(Spud) wrote in message ...

Is there enough information to state the acceleration is directly towards the sun ?
What if there is an acceleration towards the earth ?

From the article of John D. Anderson et al
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064
explaining the details of the anomaly observed in the Pioneers 10 and
11, "I understand" that the available information is not enough
precise to discriminate if the supposed acceleration is towards the
Sun or towards the Earth. More precisely, since they also detect
annual and diurnal variations in the effect that they suspect are due
to:

Quotes
"...modeling errors in the Earth's ephemeris, the orientation of the
Earth's spin axis (precession and nutation), or in the station
coordinates (polar motion and length of day variations), the
least-squares process (which determines best-fit values of the three
direction cosines) will leave small diurnal and annual components in
the Doppler residuals..." ...

"...We conclude that for both Pioneer 10 and 11, there are small
periodic errors in solar system modeling that are largely masked by
maneuvers and by the overall plasma noise. But because these sinusoids
are essentially uncorrelated with the constant aP , they do not
present important sources of systematic error. The characteristic
signature of aP is a linear drift in the Doppler, not annual/diurnal
signatures..."
/Quotes

my interpretation is that the authors believe that it is impossible to
elucidate your question under the present circumstances.

Isn't this worth investigating.

It would be interesting to investigate but I don't think the available
data of the Pioneers 10 and 11 are precise enough to extract such
information.

But actually I don't even believe that the observed anomalous
acceleration is real but only apparent as I tried to explain in
another thread some time ago.
Although I am aware that there are many authors that claim to have
explained the anomaly using orthodox Physics I nevertheless ask again
for comments to my non-orthodox explanation that received no comments
when I posted it (except the typical barking from Uncle Al that I
always ignore). This is the URL:

oogle.com

Spud

Best regards
Carlos L.

(Carlos L) wrote in message ...
Although I am aware that there are many authors that claim to have
explained the anomaly using orthodox Physics I nevertheless ask again
for comments to my non-orthodox explanation that received no comments
when I posted it (except the typical barking from Uncle Al that I
always ignore). This is the URL:

oogle.com

Spud

Best regards
Carlos L.

I had a look.

Here is my comment. It is pretty well established without any
doubt that the speed of light of photons is invariant in vacuum
and completely independant of the velocity of the source, which
is precisely why Doppler ranging can be used at all.

As for the doppler data, if it were not to be trusted in this case,
this would make this case the only one on record where Doppler data
would be found not to be totally precise.

To my knowledge, all cases where verification by other means could
be used, the precision cannot be questioned.

When orthodox theories can't explain some phenomenon, it is common
practice to distrust and finally discard the data as being tainted.

Nothin new under the Sun.

André Michaud

[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- mjh]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 21:48:18 GMT, (Andr? Michaud)
wrote:

(Carlos L) wrote in message ...
Although I am aware that there are many authors that claim to have
explained the anomaly using orthodox Physics I nevertheless ask again
for comments to my non-orthodox explanation that received no comments
when I posted it (except the typical barking from Uncle Al that I
always ignore). This is the URL:

oogle.com

Spud

Best regards
Carlos L.

I had a look.

Here is my comment. It is pretty well established without any
doubt that the speed of light of photons is invariant in vacuum
and completely independant of the velocity of the source, which
is precisely why Doppler ranging can be used at all.

As for the doppler data, if it were not to be trusted in this case,
this would make this case the only one on record where Doppler data
would be found not to be totally precise.

To my knowledge, all cases where verification by other means could
be used, the precision cannot be questioned.

When orthodox theories can't explain some phenomenon, it is common
practice to distrust and finally discard the data as being tainted.

Nothin new under the Sun.

André Michaud

[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- mjh]
I have the explanation for the Pioneer 10 anomaly as Ch. 13 of my Dual
Space book. It requires a new law of gravity and new physics.
Relativity has no chance of dealing with it. It can't be explained in
a few sentences. It needs the whole Dual Space theory. It's real
alright.

Mr. Dual Space
(If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay).

