Re: Pioneer Anomoly
- From: Jonathan Silverlight <jsilverlight@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 23:31:32 +0100
In message <dh4iqa$n5v$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, George Dishman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:99ebj19545dmgjqh5pdh00euvj6p7s58m7@xxxxxxxxxx
Sadly that is not what is measured. The returned frequency is higher than expected suggesting the carft is being slowed, hence the acceleration is directed towards the Sun as stated in the abstract.
There is some fuzz on this in the literature to wit: You recall that from The Apparent Anomalous etc. by Turyshev et al 9 Mar 1999 where in the footnote on page 3 they say Dnu=nu - nu0 where nu is the measured (rec'd?) frequency and nu0 the reference and cite the value -6x10^-9Hz one way. In my case nu = low and nu0 would be high so I get a negative result to agree with theirs. Then they put in the questionable remark m/l saying would be negative for a station approaching the station (blue shift) JUST THE OPPOSITE OF THE USUAL CONVENTION. I get the idea they had in their mind some extra gravity from the Sun as the cause, and adopted this backward convention.
No JPL always use that convention. I believe it may be because positive values apply when the craft is moving away from Earth, the usual condition, but the real reason may be lost in the mists of time. Anyway it is a convention that has been in use for decades and all the JPL software expects it.
Anyway, a number of people queried that which is why they added the explanatory confirmation.
At the risk of inviting the devil, Aladar Stolmar was one of the people who queried it. He also believed that the Pioneer effect genuinely was a red shift, and he was also confused about the difference between real years and light years :-)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Pioneer Anomoly
- From: George Dishman
- Re: Pioneer Anomoly
- References:
- 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
- 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
|