almost 40 years , the best minds of our planet studied a Pioneer' phenomena and now you propose to close all with the hipothesis of the forgotten radiator ..
.. i propose to all you a curious test : what is a parallax ? how you can imagine a negative parallax ?
0 new messages