Pioneer 10's Anomaly

[mugaliens]

The surface at the pole and the surface at the equator are in an equilibrium, as the main body of the article states. The entire surface (geoid, or "sealevel") of the Earth is an equipotential surface, in other words.

That's why the water is "flat".

It also neatly explains the relativity phenomenon.

Actually, while it's equipotential with respect to altitude, it's not equipotential with respect to total energy. Don't forget objects at the equator, include the surface of the ocean, is travelling about 1,000 mph faster, Eastward, than the poles. This is rocket launches take place in more Southern regions.

As for the rest of the article on Pioneer 10, couldn't tell you.

Are there radios of two frequencies, though? Different freqs are slowed down by interferring medium (gas/dust) at different rates. This is one means GPS uses to detect/adjust for ionosphere abberations. If P-10 had two radios, sending a ping on both and measuring the different times we received it might tell us not only redshift, but actual distance, as well as the density of the medium through which it's travelled.

But I'm sure the rocket scientists have thought of this!

[turbo-1]

I think the Pioneer anomalies are an exception to the rule here: This is a well studied phenomenon where most of the suggestions as to cause on this thread have been ruled out by a team a very competent researchers. This is one of several observations that should be considered a gut-check for the mainstream, because it is mainstream: Two well-controlled experiments, the results of which have no known causality.

In my opinion, the Pioneer anomaly is a demonstration of the Scharnhorst effect. Klaus Scharnhorst predicted that light propagating through a rarified quantum vacuum field (i.e. a vacuum in which a range of frequencies of virtual pairs is suppressed, as in a Casimir gap) should move faster than light that is propagating through an equivalent vacuum. Light can travel faster through propagating media that are less dense, and the shortened return times lead us to believe the probes are closer than they really are, and if we believe that the speed of light in a vacuum must be constant, we interpret this to mean that the probes are slowing. They are not.

I would like to explain further, but the explanation would be regarded as ATM. The summary of the vacuum polarization model is located here.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=35191

[ToSeek]

30 Years of Pioneer Spacecraft Data Rescued:
The Planetary Society Enables Study of the Mysterious Pioneer Anomaly

Before The Planetary Society stepped in to help, only about 11 years of Pioneer Doppler data had been analyzed, and the Pioneer anomaly remained a mystery. A lot of the remaining data (more than 19 years of it) were stored on old 7- and 9-track magnetic tapes needed to be saved and converted to modern media. By June 2006, scientists and engineers led by Slava Turyshev at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory were able to recover much of the more than 30-year navigational histories of both spacecraft.

I used to work with tapes just like the one depicted....

[Nereid]

Moved to Astronomy section.

[loglo]

I used to work with tapes just like the one depicted....

Used to be able to carry 22 on each arm in my days as a tape librarian.

[ToSeek]

Used to be able to carry 22 on each arm in my days as a tape librarian.

Fortunately I never needed to carry 22 at a time. I remember having to make four tapes (four copies) to deliver some of my software, though.

[Blob]

According to Michael Nieto of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the data for Pioneer 10 was not precise enough around the time of its fly-by of Jupiter to indicate whether its acceleration problems began with that encounter. But, this may soon be remedied. JPL's Slava Turyshev recently unearthed archived data from Pioneer 10 and 11 and is reconstructing the missions in their entirety, which could help determine whether Pioneer 10's anomaly began with a fly-by too.

"That's what I want to look at more precisely" - Michael Nieto .

The researchers say that while it is possible that an overlooked effect from ordinary physics might account for the anomalies, something more exotic could also be involved. For example, the spacecraft trajectories could be influenced by the presence of dark matter in the solar system. Or maybe the laws of gravity need reworking.
Peter Antreasian, a spacecraft navigation expert at JPL who along with Joseph Guinn first brought attention to the anomalies seen in Galileo and NEAR during their Earth fly-bys, believes that it will require a modified law of gravity or other new physics to explain it. He does not think it is connected to the Pioneer anomaly, since the force behind this seems always to point in the same direction, back towards the sun. In the Earth fly-bys, by contrast, "a directional force such as the Pioneer anomalous force would have been very evident in the radiometric data in the last few days before the approach". Whatever causes this anomaly seems to make its impact just a few minutes before the closest approach to Earth.
Not everyone is convinced the Earth fly-by anomaly points to new physics. Myles Standish, who calculates trajectories of solar system bodies for JPL, says he feels the Earth fly-by anomaly is almost certainly due to an error in measurement or an incomplete analysis using ordinary physics.

http://www.newscientist.com

[Jens]

He does not think it is connected to the Pioneer anomaly, since the force behind this seems always to point in the same direction, back towards the sun.

