NASA Baffled by Unexplained Force Acting on Space Probes

[Moose]

I don't look for evidence to validate hypotheses, I look for evidence to disprove them.

Jerry, I think that's an admirable attitude, but you cannot discuss/defend/promote your ATM theories/hypotheses outside of the confines of the ATM rules structure. And you've been around more than long enough to know that.

Now, you've been pretty good about not pushing at that rule in the past, so I don't think a suspension is necessary... yet. But it needs to stop right now. If it does, I think a stern warning will suffice.

On a more general note, I want to make it absolutely clear that discussions of this anomaly that involve unconventional physics are welcome... in the ATM forum under the usual strictures.

[Jerry]

On a more general note, I want to make it absolutely clear that discussions of this anomaly that involve unconventional physics are welcome... in the ATM forum under the usual strictures.

This is a rational interpretation of the rules of the forum, but is it a rational view of anomalies in general? Unexpected results remain peculiar until someone puts together a plausible mainstream scenario; and then the observation is considered resolved. Or the anomalies fall into the black hole of forgotten observations.

How then is it possible for an alternative explanation to evolve and be accepted? This is not a question to this forum, but to the physical science community in general. My physic's newsletter this month talks about how the core curriculum in graduate level physics have not change in fifty years; and contrasts this with the advances and changes in the core subject matter biology and chemistry. Are our physics that good, or is it just too hard to make a case for anything new or different? Are the physics too hard, or the physicists too hard-headed?

I brought into the discussion the odd-ball attitude of probes entering the Martian atmosphere because I think it is related to the anomalous accelerations of probes passing near planets exchanging energy: You don't need my 'theory' to tie them together - you only need to understand there is a possible relationship: That a poor calculation of the inertial moment of a planet could effect both the gravitational assists and probe entry attitudes. Everyone needs to know how many observations are poorly explained; and look for possible interrelations. It takes time to develop plausible explanations. I don't know what it takes to develop plausibility.

[tusenfem]

My physic's newsletter this month talks about how the core curriculum in graduate level physics have not change in fifty years; and contrasts this with the advances and changes in the core subject matter biology and chemistry. Are our physics that good, or is it just too hard to make a case for anything new or different? Are the physics too hard, or the physicists too hard-headed?

Really! You gotta be kidding here! One thing that comes in mind is that I was taught at university that "Bose-Einstein condensations have not been observed", I am pretty sure that this is no longer taught.

Unlike some people here on the board would like to believe, the basics of physics are rather solid, so there need not be much change in what it taught.

Where can we read your newsletter?

[Jerry]

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsn...eeducation.cfm

Ok, the article is a year old, and about a paper three years old -so i'm a little behind on my reading.

The conference was inspired in part by a 2005 report assembled by the APS and AAPT Task Force on Graduate Education. In a keynote address, Renee Diehl, a professor at Penn State University and a co-author of the report, summarized some of the Task Force’s findings. “In physics we’re teaching the same things we taught 50 years ago,” she said. Other disciplines such as biology and chemistry have updated their graduate curricula, she pointed out.

[borman]

Gravitational anomalies of second MESSENGER flyby to be discussed at 40th LPSC 2009

Abstract:
DOES MERCURY HAVE LUNAR-LIKE MASCONS?
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/1802.pdf

The anomaly was monitored to be significantly greater during the second flyby compared to the first flyby. The residual Doppler appears to be at least 3mm/sec for the first flyby and at least 6mm/sec for the second.

The signal appears to be dominated by mascon surface gravity anomalies that are at least an order of magnitude greater. The mascons seem best associated with known impact basins similar to what has been monitored on the moon. The second flyby saw a rise and fall of DeltaV amounting to 14.1 cm/sec. This would be expected from a local density increase associated with a surface gravity anomaly.

When MESSENGER goes into orbit in 2011, it will be able to better map and constrain the magnitude of the surface gravity anomalies to find out more precise limits on how much of the residual Doppler can be attributed to them.

The small residual Doppler and ranging anomalies observed and associated with the flyby anomaly proper discussed in the Anderson et al paper, by way of contrast from surface gravity anomalies which tend to zero sum, have only either a rise or fall in the Delta V leaving a net Delta V.

[borman]

On a more general note, I want to make it absolutely clear that discussions of this anomaly that involve unconventional physics are welcome... in the ATM forum under the usual strictures.

