Re: Pioneer anomaly

On Jan 19, 11:15 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 19 ene, 19:26, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jan 19, 10:19 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 19 ene, 19:05, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

I will tell you why newtonian gravity predicts half the deflection
angle
predicted by GR. You, relativists, fake the energy of a photon.

*laughs*

You assume a photon in newtonian gravity is exhibiting an energy
E = (m/2)c^2. You assume that a photon in newtonian gravity must
behave as a particle with mass m = 2E/c^2. If you assume that a
photon

That is not what is assumed, and it is wrong regardless.

has energy E= mc^2, then newtonian gravity can predict the very same
deflection angle GR predicts. It is clear that particles with mass
and
photons behave differently in a gravitational field.

Ok.

Calculate the deflection angle - if you can. I asked you for the
calculations justifying your previous assertions, and you ignored the
request. Will you ignore this one too?

You are very fortunate, I have the calculations for you, because
it results that they all follow simple principles. For particles with
mass it always suffices newtonian gravity, the well-known
gravitational
potential V(r) = -GM/r. For massless particles (photons), you have
to
consider Fermat's principle (Snell's law of refraction), taking into
account that a graded refractive index at distance r from a point-
like
mass M is n_r = exp(-2V(r)/c^2). So, if a test particle with non-zero
mass

No. If you use the effective index of refraction from the weak field
limit of GR, you have to accept that you are not using Newtonian
gravity. Furthermore, Snells law or refraction is NOT Fermat's
principle - Fermat's principle is the extremizing of the path light
takes through a medium. For electromagnetic waves and dielectric
media, the result of Fermat's principle is Snell's law.

I notice you don't actually have any computations. All I have seen so
far is the relentless cutting and pasting from the weak field limit
article - I'm yet to see you actually _compute_ any of the things you
claim you can do.

is moving in such a gravitational system, the only known way to
measure its motion, is by means of the light is may emits or
reflects.
We assume its real motion is pure newtonian, but we measure photons
it emits when passing through a medium (vacuum) with graded
refractive indices (apparent motion). Do you get it?.

Yea, you are riding your hobby horse again.


But, I'm too lazy now to do the maths. I have other interesting
things
to enjoy from this weekend, hahahahahaha. Cheers :-)

Of course you are. That hasn't stopped you from responding to me all
morning though.
.

Quantcast