Talk:Pioneer anomaly/Archive for 2010

Question about page history

THIS PAGE WAS LAST MODIFIED ON 10th MARCH 2010 AT 19 HOURS, THEN WHAT WAS THE MODIFICATION, WHO REMOVED IT; WITH WHAT INTENTION? Hasmukh Tank 123.201.176.199 (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:talk page guidelines. ALL CAPS TEXT is considered the equivalent of shouting, and usually seen as WP:UNCIVIL here.

I think you mean this edit by me and this one.

To answer your question of why, please note that the text added by you is not in accordance with our policy of Wikipedia:No original research. It also violates Wikipedia:talk page guidelines. If you want to discuss your paper, this is not the place. If you'd like assistance in finding a more appropriate discussion forum, feel free to notify me on my talkpage. Finally, I'd like to suggest that you register a user account for yourself. It is free, easy, quick, and has a few bells and whistles not available to anonymous IP editors. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The Pioneer anomaly has been completely solved

Archved self-published work.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mechanism-Revealed Physics (27/40) What is the famous Pioneer anomaly? The famous Pioneer anomaly (or Pioneer effect) refers to a very small, constant sunwards acceleration of (8.74 ± 1.33) x 10 -10 m/s2 experienced by Pioneer spacecraft at the distance from 20 to 70 AU from the Sun (note, 1AU = 1.496 x 1011 m), being unable to be explained with the laws of Newton and Einstein (Ref., the encyclopedia of physics). Two acronyms: MRSRT = Mechanism-Revealed Scales Relativity Theory (P. 133 ~ 147, Ch.1C, reference #1), MRGT = Mechanism-Revealed Gravitational Theory (P. 445 ~ 514, Ch.4B, reference #1). Completely solving the Pioneer anomaly: the Pioneer anomaly has been completely solved with the newly developed Pioneer anomaly equation based on the newly established MRSRT and MRGT (Ch.5A, P. 517 ~ 530, reference #1). The Pioneer anomaly equation (on P. 524, reference #1) includes five factors, they are: the effect of Pioneer spacecraft motion, the effect of the gravitational field of Earth, the effect of Earth orbiting, the effect of the gravitational field of Sun on the orbit of Earth, and the effect of the gravitational field of Sun on the location of Pioneer spacecraft. The calculated values of the Pioneer anomaly with the Pioneer anomaly equation exactly agree with the known results: the calculated values at the velocities of 11,542, 12,535 and 13,869 m/s of the Pioneer spacecraft are sequentially the lower bound, average and upper bound of the known result of the Pioneer anomaly, which is (8.74 ± 1.33) x10 -10 m/s2. After solving the Pioneer anomaly: the newly established Pioneer anomaly equation reveals the mechanism behind the Pioneer anomaly phenomenon is that: comparing to the time scale on the surface of Earth, the time scale on Pioneer spacecraft is reduced because of the motion of the spacecraft. As a result, since being measured with the larger time scale on the surface of Earth, the magnitude of the deceleration acting upon Pioneer spacecraft by the gravitational force of Sun is correspondingly amplified (because the magnitude of deceleration is inversely proportional to time scale, i.e., the decrease in time scale results in correspondingly proportional increase in deceleration) — the amplified deceleration, whose direction is from the Pioneer spacecraft towards the Sun (i.e., sunwards acceleration), is the Pioneer anomaly. Therefore, the essence of the Pioneer anomaly is the amplification of the deceleration acting upon Pioneer spacecraft by the gravitational force from the Sun, being caused by the time scale reduction resulting from the motion of the Pioneer spacecraft themselves. The definition of the Pioneer anomaly is thereby as that: the Pioneer anomaly, being caused by the time scale reduction on the Pioneer spacecraft resulting from the motion of the spacecraft themselves, is the increased amount of deceleration acting upon Pioneer spacecraft by the action of the gravitational force of Sun (P. 527, reference #1). The fundamentally profound implications after solving the Pioneer anomaly: (i) the key to solving the Pioneer anomaly is the newly established and verified MRSRT and MRGT. (ii) Neither Einstein’s general relativity nor Newton’s classical gravitational theory is able to solve the Pioneer anomaly. The key to understanding of the solving of the Pioneer anomaly: (i) in order to solve the Pioneer anomaly, we must have the theory that reveals and quantifies why time and space are variable thus relative. Please notice that: the newly established and verified MRSRT and MRGT reveal and quantify why time and space are variable thus relative; either Einstein’s special relativity or general relativity is unable to know why time and space are variable thus relative, being a well-known and undeniable fact. (iii) As long as you have known the greatest equation in the history of science, which is Einstein’s famous mass-energy equation (E = mc2 or E0 = mc2), you will easily understand the solving of the Pioneer anomaly, because the law of object’s mass doing work (P. 93 ~ 109, Ch.1A, reference #1), which lays the foundation of MRSRT and MRGT, also reveals the mechanism behind the greatest equation (P. 114 ~ 118, Ch.1B, reference #1). Reference #1: 2009, Bingcheng Zhao, From Postulate-Based Modern Physics to Mechanism-Revealed Physics [Vol. 1(1/2)], ISBN: 978-1-4357-4913-9. Reference #2: 2009, Bingcheng Zhao, From Postulate-Based Modern Physics to Mechanism-Revealed Physics [Vol. 2(2/2)], ISBN: 978-1-4357-5033-3. Ph.D., Bingcheng Zhao, The author of “From Postulate-Based Modern Physics to Mechanism-Revealed Physics” 1401 NE Merman Dr. Apt. 703, Pullman, WA 99163 USA. Email: bczhao12@gmail.com or bzhao34@yahoo.com or bingcheng.zhao@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.246.120 (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to try to publish or popularize your own ideas. See WP:OR and WP:RS. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Russel Humphreys