There seems to be an intrinsic "catch 22" problem here. By definition, an anomaly exists because there does not exist a conventional physics explanation. The scientists have been looking for decades for a possible explanation within conventional physics and have not yet been succesful which is why the article was published in PRL.

So if the forum rules forbid any such discussion of the flyby or Pioneer anomaly, this exclusion should also be extrended to all phenomena that are not yet firmly rooted in a well demonstrated theory that does not permit a single failure. This would then also exclude inflation, big bang, Dark Energy, and any of the Dark Matter theories as they all have their failures as well as their successes.

Also, by definition, in order for there to be thread in the ATM section, there must first be a mainstream theory that meets the requirements of non-failure that the ATM theory seeks to supplant. So logically a discussion of anomalies can not take place there for the same legitimate reasons that they can not take place here: There is no mainstream theory to be ATM against.

What is missing is the proper forum for these discussions. It may be that a new forum should be added to "the proving grounds" in addition to the conspiracy and ATM fora simply called "Anomalies" where one can open discussions of phenomena for which there is as yet no formally accepted mainstream theory that has shown itself to be consisitent with all observed phenomena it would purport to explain.

respectfully, borman

[korjik]

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsn...eeducation.cfm

Ok, the article is a year old, and about a paper three years old -so i'm a little behind on my reading.

I have to agree with Tusenfem. I started taking graduate level physics courses at the University of Houston 7 years ago. Alot of the things we covered havent been updated in 50+ years, but how much does stuff need changing?

Classical electrodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, and Classical Mechanics all are pretty much the same as 50 years ago, but there are things like lasers, MRI, space physics, alot of statistical mechanics, and BEC (or FC) that have been discovered or massively changed in the last 50 years.

[Jerry]

Gravitational anomalies of second MESSENGER flyby to be discussed at 40th LPSC 2009

Abstract:
DOES MERCURY HAVE LUNAR-LIKE MASCONS?
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/1802.pdf

The anomaly was monitored to be significantly greater during the second flyby compared to the first flyby. The residual Doppler appears to be at least 3mm/sec for the first flyby and at least 6mm/sec for the second.

Thanks, Borman.

The results clearly show an increase in gravity anomaly magnitude between 180 and 270°E in both hemispheres, consistent with the individual result we saw for flyby 2. We then moved three of the eight gravity anomalies to locations of known basins [4]:
Caloris, 30°N, 163°E; Tolstoj, 20°S, 195°E; and Matisse-Repin, 24°S, 285°E. These basins were chosen because they were close to the region of large anomalies and to the ground track of flyby 2. Figure 3 shows the results and the locations of the anomalies. All three basins show positive gravity anomalies.

The anomaly differences between the grid results of Figure 2 and the grid/basin results of Figure 3 are relatively small, but the solution with anomalies at three basins was a better fit to observations from both flybys.

I respectfully remind the forum that positive gravity anomalies for the chasma/basins of Venus are a necessary result of the gravity-field mapping of Venus; while the lower basins and troughs of Mars generally exhibit negative gravity anomalies. (The peaks of Venus require negative anomalies, the peaks of Mars positive anomalies, and the closest pass of
Ganymede also required a large positive anomaly to explain; even though there was no surface feature of any kind.)

Two passes: Two unanticipated results. Two sets of basins somewhat successfully mapped with high mascon gravity. I respectifully submit that my conceptual approach predicting that the mapping of Mercury will require severe swings in surface gravity with the same signs as Venus, but opposite the geographic features of Mars, are panning out quite well.

Returning to the topic at hand: It is worth commenting that that the planetary geophycists stretched the gravity fields of Mercury as much as they possibly could before resorting in anomalous surface mapping.

Meanwhile, I better take another look at Luna. Are Luna's mascons real? At some point we cross a fuzzy line between what is known to be real about our universe, what we cannot explain, and where a reasonable explanation requires us to admit some fact or series of scientific facts are not true; whether or not we have a good alternative explanation.

Edited to add, the prediction is here:

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mai...08-beyond.html

The Messenger Probe will track unusual gravity anomalies on Mercury: Elevated regions will appear to be composed of much lighter materials than the average surface density. Chasma or valleys will pose striking positive anomalies – appearing much more dense than the mean surface density.

And I am asking the moderators to open the thread

[tusenfem]

the closest pass of
Ganymede also required a large positive anomaly to explain; even though there was no surface feature of any kind.

Well, DUH!!
Ganymede's solid rock/iron (fully differentiated) is covered by an ocean and and ice layer. How on Ganymede are you going to get a surface feature on the icy surface of Ganymede?

