"Roland PJ" wrote in message
...
: On Dec 24, 6:34 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
:
: :
: : Now, the Pioneers will have experienced time dilation in the correct
: : direction (blue-shift for us on earth) as they escape the
gravitational
: : well of the Sun, as follows:
: :
:
: Actually the first step in your logic was so deeply dodgy that the rest
: can be ignored with impunity as meaningless unprovable drivel.
:
: No, this is is completely undisputed.

Yes, I dispute your crackpottery.
How come you haven't stuffed GR into a computer program
and flogged it yet? After all, it only has to produce numbers
that nobody will challenge.

: Any mass will cause time
: dilation according to General Relativity.

Bull****, there is no such animal as "time dilation".

The Sun is not exempt.

General Relativity was written by a charlatan. Bring out your crystal
ball, tea leaves, horology, palmistry, chicken gizzards, sacrificial goat
entrails or whatever else you are using and shove it all up your time
dilation slot. Your witchcraft has no effect on me.

: You are talking about Special Relativity, which is not appropriate to
: my argument.

You don't have a logical argument. If GR could prophesy future positions
of Mercury, Pioneer or anything else better than Newtonian Mechanics it
would have solved the three body problem. Mathematicians are not firing
off party poppers and drinking champagne even if Einstein's fan club is.


: But thanks for the digression

You are welcome. Go on, put GR into a computer program,
I always wanted a relativistic computer.

On Dec 24, 12:05*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
No, with extremely high confidence. The people who work on this are
experts in GR and would not miss a basic aspect of GR.

Tom Roberts

xxein: Yeah, right, and these experts cannot tell us the cause of
gravity outside of a gross (macro) relational circumstance?

On Dec 24, 10:04 pm, John C. Polasek wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:07:59 +0200, Roland PJ
wrote:

The Pioneer Spacecraft have shown an anomalous acceleration towards the
Sun of ~8 x 10^-16 m/s^2.

You better check. The Pioneer acceleration is 8e-10 not 8e-16m/ss.
Wouldn't this invalidate your arithmetic?

Oops. Yes. Where did I get 8 x 10^-16 m/s/s from?

Actually I think I know. 8 x 10^-13 km/s/s is 8 x 10^-10 m/s/s, not 8
x 10^-16 m/s/s. Doh.

Actually the last step in my logic is also bogus, but I think I get ~9
x 10^-12 m/s/s if I try to correct it.

Mmm, I need more maths.

Thanks
Roland

On Dec 24, 8:43 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Dec 24, 9:20 am, Roland PJ wrote:



On Dec 24, 8:06 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

1) The Schwarzschild solution _still_ does not apply.

Why not? The Schwarzschild solution applies to all point (or
spherically symmetric) masses. Why doesn't it apply to the Sun?

Is the solar system spherically symmetric?

It's a model, not an exact model, but a model. Most of the solar
system's mass is in the centre, at the Sun, so it's not a completely
useless model.


2) Time dilation cannot be confused with acceleration, no matter how
badly you butcher the analysis.

Yes it can. The Doppler shift of signals from the Pioneer (which is
the basis of the inferred acceleration) is directly related to the
time dilation, and the apparent motion of a constant-velocity body
(viewed from earth) will appear to decelerate, as a direct result of
the time dilation due to distance from the Sun (the dominant mass in
the solar system).

Uh, no.

Doppler shift is ONLY a function of velocity - not acceleration.
Knowing the doppler shift of the signals allows a determination of
velocity as a function of time, and from that, acceleration.

The shift in signal frequency is both a function of relative velocity
(Doppler), and a function of the 'strength' of the gravity field at
the transmitter and receiver (due to relative time dilation).

Unfortunately, these effects are impossible to distinguish w.r.t. only
the frequency shift.

So, an increasingly blue-shifted signal could be caused by the
transmitter accelerating towards the receiver, or it could be caused
by the transmitter climbing out of a gravity well, and, of course,
both together.


Your analysis is flawed because it has already been considered,

I couldn't find reference to it in the paper I read. They seemed to
calculate the Pioneer trajectory in ephemeris co-ords, but there was
no further mention of the fact that Pioneer would be moving out of the
Sun's well - i.e. Pioneer's time co-ords would change over time due to
the Sun's gravity field. Earth's co-ords, of course, don't change
much, but they seemed to take detailed account of the earth's slightly
asymmetric orbit, local earth gravity field changes, plate techtonics,
et al. In other words, a lot of detail was described about the
receiver end's time dilation correction (red-shift of the earth's
field mainly), but little on the Pioneer's end, which is less
constant.

because the Schwarzschild metric is NOT a valid model for the solar
system,

Wheeler et al seem to disagree with you in "Black Holes". In any case,
it is a model, the question is only how accurate the model is.

and because you didn't even do it right.

Almost certainly not


To get the total change, you have to integrate along the path. Which
you didn't bother doing.

I don't believe so. The Schwarzchild solution already solves the
relative time dilation between any two points in the field. It is a
solution to the field equations, _not_ the field equations themselves.
The time dilation effect on signal frequency is only dependent on the
relative time dilation between the end-points.


I can also tell you are wrong without even going through the analysis
by looking at your conclusions - you have concluded that _doppler
shift_ can make something appear to be accelerating. This is
completely and utterly wrong.