Resolved

This addition with the edit summary "adding pseudoscientific creationist theory - I think it's worth a mention" was reverted with the edit summary "I disagree. It's non-notable fringe work.".

First, let's note that WP:N is about entire articles. For deciding whether to mention Humphreys, we need to know about the reception of this theory. Is it considered a substantial contribution to creationist thought? Have mainstream physicists actually commented on Humphreys explanation of the Pioneer effect? I. e. has it had impact beyond Humphreys himself? If yes, it is encyclopedic and needs to be mentioned. If not, it needs to go, because then it would nothing more than another uninteresting internet rant. Paradoctor (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE discusses the incorporation of minority views into articles. This article is about a scientific topic; whether this explanation is notable among creationists is irrelevant. Whether it's notable among scientists is, and I think the onus is on you and User:Tonicthebrown to demonstrate that it is, rather than on me to demonstrate that it isn't, given that it's being billed as a religion-based proposal. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"minority views": Just to satisfy my curiosity, what is the majority view in this case? Paradoctor (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As this is an article about a scientific topic, "majority view" in this context is what the scientific community thinks about it (as virtually all of the people studying the problem are scientists). This has been hashed out to death elsewhere (including arbitration cases), with the present wording of WP:FRINGE being one of the results. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't asking about policy, I said "in this case". Let me rephrase: What is the majority view on explaining the Pioneer anomaly? Let me remind you that the Pioneer anomaly is pretty high on the List of unsolved problems in physics. Paradoctor (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a majority view on what the solution is: it's an unsolved problem, one of many. There is a majority view that it's a scientific problem with a scientific solution, and the view under discussion is not scientific.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"There is a majority view that it's a scientific problem with a scientific solution": Citations? Paradoctor (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding - as someone who is not directly involved in that field - is that nobody's quite sure why they're slowing down, but that most scientists assume that it's a conventional effect associated with the craft themselves (excess thermal radiation from part of the craft, gas leaks, etc). A minority have proposed that it reflects a flaw in our understanding of gravity, classical mechanics (acceleration), or similar. These views have gotten enough press (including in scientific literature) to be considered noteworthy (partly because this isn't the only apparent gravitational anomaly, and MOND researchers usually make proposals that try to explain several of them at once). That said, I haven't taken a survey of scientists in the field or done a thorough literature search. The other participants in this thread may be able to give you a more accurate summary. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Putting my "somewhat involved" hat on briefly - I think the best summary is that everyone agrees that a very wide variety of minor systematic accelerations are explainable by existing physics and mechanics. There's little disagreement about the mechanisms being physically real. The key problem is that there are literally dozens of possible minor acceleration sources in play below and around the observed acceleration level (which I believe is well established and generally believed). There is wide disagreement about the size of the error bars and best guess estimates on the various minor accelerations. Those who believe alternate physics of some sort is in play do so because they believe in smaller best guesses and/or smaller error bars on the calculations of the minor accelerations from known physics sources. The alternate camp believes that either larger best guesses or larger error bars on the known minor acceleration sources adequately account for the behavior, and that there is therefore no evidence above the "background noise" of something new going on.

My opinion is that the condition of the spacecraft - its design and the effects of the space environment on it over time - is too unknown at this time, and that regardless of what your best guesses are for the various effects the error bars should be large. With what I feel to be reasonable error bars on the various effects, the range of possible small acceleration effects vector sums is wide enough to account for the effect.

I believe that a dedicated test spacecraft, essentially a RTG and clock and radio launched out of the solar system, with surfaces designed to radiate and absorb uniformly and mechanisms to avoid surface degradation, any directional outgassing from electronics or the RTGs and so forth, could easily be built which reduced the error bar "noise" an order of magnitude or more below the observed Pioneer anomaly level. That belief is widely shared by those who have looked at the problem in more depth.

