Re: Pioneer Anomoly


"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fhvab11tui0d443qm3p2lbnmqvelqbasae@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:10:15 +0100, "George Dishman"
> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>"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":
> Any point in our universe of particles is located at x y z cT. There
> is image in Dual Space of antiparticles located at x y z 0. (Espace
> is the dual to our vaccum). The range I used for the Newton
> acceleration is R = cT. It is not a distance xyz w/re to the Sun e.g.

That comment seems entirely unrelated to what
you quote above.

T is one of the unknowns, the largest part
of processing the data is to solve find T
(specifically t_3 - t_1 in the notation used
by Anderson et al.).

Once you have that, cT does not directly give
the distance since you have to correct for the
effect of the Solar plasma and ionosphere. Even
after that, you get the distance to the sites
on Earth so if you use that to calculate the
gravitational attraction of the Sun, you are
making yet another basic mistake.

>>>>>> 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.
> Let's restate that. There is an apparent blue-shift that is increasing
> WITH TIME *irrespective of direction*. To say it's toward the sun is
> over-reaching.

If you want to go back to basics, there are many
thousands of frequency measurements with the
time of that measurement, and knowledge of the
transmitted frequency also as a function of time.
Whether there is a blue shift or not is for you
to calculate using your theory.

> All of relativity is in Fig. 1
> paper#2

You have used normal trig instead of hyperbolic
so the craft clock appears to run fast instead
of slow but it is analogous, I know what you
mean. I guess you did the same later too.

> with total energy never deviating from 1/2mc^2.
> A hyperbolic 4space is an abomination as you can see from Fig. 4 #2,

The energy seems to be in fig 3 in document 2,
not fig 4. Even then it is not a style I've
seen before. Where did you get the diagram?

This is a simple version I did some time ago
but it needs more annotation:

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/relativity/momenergy.gif

The mass is an invariant scalar and as usual
the rotation in spacetime known as velocity
produces the increase we call kinetic energy.

As for your figure 4, the one on the left is
the relativistic version (if you used the
hyperbolic trig as above) with 'v' being the
velocity and alpha being the corresponding
rapidity. The one on the right is Newtonian
where R1 and R2 are the velocities. Alpha in
that diagram has no equivalent in Newtonian
theory. Did you get the labels the wrong way
round?

> the relativity total energy with its abominable gamma mc^2, resulting
> from hyperbolic 4space.

<snip>
>>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
> It's new physics, there's 12 chapters ahead of chapter 13, and you
> seem to insist on my solving it with what we already know, and so far,
> it can't be done.

I'm not insisting on anything, you said you
had done it without any prompting from me:

"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:so27b19lnlts1ullo690go18v21aoibp52@xxxxxxxxxx
> I have the Pioneer 10 anomaly explained in paper #4 on my website.

I'm just asking you to produce the goods.

George




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
    ... >> Mr. Dual Space ... >R = sun radius ... >and since r goes from R to infinity, u goes from 1 to 0. ... >where a tricky integration gives ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Pioneer Anomoly
    ... Any point in our universe of particles is located at x y z cT. ... is image in Dual Space of antiparticles located at x y z 0. ... It is not a distance xyz w/re to the Sun e.g. ... All of relativity is in Fig. 1 ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Two "do my homeworks" questions
    ... the Sun does the Moon end up? ... negative because Mars is bound to the Sun; zero total energy would be a body at rest at infinity, or equivalently an object in a parabolic orbit.) ... Moving Mars' orbit from 1.5 au to 1.0 au changes its total ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: ORBITAL MOTION
    ... Total Energy is constant. ... Bernoulli ... The planets orbit the sun ((roughly the center ...
    (sci.research)
Loading