Pioneer 10 acceleration

**Andr? Michaud**

(Spud) wrote in message ...
Is there enough information to state the acceleration is directly
towards the sun ?

Yes.

What if there is an acceleration towards the earth ?

Isn't this worth investigating.

There is no need. Both crafts are on escape trajectories from
the Solar system in opposite directions, the Sun being the
central body of the system.

The attraction of the Earth is totally negligible at the
distances involved.

André Michaud

**G. R. L. Cowan**

Andr? Michaud wrote:

(Spud) wrote in message ...
Is there enough information to state the acceleration is directly
towards the sun ?

Yes.

What if there is an acceleration towards the earth ?

Isn't this worth investigating.

There is no need. Both crafts are on escape trajectories from
the Solar system in opposite directions, the Sun being the
central body of the system.

The attraction of the Earth is totally negligible at the
distances involved.

And yet it was the target of the probes' transmissions,
and to aim their antennae, they aimed their whole bodies at it.

Since the anomalous acceleration was so small,
and the angle between Earth and the sun
as seen from the probes was also small in most of the
years when the acceleration was being measured,
it may well be that there is no way to tell
whether they were anomalously accelerating towards the Sun
due to some Solar-mass-dependent effect,
or towards the Earth because of a force
aligned with one of their axes.

If you knew, and could show, that for sure
no such force could have been acting,
then of course no investigation would be worthwhile.
Maybe it still isn't, but the case for not looking
is not made by assuming nothing can be there.

--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
How individual mobility gains nuclear cachet.
Link if you want it to happen

**Andr? Michaud**

"G. R. L. Cowan" wrote in message ...
Andr? Michaud wrote:

(Spud) wrote in message ...
Is there enough information to state the acceleration is directly
towards the sun ?

Yes.

What if there is an acceleration towards the earth ?

Isn't this worth investigating.

There is no need. Both crafts are on escape trajectories from
the Solar system in opposite directions, the Sun being the
central body of the system.

The attraction of the Earth is totally negligible at the
distances involved.

And yet it was the target of the probes' transmissions,
and to aim their antennae, they aimed their whole bodies at it.

Since the anomalous acceleration was so small,
and the angle between Earth and the sun
as seen from the probes was also small in most of the
years when the acceleration was being measured,
it may well be that there is no way to tell
whether they were anomalously accelerating towards the Sun
due to some Solar-mass-dependent effect,
or towards the Earth because of a force
aligned with one of their axes.

If you knew, and could show, that for sure
no such force could have been acting,
then of course no investigation would be worthwhile.
Maybe it still isn't, but the case for not looking
is not made by assuming nothing can be there.

I see what you mean, and I agree in principle. We cannot
assume stuff without analysis.

I don't think that anyone can "prove" that no force
could have been acting between the Earth and the
probes.

I just understand that the only known long range force
(and only possible candidate force, from all we know)
that could have been acting between the Earth and the
probes, and which is gravitation, is negligible at such
distances compared to that acting from the Sun.

As for the Doppler analysis, it seems impossible to me
that compensation for the cyclic orbital motion of the Earth
would not have been the very first correction to have been
applied to the data.

From all the papers published, it seems to me that just
about all possible avenues not jeopardyzing GR and SR have
by now been explored and rejected as unsatisfactory or
shelved as non conclusive or impossible to verify.

André Michaud

**jdff**

(Andr? Michaud) wrote in message ...
(Spud) wrote in message ...
Is there enough information to state the acceleration is directly
towards the sun ?

Yes.

What if there is an acceleration towards the earth ?

Isn't this worth investigating.

There is no need. Both crafts are on escape trajectories from
the Solar system in opposite directions, the Sun being the
central body of the system.

The attraction of the Earth is totally negligible at the
distances involved.

André Michaud

The reason why it matters, and is a viable target for investigation,
whether the acceleration is heliocentric or Earth-centric is not
because one thinks it might be a real effect. But because the most
probably systematic experimental errors would give an apparent
Earth-centric effect rather than heliocentric.

Something no-one seems to mention in the classic paper at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www....gr-qc/0104064.
is that they see a systematic DIURNAL acceleration approximately 100
times as great as the overall long-term average they are purporting to
measure. Which they cannot find any explanation for, and ignore after
1 paragraph of discussion.

Let me repeat. There is no way they could see ANY diurnal effect, let
alone 100 times greater than the long-term one, unless at this level
of accuracy there was a serious systematic error in the direction of
the assumed Earth-station - spacecraft vector.

