Re: Pioneer Anomoly


"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9kfhb1pf3io1h2tnjafvv21vmrukpkbejv@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:52:39 +0100, "George Dishman"
> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:8ikeb1trso7rv6j1u34fe4rptfe7vpft23@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:32:43 +0100, "George Dishman"
>>> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
<snip previous context>

>>> The Schw. metric and time dilation are kluges to make the
>>> thing go. The equations of space should have nothing to do with xyz at
>>> all, just the velocities.
>>
>>Velocities are merely the derivatives of the
>>spatial coordinates so we can use either
>>equivalently.
>
> Not to be picky, velocities have nothing to do with coordinates. It is
> only when a mathematical analytic function exists for x(t), then we
> can take a derivative.

If you are going to be picky, you need to get
it right. Velocities are defined as the time
derivatives of coordinates and if x(t) cannot
be differentiated then the velocity would be
undefined.

>>> I mis-spoke when I said all relativity is in Fig. 1.
>>
>>OK, that is part of the confusion, I thought
>>you were saying "Fig. 1a is relativity while
>>Fig. 1c is my alternative". None of the
>>diagrams represents relativity correctly.
>
> No, as I say, relativity has no diagrams.

Check the label on fig 4b. If that is supposed
to be the relativistic diagram, it is misleading.

> What you see is Dual Space
> diagrams built on the fact of our universe traveling at c on a 4th
> dimension. There is no attempt to model the Lorentz etc.

Well the label "Actions of Lorentz transform:"
under the second diagram is very confusing in
that case.

>>No, you are drawing velocity perpendicular
>>to a unit time vector (the "arrow of time")
>> but in both Newton and relativity a speed
>>of zero is a vector parallel to that. Your
>>diagram is a cross between velocity space
>>with an extra time axis which is why I need
>>to try to translate it back to the usual
>>format.
> No no no. You are trying to make me draw a graph with x the time axis
> and velocities as slants.

No, you don't need to change, I just need to
get to grips with your diagrams.

> The horizontal vector is our speed c through
> time and cx our speed as reduced by either relative velocity or
> gravity.
>
>>> Relativity's Eq. 6 & 7 are quite obscure and rely on the idea of
>>> clock slowing due to time dilation. Time is absolute. c varies.
>>
>>They become obscure the way you have drawn
>>the diagrams, normally they are simple
>>perpendicuar lines.
>
> I know of no relativity diagram for Eq. 6 & 7 which are quotients of
> the time dilation from rel. velocity and "potential energy".

Nor do I and I can't see why they would be
useful but we were discussing mainly figs 1
and 4.

>>> Fig. 1 and 2 are velocity diagrams. Observe that these are
>>> 4-dimensional diagrams in that any real velocity can be collapsed into
>>> a single vector and the horizontal is our velocity through time, 4th
>>> dimension.
>>
>>Note that velocity is already a derivative
>>against that same axis.
> No, in that case the ordinate would be of different dimension,
> velocity than the abscissa, distance. Fig. 1 and 2 have all legs as
> velocities.

OK, my mistake, I thought at one point you
said x was the time axis but it is dt/dt.

> I am not drawing a graph. Our U moves to the right at velocity c, and
> any 'real' velocity V is at right angles to the 4th dimension.

Yes, it's more like a "sum of vectors" picture.

<snip - needs more thought>
>>> It's from a mass mx of 2x70e21 solar
>>> masses in the other space. But mx would have a horizon radius of
>>> 22BLY, so we would be in a black hole. Cut mx in two so it is then the
>>> antiparticle half or Espace, corresponding to our Uspace half. Now we
>>> get Ap/2. Now invoke the new term cdc/dr = mG/r^2 Eq, 1 #2, and
>>> recover another contributor to Ap making a total of Ap. That's how P10
>>> feels Ap.
>>
>>Your words make no sense at all, A_p is a
>>normal spatial acceleration and has three
>>components, since you have only one axis,
>>you are trying to equate a scalar to a
>>three-vector. All three components of A_p
>>are perpendicular to the time axis.
>
> Nah. Any real vector has 3 components, but only in analytic geometry.
> In vector analysis it can be a single arrow in Clarendon bold.

Sure but that symbology still represents the
set of components and dt/dt is still scalar.