Whether the anomaly is credible enough to justify such a mission remains an open question. So far - no. Perhaps in the future a different answer will come to that question, and we can unambiguously see what's really going on here. We certainly can't rule out new physics at this time. But spending at least a hundred million dollars on the test is fairly expensive. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"most scientists assume" ... "minority have proposed": As per above, where are the sources saying so?

"I haven't" ... "done a thorough literature search": Well, what's holding you back? That's the fundament of our job, after all. Paradoctor (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Lou Scheffer's Conventional Forces can Explain the Anomalous Acceleration of Pioneer 10 (2001 - 2008) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0107/0107092v5.pdf is a good place to start. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Also http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/innovative_technologies/pioneer_anomaly/update_20080519.html, http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/innovative_technologies/pioneer_anomaly/update_20090209.html, the Planetary Society's project updates for the ongoing analysis study, directed by Turashev himself. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to do your homework for you. All of the scientific publications cited by the article propose explanations of one of the two types I describe. Ditto with all of the mentions I've seen of the problem to date (though popular press tends to play up the "modified gravity" proposals, as they sound more interesting). If you want to do a larger search to confirm this, go right ahead. If you want to make a case for non-scientific explanations being taken seriously by the scientific community, find publications satisfying WP:RS (subsection "scientific context"). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is a scientific article. If there are reliable scientific sources for this it would be appropriate, otherwise it should not be included. The source given isn't a reliable—i.e. independent, third-party, fact-based—publication for science or anything else.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"This article is a scientific article.": That's news to me. I always thought this is an encyclopedic article. We report on what's in the literature, not what we think the proper literature is. See Time Cube, Paris Hilton, Socks.

@ Headbomb: This edit repeated Christopher's mistake.

"source given": Sure. Then again, Humphreys's piece wasn't presented as fact. Actually, none of the proposed explanations are scientific fact. There is no scientific consensus on an explanation, so "no" proposed explanation can be from a reliable source, as there is none.

It stood out like a sore thumb. The other sources are academic, in peer reviewed journals and reputable scientific magazines. I.e. reliable sources. creation.com is nothing like a reliable source: it exists to promote creationism.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"rather than on me to demonstrate that it isn't": Nobody asked you to. In fact, I asked above for evidence that Humphreys's theory has had some form of impact.

Lest the temperature rise any further, I suggest everyone remembers what WP:AGF is about, and wait for Tonicthebrown to answer the challenge to his edit. If he doesn't or can't, then there is actually nothing to discuss, is there? Paradoctor (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

One look at the priorities at http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe says it all. School book example of orthogonality with wp:rs. DVdm (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason I added Humphreys' explanation is because it is a "Proposed explanation" -- as per the title of this section. I do not feel it is undue weight because it is just one or two sentences, among a host of other proposed explanations (none of which have achieved general consensus). It may not be accepted by the mainstream by virtue of being creationist, but it is still a "proposed explanation" and, while it may be pseudoscientific, it is offered by a scientifically versed person using real mathematics. I think that so long as it is clearly idenfitied that this is a non-mainstream, creationist proposal, it should be fine. But I don't feel strongly either way.

On a more philosophical note, instant deletion of this sort of material just feeds the creationist belief that they are being unfairly and systematically censored by the scientific establishment. Wouldn't it be better to allow their proposals to be aired and publicly deconstruct them using proper science rather than just instantly censoring? Tonicthebrown (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how Wikipedia is the place to deconstruct proposals or theories. ----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"allow their proposals to be aired": Not here.

"reason I added Humphreys' explanation": Not sufficient. You need to provide evidence that this proposal has been noticed by someone else than you. Otherwise, we'd have to include every opinion by every Joe Sixpack ever made publicly available. Where are the sources discussing/recommending/rejecting Humphreys's ideas about the Pioneer anomaly? Paradoctor (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As a mostly uninvolved administrator* - WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE rules that you have to have some evidence that Humphrey's ideas have been considered by an acceptable fraction of scientists working on this problem. If his paper is not referenced by anyone else or commented on by anyone else, it's no more a reliably notable suggestion than the Great Galactic Ghoul's influence being behind the whole effect.

Please post a list of references for the notability of Humphrey's work - where it has been cited, or referred to, etc.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(* my uninvolvement is not absolute - I first proposed the differental RTG front/back surface emission via solar bleaching mechanism in 2001, see Scheffer's [1] . However, for the purposes of this discussion, I think I'm uninvolved.)