John C. Polasek wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 21:48:18 GMT, (Andr? Michaud)
wrote:

(Carlos L) wrote in message ...
Although I am aware that there are many authors that claim to have
explained the anomaly using orthodox Physics I nevertheless ask again
for comments to my non-orthodox explanation that received no comments
when I posted it (except the typical barking from Uncle Al that I
always ignore). This is the URL:

oogle.com

Spud

Best regards
Carlos L.

I had a look.

Here is my comment. It is pretty well established without any
doubt that the speed of light of photons is invariant in vacuum
and completely independant of the velocity of the source, which
is precisely why Doppler ranging can be used at all.

As for the doppler data, if it were not to be trusted in this case,
this would make this case the only one on record where Doppler data
would be found not to be totally precise.

To my knowledge, all cases where verification by other means could
be used, the precision cannot be questioned.

When orthodox theories can't explain some phenomenon, it is common
practice to distrust and finally discard the data as being tainted.

Nothin new under the Sun.

André Michaud

[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- mjh]
I have the explanation for the Pioneer 10 anomaly as Ch. 13 of my Dual
Space book. It requires a new law of gravity and new physics.
Relativity has no chance of dealing with it. It can't be explained in
a few sentences. It needs the whole Dual Space theory. It's real
alright.

Hi John

Yes. We talked about your book in some other thread, and you seemed
interested in an exchange. I sent my home address in a message to
your e-mail handle (the one mentioned on top of this post) as per
your instructions and then fell into wait mode and eventually forgot
about the matter.

Is your e-mail address mentioned here valid?

André Michaud

On 10 Jul 2004 07:55:45 -0700, (Andr? Michaud) wrote:

John C. Polasek wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 21:48:18 GMT, (Andr? Michaud)
wrote:

(Carlos L) wrote in message ...
Although I am aware that there are many authors that claim to have
explained the anomaly using orthodox Physics I nevertheless ask again
for comments to my non-orthodox explanation that received no comments
when I posted it (except the typical barking from Uncle Al that I
always ignore). This is the URL:

oogle.com

Spud

Best regards
Carlos L.

I had a look.

Here is my comment. It is pretty well established without any
doubt that the speed of light of photons is invariant in vacuum
and completely independant of the velocity of the source, which
is precisely why Doppler ranging can be used at all.

As for the doppler data, if it were not to be trusted in this case,
this would make this case the only one on record where Doppler data
would be found not to be totally precise.

To my knowledge, all cases where verification by other means could
be used, the precision cannot be questioned.

When orthodox theories can't explain some phenomenon, it is common
practice to distrust and finally discard the data as being tainted.

Nothin new under the Sun.

André Michaud

[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- mjh]
I have the explanation for the Pioneer 10 anomaly as Ch. 13 of my Dual
Space book. It requires a new law of gravity and new physics.
Relativity has no chance of dealing with it. It can't be explained in
a few sentences. It needs the whole Dual Space theory. It's real
alright.

Hi John

Yes. We talked about your book in some other thread, and you seemed
interested in an exchange. I sent my home address in a message to
your e-mail handle (the one mentioned on top of this post) as per
your instructions and then fell into wait mode and eventually forgot
about the matter.

Is your e-mail address mentioned here valid?

André Michaud
Yes it is. I may have killed your message if it didn't have a
convincing title. Please send it again.

(Andr? Michaud) wrote in message ...
(Carlos L) wrote in message ...

Note: I posted this 5 days ago but since that post has not appeared I
remove the follow_ups to sci.physics.research and sci.astro research
and I post it again (because I don't want to leave the impression that
I've been convinced that my ideas on this issue have been proven
wrong).
----------------------

Thanks André for having looked and for your comments about my
non-orthodox explanation that was posted in the thread "Pioneer
Anomaly" URL: http://
oogle.com

Here is my comment. It is pretty well established without any
doubt that the speed of light of photons is invariant in vacuum
and completely independant of the velocity of the source, which
is precisely why Doppler ranging can be used at all.