[Jerry]

Ever been to Greenland? Or Antarctica? While it is possible to have a gravity anomaly without a surface feature, serious postive gravity anomalies are usually associated with physical features. This should also be true if the moon or planet is fully differentiated. (In fact, it could be argued that it is more likely true - the alternative would be a very deep major protrusion in a rocky core - layers of ice should have whittled such a protrusion down.)

The important point is that if there is a trend that ties these anomalous phenomenon together, it should extend from Mercury to Pluto - actually beyond Pluto; there should be anomalies experienced by the Pioneer probes as well...and also galactic orbital paths should be anomalous.

[tusenfem]

Ever been to Greenland? Or Antarctica? While it is possible to have a gravity anomaly without a surface feature, serious postive gravity anomalies are usually associated with physical features. This should also be true if the moon or planet is fully differentiated. (In fact, it could be argued that it is more likely true - the alternative would be a very deep major protrusion in a rocky core - layers of ice should have whittled such a protrusion down.)

The important point is that if there is a trend that ties these anomalous phenomenon together, it should extend from Mercury to Pluto - actually beyond Pluto; there should be anomalies experienced by the Pioneer probes as well...and also galactic orbital paths should be anomalous.

Dude! any surface feature on Ganymede will be buried under tens of kilometers of ice and ocean! Get real! There can easily be a "surface feature" but unless we send a full penetrating radar to Ganymede (which is NOT planned in the Laplace mission as it weighs basically as much as the total science package is allowed) we will not find it by looking at that moon.

[Jerry]

Dude! any surface feature on Ganymede will be buried under tens of kilometers of ice and ocean! Get real! There can easily be a "surface feature" but unless we send a full penetrating radar to Ganymede (which is NOT planned in the Laplace mission as it weighs basically as much as the total science package is allowed) we will not find it by looking at that moon.

If you read the paper on the Mercury flyby anomalies, you learned they could almost stretch Mercury to where the data fit reasonable physical models; in fact they could if they stretched the gravity fields to where Mercury is gravimetrically shaped like an American football, enlongated at the ends. This seemed too unnatural, so they settled for mascons in the mid latitudes; and ALMOST found a solution that does not have to be reported as an anomally.

This is the problem with hard and fast rules: If one exception is found, or two or three, they can be written off as curiosities. But what if some of the oddball patterns - Monte Carlo simulations - used to match other data sets are wrong, too? When you try to find a consistent solution for isolated anomalies without considering the entire family, you end up with footballs instead of moons and planets. The fact that a deep anomally might diminish or eliminate the degeneracies in the orbital pattern about Ganymede is irrelavent. Once you accept the possibility that the anomalies of Mercury contain no solution using the GR/Newtonian bag of solutions, you must also consider the possiblity that it was wrong to model Ganymede with a gross positive anomaly at exactly the point of closest approach, which is what happened. Likewise, there are gravimetric degeneracies in the orbital solutions of the gravity fields of Mars that are not fully resolved. These are not necessarily isolated anomalies, they may match a pattern.

The scientific process includes a clause for brainstorming: A starting point where there are no bad hypothesis, and then a trimming and tailoring by analysis until the number of potiential solutions is consistent with observational data. This process does not work, if it is short-changed: If artificial contraints that evolved to fit a prior solution which fails are imposed upon the sets of possible solutions.

Here is a simple example from engineering: If you tried to use a teflon(c) plug to hold pressure in high pressure settings you would likely fail: Teflon makes a good seal that will fail under pressure. But this failure should not rule out teflon(c) for use if a compression fitting is physically constrained and prevented from extruding by steel, or some other high-tensile metal.

In fundamental physics, if one application of the standing rules fails, a minor modification is not the only choice; in fact it might be a poor one. This is where the concept of 'standing on the shoulders of giants' is wrong: More than a cursory look has to be made at the toes.

[tusenfem]

Nice avoiding Jerry, I explain to you why Ganymede will not show a surface feature, and you start talking about Mercury. Whatever, we are used to your "discussion mode" just avoid what you don't like.

I am remember correctly there is still no mathematical model for your ideas, you have not developed anything concrete. Only comments that gravity should decrease with radius or increase if is suits you fancy. Known gravity anomalies of the Earth because of (subsurface) mass distributions are the best proof that similar things may and will happen at other planets.

But you are free to not believe me, and I hope at some point you will write a real paper on your views of gravity, which is qualitative and quantitative and well supported in math and observations.

