The Pioneer Anomaly: Still a Mystery

[CraigS]

Here’s one mystery, (that’s coming up to its twelfth anniversary, now), which I hope they don’t solve … but looks like they probably will. (I love a good mystery) …

“The Pioneer Anomaly” by Slava G. Turyshev · Viktor T. Toth
(Submitted on 20 Jan 2010 (v1), last revised 19 Aug 2010 (this version, v2))
http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.3686

“Radio-metric Doppler tracking data received from the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft from heliocentric distances of 20-70 AU has consistently indicated the presence of a small, anomalous, blue-shifted frequency drift uniformly changing with a rate of ~6 x 10^-9 Hz/s. Ultimately, the drift was interpreted as a constant sunward deceleration of each particular spacecraft at the level of a_P = (8.74 +/- 1.33) x 10^-10 m/s^2.

This apparent violation of the Newton's gravitational inverse-square law has become known as the Pioneer anomaly; the nature of this anomaly remains unexplained.
…
As most of this information was recovered relatively recently, it was not used in the previous studies of the Pioneer anomaly, but it is critical for the new investigation.”

… Scientific language for the spacecraft have slowed down more than can be explained by theory and new data is leading the way.

Seems like every man and his dog has a hypothesis about why this is happening. We could take bets on the outcomes because it seems that this is one mystery, which good scientific research probably will solve, in our lifetimes.

Any comments/bets ?

Cheers

[renormalised]

"The exponent vel-o-city of t he s p a c e c r a f t has g o n e t h r o u g h.....":):P:P

The batteries are running out:):P

Seriously, I think this will remain a bit of mystery for a little while yet.

[multiweb]

I have a perfectly logical explanation for it. It got caught in the wake of a vogon ship chasing one of those hyper-velocity runaway star systems because they didn't pay their parking tickets. It actually looks like most of the star systems in the galaxy do pay their for their parking space :P

[CraigS]

I think they're chasing thermal rebound effects as the most likely explanation.
They're talking it seriously, though .. that report link I posted was a 165 pager!!!

I like the Vogon thingy, though .. Witten's Hamster's book has it at the same odds as cosmic plasma in the solar system ...

:P

Cheers
Man, there'll be payback for that one !!!

[renormalised]

Except for us....that's why we're slated for demolition:):P

[renormalised]

Oh....it's an electric situation....the reason why the anomaly is there is because it's dragging on the power cord between it and Earth:):P

[renormalised]

Might be "cosmic" plasma. Been eating too many magic mushrooms:):P

Everything's "cosmic":lol::P:D

[CraigS]

or too many "Strange Quark Nuggets" .... er .. nah ... the two don't mix too well !!
:P:)

[renormalised]

The two don't mix:)

[shane.mcneil]

The little mouse running on the treadmill is getting tired.

[CraigS]

Yep ... a goody .. we'll give that one better odds than the Vogons or Electric Plasmas (10∧7:1) .. lets see... er .. Mouse-on-Treadmill (10∧6:1).
:)

Cheers
PS: This could be a long book ! :question:

[astroron]

This is not science it is nonsense, or SPAM.
A argument was put forward for a science forum
and this is what we get in return, Rubbish.
Cheers

[renormalised]

It's not even spam, Ron.

You need to lighten up a bit.

If science was all dreary seriousness and sticking to the argument all the time, you'd go bonkers. It's half the reason why not so many actually post here. A bit of levity goes to alleviating the situation.

[astroron]

If we want comedy we can go to the comedy channel.
This forum was created for science.
You have a go at the other person on this forum for misrepresenting science then you do it yourself.

[bojan]

I tend to agree with this.

[CraigS]

Ok .. I was hoping to create a little bit of levity, to see if we could turn some onlookers into contributors.

If this thread took off, we could always transfer it to the "General Chat" section.

Apologies if people want this forum to be completely dry - I don't.

At least I now know there's a couple of people willing to contribute in their own way.

Might let it run for a few more posts and then apply to the great Gods in the aether (called 'Moderators') to airlift it ?
I'm happy to 'go with the flow'.

Cheers
PS: In my own defense, it did start out as a serious science post - a 165 page scientific paper. I would rather people comment on the paper than turn me into a bookie !! :)

[renormalised]

You still need to lighten up. I have, for one, not misrepresented science and it's quite obvious that you have an all too obvious misconception of the science that is solely due to a lack of knowledge and/or experience in the subject. The fact that I can make light of something that is inherently boring and banal for most people only shows that I have some sensitivity towards their inherent misgivings about science. I can poke fun at it and all the while bring them into taking a look at it. They don't need to understand it, just acknowledge it. If you've ever had to teach science to kids or people who find it tedious and/or boring you'll know exactly where I'm coming from. Understanding will come later, with more experience and study. All I did was take a badly worded statement and make light of it in the context of other posts that have been made here in this forum.

If you want me to get serious about it, I will, but are you going to understand any of the science I will post here???. If you want me to, I'll write reams of maths and quote endless theory but what good is that going to do if you can't follow it and end up not bothering to read on.

If you can't have a sense of humour in and with science, then you might as well give the game up. You'd end up a neurotic mess if you did otherwise.

[astroron]

Carl,This is the last word I am going to post on this thread.
Thank you for you input.
Cheers

[Jarvamundo]

For those interested, although the paper makes mention of Lorentz forces with regard to planetary fly by, it does not mention the spacecraft it'self acting as a charged body beyond those encounters. In 1999 this was discussed stemming from the works of R.Jeurgens.... with further predictions layed out as below.

http://www.holoscience.com/news/mystery_solved.html

http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/electrical_model.jpg

I certainly do not wish to engage a skirmish, the material is available for those inclined. Some may wish to take note of predictions the model offers.

I would gladly consider any other meaningful contributions to discussion.

Bojan, i have not forgotten you, will address shortly....

