1. Member
Join Date
Sep 2010
Posts
10

## Pioneer anomaly

Pioneer anomaly - explained

I'd like to discuss and explain my idea on synchronicity of interactions (gravity). Imagine this:

As one body changes position, it will take some time until this information reaches other bodies it interacts with. Then position of bodies in space cannot be known to them in real time, and this will cause them to affect each other with forces which are not synchronized in time.

I have developed entire math around this, and basically when information about positions in space is "not synchronized", we get two addends in expression for gravity; one is the well known expression for attractive force and the second addend has much smaller intensity, and depends on the velocity of the observed body.

This second addend is dynamic component, and is practically undetectable unless you have an object affected only by the Sun (e.g. no propulsion, sufficiently away from all planets) which is the case with Pioneers 10 and 11.

The full math around this can be seen in http://www.masstheory.org/oos_2_english.pdf

There is also a java-based calculator on the site which calculates effects of this dynamic component and result can be matched with 8.7 x 10exp-10 m/s^2

Regards,
Sasha

2. Welcome to BAUT, Vukelja.

As a quick look at your documents seemed to imply that you want to take into account the "force travel time" this topic seems better fitted in ATM.

Have fun.

3. Originally Posted by Vukelja
s:
This second addend is dynamic component, and is practically undetectable unless you have an object affected only by the Sun (e.g. no propulsion, sufficiently away from all planets) which is the case with Pioneers 10 and 11.
Would this effect also affect comets, which travel quite far from the sun during their trajectory? Is there any requirement that the object not be in a stable orbit or anything like that? I'm trying to think of where else your effect might be found, so that it could be tested.

4. Member
Join Date
Sep 2010
Posts
10
OK with me.

Sasha

5. Member
Join Date
Sep 2010
Posts
10
Originally Posted by Jens
Would this effect also affect comets, which travel quite far from the sun during their trajectory? Is there any requirement that the object not be in a stable orbit or anything like that? I'm trying to think of where else your effect might be found, so that it could be tested.
Yes it affects comets, and the more elliptical the orbit the more visible the effect. For circular orbits effect it's orders of magnitude smaller and is proportional to v^2 / c^2.

Also on distances of 100 AU (twice the Sun-Pluto distance) effect falls down to around 1 x 10e-11 and would probably not be detectable for any objects.

Sasha

6. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Vukelja

I have developed entire math around this, and basically when information about positions in space is "not synchronized", we get two addends in expression for gravity; one is the well known expression for attractive force and the second addend has much smaller intensity, and depends on the velocity of the observed body.

So, how does your "math" explain a few well-known effects already explained by GR?

This second addend is dynamic component, and is practically undetectable unless you have an object affected only by the Sun (e.g. no propulsion, sufficiently away from all planets) which is the case with Pioneers 10 and 11.
Q2: Please explain, using your math, the starlight bending by the Sun.

7. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Vukelja

The full math around this can be seen in http://www.masstheory.org/oos_2_english.pdf

Regards,
Sasha

Q3: Are you aware that formulas exist in classical physics that account for the vectorial formulation?

For example, the correct formulation (proven experimentally) is (using your notation):

F_21=k*q_1*q_2*r/r^3

Q4: I would understand the expression a=vt but how do you justify r=ct? No massive particle can move at "c".

8. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Q5: In (2.2.6) you identify a "magnetic term" due to motion. The value of the term contradicts the values predicted by relativity (and verified experimentally). How do you explain this discrepancy between your theory and experiment?

9. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Q6: you spend a lot of time deriving forces in long conductors. Can you derive the Lorentz force due to the interaction between the charged conductor and a magnetic field, please?

10. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Q7: In fig 1 what accelerates the two particles? There must be other forces that are not taken into account in your calculations.

11. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Q8: You write: "Based on this on fig.1b we have F12≠F21 and also F12≠F21 for the duration of event.". Do you realize that your theory contradicts the fundamental law of equality between action and reaction?

12. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Q9: How did you make the transition from electrostatic forces to gravitational ones? Your paper deals with electrostatic forces, yet in the "Pioneer Anomaly" paragraph you jump to gravitational effects.