I know "that" and I believe it is true. Unfortunately everybody finds
difficult to understand my (very simple) interpretation of the
constancy of the speed of light in vacuum. (It must be that I don't
explain myself clearly enough). I try again:
I do believe that the speed of light is independent of the speed of
the source. But I believe that the speed of light in vacuum is always
c *relative to the physical apparatus* that detects it. The speed of
light will also be c relative to the reference frame of description if
the detector is at rest in it (as is generally the case). But since SR
does not dare forbid to use detectors that move relative to the
reference frame of description, I assume that in these cases the speed
of light will no longer be c relative to the frame of description
(until some experiment, in vacuum, proves me wrong). An implication of
such interpretation is that since "all" detectors, whatever their
speed relative to the source, are known to receive light from moving
sources it must be assumed that a typical source emits light-type
disturbance at a continuum of speeds. (I don't want to discuss in this
thread the details of the *other* implications or problems with this
idea). My hope here was to find some reader able to believe in the
possibility that such idea is compatible with the experimental facts
and be willing to discuss my interpretation of the Pioneers anomalies.

As for the doppler data, if it were not to be trusted in this case,
this would make this case the only one on record where Doppler data
would be found not to be totally precise.

I also believe that this case (of the Pioneers) is indeed the first in
which the Doppler data do not agree with the expected position of a
body governed by the very trustable celestial mechanics laws. But this
is a special case because, for the Pioneers: (1) the position (as a
function of time, therefore including velocity, acceleration, ...) is
(supposedly) known with enormous precision and the experimenter is not
allowed to say "the disagreement with our Doppler data must be due to
our imprecise knowledge of their position". (2) the velocities of the
observed bodies (the Pioneers) have a "big" component v along the line
of sight, and according to my interpretation, the effect is
proportional to such component. That is not the case for the moon that
is AFAIK the only other celestial body whose position is known with
such precision.

To my knowledge, all cases where verification by other means could
be used, the precision cannot be questioned.

I believe that also.

When orthodox theories can't explain some phenomenon, it is common
practice to distrust and finally discard the data as being tainted.

Well, after having studied and discarded all other "reasonable"
explanations, I suppose that it is the best thing to do. Mine has not
been contradicted yet except by you that has not fully understood it,
(my fault). But anyway, thanks again.

Carlos L.

André Michaud

(Carlos L) wrote in message . com...
(Andr? Michaud) wrote in message ...
(Carlos L) wrote in message ...

Note: I posted this 5 days ago but since that post has not appeared I
remove the follow_ups to sci.physics.research and sci.astro research
and I post it again (because I don't want to leave the impression that
I've been convinced that my ideas on this issue have been proven
wrong).
----------------------

These monitored forums are reserved for discussions on currently
accepted orthogox theories and ideas that can be directly related
to them.

No other ideas will be discussed.

Thanks André for having looked and for your comments about my
non-orthodox explanation that was posted in the thread "Pioneer
Anomaly" URL: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g.g oogle.com

Here is my comment. It is pretty well established without any
doubt that the speed of light of photons is invariant in vacuum
and completely independant of the velocity of the source, which
is precisely why Doppler ranging can be used at all.

I know "that" and I believe it is true. Unfortunately everybody finds
difficult to understand my (very simple) interpretation of the
constancy of the speed of light in vacuum. (It must be that I don't
explain myself clearly enough). I try again:
I do believe that the speed of light is independent of the speed of
the source. But I believe that the speed of light in vacuum is always
c *relative to the physical apparatus* that detects it.

Isn't that somewhat contradictory with what you say in the previous
sentence?

You do imply here that velocity c of EM energy, although independent
of the source (which implies that c may be an absolute velocity for
EM energy in vacuum), would not be independent of the velocity of
a physical apparatus that would detect it.

That's what brought my comment. If c were an absolute velocity in vacuum
for EM energy, it seems to me not to be reconcilable with the idea that
it could at the same time be relative to an apparatus that may itself
have a velocity. I would agree if said apparatus could be immobilized
with respect to vacuum, but how could this be achieved?