We don't associate the guidelines/policies WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE with censorship. I am sure that this information will be me most welcome, and its source immediately accepted as highly reliable in the Conservapedia. DVdm (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine with me, I am not a young earth creationist so I have no particular desire to see Humphreys' model explained here. Having said that, creationists make up some 45% of the US population so what Humphreys' is saying is not exactly "fringe". Also, I might point out that I can certainly show a few sources which have noticed Humphreys' work -- but all of these sources are young earth creationist, so I suspect would be discounted. Tonicthebrown (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

On whether it's fringe, this is the English WP, not the US one. And even if a lot of people are creationists that does not mean a theory dreamed up by a creationist deserves equal billing with the Genesis creation myth. Such a theory needs references, from reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnBlackburne (talk • contribs) 11:49, 31 March 2010

"I can certainly show a few sources which have noticed Humphreys' work": Please do, so we can see whether they are encyclopedically relevant. Paradoctor (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources are young-earth creationist organisations and books -- for example, Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International and their literature. Obviously I cannot point to any non-creationist entities that have noticed Humphreys. Tonicthebrown (talk) 07:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that settles it. No sources, no mention. Paradoctor (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

List format to prose

I changed the list format to prose in two sub sections (as per tag). One sub section to go. I will give it a shot for the New physics section. However, someone with more technical knowledge in this area might be the better author. I also need to make sure I didn't leave out any references during the rewrite of the two sections. I just had a thought to mention that I did not add the creationist theory into the rewrite. ----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sound judgment. Paradoctor (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Dark Energy?

Is it possible that this is explained by dark energy? From what I have heard, it's possible that vast amounts of empty space might have a repulsive effect, similar but opposite to that of large quantities of matter. This dark energy could be what is pushing the probe. I'm not sure how solid that idea is or isn't though. Sahuagin (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's probably more accurate to say that it's not entirely impossible that it's due to some effect of dark energy... whatever that turns out to be. We don't even know for certain that dark energy exists, let alone what it is, though we do know that if it exists it could explain some otherwise mysterious features of the universe. That said: dark energy is supposed to be an expansionist force, but the probes are actually slowing down MORE than predicted, which means if dark energy is responsible you've got to explain why it's working backwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.71.75 (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"not entirely impossible" is "possible". "Dark Energy" exists in the sense that there is an effect with an unknown cause that we have named "Dark Energy".

After thinking about this a bit, I think the hardest part of the "emptiness repulses" idea would be determining the direction of that repulsion. But since pioneer is moving away from mass (our solar system), then it should be experiencing some of it. Actually though, if pioneer is slowing down, but is not off course, I guess that would mean it's unlikely that there is an additional acceleration vector, since it would have to be the exact opposite of pioneer's movement vector to not change it's course. In that case it would almost have to be something like a dust cloud or similar obstruction. Sahuagin (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

New physics

When "new physics" is noted as an explantation, how do we define "new phyics"? Are these laws of physics that would have to exist, to encompass the explanations in this section? The caveat is that as far as we know, these laws do not exist. Or is there some other definition of "new physics" that we are using for this article? In other words, is there some general overarching definition? To further clarify, I don't mean the specifics such as clock acceleration, modification of the law of gravity, modified inertia, etc.

I mean, for example, Wikipedia states that the current definition of "Physics" is "...a natural science that involves the study of matter and its motion through spacetime, as well as all applicable concepts, such as energy and force." Of course a definition of new physics would be included in the second sentence of the "Physics" article: "More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the world and universe behave." ----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"caveat is that as far as we know, these laws": Not a caveat. Laws are human inventions, and are then tested whether they can be used successfully to explain observations. New physics means laws that haven't yet been tested successfully. Paradoctor (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Pardoctor - that was articulated very well. Thanks. You just gave me a useful definition to use in the article. BTW, I have begun changing this section from "list" to "prose" Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Two concerns have just emerged for me. First, in order for me to use this definition I have to find some source to back it up, even though it is a logical definition. Second, in order to test "new laws" of physics, the "new laws" have to be articulated. It could be that Anderson et al were speaking from intuition, or an idea, when stating the possibility of "new physics" (an intriguing but vague supposition). I haven't read through the 1998 Anderson article and I have not read through the enitre Rańada article that is a source for this section ("The Pioneer anomaly as acceleration of the clocks"). So I haven't read, yet, if any suspected new laws of physics have been articulated. It is nevertheless very interesting. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think I misunderstood your problem: It is not new physics that is proposed as explanation, it is several different competing speculative theories which are grouped under the heading of "new physics". As such, the mere usage of the term by Anderson, even the simple fact that this meaning can be constructed from the meanings of the constituent words should be enough to justify its usage. But if you see a problem there, please feel free to reformulate. Paradoctor (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Pioneer_anomaly#cite_note-11 gap between 'derived' and 'from'

The note at Pioneer_anomaly#cite_note-11 has a gap between 'derived' and 'from' in firefox 3.6.3 (Windows XP SP 3), but the source looks like a normal space. I've tried purging it and editing it. Can anyone else work out what's going on? twilsonb (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This looks to be a bug in Firefox... experiencing the same thing myself. It doesn't always split at those two words, it seems to be some sort of 50% glitch. 66.41.152.220 (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Electromagnetic braking

This is a merely a suggestion, that may be taken up my those more knowledgeable than I am:

With the mention of electromagnetic forces, the possible effect of an electric field on an electrically charged spacecraft is mentioned, but no mention is made of the possible effect of electromagnetic braking. While this effect is likely to be small, it could be mentioned for completeness.