>>> I will admit that planetary orbits should be likewise affected, but I
>>> won't abandon the theory for that reason.
>>
>>There's no need to abandon your ideas, they
>>simply won't explain the Pioneer anomaly.
>>The fact that both craft seem to be drawn
>>towards the sun but they are on opposite
>>sides is significant.

I think that was my key point regarding your
claim to have a solution to the Pioneer anomaly.

>>> It is why I suggested that
>>> another Pioneer experiment should be sure to determine range also by
>>> round trip time, and not rely solely on increase in Doppler frequency
>>> over time.
>>
>>Both craft had such a system and it was used
>>to correlate some of the spin effects but that
>>function on Pioneer 10 was damage during the
>>Jupiter encounter and Pioneer 11 lost contact
>>much earlier. I believe it was because they
>>were then forced to navigate using only Doppler
>>that the original study was undertaken to
>>review the performance in that mode.
>
> I am suspecting that the Doppler might exist without spatial
> dislocation

That is a prime concern of the paper but if
there is no spatial acceleration, how is the
frequency affected? You haven't explained the
mechanism which is crucial to an explanation.

> because I am calculating my Ap along the 11Byr time axis
> of separation since T = 0. The numbers match uncannily, but I did back
> my way into 10.7 Byr by using Ap = H*c and T = 1/H. And maybe I
> haven't gotten every last detail nailed. The first version of my
> theory I printed in 2001. I have modified a fair amount since and
> anticipate there is more work to be done.

Definitely.


>>> I have not seen such a diagram in SR. In SR c stretches into gamma c.
>>
>>No, 'c' is invariant in relativity, the
>>apparent increase on the diagram is solely due
>>to the limitation of drawing on Euclidean
>>paper (screen), like the distortion of the
>>widths of countries in a Mercator Projection.
>>Again, I had already pointed this out:
>>
>>>>No, c is a fundamental constant that does not
>>>>change in relativity and the axis rotates as
>>>>you show in 4a except that it rotates the
>>>>other way from what you have shown.
>
> As you can see, c shortens to cx in DS, while SR tries to trim time

No it doesn't, the changes are due to projection
between the (non-parallel) axes but you have to
draw it as (x,y,z,t) to make it apparent. Using
the derivatives as you do will hide the process.

>>>>Your responses show only some significant
>>>>misapprehensions about relativity. You
>>>>might try breaking out the textbooks, I have
>>>>only given hints of where the errors lie so
>>>>you'll need to work out the details yourself.
>
> I think by now you should know that I know enough of relativity to be
> able poke at its errors from the standpoint of a whole new theory.
> Sloppy phraseology might mislead you into thinking I am tutoring on
> relativity, but in fact I want nothing to do with it.

No, the mistakes you keep making when discussing
relativity show me you need a bit of tutoring
though you're pretty close on many of the concepts.

> I can't tell you how pleased I am that you consider my schemes and
> take the time to discuss them and ask that you file off the sharp
> corners here and there for me.

That's OK though I may not add much more as my
interest is in Pioneer rather than relativity
per se. There are a number of problems in your
paper, mostly to do with the labelling of the
diagrams.

George


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Pioneer Anomoly
    ... > doing relativity you have it all wrong. ... > the 4 SR and GTR corrections in Fig. 2 and the table.The SR velocity ... with an extra time axis which is why I need ... > It's from a mass mx of 2x70e21 solar ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Pioneer Anomoly
    ... >> doing relativity you have it all wrong. ... No, as I say, relativity has no diagrams. ... >> the 4 SR and GTR corrections in Fig. 2 and the table.The SR velocity ... You are trying to make me draw a graph with x the time axis ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Pioneer Anomoly
    ... >>>Velocities are merely the derivatives of the ... mathematical constructs having nothing to do with my diagrams. ... and V are "he-man" velocity vectors obviously independent of each ... >>>diagrams represents relativity correctly. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Has the speed of light emitted by a fast moving particle been measured ?
    ... | Does that stop you from measuring, for example, your average speed ... Light with the Principle of Relativity. ... THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according ... that the velocity of light in our theory plays the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: GPS GR Correction Myth.
    ... we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity ... It denies an axiom, the Principle of Relativity. ... "Albert Einstein. ... THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)