Actually I think the explanation is probably quite mundane for the
whole effect. Either the position of the Earth antenna is not exactly
where the GPS calculations put it (working in the industry, I know how
few people ever bother about the proper conversion between WGS-84
ellipsoidal co-ordinates and ECEF). Or the spacecraft has a position
co-ordinate tangential to the Earth-spacecraft line not exactly where
they think. Remember, only the RANGE is known to within metres.

Either way, that puts the observation vector off at an angle, which
introduces a small diurnal variation and probably a small systematic
error.

Also, there is the fact that the RANGE itself is not well-defined in
their measurement procedure (although the rate of change ought to be).
This is because of the PLL which is used to "reflect" the outgoing
transmission at the spacecraft. The assumption is that the spacecraft
transmitted frequency is instantaneously equal to N times the received
frequency. Of course, we don't have the engineering details, but the
spacecraft PLL is almost certainly second-order, and the phase noise
spec given in the paper mandates the PLL bandwidth to be sub-1 Hz. The
implication is that for the PLL to "converge", the output frequency
equals N times the input frequency as it was at least 1 second ago.
However, the PLL bandwidth - signal lag will remain constant over
time.

Similarly, the modulated ranging signal (as opposed to Doppler) has a
finite latency through the spacecraft, which does not seem to have
been modelled. These are small errors, but when the claimed accuracy
is ~10^-10 m/s^2........

**Andr? Michaud**

(jdff) wrote in message ...
Actually I think the explanation is probably quite mundane for the
whole effect. Either the position of the Earth antenna is not exactly
where the GPS calculations put it (working in the industry, I know how
few people ever bother about the proper conversion between WGS-84
ellipsoidal co-ordinates and ECEF). Or the spacecraft has a position
co-ordinate tangential to the Earth-spacecraft line not exactly where
they think. Remember, only the RANGE is known to within metres.

Either way, that puts the observation vector off at an angle, which
introduces a small diurnal variation and probably a small systematic
error.

[s.a.r. mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- please do this yourself -- mjh]

I was not aware of that particular twist in the case.

Thanks for the link and explanation.

André Michaud

**Spud**

(jdff) wrote in message ...
[snip]
Also, there is the fact that the RANGE itself is not well-defined in
their measurement procedure (although the rate of change ought to be).
This is because of the PLL which is used to "reflect" the outgoing
transmission at the spacecraft. The assumption is that the spacecraft
transmitted frequency is instantaneously equal to N times the received
frequency. Of course, we don't have the engineering details, but the
spacecraft PLL is almost certainly second-order, and the phase noise
spec given in the paper mandates the PLL bandwidth to be sub-1 Hz. The
implication is that for the PLL to "converge", the output frequency
equals N times the input frequency as it was at least 1 second ago.
However, the PLL bandwidth - signal lag will remain constant over
time.

Similarly, the modulated ranging signal (as opposed to Doppler) has a
finite latency through the spacecraft, which does not seem to have
been modelled. These are small errors, but when the claimed accuracy
is ~10^-10 m/s^2........

Would the acceleration towards the earth (if measured) point to a
possible acceleration of time for pioneer 10.

If so how would it be possible to confirm ?

Spud

[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed. Please do this yourself -- mjh]

**Craig Markwardt**

(Spud) writes:
Similarly, the modulated ranging signal (as opposed to Doppler) has a
finite latency through the spacecraft, which does not seem to have
been modelled. These are small errors, but when the claimed accuracy
is ~10^-10 m/s^2........

Would the acceleration towards the earth (if measured) point to a
possible acceleration of time for pioneer 10.

If so how would it be possible to confirm ?

An attempt to distinguish an acceleration towards the earth, vs. the
sun has been attempted, but was not successful, by Markwardt (2003,
gr-qc/0208046). The earth is simply too close to the sun to make the
distinction between the two.

Anderson et al in their large paper, consider possible
time-acceleration models. The time on the spacecraft is essentially
irrelevant, since it merely retransponds the signal back to the earth
without reference to absolute time.

Craig

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig B. Markwardt, Ph.D. EMAIL:
Astrophysics, IDL, Finance, Derivatives | Remove "net" for better response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
pioneer 10 acceleration	Jonathan Silverlight	Physics - General Discussion	1	July 5th 04 10:49 AM
pioneer 10 acceleration	Jonathan Silverlight	Physics - General Discussion	2	June 4th 04 11:15 AM
pioneer 10 acceleration	Nodem Info. Sys.	Physics - General Discussion	20	June 4th 04 11:15 AM
pioneer 10 acceleration	Jonathan Silverlight	Physics - General Discussion	0	June 2nd 04 08:03 PM
Old: Independent Confirmation of the Pioneer 10 Anomalous Acceleration	Sam Wormley	Physics - General Discussion	0	September 20th 03 10:07 AM