One issue about the "Pioneer effect" is that the margin of error for calculations is bigger than the effect reported, meaning that the effect probably doesn't exist at all.
My thinking behind this may, and I'm only wildly guessing at the moment, be a dark matter effect.
Radioactive Decay not a constant ?
Re: Pioneer effect
From Wikipedia,gblaze42 wrote:One issue about the "Pioneer effect" is that the margin of error for calculations is bigger than the effect reported, meaning that the effect probably doesn't exist at all.
is reported, meaning that the margin of error is ± 1.33 E-10, while the measured effect is 8.74 E-10 . The measured effect is 6 to 7 times bigger than the margin of error.constant sunward acceleration of (8.74 ± 1.33) × 10−10 m/s2
Dark matter? Maybe.
Aero
That's the range of error. I was talking about the Approximation or statistical errors as being larger than that (8.74 E-10).
Look here on page 17 of the PDF.
http://meetings.ifae.es/Thursdays/Pione ... dringa.pdf
Although it could prove to be wrong, I grant you that much.
Look here on page 17 of the PDF.
http://meetings.ifae.es/Thursdays/Pione ... dringa.pdf
Although it could prove to be wrong, I grant you that much.
gblaze42:
Thank you for that link. But I don't see what you're seeing. The effect is an acceleration (with associated uncertainty) toward the sun or earth as I understand it. The analysis seems to justify the Wikipedia article, to me. Maybe you're saying that its just a combination of systematic effects?
The big mystery to me is why is there no effect detected within 5 AU of the sun? Is it because the orbit is much more "cross field" close to the sun, so the geometry is not right to detect? And it is detected as the effect becomes more aligned with the direction of the radio signal? That plot on page 7 could benefit from an explanation. Resulting in a range error of 400 KM per year, the effect is small, but large enough to be easily measured. But it seems unlikely to me that the effect does not exist closer than Jupiter unless the fly-by caused a leak or something.
Didn't both Pioneer 10 and 11 use gravity assists at Jupiter resulting in a major change in direction? Jupiter is at 5 AU.
And please pardon my rambling, I'm thinking.
Thank you for that link. But I don't see what you're seeing. The effect is an acceleration (with associated uncertainty) toward the sun or earth as I understand it. The analysis seems to justify the Wikipedia article, to me. Maybe you're saying that its just a combination of systematic effects?
The big mystery to me is why is there no effect detected within 5 AU of the sun? Is it because the orbit is much more "cross field" close to the sun, so the geometry is not right to detect? And it is detected as the effect becomes more aligned with the direction of the radio signal? That plot on page 7 could benefit from an explanation. Resulting in a range error of 400 KM per year, the effect is small, but large enough to be easily measured. But it seems unlikely to me that the effect does not exist closer than Jupiter unless the fly-by caused a leak or something.
Didn't both Pioneer 10 and 11 use gravity assists at Jupiter resulting in a major change in direction? Jupiter is at 5 AU.
And please pardon my rambling, I'm thinking.
Aero
What I was referencing is the degree's of uncertainty in the calculations for each systematic possible problem as well as what wasn't mentioned. The acceleration is an average,and seemed based on a linear process, as the graph for Doppler residuals shows on page 9 of the PDF. The data seems to fit to well, not enough deviation that you would expect when traveling for millions of miles. What I'm thinking is that any force , gravity electromagnetism, electric field, varies time to time and is dependent on matter around it. Whatever this force is, it hasn't varied in decades, and that bothers me.Aero wrote:gblaze42:
Thank you for that link. But I don't see what you're seeing. The effect is an acceleration (with associated uncertainty) toward the sun or earth as I understand it. The analysis seems to justify the Wikipedia article, to me. Maybe you're saying that its just a combination of systematic effects?
The big mystery to me is why is there no effect detected within 5 AU of the sun? Is it because the orbit is much more "cross field" close to the sun, so the geometry is not right to detect? And it is detected as the effect becomes more aligned with the direction of the radio signal? That plot on page 7 could benefit from an explanation. Resulting in a range error of 400 KM per year, the effect is small, but large enough to be easily measured. But it seems unlikely to me that the effect does not exist closer than Jupiter unless the fly-by caused a leak or something.
Didn't both Pioneer 10 and 11 use gravity assists at Jupiter resulting in a major change in direction? Jupiter is at 5 AU.
And please pardon my rambling, I'm thinking.
Also, the other forces should have some affect, including thermal heat from internal systems, even if it isn't the main cause of the acceleration, I don't see that factored in, sure most researchers have disclaimed other known factors as probable causes but add them together they should have more influence on varying the acceleration either magnifying it or decreasing it to some degree that is measurable.
If you look at the Pioneer Anomaly and the Flyby Anomaly you can see that they are exact opposites of one another. In the Flyby anomaly satellites pick up additional energy as Earth (a large gravitational source) passes close to them. The increase in energy is more than can be explained by simple gravitational acceleration. In the pioneer anomaly we have the case of an object loosing energy, more than can be explained by gravitational forces, as it begins to pass out of the gravitational influence of the solar system.
The two effects are proportional to each other. If we consider gravity as a compression wave, distorting dimensional geometry by small degrees and capable of increasing the the weak nuclear force to decrease radioactivity then it should also follow that other "constants" are also effected. In this case Inertia may be the principle effected. The Pioneer spacecraft and the satellites in question are already in motion, so their inertia is keeping them in motion. If the "strength" of inertia increases as space "compresses" in the influence of gravity then you get an increase in the velocity of the spacecraft. Conversely, as the craft passes out of the gravitational influence, inertia drops off so there will be a speed decrease, Granted int eh flyby case, a speed decrease should bee seen again after it passes out of the Earth's gravitational influence.