Cheers.
A

[CraigS]

G'Day Alex;
The paper says:
"Electro-magnetic Lorentz forces:

The authors of [394] considered the possibility that the Pioneer spacecraft can hold a charge and be deflected in its trajectory by Lorentz forces. They noted that this was a concern during planetary flybys due to the strength of Jupiter’s and Saturn’s magnetic fields (see Figure 2.1). The magnetic field strength in the outer solar system, ≤ 10−5 Gauss, is five orders of magnitude smaller than the magnetic field strengths measured by the spacecraft at their nearest approaches to Jupiter: 0.185 Gauss for Pioneer 10 and 1.135 Gauss for Pioneer 11. Data from the Pioneer 10 plasma analyzer can be interpreted as placing an upper bound of 0.1μC on the positive charge during its Jupiter encounter [261].

These bounds allow us to estimate the upper limit of the contribution of the electromotive force on the motion of the Pioneer spacecraft in the outer solar system. This was accomplished in [18] using the standard formula for the Lorentz-force, F = qv × B, and found that the greatest force would be on Pioneer 11 during its closest approach to Jupiter, < 20 × 10−10 m/s2. However, once the spacecraft reached the interplanetary medium, this force would decrease to
σLorentz �� 2 × 10−14 m/s2, (5.7), which is negligible."

Seems to me they have taken all that pretty well into account.

Welcome back !! We missed ya.
:)
Cheers
PS:Both Pioneers had plasma analysers and instruments to measure the charge effect and that's where the above empirical data came from. Seems to be a big discrepency with "10^39 times stronger than gravity"....?

[renormalised]

It's just another case of not knowing anything about the science to know what's being said, Craig. No doubt either one of two things have happened here....1) what you quoted from the paper has been conveniently ignored and/or 2) it's been cherry picked, as usual, in order to support an unsupportable hypothesis.

The paper itself is more than enough to refute any EU claims (the quoted text is more than enough).

The site that was quoted is nothing more than a waste of time....a cursory inspection of its contents is enough to alert anyone to its dubious nature.

[Jarvamundo]

Hi Craig... you have pointed out some valid empirical results, these have already been mentioned below. Pay attention to the voltage gradient of gaseous conductors, and the net charge density (image below).

http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/gaseous_conductors.jpg
delivered externally.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/1/6/e16f4b0bf23cd9354b492e3581cf9d0f.pn g

Regarding "the force being 10^39 times stronger than g"... this is an empirical fact. Might you be you taking this out of context?



The quoted text does not describe the heliopause voltage differential at all! Particularly at anode and cathode regions of the heliospheric circuit. These are completely different phenomenon posted by Craig.

again... look at the voltage gradient diagram.
The above quote from Craig does not make any reference to the heliopause boundary whatsoever, and yes i read the paper, particularly this section. It is distinctly concentrated on magnetic field interactions with particular references to jupiter and saturn, which is not what is being discussed.

One could wonder how this is at all relevant to the particular hypothesis noted by Thornhill, given that he is not describing a magnetic interaction?

One could also wonder if there exists an awareness of the difference between Columb and Lorentz. 2 fine chaps.




uhhuh

[CraigS]

Ok Alex;
Just had a good read of the links you posted (I'm keeping an open mind until something comes along to justify my closing it).
:)
Comments:
I get the seemingly crucial comment which seems to underpin most of the hypothesised forces induced by the potential gradient :

"Of most significance is the fact that the voltage gradient, that is the electric field, throughout interplanetary space remains constant."

It seems that this statement (in quotes) is based on extrapolations of a lab test tube, which is a closed system. In space, the system isn't closed and the scales are enormous. Perhaps there's a 'virtual' anode and cathode formed within the Solar envelope, and perhaps there isn't. Perhaps if there is, its a lot weaker than the number quoted. Then again, perhaps it isn't.

I don't have a problem with hypotheses. It doesn't seem to be appropriate to compare a hypothesis against hard data and go on believing the hypothesis is therefore real. Most of my posts about mainstream are about just that. I like to find the real bits and the fairy tales and move forward with that albeit, still incomplete understanding.

It's also not important to Science what people believe or don't believe. As a person, I can still respect believers and their beliefs and still put on my Science cap. Isn't that tremendous?
(I'm not being sarcastic again .. I just reckon that's a pretty cool outlook to have on all this).

Cheers & Rgds.

[renormalised]

Forget it Alex, you wouldn't know in what context these were written about (except for the first statement, maybe), and I trust you would cherry pick and take them out of context.

In any case, this (the Pioneer Anomaly) has nothing to do with any potential voltage drop across the Heliopause at all....they're not that far out to begin, so your whole argument is a waste of time.

[renormalised]

You obviously think the guys who wrote the paper Craig posted are unaware of the basic science, which is just another example of the condescending nature someone with a misguided attachment to EU has for people who know the science and understand it. Your little throw away line ("2 fine chaps"), is just a facetious little bit of nonsense which only goes to reinforce my point.

As for Thornhill...his hypothesis is irrelevant to the case. He is nothing more than an "enthusiastic amateur" (as was described to me by Bryan Gaensler) at the very best, who has little if no understanding of any of the science he supposedly preaches about. A quick look at the rubbish he has posted on his site is enough for anyone conversant in any of the theory (or even a well informed amateur) to know exactly from where he comes.

[Jarvamundo]

Craig, you approach this with a healthy skepticism, this is a good approach. My previous reply simply noticed the difference between the Lorentz force and Columbs, which is more appropriate for discussion of Thornhill's hypothesis.

Thornhill's hypothesis based on terrestrial physics (gas discharge gradients) does make predictions, it is these predictions that are testable as the pioneer spacecraft moves towards the boundary layers of the suns electric circuit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliospheric_current_sheet).

Much like Thornhill's electrical nature of comets (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4346306) hypothesis, discussed here (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=56226) with at times ferocious opposition, it maintains testable differences and predictions.

Maintaining a healthy skepticism whilst we look to land probes on comets, and explore beyond the boundary layers is something i appreciate. It is a good approach.

Your first post invited discussion of hypothesis, this is one which contains testable predictions, i am happy to hear others, and often look for them. As you rightly point out mainstream remains 'puzzled', so is it not a good time to examine and take note of proposed hypothesis. I trust this was the spirit of your original post.

Evidence will have the final say, I am ofcourse happy with that.

[renormalised]

Your previous reply was a shot at the two authors of the paper that Craig had posted...or part thereof. How disingenuous of you now to come out and totally ignore that by skirting around it.