I'm intrigued by this statement, because it's something I've wondered about. Has the Pioneer anomaly been convincingly shown to be toward the sun? Because I understood there were three possibilities: (1) that it was toward the earth, indicating some measurement anomaly; (2) that it was toward the sun, indicating a gravitational anomaly; or (3) that it was in the trajectories, indicating something like dark matter slowing them down.

I think that if it is accepted that the acceleration is toward the sun, then gravity is the place to look for an explanation.

[Blob]

Hum,
this is what the `new` data hopes to solve.

Flybys may be key to Pioneer anomaly (Subscription)

[John Kierein]

I wonder what the temperature of the outer surfaces of the spacecraft are at this great distance from the sun. Perhaps they are so cold that ambient water and other molecules are condensing on them to make them get heavier from ices? Like comets forming. This in itself shouln't change the acceleration (all weights fall at the same rate), but maybe the condensation causes a drag?

[John Kierein]

But we do have orbit planes for some binary stars (the Hipparcos catalogues have a doubles and multiples annex with orbital information); I just checked a bunch of them at random and a disproportionate number seem to intersect the plane of the galaxy within 20-30° of the galactic center - Sirius B in particular is almost right-on despite its orbit being tilted on its side with respect to the plane of the galaxy.

Not to hijack the thread or anything ops: but I'd say you may be on to something.

I've been away from this thread for quite a while. I think you should write a paper on this and include the IRAS figure with it. Cool info!!! Print it upside down since this wouldn't affect the conclusions.

[ToSeek]

Computer sleuths try to crack Pioneer anomaly

Scientists and engineers remain on course in their efforts to determine what caused the twin Pioneer spacecraft to apparently drift off course by hundreds of thousands of kilometres during their three-decade missions. Within a year, they expect to be able to decide whether this drift was caused by a fault on the spacecraft.

[Jerry]

I'm intrigued by this statement, because it's something I've wondered about. Has the Pioneer anomaly been convincingly shown to be toward the sun? Because I understood there were three possibilities: (1) that it was toward the earth, indicating some measurement anomaly; (2) that it was toward the sun, indicating a gravitational anomaly; or (3) that it was in the trajectories, indicating something like dark matter slowing them down.

I think that if it is accepted that the acceleration is toward the sun, then gravity is the place to look for an explanation.

Neito & Co are not convinced the 'force' is strickly toward the sun. One of the reasons they wanted the earlier Pioneer data preserved, was to determine if there is an unexpected vector. Thanks to the Planetary Society, this data is being analysed, and we should get a better answer.

[Maksutov]

One wonders if it had a close encounter with a small Kuiper Belt object. Not a hit, but close enough to affect it gravitationally and thus alter its acceleration and trajectory.

[edit]Myles Standish, who calculates trajectories of solar system bodies for JPL, says he feels the Earth fly-by anomaly is almost certainly due to an error in measurement or an incomplete analysis using ordinary physics.

http://www.newscientist.com

Is he the spokesman for Professor Alden?

[ozprof]

One thing I am curious about. Everyone talks about it as the Pioneer Anomaly, but what about the Voyagers? Has anyone every detected any similar anomaly with them?

[aurora]

One thing I am curious about. Everyone talks about it as the Pioneer Anomaly, but what about the Voyagers? Has anyone every detected any similar anomaly with them?

I've been told that due to their nature the Voyagers cannot be used for this purpose. Something to do with the way the Voyagers keep themselves aligned.

[Doodler]

I've been told that due to their nature the Voyagers cannot be used for this purpose. Something to do with the way the Voyagers keep themselves aligned.

Voyagers use reaction mass to stabilize, the Pioneers were spin stabilized.

[ToSeek]

Newfound Data Could Solve NASA's Great Gravity Mystery

But a wealth of newly recovered data and telemetry, spanning decades of observations by both Pioneer 10 and 11, may yield the final answer to whether conventional physics or perhaps something new is at work on the two spacecraft. An answer could arise from the new data after about a year of analysis by an international team of researchers.

“I would like to see this story reach its finality,” said Slava Turyshev, an astrophysicist with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) who has spent the last 14 years—some of it on his own time—studying the Pioneer Anomaly. "So if it’s conventional physics, that’s fine and we can all go about our daily business. But if it’s something else, there may be another page.”