A second possibility is that we are seeing a direct result of gravity compressing space and altering linear distance. Since all of our measurements are done from Earth, well within several gravitational influences then we see the data as a change in velocity whereas it may simply be a matter of the spacecraft entering an area of space where length is less compressed than it is here. In other words a mater of perspective (or relativity).
I have a relative who has a PHD in physics and we get together every now and then and have long physics discussions. He did his doctoral thesis on universal expansion and the fact that all of our measurements have been done from within a gravitational influence. We've never sent a probe to the opposite end of our orbit and made the same measurements while the probe was on the opposite end of the solar system. His argument was that we are not taking the conditions of our perspective into account in our measurements. The last time we talked, he hadn't even heard of Heim yet, but even my pitiful grasp of the concepts behind Heim's work was enough to pique his interest.
The two effects are proportional to each other. If we consider gravity as a compression wave, distorting dimensional geometry by small degrees and capable of increasing the the weak nuclear force to decrease radioactivity then it should also follow that other "constants" are also effected. In this case Inertia may be the principle effected. The Pioneer spacecraft and the satellites in question are already in motion, so their inertia is keeping them in motion. If the "strength" of inertia increases as space "compresses" in the influence of gravity then you get an increase in the velocity of the spacecraft. Conversely, as the craft passes out of the gravitational influence, inertia drops off so there will be a speed decrease, Granted int eh flyby case, a speed decrease should bee seen again after it passes out of the Earth's gravitational influence.
A second possibility is that we are seeing a direct result of gravity compressing space and altering linear distance. Since all of our measurements are done from Earth, well within several gravitational influences then we see the data as a change in velocity whereas it may simply be a matter of the spacecraft entering an area of space where length is less compressed than it is here. In other words a mater of perspective (or relativity).
I have a relative who has a PHD in physics and we get together every now and then and have long physics discussions. He did his doctoral thesis on universal expansion and the fact that all of our measurements have been done from within a gravitational influence. We've never sent a probe to the opposite end of our orbit and made the same measurements while the probe was on the opposite end of the solar system. His argument was that we are not taking the conditions of our perspective into account in our measurements. The last time we talked, he hadn't even heard of Heim yet, but even my pitiful grasp of the concepts behind Heim's work was enough to pique his interest.
-
alexjrgreen
- Posts: 815
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Radioactive Decay not a constant ?
It reminds me of the Princeton Random Number Generator trials. We'll probably find it's caused by quantum entanglement.ravingdave wrote:If true, it looks like we don't understand everything yet.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature ... or_less%29
David
Ars artis est celare artem.
Heim is certainly intriguing. Any method that can establish particle masses independently is worth looking at.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory
It's interesting that the flyby anomaly appears related to rotation -- which is exactly what Tajmar found (originally the experiment used superconductors, but Tajmar later told me the effect was found to be independent of superconductivity).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging
Both the flyby effect and Tajmar's measurements were many orders of magnitude greater than predicted by relativity. Dark energy effects? Dark matter influence? The next few years could be very interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory
It's interesting that the flyby anomaly appears related to rotation -- which is exactly what Tajmar found (originally the experiment used superconductors, but Tajmar later told me the effect was found to be independent of superconductivity).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging
Both the flyby effect and Tajmar's measurements were many orders of magnitude greater than predicted by relativity. Dark energy effects? Dark matter influence? The next few years could be very interesting.
-
alexjrgreen
- Posts: 815
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
- Location: UK
Special relativity may account for the spacecraft flyby anomaliesTallDave wrote:Both the flyby effect and Tajmar's measurements were many orders of magnitude greater than predicted by relativity. Dark energy effects? Dark matter influence? The next few years could be very interesting.
Jean Paul Mbelek
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.1888.pdf
Ars artis est celare artem.
Interestingly enough, the hyperdrive proposed by Walter Dröscher and Jochem Häuser based on Heim's theories is based around spinning a large ring with current flowing through it above a large superconducting disc.TallDave wrote: It's interesting that the flyby anomaly appears related to rotation -- which is exactly what Tajmar found (originally the experiment used superconductors, but Tajmar later told me the effect was found to be independent of superconductivity).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging
Both the flyby effect and Tajmar's measurements were many orders of magnitude greater than predicted by relativity. Dark energy effects? Dark matter influence? The next few years could be very interesting.
How would gravity ever be a compression wave? I've never heard of this. One that could distort dimensional geometry?? Yes gravity does warp space and time, all very well known.Alchemist wrote: If we consider gravity as a compression wave, distorting dimensional geometry by small degrees and capable of increasing the the weak nuclear force to decrease radioactivity then it should also follow that other "constants" are also effected.
You make it sound so much like an episode of Star Trek.
I think this article is an excellent chance of solving the fly-by anomaly.
(sorry about the length of the link)
really long url
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._T._WhittakerHow would gravity ever be a compression wave? I've never heard of this.
"In the theory of partial differential equations, Whittaker developed a general solution of the Laplace equation in three dimensions and the solution of the wave equation. He developed the electrical potential field as a bi-directional flow of energy (sometimes referred to as alternating currents). Whittaker's pair of papers in 1903 and 1904 indicated that any potential can be analysed by a Fourier-like series of waves, such as a planet's gravitational field point-charge. The superpositions of inward and outward wave pairs produce the "static" fields (or scalar potential). These were harmonically-related. By this conception, the structure of electric potential is created from two opposite, though balanced, parts. Whittaker suggested that gravity possessed a wavelike "undulatory" character."