The fact that Thornhill wouldn't dare publish his comet theory in a recognised astronomy or astrophysics journal only goes to prove that he is in fact hiding from the scrutiny of those that have the experience in the field related to the subject and would be roundly criticised for the errors of his thesis/hypothesis if he did. Instead, he publishes in a journal of plasma physics, essentially preaching to engineers and scientist with little astronomical knowledge and/or training.

Just because something maintains testable predictions doesn't make it irrefutably correct. Nor does erroneous thinking which doesn't always apply (lab experiment to real life scalability).

The fact that Thornhill, who has no training in the physics or the astrophysics involved (like Lerner, he only has a straight undergrad degree in physics and electronics, with little graduate work) comes out and starts to pontificate about the nature of the universe, is nothing short of a joke. Let him go get a PhD in plasma physics and astronomy, then go and get some experience in the field before making announcements about what is happening. It's akin to a high school senior in biology making grand pronouncements about neurosurgery or genetics and just as ridiculous.

[renormalised]

Here's a question for you, Alex. Based on what you know about electrical forces and such, if you have a potential difference across a field, then by rights any object within that field if it's experiencing an opposing electromotive force should experience that force no matter where they are in the field...correct??.

And that opposing EM force should be proportional to the potential difference....correct.

So, any object retaining or accepting a charge should by rights be affected by that field in proportion to the charge being carried by that object....correct??.

No looking up the answers, Alex....answer the question off your own back. It should be a simple answer....no maths (you'll like that).

[Jarvamundo]

No. It was your underlined (below) text which exhibited a misunderstanding of the proposed Thornhill hypothesis, to which i responded with the difference between the Lorentz and Columb.

[renormalised]

Thornhill's hypothesis has nothing to do with the Pioneer Anomaly, so what you quoted was erroneous to begin with. The paper quoted by Craig clearly states than any electromotive force experienced by the Pioneers due to the potential difference in the current sheet, or across the heliopause, or from the interplanetary magnetic field (or from anywhere else for that matter) was so small that its effects were negligible...their words.

Coulomb, Lorentz....neither here nor there in the context of the discussion about the anomaly. The only difference between the two is the modus operandi......one is the effect of an external EM field on a point like charge (Lorentz), the other is the law describing the strength of the electrostatic forces between two point like charges (Coulomb). The Lorentz force is a vector quantity/field whilst Coulomb is both scalar and vector.

[Jarvamundo]

Yup, as mentioned this is well covered in the hypothesis. Again the image below will help.

You'll get there Carl... Craig 'got it'

http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/gaseous_conductors.jpg

[renormalised]

I don't need to get anything, Alex, because I've already "got it". I haven't spent the time I've been at uni just to sit there and twiddle my fingers.

And yet again, another example of condescension on your part.

As far as that image is concerned, I see nothing in that image which explains anything. All it is showing is a voltage change over distance within a discharge tube between a cathode and anode..

If you're so clued up with this, why don't you explain what the connection is....what's going on and I want to see the derivations of the maths explaining what is happening. No links...your own words.


Oh, I'm waiting on my answers to my previous questions. I'm also waiting on quite a few other things...and how about Bojan's queries, where are they. Write them up here, now, since you're already clued up on all of this.

And how about answering Steven's queries, without resort to condescension or obfuscation, about Narlikar and SR contradictions you seem to think exist. And we want to see the maths there too, because you're going to need it in order to explain what you're on about.

[xelasnave]

The craft slow because they encounter the flow of everything:D.

Although we have held onto our assumptions that space is empty the slowing of these craft suggest that it is not.

The Gravity field could be seen as a push force and the slowing is consistent with such an environment and in my universe the slowing was predictable..and I did predict they would slow.

Now folks say that all I did was make a lucky guess but my guess was correct over NASA simply because (in my belief) the current understanding as to how gravity works offers no mechanical explanation and leaves us with a universe where space bends as if by magic...we should not be content to simply say..space bends and this is how gravity works..I know GR is a field equation and gravity is a field (a field suggests a flow of particles does it not?) but finally it is the pressure of the flow of everything that gives us gravity (our field) and for mine the slowing of the craft suggest that my reasoning could be valid... but with no money, education or staff my idea can only remain an idea...still I have not read any explanation put up on this matter that offers any reasonable answer.

Not withstanding MM eliminated the aether I suggest that it is an aether in effect that we must entertain if we are to understand gravity...

I know we can not identify any push particles but we can not identify so many other things that are considered fact in the particle world... We have the HB but still have not caught one..even neutrinos are very difficult to capture...and there are many attempts being made to produce a mere handful each year and nevertheless the standard model regard them as fact...most agree that billions of neutrinos pass thru our bodies with little or minimal interaction....


However if there is a flow such as I suggest or something along the lines of the concept of an aether then once outside our solar system we will encounter it and determine that space is somewhat "sticky".

I understand NASA are now investigating the inter stellar medium which is good but the fact they now refer to it as a medium suggests to me that they must have a recognition that they deal with more than nothing when they try to understand space.


But one thing is clear I feel and it is this..as much as we think we have gravity wired we simply do not understand it and all our sums do is no more than measure it without any further consideration upon how it works.

Steven pointed out that a marker of a crack pot was their demand for a mechanical explanation and I really wonder why seeking a mechanical explanation is such a bad thing:shrug:... it is probably a bad thing in so far as we will be forced to recognize that the mere measurement and quantification of forces does little to understand the mechanics.

But I believe in time all will realize that the force of attraction is a myth and that it is the force of push that runs our universe.:rolleyes:

alex:):):)

[bojan]

Alex, could you clearly describe what exactly did you predict, what is the cause of this predicted behaviour and could you give us some numbers, as result of calculations that supports your theories? And perhaps, there are some other things that can be predicted, following up your calculations?
Otherwise we are wasting time here.

[xelasnave]

You know I can not give you numbers.

I spoke of an idea and not a theory thereby avoiding proof as an issue I feel:D.

My initial prediction was..they will slow, and in time to us they will appear to stop (held in sticky space) as we (the solar system) continue in our orbit...and after they appear to us to have stopped they will then appear to race away at a speed equivalent to to the solar systems orbital speed in the galaxy. If I am correct such an observation will be made..if wrong it will be obvious. If I could manage math I could give you dates and rate of slowing etc but I can not...

So there is part of the prediction incomplete...so if I am right they will appear to stop and then regather speed...if I had numbers I could predict when but I submit if they do as I say the absence of numbers should not mean my prediction is incorrect but only that I have no math support...

As to waste of time I suggest that to continue to try and fit the observations to factors that are taking us nowhere may be a waste of time...it seems to me that this is called an anomaly because it simply can not be explained with the science we enlist to explain the fact...... our science must be able to explain the observations and at this point our science has no answer... to suggest something outside current beliefs may be what is required.

Given that I suggested what has happened did happen I feel there may be something in my view... I can offer no more than a hypothesis and if not taking that hypothesis to a testable theory is a waste of time then indeed my speculation is a waste of time...still I enjoy thinking about stuff and some thinking must be better than none.


alex:):):)

[bojan]

This is not a prediction, mate.
Prediction goes as follows:
First you think you've got the mechanism which you want to discuss. (the details of what is happening.. you haven't gave it to us yet).
Then you calculate the details of the behaviour based on above mentioned mechanism.
If the numbers fit, the idea has some merit., if they don't, the idea is worthless.
Prediction without numbers is not even "incomplete".. it is not prediction, it is just a chat which goes with beer in a pub with mates, that's all.
Which is not bad per se, of course ;).. but then lets not use such strong words (as "prediction" :P )

[renormalised]

Bojan, it's based around this....LeSage-Push Gravity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation)

However, anything can become true after a few rounds:)

Which is good:)

While it lasts:)

[bojan]

I know, I had a discussion with Alex (Xelasnave) 2-3 years ago about this on this forum.. We discussed many aspects of this "theory" including it's pussitron's violation of preservation of energy.. The discussion is still going on it seems :-)

[renormalised]

I can remember some of it still going on after I joined up.

Seems it's still continuing:)

[xelasnave]

I am more than happy to consider my "prediction" as only worthy of chat material... I have no problem with that.
OK I withdraw prediction and say this...it is/was my belief that when the space craft left the heliosphere they would encounter a push environment which would cause them to slow.

If you want more you get the next round;)

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

My problem with push gravity was I did not find out that Le Sage had come up with the idea back in 1745...up to that point I thought it was my original idea and that it was my duty to humanity to push the idea.

I do like the push concept and am confident it will replace all current "pull" models... so confident in fact that I have ceased pushing the push gravity concept and am happy to wait until everyone else catches up with the game.

Although it was soul crushing to find my idea was not new but in fact very old it did not destroy my determination to find out how gravity works... in that journey I have learn t a great deal about the current bank of knowledge which I see as a good thing. But I am convinced humans know little about gravity and as far as I can tell there is no mechanical explanation...we have gravitons as candidates but to date they are little more than speculation...
Anyways the more I think about how a field must work I can not see that a field can operate other than via a push system ..look at a magnetic filed for example clearly push at work...
BUT lets be clear it is an idea it is not science as all point out ...and when you think about what I am working on it is no less than a theory of everything...now just coming up with a very limited hypothesis on a theory of everything would take many volumes... how could you limit a hypothesis on everything to a couple of lines...so given the complexity etc I see no reason to take it all so seriously and find reasons why it can not work or reasons why it could work but to appreciate that we do not understand gravity...for all our science we know nothing really...GR says nothing about how the gravity field is built...what is it made from...a field I believe is a flow of particles and I think that is reasonable and the accepted way of understanding a field... so how does a gravity field actually work...and I realize we can only chat but so far in all the years I have been on about this no one has offerred a machinery..what particles are exchanged ? how is the message of gravity communicated betweern objects?GR says we should see it as a bending of space..whatever..but how is it bent what particles come into play..if there is a graviton how will it work.... and the hardest question for me is...if a black hole has almost infinite gravity how can it release a messenger particle to tell the rest of the universe of its being??? if a photon can not escape how will our graviton escape? and even if we merely speculate upon this aspect I can not think of a better to[pic for a chat...with or without beer.
I know as scientists all are no happy to speculate and that is good but where else can you start? Observation you say... well observe the pioneer..they are not doing what we expect..we need to fit the science to that specific observation not fit the "science" with the observation...at the moment it seems like its the pioneer at fault as they are not doing what out sums dictate...maybe the sums need review is my point and to answer that one we must ask more of our understanding of gravity.

alex:):):)

[bojan]

No worries, Alex :-)

Here, next round is mine.. in a form of citation from the website Carl mentioned earlier:

The discussion about this was going on in this forum earlier this year.. with conclusion that "speed of gravity" MUST be instantaneous (or at least c*10^10, so pussitrons must move with this speed), otherwise the planet's orbits wouldn't be stable..
So here you go.

[CraigS]

G'Day Alex;

I was wondering what had happened to you ???
The other Alex has been presenting his hypotheses for a couple of weeks and I was starting to wonder what had happened to yours.
Then Mr Pressure came along .. and now you're back !

You know what, you're all talking about very similar things. You're all also 'pushing' your own ideas. And I'm always left with the same old question ... WHY ? .... why is it so important for all you guys to see us eating your ideas ?? I don't see a need to push mine, so why with you ?

It would seem to be a far better usage of time for you to dedicate your efforts on getting on with you own website so that we can all log on and read about your push gravity ideas. This would reduce emotional outbursts which seem to emanate from thought provoking threads getting bogged down in conversations which serve to support only one person's ideas.

I apologise if I'm sounding a bit 'agitated', (I'm not, really), but I just don't understand why its so important for us to get your ideas !

Cheers
:)

[xelasnave]

Thank you very much for that Bojan.

AS to the speed of gravity it is my understanding that a gravity field propagates at C (the speed limit for all matter which not much matter can get near)... Is my understanding correct?


Alex

[bojan]

No..

The *change* in gravity field is propagating at c.
For example, the merger of two black holes would produce such a transient, that would reach us in time required for signal to travel the distance at c.

The gravity field itself is "following" the object as it is attached to it since the beginning.. . interacting with fields of all other objects in space. And it is infinitely large, of course.. as far as gravity is reaching .. fading away with distance as described by inverse square law.
If this were not the case, the Solar system wouldn't exist..

[xelasnave]

Hi Craig I dont follow the other Alex's ideas mainly because it seems there is a personality thing going on and I cant be bothered trying to figure who is winning.

I dont know Mr Pressure and have not read any of his posts.

I dont spend much time on the net these days because I dont have a computer on my boat..where I spend most days... unfortunately for you guys this is the only site I visit and try to participate.

I am sorry that you group me with others I dont wish to be grouped with but given you see them the same as me I must ask probably the same question you ask...limited to ...why I do what I do?

Gravity is a very interesting subject and I like thinking about it and unfortunately as it interests me I mistakenly think it is a matter that interests others. I realize however it is what it is..boring.
I am not trying to push my ideas but test them..and so I ask folk about gravity and stuff where gravity appears the key player.

Unfortunately I dont care what other folk think about me or my ideas and I guess I expect others will regard my comments for what they are... chat.

I guess why I post comes from a desire to converse and learn...my style probably does not seem that way but that is my specific answer to your question.

I had a web site which Ron (a member here) built but I was over gravity by the time he built it and I never really got into the running of the site or decent participation in the site.

I have given up on the push gravity as an interest really and now devote my time to sailing and repairing my boat for the big trip....but I admit I cant help myself if gravity comes up to chat about it.

I apologize for my manner given it has caused you the concerns you expressed.
In my own way I try and promote thought and discussion not to promote my ideas but to find out others thoughts... dam it I already know what I think... my interest is in what others think about gravity and do they form similar questions that present in my mind.

I can understand that you could feel agitated if you see me as merely pushing my ideas but remember this... I will argue my point to see if it can stand and not to convince others my view is paramount...again the fact you have raised your concerns means I will address them with respect for how you feel.
I thank you for politely saying I present as a pain in the neck and respect you for your frankness...
Have a great day.

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

To Craig...I tried to read Mr Pressures post but it seems to be off limits and from that I gather it must have been over the top.]

To Bojan
Thanks for taking the time to explain it the way you did.
alex

[renormalised]

To put it this way, Alex, if your ideas were in orbit at about the Moon's distance, his were so far away not even the Hubble would be able to see them!!!!:):P

[CraigS]

To Alex;

Cheers .. I apologise if it seemed like I was picking on you ... the conversation with Bojan, I found interesting. Thanks to both of you. You have as much right to discuss your ideas as me, or anyone. (I wish my message hadn't landed in the middle of it ..).

I feel that out of respect for the initiators of threads, we should all attempt to stay within the general confines of its topic. If the discussion drifts off, (of which I'm also guilty of letting happen), we should probably initiate another thread to discuss the new topic .. eg: 'Push Gravity' or whatever ... its then up to the individual as to whether or not they wish to participate.

I was truly hoping we could bury the Pioneer Anomaly thread .. once and for all !! (And that's coming from the person who launched it !!).

Best Regards and good to hear from you again.

Cheers

[renormalised]

Don't worry Craig, there's a Klingon Bird of Prey about to fry the Pioneers with their disruptors:):)

[multiweb]

Here's a thought: why not create a quack section next to the astronomy science and Carl can be a mod and move threads were they belong? :)

[renormalised]

An interesting idea, but I don't think it'll work:)

No one would bother to post there!!!!.

[astroron]

Who is going to write the terms of refrence:question:
Isn't that a against the freedom of expression:question:.
If you don't like it , Don't read it:P

[multiweb]

Nah... just grouping the quackin' into one spot. :nerd:


I don't - It's harder and harder to skip all those paragraphs though to filter the interesting stuff. :)

[Mr. Pressure]

There is no gravity at all.

Sun exploding and energywaves who have also nature of neutriinos.

Also neutriinos exploding and emit energywaves and with that energy, neutriinos pushing expanding planets far away from sun, same way what they expanding.

Neutriinos, and that energy what neutriinos emit, dont interactive with pioneerprobes nucleus of atoms thats much what with gasplanets and with gasplanets moons nucleus of atoms.

This explain pioneerprobes problem.

Pioneer- probes*

An unexplained acceleration towards the sun has been observed with the Pioneer-sounders. If it would be observed that the sounders have the same kind of unexplained acceleration away from the sun, it would similar to the expanding of space in a Big Bang-theory. Apparently the space is assumed to expand somewhere far away from us (?).

Maybe in the universe according to my theory there is nothing unexplainable in the acceleration of the Pioneer-sounders. Maybe the energysea opening from the sun does not push so strongly the sounders away from the sun the
farther the sounders are from the sun.

This means that the space itself does not expand or curve. The energy concentrations expand and open up energywaves in a space that does not expand or curve.

.

[xelasnave]

Hi Mr Pressure:hi:

I have tried to understand the point you are making however I can not grasp what you mean.

I suspect English is not your first language and part of the difficulty may be found there.

What do you mean when you say there is no gravity?
Is this your way of saying it is in a different form to what we currently think of it or that there is no force at all....

Are you saying it is a pressure from the flow of sub atomic particles and that the flow makes less pressure outside the solar system?

I am sorry I can not understand your point but I encourage you to bear with me as I would like to hear your view.

alex:):):)

[Mr. Pressure]

Check out me youtube videos

No gravity

http://www.youtube.com/user/Etimespace?feature=mhum#p/u/1/eFPYHdllHa4

Bending light

http://www.youtube.com/user/Etimespace?feature=mhum#p/u/2/e805oRZNU9U

How universe working

http://www.youtube.com/user/Etimespace?feature=mhum#p/u/0/RGbdPc4M87A

My forums, where is some better english

http://onesimpleprinciple.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=f40f8504866df14443794c1d6c02b07 4

Thank you

.

[Mr. Pressure]

This text is old one. I have some new and better with my motherlangues.

Black holes*

The Interaction / The Black Holes

How do the orbs interact with each other?

They open up energywaves, by which they interact with each other.

The less the orb has exterior surface, the less it interacts with other pieces. Also the density of energy matters as well.

In a energy concentration there can be a lot of energy, although it would have just a little exterior surface in relation to other orbs.

The denser the energy in an orb is, the less it has exterior surface in relation to the quantity of energy.

The less exterior surface, the slower the energy opens up away from the orb and the less it interacts with other orbs.

The denser the energy of a piece is, the more efficient it stops to itself for example the neutrinos coming from the stars and also the less there comes neutrinos away from the piece.

There woun´t come any neutrinos of the stars from the direction of a black hole, because they stop themselves to a black hole.

However, towards the black hole there move neutrinos all the time and they expand and open up energywaves, while transfering their kinetic energy with them to the orbs.

From the pieces that move near the black hole loose more neutrinos from the side that it away from the black hole. This is how a certain exterior pressure is formed around the black hole.

The closer to the black hole the piece is, the less energybundles come from backside of the black holes and the stronger the exterior pressure is.

When one understands that all the energy concentrations expand and open up energywaves that have the nature of expanding energyconcentration, one can undestand that the black hole does not draw other pieces towards itself. It devours all the other pieces, because it expands and pushes pieces that locate nearby away from itself slower than the pieces and the black hole itsel do expand.

However, some of the black holes are in a way in a diet. They push the gas that locates nearby away from themselves faster than they expand.

Someone may wonder, why the black hole finally begins to reject the pieces that approach the black hole faster than the black hole and the piece themselves expand. It is based on a fact, that allthough the black hole opens up slowly its energy, do these dense energywaves have large energic particles, which also transfer their kinetic energy with energywaves opening up from themselves towards the expanding atomcores of other orbs.

The modern physics does not understand these large energic particles. According to my theory, the speed of these large energic particles has accelerated just because of the fact, that they also do expand and open up energywaves by which they can make the large energic particles in front of them to speed up all the time.Their speed accelerates slower than the speed of the photons. Correspondingly their speed slows down slower than the photons speed when they move for example towards the sun. The speed of a ship accelerates slower than the speed of a boat. The speed of the ship also slows down slower than the speed of a boat.

This way it is easy to understand how the expanding star that pushes itself away from the expanding black hole explodes a lot of its energy towards the black hole. Those opening and expanding energybudles that come from the expanding black hole make the expanding atoms of a star explode faster than normally. It achieves an illusion that the black hole absorbs with some kind of gravitation from a star the mass of a star towards itself.

In fact, the energy coming from the black hole makes the expanding star to explode its energy much stronger than normally. With this energy that explodes towards the black hole it pushes itself away from the expanding black hole in a curved orbit.

.

[xelasnave]

Thank you for such a detailed reply you have an interesting view.
alex:):):)

[renormalised]

Can we put this topic to bed, now. It's been discussed almost till the cows come home!!!!:)

[Mr. Pressure]

Prediction

Space station, The Sun and the galactic center are in the same line.

Sun in the middle

Certain atoms halve faster than normal.

More massive particles than neutrinos and yet smaller particles (thickness increases) will come from galactic center.

When they move through Sun, (after that) they interact strongly with the nuclei of atoms and thus they can be detected divided faster than normal (half-life is shorter than normal).

http://www.physorg.com/news202456660.html

.

[CraigS]

"Power spectrum analyses of nuclear decay rates"
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0924

"We conclude that the annual periodicity in these data sets is a real effect, but that further study involving additional carefully controlled experiments will be needed to establish its origin."

:)
Cheers

[Mr. Pressure]

During the solar eclipse, the pendulum will go mess

Check out my latest text here.

http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2

Updated front page even better text which is not yet in English.

Google translator to translate, but not very well.

www.onesimpleprinciple.com

Later also front page with english

.

[xelasnave]

No way Carl:D. We have not come up with the solution to the problem (anomaly).

I have offered my reason why they slow and although I am happy with my reasoning I feel other explanations could be explored and given the fact my ideas are not supported with a math extrapolation I feel there is room for a more fact based explanation;).

So why do you think they slow given our math suggests otherwise:rolleyes:.
or look at it this way..here we have something that tests our sums and shows them to be inadequate and demands someone step forward and lead the confused humans further down the path of understanding.... I feel if you applied yourself you could be the one :D

Here we have an opportunity for some real science as something is not right and that means someone gets to define a new law and call it after themselves:lol::lol::lol:

alex:):):).

[renormalised]

Alex, no one here is going to come up with the solution to the anomaly because no one here is 1. studying it full time, and, 2. has the requisite knowledge to be able to come up with a viable solution. All we can do is speculate till the cows come home and the arguments that will inevitably arise here are going to cause more problem than what the thread is worth. So, why not just let sleeping dogs lie.

[xelasnave]

So what you are saying is ..there is no money in it... anyways from all I gather there are many minds addressing the matter and in time any valid answer will take us further forward either either confirming or altering our current understandings.

alex:):):)

[renormalised]

No exclusive research money as far as I know. Only as part of something else. There's not as many as you think working on it. When they work it out they'll let us know.

I also said we won't figure it out, so any debate we may have is only going to be academic.

[Mr. Pressure]

With google translation
That was interesting.
Ascending gas planets spots where the sun is a gaseous planet, and the area between the center of the galaxy?
Jupiter's Red Spot.
Other gas planets are detected spots at regular intervals.
As I recall, for example, Saturn often, perhaps every match Saturn's rotation period around the Sun?
The galaxy's center, a giant energy merger radiates a very massive and small, dense particles, which transfer the kinetic energy of atoms in their cores, and thus the stars, planets, moons, etc. projecting away from the whole period of explosive or expanding galaxy's center, a giant energiatihentymästä / energyconcentration the same proportion as the substance expands.

.

[Mr. Pressure]

Sunspot every eleven / 11 years.

Galaxy centre huge energyconcentration exploding and emit energywaves who are here and next one after eleven years and next one after eleven years?

No, theres coming massive particle all a time and big waves every eleven years?

Hmm. maybe, something like that?

:thumbsup:

[Mr. Pressure]

Tell me how and why space expands.

Three-dimensional human being is not known. According to experts, can not understand the expansive space. It can only believe.

Three-dimensional human being capable of understanding the three-dimensionally expanding nucleus of atosm and particle like photons which comes from the outside all the time more energy when they expand outwards to an existing state / space.

Tell me how and why the arch space, why space curving?.

According to experts, the so-called man can not understand the arched space. It can only believe.

People can understand the photons which hit the even much smaller particle moving relation to the track to another page, when the photon energy to explode or become less dense on the side faster than another and thus the photon motion is changing and this man can understand.

All phenomena can be explained by one simple principle. Eternal energy, the formation of enegyconcentration density and volume ranges from the eternal state which does not change. Reservation also varies depending on how dense energyconcentration radiates energy and how this affects the energy shift energyconcentration going to be over with energy.

www.onesimpleprinciple.com (http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/) front page, the text has been updated and the pressure of the Big Bang theory has grown up significantly again.

Later with english

All onesimpleprinciple model arguments can be examined scientifically. Even the idea of force. Force of mind.

.

[Mr. Pressure]

Let´s think with a thought!

Let´s think about the giant energy concentarions of our galaxies centres(they are also called as huge black holes) and how they once flaped from one size larger energy concentarions that locate really far outside the visible universe!

This way they were already far away from each other and the space did not have to expand “inflantionally”.

With time the stars were born out of the energy waves that the giant energy concentrations of the galaxy centres radiate and which have the nature of the atoms. At the same time as the substance and the time of this new substance were born, this energy moved in a space that already excisted and which does not expand or curve!

Our time is extremely slow in relation to the speed of movement in which the substance / energy of the visible universe move in a space that already excists.

And when the stars began to radiate their energy, the energy started to move as particules in an area between the galaxies ect.

Now let´s think that energy of the visible universe would begin to meet corresponding galaxies
in a 90 degree angle.

Naturally towards those galaxies would hit energy coming from the stars of the visible universe.
So this energy did not once move in an area between the galaxy “seeds”.

In an area between the particules radiating from the stars does not move energy which could hit the particules passing the star!

In an area whre the particules come towards the star this energy moves and it hits towards the photons passing the star and this is how the light bends!

Energy concentarions orbit of movement changes, accelerates or slows down only when the energy of an energy concentration alters faster than normally in the other side than in the other into a less dense energy .


The Velocity

Let´s think about a ship that is one light second long and moves throuhg the whole visible universe nearly in a speed of light. The time of the ship is so slow that during that time only one second of the ships time passes by!

How many journeys of the ships length does the ship move in one ships second?

The oldest light of the visible universe has moved from the farest destination of the visible universe
towards us and at the same time all the material / energy of the visible universe (also that oldest light) has been able to move during one of our seconds in a similar way as the ship that moved in one ships second truly many times the same journey as its own length is!

Our time is simply so unthinkably slow in relation to that velocity in which all the material / energy of the visible universe moves in a space that allready excists.

And of course the light that moves into a direction in which all the energy / material of the visible universe pushes itself, moves with a fastest speed into that same direction, may it be a hunch faster!

.

[CraigS]

Prove it !!

[bojan]

You must be kidding! :P :lol::lol::lol:
I am not sure even if he knows what he is talking about. :screwy:

[renormalised]

Judging by some of his earlier posts (I can't, nor do I want to, see his newer posts), I'm 200% certain of that, Bojan:):P

Anyone who can muddle a train of thought so completely and clumsily couldn't even possibly know what they're thinking. What's coming out of his mind is truly creation ex nihilo.

[Octane]

I refuse to read the posts as they're completely incoherent.

I'm also factoring that English is not his native language, either.

H

[bojan]

I also tried to factor his English into this.. especially because English is not my first language, so I started with a certain amount of understanding for him.. but with all the effort I put into this , I couldn't but to come to the conclusion I mentioned earlier.

[CraigS]

All this insight, guys ... without any attempts on interaction !!
Perhaps you're right ... oh .. ok .. I know you're right ... but this is his opportunity to prove it !

Cheers
PS: Anyone ever see an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation: where Picard is stranded on planet and his mission is to communicate with a species that is incomprehensible ??

Love that episode ...

Tah ... dah .... 'To boldly go' ....
:)

PS: Oh yeah .. its called "Darmok" ... check it out sometime !!

[Kal]

After reading this thread earlier a bunch of theories crossed my mind, one of them being dark matter causing the effect. I found this website (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2010-4/) to be pretty comprehensive in looking at the previous & current studies of the effect.

[Mr. Pressure]

Scientific experiments

The argument about the expanding space is an empty argument! There is no way
to make scientific experiments with a space. The argument about expanding
space is not science. It is a religion!

The thing that particules radiate their energy is not an empty claim.
Particules can be examined and make scientifical experiment with them and
this way proof this claim to be true.

Let´s take long chutes from different materials into the space and place
telescopes to them to observe some known place of a star. If the energy that
comes to the chutes makes the photons moving in the chute to bend towards
the chute, we can this way observe that this star concerned seems to be in a
different place than it is known to be!

The sun does not curve the space. The energy coming towards the sun makes
photons passing by the sun to bend towards the sun, because the hot / thick,
small and little exterior surface possessing particules do not interact with
the photons passing by the sun!

Even Einstein once told us that the massive the object is, the slower the
time is.

In relation to the size of a star there is much more energy / substance in
the stars than in the photons. The substance / energy is denser in the stars
than what it is in the photons. The time of the stars is so slower than the
time of the photons!

This way the time of the old photons is faster than the time of the new
photons and the photons radiating from the stars do not tranfer their
kinetic energy to the photons passing by the star as much as the photons
coming towards the star do. This way the light bends at the same time it
passes the star without supposedly the star would bend the space!

.

[Mr. Pressure]

"Dark energy"


The energy does not interact with the space in anyway! The space does not alter in any way.
The eternally excisting space does not expand, curve, roll, bang, stretch or foam!

According to the onesimpleprinciple model there occures a lot of such energy that effects the energy of the atomcores and makes the energy in a core to expand in other words to alter with accelerating speed into a less dense energy.

The atomcores absorb that energy also towards themselves. This is how the atomcores that expand all the time have enough energy to radiate the energy as waves and these waves have the nature of electrons and particules!

The energy of a visible universe originates from the objects that exicist really far outiside the visible universe. Those objects explode and radiate energywaves that have the nature of galaxies.

The galaxies are huge particules that explode and radiate energywaves that have the nature of atoms.The energy of all stars originare from enormeous energy consentrations of the galaxy centres!
The galaxies come to existence from inside to outside in other words from the centre to outward.

In the end all the energy of a visible universe has scattered smoothly in to a space. In some point the energy that has altered smooth begins to meet old galaxies and operates as so called dark energy in other words makes the energy of the galaxies that the energy meets to alter in an accelerating speed into a less dense energy ect.