The effect would arise due to a conductive body travelling through a magnetic field inside a conductive medium such as the plasma in the region surrounding the sun. I assume that since the region is probably well characterised, this has been accounted for and ignored as insignificant. Quondum (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Electrostatic braking by the Sun's electric charge

It is suggested by the literature, that Sun's charge is substantially negative. Any solid object exposed to UV radiation should tend to be positively charged. Therefore Pioneer probe would experience the electrostatic deceleration. This would be due to induced polarity of the positively charged spacecraft and the electron cloud surrounding the spacecrat (electrons emanating from the spacecraft itself due to UV radiation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.42.100 (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

About one sigma is anomaly?

If deceleration of Pioneers is (8.74 ± 1.33) × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s² then since even simple Newtonian gravitation predicts roughly (7.0 ± 0.3) × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s² as so called "dynamical friction" (apparently never calculated by those in charge who determined though the standard deviation with accuracy to 3 digits :-) there is no "anomaly" except poorly educated astrophysicists.

However there is a political problem since if the "dynamical friction" is allowed to become the reason of this "anomaly" then domino efect gets in and strict conservation of energy might come back (how else one can calculate "dynamical friction" of our Pioneers?) and good old Einstein's gravitation with its stationary universe and its non symmetric metric tensor and relativity of time might take over. Wheeler's Big Bang cosmology with its creation of energy, symmetric metric tensor, "dark energy" and "accelerating universe" collapses as pure fantasy. I doubt whether the establishment is ready for another Einsteinian revolution, "general" this time, within almost the same century Jim (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are confused. The "anomalous" acceleration is not the total acceleration, it's just the unexplained component. Crum375 (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Crum, I meant only the "unexplained" component.

In the space of densiity of our universe the gravitation theory (Einstein's or Newton's) predicts what is observed. If Slava Turyshev and the other guy knew what those theories of gravitation predict there wouldn't be any anomaly, except that our universe would have to become "Einstein's" and it would screw up many PhDs and professorships. Evidently folks are not ready for that. I have clean conscience since I told Slava about solution several years ago but, as astronomers say, "beauty of astronomy is that unlike in civil engineering even if one is 100% wrong nobody is hurt". Knowing that, he didn't need to do a thing about it. The problem is not as important as in civil engineering. I had this calculation as subject of my PhD project that's why I know those things. I'm not that smart by nature. Jim (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What cloud of objects are the spacecraft moving through that produce dynamical friction effects? The Kuiper and Oort cloud objects wouldn't have the effect you're proposing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi George, I propose (after Einstein) the whole mass of our universe, all 3 × 10⁵³ kg of it. The interesting part is not what it is but the machanism of how it acts without the "spooky action at a distance". Newton didn't know nor he could imagine it not knowing about the curvatures of spacetime. So he had to stuck to abstract math (which some folks even take for physics). We know about the curvatures so we may solve the problem not only quantitatively but also qualitatively. There is only problem with publishing what we know (if one cares :). This small thing about physics of gravitation (including Pioneer "anomaly", why we "see" accelerating expansion, why quasars "are" so bright, etc., 4 pages including acks and bibliography) is waiting for over 25 years for an editor not afraid of going against the political agenda of establishment. Jim (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim, is this the same topic? It sounds like you are knees-deep into WP:OR territory, which may be OK on some Internet forums, but not on Wikipedia, where we require published reliable sources. Crum375 (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes Crum, it is the same, so you can see that the problem was aready solved, and I even managed to forget about it. But I'm afraid that Turyshev and Anderson (if they still work on it) never solve the problem if they don't give up their present creationist version of GR (one with creation of energy) and don't switch to Einstein's version. Problem with Wheeler's version of GR is that over there energy is created just in right amount to push Pioneers, while in the real world no such created energy exists and that's why they have slight deceleration. Just compare the numbers and you see that there is no anomaly just Wheelr's legacy. From mathematical point of view it is a diff between Wheeler's symmetric metric tensor (of 1973) and Einstein's non symmetric (of 1950). "Negligible" difference according to Wheeler who apparently never expected that astrophysicists start maesuring things with such accuracy that his symmetric metric tensor theory collapses. Jim (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you can find a reliable source which presents your case, we can include it on Wikipedia. Otherwise, your best bet is to try again the various Internet forums, or to get your material published by a scientific journal. Crum375 (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Crum, one of my problems is that I'm not a scientist but a sculptor, just able to distinguish Einstein's GR from Wheeler's GR and to make the calculations myself, to be sure that they come out right in Einstein's case. But nawadays it is not possible to find an editor who would risk to print my calculations (2 pages with comments for astrophysicists that may be compressed to half page for physicists). I'm looking for a brave editor starting with Nature in February 1985, Phys. Rev. Lett. shortly after, up to arXiv.org in July 2010. No one wants to print them despite them being checked by several university math professors and no errors found (it's true that one GR professor promissed several years ago that he finds an error in them but never did and I stopped asking him already when he expects to have time for finding this error). It is mostly Newtonian stuff anyway so even a high school students could find an error in them if there were one. So my hope for finding an error aren't high.