Aren't we confronted here whith the age old lack (or perceived lack) of
an absolute reference with respect to which such zero velocity could
be achieved in vacuum?

The speed of
light will also be c relative to the reference frame of description if
the detector is at rest in it (as is generally the case). But since SR
does not dare forbid to use detectors that move relative to the
reference frame of description, I assume that in these cases the speed
of light will no longer be c relative to the frame of description
(until some experiment, in vacuum, proves me wrong).

I see your point, but ref to my interrogation above.

An implication of
such interpretation is that since "all" detectors, whatever their
speed relative to the source, are known to receive light from moving
sources it must be assumed that a typical source emits light-type
disturbance at a continuum of speeds.

Your postulate seems to imply this of course, but I personally lean
towards concluding, from all experimental evidence that I considered,
that c would be an absolute velocity in vacuum, unless experiments
could show otherwise.

(I don't want to discuss in this
thread the details of the *other* implications or problems with this
idea). My hope here was to find some reader able to believe in the
possibility that such idea is compatible with the experimental facts
and be willing to discuss my interpretation of the Pioneers anomalies.

I would be willing to discuss but I must say that I have been convinced
for long time that velocity of EM energy is invariant in vacuum and not
relative to any source or observer.

As for the doppler data, if it were not to be trusted in this case,
this would make this case the only one on record where Doppler data
would be found not to be totally precise.

I also believe that this case (of the Pioneers) is indeed the first in
which the Doppler data do not agree with the expected position of a
body governed by the very trustable celestial mechanics laws.

Trustable only in light of what we knew before.

Consider that both Pioneers are the first small bodies that have
been sent on hyperbolic escape trajectories from the Solar system
with us receiving EM signals from them for quite a while.

This is the first data available for small bodies on such trajectories.
I am not that surprised that our physics theories (classical as well as
relativistic) may not be able to predict with precision observed
behaviour that could be observed only in such cases and that had not
been observed before.

But this
is a special case because, for the Pioneers: (1) the position (as a
function of time, therefore including velocity, acceleration, ...) is
(supposedly) known with enormous precision

As I said, according to the state of our theories, which are based on
the only data that was available previously.

and the experimenter is not
allowed to say "the disagreement with our Doppler data must be due to
our imprecise knowledge of their position".

If the Doppler data is ok, then I say our theories simply need to be
reconsidered in light of this new data on top of all previously verified
data.

(2) the velocities of the
observed bodies (the Pioneers) have a "big" component v along the line
of sight, and according to my interpretation, the effect is
proportional to such component.

Yes, making the Doppler data all the more significant in my view,
almost "ideally" significant.

That is not the case for the moon that is AFAIK the only other celestial
body whose position is known with such precision.

And that are not small bodies on hyperbolic escape trajectories.

To my knowledge, all cases where verification by other means could
be used, the precision cannot be questioned.

I believe that also.

When orthodox theories can't explain some phenomenon, it is common
practice to distrust and finally discard the data as being tainted.

Well, after having studied and discarded all other "reasonable"
explanations, I suppose that it is the best thing to do.

It is one option of course. But in view of the fact that it is the
first time in history that we lay hands on Doppler data (that in all
other cases proved trustworthy) from small bodies sent on hyperbolic
escape trajectories, I lean rather towards thinking that our theories
simply need a long overdue final shake down to integrate and explain
coherently this behavior in light of all that we now know.

Mine has not been contradicted yet except by you that has not fully
understood it, (my fault). But anyway, thanks again.

Maybe I understood your view.


Carlos L.

André Michaud

(Andr? Michaud) wrote in message ...
(Carlos L) wrote in message ...

Thanks André for having looked and for your comments about my
non-orthodox explanation that was posted in the thread "Pioneer
Anomaly" URL: http://
oogle.com

Here is my comment. It is pretty well established without any
doubt that the speed of light of photons is invariant in vacuum
and completely independant of the velocity of the source, which
is precisely why Doppler ranging can be used at all.