[Jerry]

Nice avoiding Jerry, I explain to you why Ganymede will not show a surface feature, and you start talking about Mercury. Whatever, we are used to your "discussion mode" just avoid what you don't like.

I wouldn't have predicted the gravity assist anomalies experienced by Messinger, if I had not first seen the observational data from Ganymede, observational results that required a gross surface anomaly near the point of closest pass - which is exactly how orbital scientists reduced the errors observed in the deflection of BOTH of Messenger's near approaches to Mercury.

If I am remember correctly there is still no mathematical model for your ideas, you have not developed anything concrete. ...

The nice thing about Newtonian mechanics is that there are simple mathematical solutions: If you know the orbital path of a satellite, you know the mass of the body it is orbiting. If you reject this simple assumption of equivalence, (and assume there is a variable path through space, for example.) Then the solution set is much more difficult: If the mass ratios are different for Mars or Venus than the Earth, then what are they, or how could we find out?

An Eovtos experiment somewhere other than on the surface of the Earth would provide the necessary proof. But no one has ever conducted one. What else has happened that might be comparible? Close-passes of a moon or planet are similar to Eovtos experiments; and if the results are different than Newtonian expectations (which are absolute), then it is reasonable to question the equivalance principle in these untested waters. Remember the early close-passes of the Cassini Probe to Titan? Cassini experience the same type of problem the Messenger Probe has experienced with Mercury: The probe experienced what is being interpreted as 'atmospheric drag' at much greater-than-expected distances from the moon. (Even though the ion and neutral mass spectrometer on-board Cassini and the Cassini limb-studies are inconsistent with this assumption.)

So is there a trend, or not? And how good were the original Eovtos studies, that claimed accuracies as high as a few parts in 10,000,000? Probably very good, but they dealt mainly with small-scale elemental variances. The value of the gravity constant, big G; has seen challenging discrepancies that are as high as 0.5%.

Developing possible alternatives to a theory that works as well as universal gravity is not a trivial task. The first step is to realize that the existing solutions are not working as well as they should. The second step is to figure out if there are patterns in the anomalies, and to find mathematical solutions that agree with the patterns. Right now, we are somewhere between step one and step two: We have found discepancies, and mathematical models (Anderson's modeling of the Earth-pass anomalies, and Milgrom's models of orbital mechanics), but the models do not agree, that is, they are not reducible to a single equation, and there is no theory behind these models. Relativity - it is both a mathematical model, and a theory, but since the data is inconsistent with the relativistic modifications to Newtonian mechanics, where should we go from here? Isn't this a good time to start brainstorming?

By the way, I read up on the Mascons of the Moon. The moon is a much smaller body than the earth, so if there is a minor problem with the equivalence principle, it should show up in at least two types of Lunar observations: The laser ranging data to the moon, and the distribution of mass within the moon. The ranging data says Newtonian physics are good, within a few centimeters, but the scientists were expecting greater accuracy. The other set of data is the gravity maps of the moon, and in the gravitational maps of the moon, an anomaly emerges as well: The impact craters are over-dense; so dense in fact, that it has to be assumed that core material diffused into the mantle after impact in order to explain the over-density.

[borman]

A possible very large example of a flyby anomaly

Here the clusters of galaxies represent the test spacecraft and the vortex axis represents the Earth’s spin axis. A possible very large scale version of what is affecting the spacecraft on our very small scale.

On the anomalous large-scale flows in the Universe

Abstract: http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1852

[Jerry]

http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlig...09.html#report

The latest GP-B results, detailed in the papers and NASA report described below, show substantial improvement over the preliminary results announced at the April 2007 meeting of the American Physical Society (APS). At that time the geodetic effect was measured with a total uncertainty of 1%, but evidence of the frame-dragging effect was inconclusive.

The latest data analysis that includes a model for the "roll-polhode resonance torque" yields a 15% statistical uncertainty for the Frame-Dragging effect. This 15% uncertainty does not include all systematic effects. ...

The data analysis leading up to this important result proved more subtle than expected. ‘Patch-effect’ anomalies on the gyro rotor and housing have complicated the gyro behavior in two ways:

1)A changing polhode path affecting the determination of the gyro scale factor.

2)Two larger than expected Newtonian torques.

What does "15% uncertainty" that 'does not include all systemic effects' mean?

The Newtonian torques, or static patch effects, seem reasonable; but a 'roll-polhode resonance' seems unlikely - unless the gyroscope came out of a chicken and contained a yoke.