As for scientific fora that would tolerate Einstein's approach to astrophysics, I have been banned for life from couple of physics and astronomy fora for applying the principle of conservation of energy. That's why I suspect it is a political issue only, with mystics winning control over science, and therefore I bail out and wait until some big shot who may publish finds out that Wheeler with his symmetric metric tensor of spacetime (silly thing by itself) was wrong and Einstein was right. As always. And then Anderson (if he's still alive) gets Nobel, NASA implements "Pioneer correction", in their software, and everybody lives happily ever after, except for creationists who will have to find another reason for ID, unless Good Lord brings another Wheeler around to protect His/Her interests among humans. Jim (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim, I can't help you with journal referees or forum admins who reject your efforts, but here is another gadfly who can't get much traction with the establishment. His cosmologically based explanation for the Pioneer anomaly is mentioned in the article. Perhaps you can contact him and compare notes. Crum375 (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Crum, thanks for his article. Unfortunately his EST assumes the same as the Big Bang that the space is expanding (together with the time running slower though) which is not needed since Einstein's GR suffices. Already in Einstein's universe there is a realation a_P=c.H_o without any additional pains. It is also observed. As illusion of expansion. As well as necessary in Einstein's universe illusion of acceleration of expansion. That's why I advocate returning to Einstein's GR with its stationary (also eternal) universe and give up Wheeler's creation of energy from nothing. Which this guy is using too. Apparently nobody tries to think straight and assume that the principle of conservation of energy might be still valid. Jim (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim, you might have misread the source. Masreliez's cosmology is steady-state, like Einstein's original one, which does not include a creation event or any other singularities. And a cosmology consistent with observations must explain the red shift, either by an expansion or tired light. Masreliez uses the latter explanation. Crum375 (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Crum, I start a new paragraph since the previous seems to be too indented and I see that we still have a lot of stuff to clarify. But don't worry, I don't try to push any OR stuff. I'm not doing any, since I completed it years ago and it doesn't bother me too much that it is not published. If astrophysicists prefer to find it by themselves let's not interfere with their fun.

I see that Masreliez's cosmology is steady-state and I know that a cosmology consistent with observations must explain the red shift, but not either by an expansion or tired light since there is a third way overlooked by physicists since GR was too exotic for them then (actually it still is). I meant "the same as the Big Bang (BB)" only in its creationist aspect, which in BB case is hidden since Wheeler was clever enough to hide it from regular physicists who seeing it clearly, but being accusomed to strict consevation of 4-momentum, might have laughed at him (as Feynman did) and not accept BB at all. Masreliez's theory is similar to old Hoyle's steady-state where it is asumed openly that energy is created. In Masreliez's theory in pretty clever way, false though. The nature is simpler than his ideas about it. The nature is probably unable to create something from nothing (at least we didn't see it yet). Hoyle and Masreliez are just more honest but all those 3 theories have the common creationist aspect. This is important feature since Einstein's doesn't have it and by this it belongs to entirely different class of theories, scientific, ones with valid conservation of 4-momentum. Since I'm not allowed to write why a theory is right I may still write what is wrong with it since it fits wikipedia policy.

There are a few things wrong with Einstein's steady state theory but it is not what is popularly thought. So it is not that it does not explain the redshift (since it does, Einstein just didn't know how). The worst thing in it is that it needs the "cosmological constant" to stabilize Einstein field equation of stationary universe. Einstian knew it and said that it was the biggest blunder of his life but not knowing how to get rid of it said "if you are out to discribe the truth, leave elagance to the tailor". There is a simple way of removing cosmological constant from Einstein field equation but to comply with OR rule I leave discovering it to astrophysicists.

So it turns out that Einstein didn't know a few things but his theory was able to explain them easily if he had time to work on it and didn't take up a new project of unifying gravity with electromagnetism which was started too early to end with success since there is also a way of doing this too though not in wikipedia.

Now, Wheeler being such a good mathematician as he was, must have known that conservation of 4-momentum is going to ruin the creation of universe and its expansion and he put a lot of effort to convince astrophysicists that redshift in stationary universe is "negligible". He was successful in this effort so till today nobody except a silly Polish sculptor who didn't know that "it is negligible" calculated it with primitive Newtonian math. Fortunately for Wheeler, BB was so "successful" a hypothesis and astrophysicists were so convinced that the redshift in stationaty universe is "negligible" that nobody even bothered with testing the results of the sculptor. They were rejected without any peer review, even by relativists from his own university who said "we read them when they are published. For the time being we hate to waste time. You do much better going back to your clay". BTW what peers of a sculptor could understand tensor calulus?