13. Member
Join Date
Sep 2010
Posts
10
Originally Posted by macaw
So, how does your "math" explain a few well-known effects already explained by GR?

Q2: Please explain, using your math, the starlight bending by the Sun.

The article deals with synchronicity of interactions (which can be electrostatic or gravitational), and effects that arise from that synchronicity (or lack thereof). It's not about GR, light bending, perihelion of Mercury or whatever else.

I will happily reply in as much detail as I can on any posts regarding Pioneer anomaly or anything quoting my article.

Sasha

14. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Vukelja
The article deals with synchronicity of interactions (which can be electrostatic or gravitational), and effects that arise from that synchronicity (or lack thereof). It's not about GR, light bending, perihelion of Mercury or whatever else.
You are attempting to explain gravitational effects by modifying (incorrectly, as shown) the Newtonian physics. As such, my challenge stands, please use your "math" to explain the observed effects. If you cannot explain the observed effects (see Q1 and Q2), then say so.

I will happily reply in as much detail as I can on any posts regarding Pioneer anomaly or anything quoting my article.

Sasha
You do not get to pick and choose what question you reply to and what question you do not. I have pointed out some flaws in your "theory", so I would very much like you to answer Q3-Q9. Thank you.

15. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Oct 2006
Posts
3,767
Your theory attempts to explain the 100% of the observed Pioneer anomaly.

Approx 30% of it has been successfully explained via thermal modelling. Thus if your calculations match that of the Pioneer Anomaly, they are either wrong to the tune of about 30% - or you must address why the thermal modelling is wrong.

16. Member
Join Date
Sep 2010
Posts
10
Originally Posted by macaw

Q3: Are you aware that formulas exist in classical physics that account for the vectorial formulation?

For example, the correct formulation (proven experimentally) is (using your notation):

F_21=k*q_1*q_2*r/r^3

Q4: I would understand the expression a=vt but how do you justify r=ct? No massive particle can move at "c".

Instead of replying to every of your many posts, I will reply to this one, to show you that you did not understand. The r = ct is not some object moving but INFORMATION that body on the left has changed position.

Body on the right has no means of knowing that first body is in motion, until this infromation arrives. Gravity of the first body at the position of the 2nd body ALSO has no way of knowing that change has taken place, prior to arrival of this information.

So there is latency involved, and this latency is reason why object affect each other with DIFFERENT forces.

Sasha

17. Member
Join Date
Sep 2010
Posts
10
Originally Posted by macaw
Q9: How did you make the transition from electrostatic forces to gravitational ones? Your paper deals with electrostatic forces, yet in the "Pioneer Anomaly" paragraph you jump to gravitational effects.
The ONLY requirement of my theory is that information propagates with finite speed. Gravitational and electrostatic forces have the same math. model and analysys is equally good for both fields.

Sasha

18. Member
Join Date
Sep 2010
Posts
10
Originally Posted by djellison
Your theory attempts to explain the 100% of the observed Pioneer anomaly.

Approx 30% of it has been successfully explained via thermal modelling. Thus if your calculations match that of the Pioneer Anomaly, they are either wrong to the tune of about 30% - or you must address why the thermal modelling is wrong.

OK. My article deals with precise logic - no hypothesis of any sort, few variables, and easy to understand expressions. So the effect I am talking about is not optional, although the precise equivalent acceleration that I am talking about depends on the range of distances supplied (see the java calculator). Basically I calculate the sum starting just outside of Saturn orbit (10 AU) and go all the way to 70 AU, which I believe is correct.

Experimental data is reported for 20-70 AU range, but I expect that any speed acquired by this acceleration after 10 AU is also present in this experimental result (i.e. I do not know how it could be excluded).

And regarding computer modelling - I'm a software developer myself and I know that computer modelling which involves significant number of variables (along with any number of educated guesses) can be completely off base. I can't say more without knowing the details of that model.

Sasha

19. Originally Posted by Vukelja
Instead of replying to every of your many posts, I will reply to this one, to show you that you did not understand. The r = ct is not some object moving but INFORMATION that body on the left has changed position.
I noticed that, when I decided to move this thread to ATM, because if you want to include the force travel time, which is what your r = ct means, then it is well known that the solar system or any system helt together by similar forces would be completely unstable. You do not calculate the acceleration of the Earth to the Sun taking into account the 8 minutes light travel time. Experiments and nature show that the force acts "instantaneous" (i.e. infinte velocity).

20. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Vukelja
Instead of replying to every of your many posts, I will reply to this one, to show you that you did not understand. The r = ct is not some object moving but INFORMATION that body on the left has changed position.
Q10: Why would the speed of information have anything to do with the force experienced by particle q_2?

Q11: Why is the particle q_1 subjected to a DIFFERENT equation, a=vt? What is so special about q_2?

Body on the right has no means of knowing that first body is in motion, until this infromation arrives. Gravity of the first body at the position of the 2nd body ALSO has no way of knowing that change has taken place, prior to arrival of this information.

So there is latency involved, and this latency is reason why object affect each other with DIFFERENT forces.

Sasha
Q12: Yet experimental proof shows that the above is FALSE (see tusenfem's post). So, how do you justify your ideas?

21. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Vukelja
The ONLY requirement of my theory is that information propagates with finite speed. Gravitational and electrostatic forces have the same math. model and analysys is equally good for both fields.

Sasha
Q13: What proof do you have that the above is correct? Experiment shows electrostatic force to be quite different from gravitational force.

22. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Vukelja
OK. My article deals with precise logic - no hypothesis of any sort,
Actually , you have made a very large number of assumptions that are falsified by experiment and a lot of mistakes.

few variables, and easy to understand expressions. So the effect I am talking about is not optional, although the precise equivalent acceleration that I am talking about depends on the range of distances supplied (see the java calculator). Basically I calculate the sum starting just outside of Saturn orbit (10 AU) and go all the way to 70 AU, which I believe is correct.
You are not answering the question, 30% of the effect has been explained thermally, you claim to explain 100% but you have no provision for the thermal explanation.

Q14: How do you explain that?

Experimental data is reported for 20-70 AU range, but I expect that any speed acquired by this acceleration after 10 AU is also present in this experimental result (i.e. I do not know how it could be excluded).
But your table disagrees in most entries with the data recorded experimentally.

Q15: How do you explain the discrepancies?

23. Member
Join Date
Sep 2010
Posts
10
Originally Posted by tusenfem
I noticed that, when I decided to move this thread to ATM, because if you want to include the force travel time, which is what your r = ct means, then it is well known that the solar system or any system helt together by similar forces would be completely unstable. You do not calculate the acceleration of the Earth to the Sun taking into account the 8 minutes light travel time. Experiments and nature show that the force acts "instantaneous" (i.e. infinte velocity).
Scale of the effect is tiny, at most proportional to v/c and at least to v^2/c^2 depending on angle of motion. This is like encountering some dust along the way, in terms how much it can affect motion of the planets. One effect that it can produce over long periods is precession of the perihelion, for elliptical orbits. So the claim that it would make anything unstable is over exaggerated.

As a matter of fact, you make three arbitrary claims:

1) that the solar system or any system helt together by similar forces would be completely unstable
2) Experiments show that the force acts "instantaneous"
3) nature shows that the force acts "instantaneous"

Signals in the phone wires are basically one electron exerting force onto another, all the way until the other end of the wire. It takes time until this information reaches the other end. So there is the "force travel time," as you put it.

Sasha

24. Member
Join Date
Sep 2010
Posts
10
Originally Posted by macaw
Actually , you have made a very large number of assumptions that are falsified by experiment and a lot of mistakes.

You are not answering the question, 30% of the effect has been explained thermally, you claim to explain 100% but you have no provision for the thermal explanation.

Q14: How do you explain that?

But your table disagrees in most entries with the data recorded experimentally.

Q15: How do you explain the discrepancies?

I appreciate the level of attention I'm getting from you, but not the attitude.

Cumulative effect of dynamic compenent for entries in that table is EQUIVALENT to a constanst acceleration that matches experimental result of 8.7 x 10exp-10 m/s^2, when the cumulative effect is calculated for entire path outside of Saturn orbit (that is, starting with 10 AU).

And once again on thermal modelling: Think of it in terms of accuracy of hurricane path models, or modelling of impact of greenhouse gases on global temerature. They range in value from zero to something like an educated advice. It's not exact science.

