Re: Pioneer Anomoly
- From: "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:10:15 +0100
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8dd8b1dt8rrcade7ph486esrjivbrq29ih@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:29:28 +0100, "George Dishman"
> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
....
>>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 14:08:02 +0100, "George Dishman"
>>> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
....
>>>>OK, I have it now. There are some obvious problems
>>>>without getting into the detail yet. The first you
>>>>point out yourself: the effect of a large distant
>>>>mass would apply to all the bodies in the solar
>>>>system hence we would not detect anything. In fact
>>>>this is currently happening both because the Milky
>>>>Way galaxy is bound in the Local Group. You might
>>>>also find it interesting to look up the "Great
>>>>Attractor":
>>>>
>>>> http://cow.physics.wisc.edu/~ogelman/guide/gr8a/
>>>>
>>>>The second problem is that both Pioneer 10 and 11
>>>>are attracted towards the Sun, but they are on
>>>>opposite sides of the Solar System. Your large mass
>>>>would need to be in two places at once.
<snip>
>>... I'll be quite happy if
>>you explain how you work out the direction of
>>A_p using your theory and show that it is
>>directed towards the Sun for _both_ craft.
>>After all, you are the one claiming to have
>>an explanation and this is one of the key
>>points. The other is the constancy of course.
>>
> Firstly, don't get the impression that the solution to P10 is my big
> paper, It is a mere natural secondary consequence from Ch. 13 of my
> book using the Dual Space gravity law.
>
> Everybody wants to know in 30 seconds what the theory is, but it's a
> BIG theory with 240 pages dense with equations.
I don't want to know all the details of your
ideas but I have done quite a lot of work on the
Pioneer anomaly myself and that is what I am
interested in. You claimed to have a solution,
I just want to see it. Your document (#4) has
fundamental problems as noted above.
....
> After long cooking, it's our universe moving at c IN TIME. This
> unhooks us from Minknowski's 4space ..
No it doesn't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-velocity
> .. and automatically gives the same
> results as relativity. ...
Since the pioneer anomaly is adevaition from
the relativistic prediction, that implies your
ideas won't explain it. Of course if it did
deviate then you would have to show you can
still predict the orbits of the planets.
That's one aspect that suggests there is a
more mundane answer as a general modification
to gravity at sufficient level to explain the
craft motion should show up in planetary
motion as well.
> In DS we say our universe goes at c on the 4th dimension of TIME. The
> separation R used in #2 is cT, distance on the time axis and is
> therefore a universal separation, neither/both toward/away from the
> Sun.
Then unless you have a way to turn that
general result into a direction and show
that it will be within 1.5 degrees of a
line towards the Sun, you don't have an
explanation, sorry.
George
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Pioneer Anomoly
- From: John C . Polasek
- Re: Pioneer Anomoly
- References:
- Pioneer Anomoly
- From: Tom Kirke
- Re: Pioneer Anomoly
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: Pioneer Anomoly
- From: Jonathan Silverlight
- Re: Pioneer Anomoly
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: Pioneer Anomoly
- From: John C . Polasek
- Re: Pioneer Anomoly
- From: George Dishman
- Re: Pioneer Anomoly
- From: John C . Polasek
- Re: Pioneer Anomoly
- From: George Dishman
- Re: Pioneer Anomoly
- From: John C . Polasek
- Re: Pioneer Anomoly
- From: George Dishman
- Re: Pioneer Anomoly
- From: John C . Polasek
- Pioneer Anomoly
- Prev by Date: Re: Pioneer Anomoly
- Next by Date: Re: Pioneer Anomoly
- Previous by thread: Re: Pioneer Anomoly
- Next by thread: Re: Pioneer Anomoly
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading