[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by 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"....?

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/...conductors.jpg

http://www.holoscience.com/news/mystery_solved.html
Notice that the net charge density in the positive column is zero. In other words, there are an equal number of negative and positive charges in interplanetary space. That is what spacecraft have generally found.
The regions of high electric field are close to the anode and cathode. In the Sun’s case, being the anode, it is in the corona, where electrons are accelerated toward the Sun, causing the apparent million-degree temperatures there, and the protons are accelerated away from the Sun–to form the solar “wind.” The continued acceleration of the positive particles in the solar wind beyond the orbits of Mercury and Venus is a natural consequence of the same weak electric field that slows down the negatively charged spacecraft. The cool photosphere beneath a “hot” corona is, for the first time, understandable if the Sun’s energy is

delivered externally.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/1...3581cf9d0f.png

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

Originally Posted by renormalised

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

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.

For the heliopause is the “cathode drop” region of the Sun’s electrical influence. It is a region of strong radial electric field, which will tend to decelerate the spacecraft more strongly. Almost the full difference between the Sun’s voltage and that of the local arm of the galaxy is present across the heliopause boundary.

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.

Originally Posted by renormalised

To Jarva: It's just another case of not knowing anything about the science

Originally Posted by renormalised

To astroron: 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

uhhuh