Unfortunately we can't bring this probe down and run some new baseline tests. Of interest to this thread would be the residuals: A time-stamped set of 'roll-polhode resonance' corrections as a function of orbital dynamics, with and without the patch effects. It is pretty hard to offer Gravity-B probe data as a definitive test of GR as long as we have several other gravitational data sets that "have NASA Baffled".

[borman]

Mercury Mascons

One might expect that mascons on Mercury would produce more severe positive surface gravity anomalies than on the moon. That they are associated with large deep impacts suggests that there is a rebound of much denser sub-mantle material that makes a dike intrusion. The image that comes to mind is dropping a cherry into a bowl of milk that has cornflakes floating on the surface. The impact goes through the flakes and causes a splash of the denser material upward into the flake zone. If one assumes that the population that struck the moon is representative elsewhere then these bodies were able to gain extra kinetic energy falling the extra distance to Mercury. So the average impact would be more severe on Mercury than the moon leading to more severe anomalies.

While there may be occasional antipodal negative gravity anomalies, they are not only the result of a shallow impact that did not induce a dike formation. Sometimes there is substantial lava flow and the depressions get filled in first. But lava is not as dense as sub-mantle material. It is more like the cream in the milk that goes to the top after a sufficient time of cooking that may allow differing densities to separate out. It may be even less dense that the original mantle composition prior to any impacts as this region did not have time to cook to separate the lighter lava out. The overall density at these points would then be below datum leading to a negative gravity anomaly.

Note that the first Mercury flyby started with a dip and then rise opposite to that monitored for the second flyby. This indicates a negative surface gravity anomaly.

Also note the recent SELENE mapping of negative surface gravity anomalies on the far side of Earth’s moon:

Farside Gravity Field of the Moon from Four-Way Doppler Measurements of SELENE
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...i;323/5916/900



Long-Lived Volcanism on the Lunar Farside Revealed by SELENE Terrain Camera
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/323/5916/905


This is perhaps not unexpected as asteroids that just missed striking the Earth may have gotten an EGA and kinetic energy increase just prior to striking the facing moon.

It is not a necessary conclusion that gravity itself is misbehaving on account of mascons. The rise and fall of delta V follows a mascon profile without having to make additional considerations.

Now if there is residual Delta V for which there is only a rise or fall that is not zero-summed out, then there is something unusual happening that is not explained by Newton or Einstein.

The change in MESSENGER was monitored to be 20 and 25 degrees so any leftover or unaccounted for Doppler residual from the MESSENGER flybys can be used to test the Anderson empirical formula.

However, there may be a different nature to the constraints that determine the fundamental values of both R and w with respect to Mercury that may also pertain to a degree to Earth as well.

The value of the residual seems much too high by about 2 orders if one is to simply assume the value of R is the radius and the libration rate of Mercury is around 88 days.

One adjustment is that Mercury has a higher density than Earth that somewhat counters its smaller diameter.

A more significant adjustment inquires as to whether the entirety of Mercury from surface to core all librates at the 88 day frequency as it would if it is solid to the core. The current thinking now is that Mercury still has either a liquid core or, like Earth, there is a liquid zone between a solid core and solid surface. The magnetic field seems to argue that it is not all solid. One of the upcoming DPS abstracts discusses Mercury libration and the role of a liquid phase beneath the surface.

In the January ICARUS, which Elsevier still permits one to temporarily read without subscription, there is the discussion of an additional libration term for Mercury that has a nearly 12 year cycle. Rather than attribute it to a free libration, they consider the possibility that it is a forced resonant libration due to Jupiter.

Resonant forcing of Mercury's libration in longitude


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...2584c783a9b35c

Also from the upcoming LPSC40 meeting:

THE MESSENGER MISSION TO MERCURY: NEW INSIGHTS INTO GEOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND EVOLUTION FROM THE FIRST TWO ENCOUNTERS
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/2198.pdf
MESSENGER GLOBAL COLOR OBSERVATIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COMPOSITION AND EVOLUTION OF MERCURY’S CRUST
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/2247.pdf

MESSENGER’S NEWLY GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE ON MERCURY: SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERIOR EVOLUTION
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/1750.pdf


MERCURY’S INTERNAL MAGNETIC FIELD FROM MESSENGER
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/1277.pdf

Along this slight digression brings up possible serendipitous coincidence regarding Mercury. A number of its craters have been named for composers such as Stravinsky and Vivaldi. It may be that the planet Mercury is “musical” in its own right from the point of view that the forced resonance or sympathetic vibration might be a source of internal heat to assist in keeping a liquid phase present.