Also the galaxies of the visible universe meet smoothly into a slightly dence altered energy.
This energy is remains of truly old galaxy energy. Is has moved through an enormeous emptiness within thousands of millions years. Within this time that energy has exploded in other words altered smoothly into a less dense energy in a eternal space that already exists.

Every single qvark in a visible universe meets that energy equally smoothly all the time.

In a moment the energy of a visible universe can move away from a space where the energy of a visible universe exists now and in a next moment away from a space where the energy of a visible universe just moved ect.

I can just imagine how much the qvarks are all the time able to absorb themselves more energy from the energy that has scattered smoothly and moves against the energy of the visible universe. That energy flaps in a moment through the visible universe and it absorbs all the time energy to the qvarks of the visible universe.

That is the so called dark energy that makes the substance to expand with an accelerating speed. It does not impact with the space in any way.

The space does not expand, curve or roll!

The density of an eternal energy varies in an eternal space that does not change in any way!

You must forget all about expanding space. The expanding of a space can not be proven scientifically! And you can not make a scientific experiment with the space! The argument of an empty space is an empty argument. More empty than the argument of the guardian angels!

[OICURMT]

My missus would disagree, she claims I (the space I take up) am expanding at a rate which defies all physical theories... and she has proof (photographic, which when plotted becomes "scientifically and statistically measurable"....) :P

[Kal]

Just tested this (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/profile.php?do=ignorelist) forum feature. I think it might make my reading a bit lighter ;)

[Screwdriverone]

Whew....this thread is a bit exhausting to read, jumping from people discussing things to theories from left field and right field and two field and no field and whacky field.....

How about this, something that I think, hasnt been mentioned.

Most (if not all) of our theories and science and such have been studied and tested and proved (with data from such observations) within the confines of our solar system, correct? No-one to date has travelled as far out as the Pioneer probes so therefore what they are experiencing (from what I read) is they are slowing down slightly?

Now, PERHAPS, the data we all hold true and good is based on science that is being done and observed within our solar system where the models and experiments and tests all hold true with regard to the environment these tests are performed?

For example: If I told you that I could make a brand of green dishwashing liquid turn purple by sealing it 10mls into a test tube of known size and plugging it with known cork and heating it to known temperature at sea level pressure for a certain period, then you could all feasibly test my theory and observations either by doing it yourselves or using chemical or mathematical equations to test the results? Right?

OK, so then here's a thought. MAYBE the Voyager's are experiencing something that has never been experienced within our solar system?

Such as the Heliopause?? I dont think this has come up here yet, the term, specifically?

My thought is that perhaps the envelope of outflowing solar wind (which the crafts have experienced their whole journey) is being met by a stronger force out there more than 20-70AU from the sun and the effects of the force of the sun's solar wind is now lessening (or even removed) so that the velocity of the spacecraft is being modified by the flow of other forces such as the galactic particles and intersellar medium which is affecting the velocity we believed to be constant for that object travelling through a vacuum.

Studying the heliosphere, the bow shock and the actual point of the Heliopause was one of the primary missions of the Voyager's wasn't it?

Perhaps they have encountered it earlier than expected and its behaviour is not as it was predicted?

In simplistic terms, what I am trying to say is Voyager(s) has had a nice constant tailwind for most of the journey, coming from the sun and now, the tailwind has stopped. At the same time, whatever is beyond our solar system is probably pushing back the other way.

Could be dark matter, could be charged particles flowing from the galactic core, could be dust, hydrogen, helium, etc etc,

We just dont know yet, because, we cant test it easily, so we have to theorise or observe and measure it happening to be able to theorise what is going on.

Not my proven theory, not mathematically proven and certainly not as confusing as having to sift through links to other sites which take you off on tangents and away from what the original question was, but there you go, my take on what is happening from my limited knowledge of things.

Take it or leave it. I am not going to evangelise myself proving it one way or the other and I really can't understand why everyone gets so uppity and righteous discussing theories and quoting scientific journals and papers when all that does is confuse the issue even further and make everyone squabble and flame each other by trying to prove each other wrong.

Point is, I dont think there is even one person on this website or any other around the world that is capable of answering this question or the many others put forward by being able to say, the answer is this: and here is my proof! Certainly not in one post, or even 100 on the same subject, no matter how many people or scientists or theorists are quoted to support some of the claims.

While it is interesting (for a while) to read some of these posts, I find it exhausting sifting through the posts that jump from one reference to another with "seemingly" linked references to the poster's point.

Unless you have developed your own theory and have YOUR OWN supporting evidence to post to show how you arrived at it, PLEASE stop trying to prove scientific points by quoting someone else's website or bombarding us with references to things that I am sure aren't even understood by the people who point them out to us. Then to not answer legitimate questions simply by skirting them or ignoring them or even distracting the thread with meaningless references to papers that have no relevance is bordering on the behaviour of someone who knows they are wrong, won't admit it, but won't give anyone the satisfaction or courtesy of admitting they don't know the answer. I can prove anything I want within the confines of MY own head too!

And the anger and nasty comments that stem from the personal jibes that fly back and forth are simply childish.

My one last request is to stay on topic and PLEASE stop thinking you can explain or prove scientific theory simply armed with Google or Wikipedia as your laboratory.

Chris

[Octane]

phw0ar, a Chris post more than 2 lines in length. I'm impressed!

/me runs... fast!

H

P.S. Lots of love.

[Screwdriverone]

:lol:

Yes, I AM known for my brevity H, sorry for the essay.

not too much love I hope, people will start to talk! :P

Cheers

Chris

[CraigS]

Hi Chris and H;

Thanks for your help .. it is appreciated ..

Frankly, we've tried to park and bury this thread multiple times 'cause we've all just about had enough of it, (myself included .. ie: the originator).

It seems that almost no-one has read the original paper on the first post, or picked up on my initial words (miles back, in the beginning):



.... And no-one here is doing that research !!

So, I agree with you .. eventually someone will solve it ... why not just leave it that way and move on ?

Cheers & Rgds
PS: Maybe I should ask if we can lock this thread, so we can get on with our lives ??
PPS: So much for 'Darmok' ... case proven !