Talk:Pioneer anomaly/Archive 2013

Page needs cleanup

This page could be improved by turning altering the previously proposed, disproven solutions to the past tense. I think that this article has the potential to be verg good with a little hosework, but I am personally not qualified to make these alterations. I'll do so, however, if there are no changes in the next few months. 194.83.247.12 (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ignorant space engineers do not know enough General Relativity and Relativistic Cosmology

It seems to me that the group that controls this page on the Pioneers anomaly, is constituted by space engineers ignorant about General Relativity.The Universal Rotation solution must be part of the main page.It has already been published in many Journals, including Springer´s " Astrophysics and Space Science",plus books published by "Nova Science Publishers".Again, the New York Academy of Sciences Magazine, issue of Spring 2008, has told to everyone, tha Prof. Marcelo Samuel Berman, "solved", the Nasa anomalies.Why wikipedia main page on the subject is deleting all attempts to publish there, that Universal Rotation is a possible answer to the anomaly??Is Turyshev willing to get the Nobel at any cost??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.73.12.65 (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

See also MarceloBerman SPI case. - DVdm (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The idea that the Nobel prize committee would base their awards on the respective Wikipedia entries is quaint, to say the least. -- Syzygy (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What *is* "Thermal Recoil Force"?

Unfortunately, the article doesn't make the cause of the PA clear at all: In the respective section body, it only refers to "thermal recoil" without explaining what is meant with that.

The lead refers to "radiation force", but doesn't elucidate what is meant either: Is it radiation from the sun being reflected, radiation being emitted by the probe, or something like the effect driving the Crookes radiometer? Which is it? -- Syzygy (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This is explained at Radiation pressure#Radiation pressure due to isotropic (e.g. thermal) radiation. siafu (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

So it's the recoil of radiation originating from the sun, rather than the Crooke's effect of unevenly heating up interplanetary matter which gets in contact with the probe's surface? If that is so, I would adapt the article accordingly. --Syzygy (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I added an explanation to the opening lead paragraphs. As always, please see if it's OK and modify it if it's not.LouScheffer (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)