Sasha

25. Originally Posted by Vukelja
As a matter of fact, you make three arbitrary claims:

1) that the solar system or any system helt together by similar forces would be completely unstable
2) Experiments show that the force acts "instantaneous"
3) nature shows that the force acts "instantaneous"

Signals in the phone wires are basically one electron exerting force onto another, all the way until the other end of the wire. It takes time until this information reaches the other end. So there is the "force travel time," as you put it.
Those are not arbitrary claims, those are the mainstream views on how static force fields work, like gravity and electrostatic forces.
However, the way the phone wires work is NOT how static forces work, which you are using, the electrostatic force between two charges.
There is no such thing as the "information travel time" involved in the force.

26. Member
Join Date
Sep 2010
Posts
10
Originally Posted by tusenfem
Those are not arbitrary claims, those are the mainstream views on how static force fields work, like gravity and electrostatic forces.
However, the way the phone wires work is NOT how static forces work, which you are using, the electrostatic force between two charges.
There is no such thing as the "information travel time" involved in the force.

I don't expect anyone to defend some idea simply by stating it is mainstream. Why don't you give us some refererences on the following:

1) that the solar system or any system helt together by similar forces would be completely unstable
2) Experiments show that the force acts "instantaneous"
3) nature shows that the force acts "instantaneous"

Such as which analysis (give me reference if you have any) says any system held tohether would be completely unstable,
which concrente experiment (reference) says that force acts "instantaneous", and finally how and where does nature shows the same.

Sasha

27. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Vukelja
I appreciate the level of attention I'm getting from you, but not the attitude.
I am asking you precise questions, according to the rules of this forum you signed up when you registered, you are supposed to answer them. Please answer questions Q1-Q15. "I don't know" is a valid answer.

Cumulative effect of dynamic compenent for entries in that table is EQUIVALENT to a constanst acceleration that matches experimental result of 8.7 x 10exp-10 m/s^2, when the cumulative effect is calculated for entire path outside of Saturn orbit (that is, starting with 10 AU).
Q16: Prove it. All we can see is some numbers that have nothing to do with the numbers measured experimentally.

And once again on thermal modelling: Think of it in terms of accuracy of hurricane path models, or modelling of impact of greenhouse gases on global temerature. They range in value from zero to something like an educated advice. It's not exact science.

Sasha
Q17: You are trying to evade the question. The thermal explanation is quite precise. Your explanation contains no thermal explanation. Please explain the discrepancy.

28. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Vukelja
Instead of replying to every of your many posts, I will reply to this one, to show you that you did not understand. The r = ct is not some object moving but INFORMATION that body on the left has changed position.
Q18: Really? Then why does the r=ct enter in the calculation of d? You mean that propagation of information affects the position of q_2? How?

Body on the right has no means of knowing that first body is in motion, until this infromation arrives.
Q19: Why would the distance between the two bodies q_1 and q_2 have anything to do with r=ct?

Q20: Why does the "body on the left" experience a=vt? Why is it different from the r=ct experienced by the "body on the right"?

So there is latency involved, and this latency is reason why object affect each other with DIFFERENT forces.
Q21: yet , experiment contradicts you, the forces are NOT DIFFERENT, they are the SAME. How do you explain this discrepancy between experiment and your "theory"?

29. Originally Posted by Vukelja
I don't expect anyone to defend some idea simply by stating it is mainstream. Why don't you give us some refererences on the following:

1) that the solar system or any system helt together by similar forces would be completely unstable
2) Experiments show that the force acts "instantaneous"
3) nature shows that the force acts "instantaneous"

Such as which analysis (give me reference if you have any) says any system held tohether would be completely unstable,
which concrente experiment (reference) says that force acts "instantaneous", and finally how and where does nature shows the same.

Sasha
How about any book on physics?

30. Originally Posted by Vukelja
I don't expect anyone to defend some idea simply by stating it is mainstream. Why don't you give us some refererences on the following:
...
No.

That's not how it works. Mainstream science is well documented, and anyone coming here is expected to be familiar with it. (After all, how can someone expect their new model to be "better" than the mainstream model if they don't even know what the mainstream model is?)

This thread is not for you to demand this of tusenfem, it is for you to support your claims.