Re: Pioneer Anomoly


"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:24ejb1hp7qigjj6n9uall317i7gc8amngi@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 20:01:34 +0100, "George Dishman"
> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>"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:
>>>
<snip>
>>>>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.
> And x(t) surely CAN be differentiated since you just listed it as
> x(t),

Not at all, you can find many examples of
functions of the form x(t) that are not
well behaved. Regardless, your statement
that "velocities have nothing to do with
coordinates" is patently wrong.

> an mathematical analytic function of time. But derivatives are
> mathematical constructs having nothing to do with my diagrams.
>
> I will re-label the horizontal "time" axis as "cosmic velocity"

Relabel it as dt/dt [= 1] and people will know what
you mean.

> which
> is the speed at which our universe is hurtling through time. Both c
> and V are "he-man" velocity vectors obviously independent of each
> other and necessarily orthogonal.. V can either the relative velocity
> for as SR effect, or tghe value of escape velocity for GR.

Note that "escape velocity" is a misnomer, it
actually refers to a speed and is a scalar, not
a vector.

> Installing
> either one on the diagram enables me to compute the Newton defect
> delta c, the 4th side.
>
>>>>> 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.
>
> Yes 4b tries to be representative of SR, but it's my version, so you
> haven't seen it elsewhere so I say SR has no diagrams.

That isn't going to work, it will just confuse
any readers. If you want to illustrate SR, you
need to do it in a way that is understandable.

> I did mention that I wasn't going to try to picture atanh a in Fig.
> 4b, as it can't be done. But you can see the radical difference
> between the two systems. In DS, cosmic V is simply rotated by asin V/c
> retaining its length. Furthermore, the process is extensible to any
> number of rotations = c*sum asin(V/c).
>
> I was also pointing out the possibility of a test using some
> relativistic data to test SR's formula for the sum of 2 velocities.
> The differences would be quite apparent, as my chart shows 16% and
> more difference. I don't believe relativity has data of sufficient
> accuracy to test for sums of relativistic velocity.

There is high accuracy data from particle physics
at very high speeds. Last I heard gamma factors
of > 160000 were in use and that's several years
ago.

>>> 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.
> Should reword: Fig. 1b illustrates clearly the simple projection
> geometry that is responsible for the Lorentz transform. It does not
> use the LT per se. That's still a matter of vigorous debate for the
> relativity student.

"vigorous debate"? What do you mean. The LTs are
just simple algebra.

> It is a natural result of my time-arrow diagram
> and of our universe moving at velocity of light in time.
> .
>>>>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.
>
> So if x is the Cosmic Velocity and y is Any Velocity is that clearer?

Don't call the horizontal axis "x", that means
something already ;-)

The horizontal axis is dt/dt and the vertical
is dx/dt assuming, for inertial motion, the
spatial axes have been chosen such that dy/dt
and dz/dt are zero, i.e. the x axis is aligned
with the direction of motion. I think that says
the same but in language that will be understood.

> And the hypotenuse is the velocity c again.

No, c is a constant while your axes are time
derivatives so c would not appear on such a
diagram.

> I would never mix time and velocity.

OK, I picked you up wrongly.

> The cosmic velocity is not a
> gimmick. Our universe was launched initially as electrons at the speed
> of light and that's exactly what it is doing today.

I don't want to get into that, just lack of
time. I owe Henri a response and I'm out
tomorrow.

>>>>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.
>
> dtdt = c vector.
>>>>> 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.
>
> More correctly, it's that both craft seem to lose velocity in time
> along their velocity line, regardless of direction.

No they don't, they appear to lose spatial
velocity in a direction which has been
determined to be within a few degrees of
the Sun-craft line. That's one of the
disconnects between your theory and the
actual observation.

> Your version
> implies that the sun has something to do with it which is not a
> "given".

Worse than that, the problem is that from
Pioneer the Sun and Earth are within 1.5
degrees, and the direction of motion is
within 11 degrees. The direction seems to
be along the Sun or Earth line rather than
along the line of motion which would be the
case if a dust drag were responsible.


>>>>>>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.
>
> There is no place for derivatives.

That's what you are doing though.

>>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.
> Well if I've finally made clear what my diagram stands for, maybe some
> of your other concerns would be allayed also. Obviously I have to
> rewrite and relabel so the intent would be more immediately obvious.
> Probably trying to put too much in one diagram is a problem.

Not necessarily too much but misleading labelling.
It is sometimes hard to look at a diagram from the
point of view of someone who has never seen it before.

> As to the planet neutrality, I am harboring the idea that the
> satellite is a "Nova" launched by man from Earth and thus might act
> differently from the solar system which was initially launched at
> creation 11 Byrs ago.

"Nova" means an explosion of a star, a bad
choice in an astronomy group if that's not
what you mean :-) The matter in the craft is
taken from the Earth so isn't any different.

> Bear in mind, we are not sending 2-way signals
> to the moon or mars and studying their possible Doppler drifts,

Of course we are! Haven't you looked at the laser
reflector data measuring the rate of change of
the Moon's orbit? How do you think they navigated
the craft that are currently at Mars? What about
Cassini and Deep Impact? All the craft are
controlled the same way.

> and
> that is all we have to study withr the Pioneer.

The difference with the Pioneers is that they
were spin stabilised, no thrusters to change
the trajectory apart from the ConScan
manoeuvres.

George


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Pioneer Anomoly
    ... Relativity is a trap: look at the sort of papers being written in Phys ... Our velocity is at c on the 4th dimension ... This same diagram solves general relativity ... a mass at infinity gets "free energy" ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Pioneer Anomoly
    ... doing relativity you have it all wrong. ... is relative velocity, and for GTR the velocity is escape velocity, so ... It's from a mass mx of 2x70e21 solar ... This same diagram solves general relativity ...
    (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: Uncle assAl agrees: A SR-cult fraud and corruption (Rev A)
    ... Given the premise of empty space you can ... as the distance divided by its velocity, which is x' divided by, ... We are not dealing in reality. ... In the upper diagram, the speed of light is constant and the spacing ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Uncle assAl agrees: A SR-cult fraud and corruption (Rev A)
    ... Given the premise of empty space you can ... as the distance divided by its velocity, which is x' divided by, ... We are not dealing in reality. ... In the upper diagram, the speed of light is constant and the spacing ...
    (sci.physics)