Initially Lord Kelvin stated that small bodies in isolation would lose heat in a well determined manner according to the difference between their internal and external heat. The addition of some chemicals can extend the internal liquid lifetime, notably Sulfur.

Lifetimes can be further extended with the addition of radio-isotopes.

When not in isolation, some heat can be delivered via tidal flexing by orbiting a nearby massive planet or central star(s).

A recent article published in Nature regarding liquid water in icy satellites of Jupiter and Saturn suggested the very efficient absorption of energy, by three orders over normal tidal flexing, via resonance absorption at a frequency favored by the liquid volume to be heated.

Strong ocean tidal flow and heating on moons of the outer planets

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture07571.html


Suppose you have a wine glass that has water in it that receives energy from a nearby vibrating source. It may accept some of the energy, but one can greatly enhance the amount of energy accepted by draining the glass to where the volume of remaining water is a harmonic of the vibrating source. It may accept enough heat to cause the glass to shatter after a time of absorption.

The point here is that the amount of liquid volume that still remains in Mercury may be constrained by the volume that is
a harmonic or overtone that allows the best energy absorption to maintain the liquid volume in the presence of the fundamental that is responsible for the resonant forcing. Because of the magnitude of the difference of efficiency between resonant forcing and tidal flexing, the resonance forcing would rate to be the main contributor. With Mercury the main contributors would be from the sun and Jupiter. With respect to the Nature abstract that is specifically about water oceans in outer moons, the suggestion is that it is about the physics of liquid whether magma or water and that the resonance is about the liquid cavity finding heat to stay liquid without specifying a requirement that the liquid must be water.

Unlike the Lord Kelvin example where the body is in isolation to cool, there instead occurs an equilibrium state where resonant absorption of heat maintains a liquid core or shell as a nearly permanent condition rather than as a transient condition one would expect in isolation. It would be self-governing as too much heat absorption may melt too large a volume that would no longer be a harmonic of the forcer resulting in only the weaker tidal flexing and subsequent cooling until the correct volume is again reached to allow the more efficient resonant absorption.

With respect to the thread proper, the mascon profile gravity field behaves in the conventional manner without needing recourse to alternative physics. On the other hand, with the flyby anomaly one sees clearly the evidence for a discontinuity in the before and after Doppler residuals that have not yet found a classical explanation. As noted in the Mascon abstract, there is still a small residual DeltaV in the millimeter/sec range that leaves open the possibility that there is also a flyby anomaly as well in the data.

But the outer surface of Mercury rotates too slowly for the Anderson formula to give the correct order of magnitude if the residual from 6 to 18 mm/sec is all accounted for by the flyby anomaly. This is partially why there is the digression into whether Mercury still has a liquid zone that does not rotate at the same speed as the surface. Even Earth has an inner core that rotates at a slightly different speed than the surface, so the simple Anderson equation might be thought of as a first approximation rather than an exact solution. An important point with respect to the large Mercury flyby anomaly as regards the Anderson formula is that of the MESSENGER change of orbit of 20 and 25 degrees is also with respect to the sun which has a rotation of around a month depending on whether one is measuring from near the equator or poles but has a large radius for the Anderson formula to help compensate for the slow rotation. As suggested in an earlier post, the DAMA/LIBRA signal could be interpreted as a zero sum eccentricity flyby anomaly of Earth going around an eccentric orbit around the sun; the expectation is that a DAMA/LIBRA detector would see no signal if placed in an exactly circular orbit around the sun. There is also the possibility that the prediction of a much larger anomaly value for Mercury due to slower rotation is in accordance with the McCulloch formula which also predicts a larger anomaly for Mars as well which quite distinguishes it from the Anderson formula.

The McCulloch references:
Can the flyby anomalies be explained by a modification of inertia?
http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3022
Modelling the flyby anomalies using a modification of inertia
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4159
Modelling the Pioneer anomaly as modified inertia
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0612599

The McCulloch ideas start with a similar initial start like the Milgrom modified inertia ideas in that they start with the Haisch idea that inertia is linked to resistance or drag from an Unruh wind, where like in the Casimir effect, constraints are made with respect to large wavelengths.