He and other fellow devotees discussed the astrophysics oddity late Monday during the Seventh Annual Asimov Debate here at the American Museum of Natural History.

[ToSeek]

Pioneer Anomaly Project Update

The availability of this new and much extended dataset is the most significant change since any other investigation performed to date. However, its analysis is technically complex, as we will have to "re-fly" the 30-year Pioneer missions. In other words, we will have to virtually "launch" the Pioneers, acquire their signals, perform the first orientation maneuver, and go arc-by-arc all the way to Jupiter and Saturn (for Pioneer 11), then fly by outer planets and leave the solar system while still transmitting scientific and engineering information -- and do that until the last data point. Our objective is to obtain the most precise trajectory solutions using the recently recovered data. However, the amount of work and its complexity are overwhelming; furthermore, this work must be done very carefully, with attention given to all pieces of information.

[Sticks]

ICR have got in on this

What do you make of their dribblings?

[Jerry]

Sigh. It is no wonder scientists are reluctant to publish anomalous results. If someone would have used Genisus to predict the scope and nature of the pioneer anomaly before Anderson published in 1998; that would have been impressive. (And saved Anderson & Co. a whole lot of work.)

Mary Baker Eddy is alive and well.

[01101001]

Genisus

The Genesis mission?

[Jerry]

Unless I got kidnapped by a router; Stick's reference used geometry based upon biblical creation to explain the pioneer results. (It should probably not have been posted here, but it hardly seems worthly of its own thread, even on atm.

[Sticks]

Unless I got kidnapped by a router; Stick's reference used geometry based upon biblical creation to explain the pioneer results. (It should probably not have been posted here, but it hardly seems worthly of its own thread, even on atm.

I did wonder about ATM, but it is not my theory so I would not be in a position to defend it, according to ATM rules. As it was related to the Pioneer anomaly, I thought that this thread was the most suited. I assumed that if there were any gaping holes, you guys would be able to find them and rip it to shreds.

[KaiYeves]

Perhaps it has to do with this "conspiracy". ;-D

[Noclevername]

It's just dust off the Crystal Sphere that holds the stars in place.

[KaiYeves]

It's just dust off the Crystal Sphere that holds the stars in place

I don't know whether the idea of Pioneer 10 and Crystal Spheres sharing the same universe is very scary or very funny.

[Jens]

Apparently the New Horizons probe is spin-stabilized. It's past Jupiter now, so I wonder how long it will be before there is a data that can be analyzed to see if the same thing is happening.

[Jerry]

I have followed New Horizon's very closely, and to the best of my knowledge, a detailed gravity study is not in the making. We are still waiting for a precise comparison of NH's gravity assist from Jupiter. Since a coarse correction was not made until month's later, it can be assumed, 1) the assist was very close to what was predicted, 2) somebody knows how close.

Not everyone is convinced the Earth fly-by anomaly points to new physics. Myles Standish, who calculates trajectories of solar system bodies for JPL, says he feels the Earth fly-by anomaly is almost certainly due to an error in measurement or an incomplete analysis using ordinary physics.

Data, including error analysis, do not support this 'feeling', and too many scientists with their hands on the purse strings share it, leaving it up to the planetary society to pony up funding to pursue a solution. A follow Pioneer mission would have been worth a lot more scientifically than that silly gravity B probe.

[William]

The reason there are scientific papers written concerning anomalies, is that science tries to explain the observation using current standard physics. When it appears to fail, the next step is to try new hypotheses.

I do not see how one can without detailed knowledge of the ultimate or true physics model, logically state a prior which anomalies will or will not advance physics.

The method Faraday used to handle uncertainty was to accept the anomaly as correct and then try to follow that line of logic to examine other sets of observations. Analogous to trying to fit pieces together of a complex puzzle where the true picture is not known.

Faraday solved problems that others could not because he tried different hypotheses and did not become emotionally attached to a specific hypothesis. After rejecting a hypothesis, he would often attempt to save the rejected hypothesis. He appeared to be completely neutral and fair.

In the case of the Pioneer anomaly, in my view, something basic appears to have been missed. What other force (i.e. Not a new force or new particle) could cause an attraction of the space probe to the sun?

In general, I personally support Nereid's and Cougar's discomfort in jumping to new physics (I do not support the dark matter or dark energy hypothesis).