Nope. See above. It is impossible to determine from frequency shift
alone whether the frequency shift is caused by relative velocity or
relative time-dilation.


Oh, one more reason why you are wrong. The deceleration is, as far as
can be determined, constant. Would you like to make the claim that the
gravitational effects are the same regardless of how close the craft
is to the sun?

Actually, the value from the dPioneer ata is not quite constant, but
starts small (near earth, but dominated by solar wind pressure), hits
a peak, and then falls very slightly in the later readings.

But if you look at the equation for relative time dilation between
Pioneer and earth in my original post, you'll see that it changes very
slowly until Pioneer is at least 10^4 a.u. from the Sun. In fact in
the interesting region ( 10 a.u and 100 a.u.) the rate of change
with distance is nearly constant (due to the small mass of the Sun).

So, yes, I make the claim that the effect is almost constant in the
interesting region. And, unlike you I demonstrate this with a formula
based on the Schwarzchild solution, rather than just waving my hands.

Roland

On Dec 24, 6:07 pm, Roland PJ wrote:
The Pioneer Spacecraft have shown an anomalous acceleration towards the
Sun of ~8 x 10^-16 m/s^2.

Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 were traveling at about 1.22 x 10^4 m/s and
1.16 x 10^4 m/s away from the Sun at the end of their lifetimes.

Now, the Pioneers will have experienced time dilation in the correct
direction (blue-shift for us on earth) as they escape the gravitational
well of the Sun, as follows:

Actually not with the observed Pioneer signal shift. See
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208046

He uses only phase-locked echo-ing of a signal by the Pioneer craft,
with a constant frequency-shift ration between receiver and
transmitter.

This (almost) eliminates any interference of relative time-dilation,
since the signal travels in both directions.

So why didn't y'all just say so in the first place

Roland

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:04:42 -0500, John C. Polasek
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:07:59 +0200, Roland PJ
wrote:

The Pioneer Spacecraft have shown an anomalous acceleration towards the
Sun of ~8 x 10^-16 m/s^2.

You better check. The Pioneer acceleration is 8e-10 not 8e-16m/ss.
Wouldn't this invalidate your arithmetic?

Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 were traveling at about 1.22 x 10^4 m/s and
1.16 x 10^4 m/s away from the Sun at the end of their lifetimes.

Now, the Pioneers will have experienced time dilation in the correct
direction (blue-shift for us on earth) as they escape the gravitational
well of the Sun, as follows:

I thought the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly had already been explained.

On Dec 25, 9:26 am, Sadie Hawkins Day wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:04:42 -0500, John C. Polasek



wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:07:59 +0200, Roland PJ
wrote:

The Pioneer Spacecraft have shown an anomalous acceleration towards the
Sun of ~8 x 10^-16 m/s^2.

You better check. The Pioneer acceleration is 8e-10 not 8e-16m/ss.
Wouldn't this invalidate your arithmetic?

Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 were traveling at about 1.22 x 10^4 m/s and
1.16 x 10^4 m/s away from the Sun at the end of their lifetimes.

Now, the Pioneers will have experienced time dilation in the correct
direction (blue-shift for us on earth) as they escape the gravitational
well of the Sun, as follows:

I thought the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly had already been explained.

Well of course it has been explained, my
inbox has a stack of papers a foot high
and contains 80 explanations.
I'm extragrating a bit (actually it's 79
explanations and it's 2 foot high).
The problem is *insufficient data* to make
a hard definitive choice.
Ken S. Tucker

Sadie Hawkins Day wrote:
I thought the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly had already been explained.

At present there is no generally accepted resolution of the anomaly.
There is a rather large group that thinks mundane explanations account
for it (e.g. asymmetric radiation of heat). There are others that think
that is insufficient. Michael Nieto gave a colloquium at Fermilab last
March presenting the case that mundane explanations don't resolve the
anomaly.


Tom Roberts

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:45:35 GMT, Tom Roberts
wrote:

Sadie Hawkins Day wrote:
I thought the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly had already been explained.

At present there is no generally accepted resolution of the anomaly.
There is a rather large group that thinks mundane explanations account
for it (e.g. asymmetric radiation of heat). There are others that think
that is insufficient. Michael Nieto gave a colloquium at Fermilab last
March presenting the case that mundane explanations don't resolve the
anomaly.

I was thinking rather in terms of "Gravitational Doppler" 7/24/6.
However considering your recently expressed opinions on Jews I doubt
you'd consider the issue objectively one way or the other. If you're
going to do science you need to worry a little less about who's doing
it and a little more about the science you and they are doing.

On Dec 26, 3:39 pm, Sadie Hawkins Day wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:45:35 GMT, Tom Roberts

wrote:
Sadie Hawkins Day wrote:
I thought the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly had already been explained.

At present there is no generally accepted resolution of the anomaly.
There is a rather large group that thinks mundane explanations account
for it (e.g. asymmetric radiation of heat). There are others that think
that is insufficient. Michael Nieto gave a colloquium at Fermilab last
March presenting the case that mundane explanations don't resolve the
anomaly.

I was thinking rather in terms of "Gravitational Doppler" 7/24/6.
However considering your recently expressed opinions on Jews I doubt
you'd consider the issue objectively one way or the other. If you're
going to do science you need to worry a little less about who's doing
it and a little more about the science you and they are doing.

That even looks edible.
Ken