To be just, one referee from "Phys. Rev. Lett." discussed the solution with the sculptor for a few months and concluded that all his questions are responded satisfactorily so he does not have any arguments for rejection. So it is strange, but he knows that the universe is expanding and therefore the paper can't be published since it contradicts known physics. So the paper is still waiting since 1985 being able to explain about 10 different things, about some of which Einstein never even heard, e.g. "acceleration of expansion" exactly as predicted. Small wonder when one uses a theory as good as Einstein's. Too bad it's for all practical purposes not available to astronomers. Jim (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim, sculptor or not, if you are that smart, you should be able to present your theory in a way which is very lucid, on a webpage like Masreliez's. In the modern age, to be published you don't need a willing publisher, all you need is to be willing. So build up a nice website like his, create documents like his which try hard to make your points as clear and understandable for everyone as possible, and then at least you'll be able to point to something, even if it's self-published. There is one basic rule: if something is correct, it can't be too complicated, and if someone truly and fully understands it, it should be possible to make others understand too. So forget the forums and the journals for now, just create your own stuff, on your own site. Good luck! Crum375 (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Crum, I had my own site for years until yahoo.com closed geocities last year. I have now a site at my school, but without mentioning it in a scientific journal who is going to know that it is there and read it? BTW, the theory isn't mine but Einstein's and I just clarified it for general public which tends not to understand it. I even have a site for reporting my errors if sombody see any and then reports them to me. You may see there that there are still no real errors reported. Jim (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim, we are off-topic for improving the article, which is the purpose of this page, but I'll reply anyway. I have read some of your material, and here are some tips. It seems to me that you have several problems, unrelated to the actual merits of your case. If you want to convince people, you want them to take you seriously, because as you know there are lots of cranks around, and the signal-to-noise is low. But most people will be instantly turned off by poor English, and by ridicule of others, which are both the hallmarks of cranks. In your case, I understand English is not your first language, but that's really no excuse for so many typos: get a good spell-checker, and even better, get some native English speaker to vet your material. As far as your tone, if you ridicule people, even if you are 100% convinced they deserve it, it will only hurt your case, since most people will not take you seriously. Reading your material, it seems that every paragraph, sometimes every sentence, contains a dig at someone, along with English errors. Given this type presentation, I'd be surprised if anyone would take you seriously. What I would recommend is to forget the rest of the world — pick one highly respected physicist whom you consider open minded and fair, and try to "sell" him your idea directly. We are not in the middle ages, and there is no thought police anymore. Yes, there are business and political interests favoring the status quo, but there are also many individuals and groups eager to discover and promote new ideas. So improve your presentation style and try the one-on-one approach, and see what happens. Crum375 (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Crum, you are right about me but there is a more important problem. There is no highly respected physicist whom one may consider open minded and fair, working in gravitation. Feynman wrote about it already why it is so. I see it in my university where I hoped to do PhD in gravitation, about which I know surely more than any one of about hundred physics professor here (since I studied it already for 25 years to be sure that I didn't screw up something). Jim (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim, here is another avenue for you to possibly get out of the rut. One thing that got Einstein almost instant acceptance despite the novelty and bizarreness of his GR theory was that he was able to accurately predict and explain things that nobody else could, like the correct starlight deflection around the sun and the Mercury perihelion precession. In the case of Masreliez, he has made predictions about planetary orbital decay which within a few years should either confirm or disprove his theory. He has also shown several plots from other papers, where his theory has a better fit to current observations than the mainstream ones. So if your own theory is correct, it should also be able to predict or explain some phenomenon or measurement that no other theory can, or show a better fit to current observations. Just finding alternative explanations to things won't have much effect, and your Feynman quote proves it. Crum375 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Crum, I appreciate it very much and I'm grateful (I feel like meeting a friend who understands the world the same way I do :). About the subject: "bizarreness of his GR theory" turned out to be true physics. And if you read my paper you may see that it is even more bizarre :) but his theory happens to be the best fit to nature without any supernatural creation. That's why "he was able to accurately predict and explain things that nobody else could". That's why I stick to his theory as the only one around explaining true physics. Contrary to contemporary mathematical (creationist) theories (BTW, I used to be an electronic engineer before I became a sculptor so I'm not completly out of touch with physics).

I don't have my own theory. I'm using Einstein's with my observation that it explains also the cosmological redshift (and "its acceleration") by Einsteinian mechanism of lack of ability of nature to create energy. Something that I suspect Wheeler wanted to hide from (mathematically challenged) astrophysicists by convincing them that it is "negligible in stationary universe". Which is not "negligible" but clearly seen even in Newtonian math. The astrophisicists (and many others) not knowing how to do this simple Newtonian math believed Wheeler who either cheated them or didn't know himself being convinced that the metric tensor is symmetric. Am I to believe that he was not curious how huch cosmological redshift there is in stationary space? Or was he so much afraid if God's wrath not even to try to calculate (sorry for doing it again but I can't make myself to like creationists who cheat unsuspecting folks to promote their own ideology).

