Re: Pioneer anomaly

On Jan 19, 9:47 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 19 ene, 17:57, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jan 19, 6:48 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]

Dear resident fuckhead,
Yes, I have an answer for you. Firstly, Galileo and Ulysses, are not
equipped with accurate transponders for suitable doppler and ranging.

Nice, you prove you have no idea what you are talking about in the
first salvo.

The acceleration is derived from the velocity profile of the craft,
and the velocity profile is found from the doppler effect. The actual
work is done by the tracking stations - so long as the craft is
transmitting enough to get a decent signal at Earth, the doppler
effect is usable.

As for ranging...that's irrelevant no matter how you cut it.

I see, the Doppler effect is usable. So, tell me what equations
for that Doppler effect they use, and I'll tell you those equations
have embedded relativistic corrections. Remove those relativistic
corrections from the velocity profiles, and consider a higher locally
speed of light other than c for the sources. You will have an
absolutely
pure newtonian motion. Of course, that can't be done under GR, that's
new physics!.

Let's see the calculation.

BTW, if you think the relativistic Doppler effect is wrong, it'd help
if you had some actual evidence or at least a calculation supporting
your assertion.

Do you know what that's mean?. They did not yield reliable data,
whereas
Pioneer 10/11 probes did. Conclusively, new physics, Pioneer 10/11
probes,
are now travelling through a region of rarified vacuum, escaping from
solar system,
and the locally speed of light in that rarified vacuum is higher than
c!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,

The Voyager probes did not see the Pioneer anomaly. They traveled, and
are traveling, through the same "rarrified vacuum". Why don't you
think the Voyager crafts see the Pioneer anomaly?

The answer is obvious, too. Voyager crafts see the anomaly, but we
can hardly see they're are seeing it.

If they, in your words, see the anomaly...so would we. The Pioneer
anomaly is an /acceleration/ that remained constant over the entire
path as far as the analysis can see.

Do you have an actual reason, or are you blowing smoke? I know the
conventional explanation, but since you seem to think you know more
about the subject than myself or actual physicists, so I want to hear
yours.

Which brings me to one of my previous questions...why aren't natural
bodies exhibiting the Pioneer anomaly? Given your ....unique...
explanation, everything out there should be feeling a small sunward
acceleration. Why aren't they?

resident fuckhead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pioneer probes are where they have to, and moving according to
newtonian laws,
but the electromagnetic signals you measured from them are fooling
you,
they are tricky.

You will have to do a little better than "they are tricky".
Let's see your calculations that show how a body's orbit is affected
[or not] by the local speed of light.

According to your exquisite well-known skills, my calculations are all
crap.
Are you sure you want that crap? :-)

If it actually exists, yes.

Clairvoyance, dear Eric, clairvoyance.
Take, for instance, the ansatz of Yukawa modification

V(r) = (GM/r) (1 + alpha exp(-r/lambda)

This ansatz can explain many galaxy rotation curves (Sanders 1984).

Nope - analysis of planetary orbits makes alpha near zero. Plus, it
does not explain weak lensing observations. Tests bounded within the
solar system pretty much quashes the theory.

Plus the potential is spherically symmetric. Is a galaxy spherically
symmetric?

Take a look. Uhmmmmmm, the factor GM/r is plain newtonian.
Uhmmmmmm, the exponential exp(-r/lambda) somewhat resembles
a graded refractive index for the speed of light wrt distance r, isn't
it?.

Not in the least. You are comparing a central force in classical
mechanics against a result derived from general relativity.

Behavior of light in classical mechanics wildly deviates from general
relativity - especially in the weak field limit. In fact, the weak
field limit is pretty much the only part of GR that gives a real
deviation from Newton.

That's the issue. That ansatz is just telling us that V(r) is pure
newtonian,

Of course it is. But that tells us nothing since you /assume/ Newton
by writing it in that form.

but what we observe is the light delayed or advanced, or even
deflected.

An observation that Newton cannot explain, as has been explained to
you before. Newtonian gravitation gets the answer wrong.

Once again, what we measure is not what it is. Light is fooling us, it
is pretty
tricky. It is so obvious and simple, that you can't believe it, you
like to
believe complicated and absurd stuff instead.

Don't give me this "light is tricky" bull***. Substantiate your
claims or don't bother making them because whining about how hard this
is simply makes me laugh at you.
.