Re: Pioneer Anomoly

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:26:45 +0100, "George Dishman"
<george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:so27b19lnlts1ullo690go18v21aoibp52@xxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> Furthermore, if we use the equation A_p = H*c we could get a better
>> value for Hubble and for age 1/H.
>
>Be careful, that is a noted numerical coincidence but
>the applicable equation depends on the precise mechanism.
>For example tired light predicts A_p = 2*H*v where v is
>the speed of the craft so is wrong by four orders of
>magnitude. I thought I'd have a look at your ideas before
>posting this but ...
>
>> I have the Pioneer 10 anomaly explained in paper #4 on my website. Of
>> course it uses new physics. There is no explanation in relativity or
>> other of current theory.
>>
>> John Polasek
>> http://www.dualspace.net
>
>"4. PIONEER 10 ANOMALY EXPLAINED BY DUAL SPACE THEORY"
>
>Has the following in the abstract: "Not included below
>are developed extensions to this theory that explain
>... the cause of the Pioneer 10 anomaly." which is
>correct, there is nothing in the document that tries
>to explain Pioneer.
>
>Where can I see why the equations of your theory predict
>an acceleration which is independent of distance? What
>is the predicted value?
>
>George
>
Thanks for bringing it to my attention, George. I accidentally
referenced paper #9, but it should be OK now. Paper #4 has to do with
Pioneer 10.
Incidentally I emailed John Anderson to take a look, but he did not
respond.

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
.

Quantcast