Now, if gravitation is really Einstein's (which I don't have any reason to doubt) all problems can be easily solved within it (solely by the interrelation between curvature of space and time dilation) and I don't need to do anything just go back to sculpting which I rather do while I'm still alive, instead of wasting time on saving science from creationists who are visibly attempting to take it over, which is rather wikipedia job than mine and should be also blessed by Jimbo W. who is supposed to be an objectivist. Jim (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You're apparently drawing the wrong boundary conditions / control volume here, an error which is common enough among professional physicists but extremely common among those who aren't and are dabbling.

If you can publish a paper in a gravitational related journal and your boundary conditions argument survives peer review, feel free to list it here. If not - we publish (here on Wikipedia) what others publish elsewhere, in reliable sources (including, for scientific work, peer review or equivalents). We don't publish individual theories that have not been submitted to peer review.

Please see our policy on reliable sources.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

George, see my above response to Crum. The theory is Einstein's and I don't feel responsible for it. It is rather wikipedia's responsibility (since Einstein is dead) to protect good theory against "bad mathematicians who understand neither math nor physics" [~ Richard Feynman]. Jim (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I told Slava Turyshev already years ago what he should know to protect science against creationism. The rest is his responsibility and Anderson's (and possibly Wikipedia's). I don't have access to scientific journals and they have. Jim (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim, I'll reply here. I understand you believe your "theory" is nothing new, just a "correct" interpretation of Einstein's work. But on Wikipedia, per WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:SYN, we may only report on what has already been published by a reliable source, and that includes theories, interpretations, analyses, and explanations. So if your interpretation or explanation is published by a reliable publication, we can mention it. In other words, you need to find a proper venue outside Wikipedia to get your ideas vetted and published. Then we can describe that material and link to it. Crum375 (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

translate Pioneer anomaly

Dear Sr. Salamo alikom

Please translate this page to Arabic language...

Thanks for reading Best wishes Ahmad Ali —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.141.11 (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Google translate is a good starting point for non-English readers? David Hollman (Talk) 12:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Level of normal solutions in Pioneer cosmonautics

Cosmonautics is a recent science and it can be normal that the 'old' physics find hard to completely explain everything.

In future probably it shall reach in that, also with researches apparently not related , without to resolve the doubts with mysterious anomalies , new gravitational physics or 'ad hoc' theories (at 20/9/10 in 29 references here down , 14 are retrieved or withdrawn ) .

So , using as research ' method to let open the questions , we want to relieve in the data amount related to the Pioneer.

1) 8.7*10^-8 cm/s is the basic value of Pioneer's acceleration and it is presumed negative (toward the sun), which translated in km/s*Million y.l. is 25 km/s*M.y.l. just like the Hubble constant , but with opposite sign;

2) in the anomalous acceleration , there are other two sinusoidal variations with yearly and daily frequencies of 1/10 and 1/400 of the above basic value .

Regarding the first point ( see reference arxiv.gr-qc/0104064 19 Apr 2001 by Turyshev et al. ) there seems to be a confusion in the numerous experts if the acceleration is really towards the sun. The effects of the (A) solar radiation pressure and of the (B) radio beam reaction force (recoil) are considered of the same sign of the anomaly and added , while ( in the named reference it is declared their propulsive effect from the earth ( and so from the sun ) ) it had to be subtracted. In the same document referenced they also speak about a negative 'clock acceleration' , i.e. the clock ( Doppler ) goes slower of 1,5 Hz. per 8 years up the frequency of 2,9 GHz , that produces 25 km/s * M.y.l. ( like the constant H and the bigbang ' redshift ! ) : so again, fto give a similar effect it is necessary a positive acceleration from the sun ( and not towards the sun ) ...

In the second point, the (C) yearly acceleration variations have maximum and minimum in correspondence to the solar corona opposition with the Pioneer and the (D) daily acceleration variations must chain to the earth rotation. There is also an (E) halving of yearly acceleration variations every 6-7 years and a (F) measures dispersion in coincidence to the sun ' opposition ...

Even if not canonically fixed in the known physics, all these coincidences carry to admit frequency shift phenomenas. We can conclude that : the elements (A) and (B) show an acceleration from the earth , the elements (C) (D) (E) and (F) show a virtual effect on the measured frequency not corresponding to a real dynamic effect ( it is relative only to the Doppler; the Cassini probe used an empirical formula for the solar corona ' shift , now we meet other three ). The Raman effect should be a candidate to resolve this “not canonical physics” ( its quantitative studies never started from 1925 ! ) but before to appeal to a new physics or mysterious anomaly it should be better to know well the old physics . (www.bbamateur.bizhosting.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldogf (talk • contribs) 10:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)