I cite these because they are interesting and offer a view on the source of inertia. From my own point of view on this matter, I think he is in the right stretch of woods but is not barking up the correct tree. This becomes more apparent where he examines the limit where the central star mass goes to zero and his term still persists in this absence. The tree I favor would still keep the Casimir constraint but abandon vacuum energy, the Haisch idea as well as the Unruh wind. One should remember that the original Casimir derivation had nothing to do with vacuum energy and was only with respect to relativity and retardation effects. An easier derivation that gave the same result as relativity but used vacuum energy instead was performed at a later time.

The question of additional core heat due to resonance absorption may address another issue brought up by Adler in his dual dark matter cascade theory to explain the flyby anomalies mentioned in an earlier post. It is noted that all the planets save one, Uranus, give off an anomalous excess watts/square meter than can be accounted for by solar or internal heat models. Adler proposed that while dark matter particle self destruction is ruled out as this would produce too much heat, the thermal contributions from both the elastic and inelastic dark matter components might account for the excess watts. Uranus is cold then because the collision that severely altered its spin axis orientation knocked the planet clear of its dark matter field much like the ram gas bullet was forced to lag behind the galaxies and dark matter halo of the Bullet Cluster discussed by Clowe et al.

An alternative to this is the purely classical idea of resonance absorption of energy, three orders more efficient than noisy tidal effects alone, to account for the excess watts. The exception of Uranus to this anomaly could have two independent reasons. There could be a coefficient of absorption whose magnitude is a dot product with the spin vector or axis. Since most planets except Uranus have spin vectors roughly normal to the ecliptic the coefficient is closer to unity for them while being quite minimized by the Uranus vector. The other more obvious factor is that the collision was so severe that the Uranus core was significantly altered as regards its internal formants for accepting the energy. As an analogy, when a truck runs over a French Horn and rather flattens the tubing, even though the mouthpiece may be inserted and a (tidal) driving force is applied, the instrument will no longer make a loud resounding tone because the new crushed formants work at cross purposes and forbid any resonance absorption. The Adler theory would then suggest, in contrast to the Anderson formula, that Uranus would exhibit no flyby anomaly even though it has rotation and has a radius since it would have no Dark Matter Particles nearby to provide excess watts. However it is not yet known if there exits a correlation between excess watts/square meter and the flyby anomaly. If such truly exists there still may be a purely classical explanation, however unlikely, for the flyby anomaly if the dual Dark Matter theory is eventually ruled out.

[Jerry]

Very good post Borman. I need to study it more, but this is worth noting:

...
Also note the recent SELENE mapping of negative surface gravity anomalies on the far side of Earth’s moon:

Farside Gravity Field of the Moon from Four-Way Doppler Measurements of SELENE
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...i;323/5916/900
...

The tidally locked moons of Saturn and other planets show leading-trailing compositional anomalies; not 'far side, near side'; so this is somewhat of a paradox. You are also assuming that whatever may be causing the anomalies we are observing at Mercury is not also skewing our observational interpretations of lunar geology.

To whit:
If the proximity of SELENE to the Earth effects the orbital path of the probe for any reason not entered into the orbital calculations, then the reaction of the probe on the near side to gravity fields may be opposite RELAVATIVE TO THE MEASURED CENTER OF MASS of the moon, in fact it should be. To understand why this would be true, assume the Earth is transmitting a mysterious beam that disrupts 'space' increasing the pathlength through space. On the near side of the Moon, Selene travels through space at a slightly slower mean velocity. The probe falls slightly closer to the moon, and compared with the mean orbital velocity this is interpreted as an effect of positive gravity anomalies. On the opposite side the said 'beam' from the Earth is more distant, so the probe moves through its orbit at a slightly faster than the mean rate. This moves the average distance of the prove further from the moon, so the net effect is interpreted as negative gravity anomalies.

How could we differentiate between simple, geological explanations and one involving new physics? Since Mercury is not in Tidal lock, you would not expect the same geological patterns to be observed on Mercury if you average over many orbits, but in a single orbit (or fly-by), whether the effect is interpreted as a positive or negative anomally would depend upon whether the pass was primarily on the solar side, or the side opposite. Since the two Mercury passes appear to have produced opposite anomalies, were the passes indeed (primarily) from opposite sides of the planet, relative to the sun?

[borman]

"What is the next step?"

Unsure how to proceed without violating the rules of the board.

