The Pioneer Anomaly: Still a Mystery

[renormalised (Carl)]

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 (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

[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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

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

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 (Carl)]

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.

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 (Alex)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

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.

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.

Much like Thornhill's electrical nature of comets hypothesis, discussed here 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 (Carl)]

My previous reply simply noticed the difference between the Lorentz force and Columbs, which is more appropriate for discussion of Thornhill's hypothesis.

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 (Carl)]

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 (Alex)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by renormalised

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

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Alex)]

Originally Posted by renormalized

so small that its effects were negligible

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/...conductors.jpg

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by 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/...conductors.jpg

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.

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... 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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" )

[renormalised (Carl)]

Bojan, it's based around this....LeSage-Push Gravity.

However, anything can become true after a few rounds

Which is good

While it lasts

[bojan]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Bojan, it's based around this....LeSage-Push Gravity.

However, anything can become true after a few rounds

Which is good

While it lasts

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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by 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 :-)

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

Seems it's still continuing

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by 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" )

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