I know "that" and I believe it is true. Unfortunately everybody finds
difficult to understand my (very simple) interpretation of the
constancy of the speed of light in vacuum. (It must be that I don't
explain myself clearly enough). I try again:
I do believe that the speed of light is independent of the speed of
the source. But I believe that the speed of light in vacuum is always
c *relative to the physical apparatus* that detects it. The speed of
light will also be c relative to the reference frame of description if
the detector is at rest in it (as is generally the case). But since SR
does not dare forbid to use detectors that move relative to the
reference frame of description, I assume that in these cases the speed
of light will no longer be c relative to the frame of description
(until some experiment, in vacuum, proves me wrong). An implication of
such interpretation is that since "all" detectors, whatever their
speed relative to the source, are known to receive light from moving
sources it must be assumed that a typical source emits light-type
disturbance at a continuum of speeds. (I don't want to discuss in this
thread the details of the *other* implications or problems with this
idea). My hope here was to find some reader able to believe in the
possibility that such idea is compatible with the experimental facts
and be willing to discuss my interpretation of the Pioneers anomalies.

As for the doppler data, if it were not to be trusted in this case,
this would make this case the only one on record where Doppler data
would be found not to be totally precise.

I also believe that this case (of the Pioneers) is indeed the first in
which the Doppler data do not agree with the expected position of a
body governed by the very trustable celestial mechanics laws. But this
is a special case because, for the Pioneers: (1) the position (as a
function of time, therefore including velocity, acceleration, ...) is
(supposedly) known with enormous precision and the experimenter is not
allowed to say "the disagreement with our Doppler data must be due to
our imprecise knowledge of their position". (2) the velocities of the
observed bodies (the Pioneers) have a "big" component v along the line
of sight, and according to my interpretation, the effect is
proportional to such component. That is not the case for the moon that
is AFAIK the only other celestial body whose position is known with
such precision.

To my knowledge, all cases where verification by other means could
be used, the precision cannot be questioned.

I believe that also.

When orthodox theories can't explain some phenomenon, it is common
practice to distrust and finally discard the data as being tainted.

Well, after having studied and discarded all other "reasonable"
explanations, I suppose that it is the best thing to do. Mine has not
been considered yet except by you that has not fully understood it,
(my fault).
But anyway, thanks again.

Carlos L.

Nothin new under the Sun.

André Michaud

(Andr? Michaud) wrote in message . com...
snip
André Michaud

Is the possibility the speed of light may be different in other parts
of the universe ruled out?

Are scientists theories not limited by the lack of experiment outwith
the earth, the solar system, the galaxy ?


No reply required
Spud

(Andr? Michaud) wrote in message . com...
(Carlos L) wrote in message . com...
(Andr? Michaud) wrote in message ...
(Carlos L) wrote in message ...

Note: I posted this 5 days ago but since that post has not appeared I
remove the follow_ups to sci.physics.research and sci.astro research
and I post it again (because I don't want to leave the impression that
I've been convinced that my ideas on this issue have been proven
wrong).

Oops. The post has just appeared in sci.physics.research and
sci.astro.research and has been repeated here. I perhaps should have
waited a bit more.

These monitored forums are reserved for discussions on currently
accepted orthogox theories and ideas that can be directly related
to them.
No other ideas will be discussed.

It used to be like that, but it seems that in the last months their
moderators are allowing for less orthodox issues to be discussed.
Anyhow, I prefer to omit the follow-ups to moderated groups when
discussing non orthodox ideas at a qualitative level.

[...]

I do believe that the speed of light is independent of the speed of
the source. But I believe that the speed of light in vacuum is always
c *relative to the physical apparatus* that detects it.

Isn't that somewhat contradictory with what you say in the previous
sentence?

It isn't contradictory if we imagine that an emission is like an
explosion in which we can find fragments of many different speeds and
we imagine that a detector catches only the fragments of speed c
relative to it (e.g. acts like those speed selectors used in some
experiments that let through only the particles of a given speed).
From what you say below I guess that you actually admit the
consistency of this idea (even if you don't like it).

You do imply here that velocity c of EM energy, although independent
of the source (which implies that c may be an absolute velocity for
EM energy in vacuum), would not be independent of the velocity of
a physical apparatus that would detect it.

Yes

That's what brought my comment. If c were an absolute velocity in vacuum
for EM energy, it seems to me not to be reconcilable with the idea that
it could at the same time be relative to an apparatus that may itself
have a velocity. I would agree if said apparatus could be immobilized
with respect to vacuum, but how could this be achieved?

Aren't we confronted here whith the age old lack (or perceived lack) of
an absolute reference with respect to which such zero velocity could
be achieved in vacuum?

You seem to be thinking, like Einstein, of an aether that can not be
assigned a specific state of movement since it must be at rest
relative to all observers. That is not the only possibility as I am
explaining.

The speed of
light will also be c relative to the reference frame of description if
the detector is at rest in it (as is generally the case). But since SR
does not dare forbid to use detectors that move relative to the
reference frame of description, I assume that in these cases the speed
of light will no longer be c relative to the frame of description
(until some experiment, in vacuum, proves me wrong).

I see your point, but ref to my interrogation above.

An implication of
such interpretation is that since "all" detectors, whatever their
speed relative to the source, are known to receive light from moving
sources it must be assumed that a typical source emits light-type
disturbance at a continuum of speeds.

Your postulate seems to imply this of course, but I personally lean
towards concluding, from all experimental evidence that I considered,
that c would be an absolute velocity in vacuum, unless experiments
could show otherwise.

I'm glad to hear that you are open to consider the possibility that
"experiments could show otherwise". Nobody (in mainstream Physics)
seems open to accept that possibility. In spite of the claims that SR
has been confirmed by "all" sorts of different experiments there still
exist some type of experiments that have never been done. e.g. I
sketched one in an old post of the thread "Three questions" of URL:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ws.bcn.ttd.net

(I don't want to discuss in this
thread the details of the *other* implications or problems with this
idea). [...]

I would be willing to discuss but I must say that I have been convinced
for long time that velocity of EM energy is invariant in vacuum and not
relative to any source or observer.

Thanks.
[...]

Consider that both Pioneers are the first small bodies that have
been sent on hyperbolic escape trajectories from the Solar system
with us receiving EM signals from them for quite a while.

This is the first data available for small bodies on such trajectories.
I am not that surprised that our physics theories (classical as well as
relativistic) may not be able to predict with precision observed
behaviour that could be observed only in such cases and that had not
been observed before.

But this
is a special case because, for the Pioneers: (1) the position (as a
function of time, therefore including velocity, acceleration, ...) is
(supposedly) known with enormous precision

As I said, according to the state of our theories, which are based on
the only data that was available previously.

and the experimenter is not
allowed to say "the disagreement with our Doppler data must be due to
our imprecise knowledge of their position".

If the Doppler data is ok, then I say our theories simply need to be
reconsidered in light of this new data on top of all previously verified
data.

I believe that what is happening is that the *interpretation* of the
Doppler data is *not* ok, not because of a deficient experimental
handling of the data but because of more fundamental reasons.

(2) the velocities of the
observed bodies (the Pioneers) have a "big" component v along the line
of sight, and according to my interpretation, the effect is
proportional to such component.

Yes, making the Doppler data all the more significant in my view,
almost "ideally" significant.

Significant yes, but not necessarily reliable if the data are wrongly
interpreted (by the mainstream theory).

[...]

... But in view of the fact that it is the
first time in history that we lay hands on Doppler data (that in all
other cases proved trustworthy) from small bodies sent on hyperbolic
escape trajectories, I lean rather towards thinking that our theories
simply need a long overdue final shake down to integrate and explain
coherently this behavior in light of all that we now know.

I think that our theories do indeed need a shake, but a big one.
[...]

Best regards
Carlos L

Carlos L.
André Michaud