Perhaps, prior to stating what I think might be happening, it would be better to first present the various references that have lead to the major and minor Eureka moments that inform the basis of my present view. Not everyone will agree that the links from the papers need suggest the view. The view is only suggestive and so far only at a descriptive stage rather than quantitative. It is only at a "half-baked" stage. But most of these references have been accepted by peer-review journals.

Would this be permitted?

[tusenfem]

"What is the next step?"

Unsure how to proceed without violating the rules of the board.

Perhaps, prior to stating what I think might be happening, it would be better to first present the various references that have lead to the major and minor Eureka moments that inform the basis of my present view. Not everyone will agree that the links from the papers need suggest the view. The view is only suggestive and so far only at a descriptive stage rather than quantitative. It is only at a "half-baked" stage. But most of these references have been accepted by peer-review journals.

Would this be permitted?

If you want to present an alternative view of what might cause the Pioneer anomaly, you are always welcome to start a thread in the ATM section. I think it is a bit difficult with what you call "the view" which seems to be your interpretation of stuff that has been published in peer-reviewed papers. Therefore, I think it would be best to do your further investigations in ATM, however, I would most surely advise to come up with at least some quantitative estimates of the mechanism that purports to your view.

[borman]

If you want to present an alternative view of what might cause the Pioneer anomaly, you are always welcome to start a thread in the ATM section. I think it is a bit difficult with what you call "the view" which seems to be your interpretation of stuff that has been published in peer-reviewed papers. Therefore, I think it would be best to do your further investigations in ATM, however, I would most surely advise to come up with at least some quantitative estimates of the mechanism that purports to your view.

While there may be a number of threads in the ATM section that belong there because there is a mainstream theory, the deciding criteria of inclusion is whether there is a mainstream theory in the first place to be against.

So far no one has presented anything resembling a mainstream theory describing the flyby anomalies either here or elsewhere that I am aware of. The number and variety of theories I have cited by others attests to the absence of a mainstream theory. With due respect to these authors, what they have offered is just a theory that can neither be mainstream or ATM. There is simply no mainstream theory to guage against whether a particular theory is more mainstream or more ATM. There is no basis for comparison.

The burden upon the board, then is to either present THE mainstream theory that can give a satisfactory explanation of these observations and present references or open a new forum, presumeably still in "the proving grounds" for theories for observations for which there does not yet exist a mainstream theory. Another option is permit discussion in the present thread as it deals with these observations.

In case anyone was curious, the lead authors I had intended to cite were Clowe, Jee, and especially Mahdavi.

[Jerry]

While there may be a number of threads in the ATM section that belong there because there is a mainstream theory, the deciding criteria of inclusion is whether there is a mainstream theory in the first place to be against.

This is the primary problem, not as much with this forum, as with the entire mainstream approach to science. The 'peer review' process almost demands that papers be consistent with the existing body of physics - that is, tracable to first principles.

There is a glaring exception granted to well-established, funded, researchers who whittle the evidence down to the fewest possible new parameters AND gain a popular consensus within the astrophysical community. It is ironic that the rapid acceptance of 'dark energy' is cited as evidence that the MS thought process is evolving and willing to accept new ideas. It is exactly the opposite: The proponents of 'dark energy' were very quick to tie the 'dark energy' concept to the coat tails of Albert Einstein, even though he called the cosmological constant his biggest blunder. This is conservation of established opinions, not critical thinking.

The evidence we have today of 'bad gravity' near Mercury is many times more compelling evidence of an unphysical anomally than the hundreds of papers publish this century in support of 'dark energy'. Carefully monitored probes in our own solar system that are not moving 'according to Hoyle' are better evidence something is systemically wrong than every distant supernovae event, and every CMB observation. We can't solve problems at the cosmic horizon when we don't understand what is happening in our own house.

[borman]

I get a different feel that even more speculative papers are being accepted for publication now than in the past. Take the Anderson paper about which this thread is based. They are allowed to present their experimental evidence whether or not it makes sense from the perspective of presently understood laws. They have used fully relativistic models and have measured the magnitude of the signals to be many orders of magnitude beyond the predictions of GR and yets still show a good signal to noise ratio. They were even permitted to present a fitting empirical equation that captures the flyby anomaly data even though, as simple as the exterior appears, it is not derived from known physics.

The same journal also has been publishing ideas in development by the scientist who now heads the Fermi lab that is looking at a holographic approach to physics.

I think that the conservatism you mention might be due the observation that in general the more unusual an idea is, the more likely it will be wrong. This is not always the case as the example of the notion of simultaneous signals had to be forfeited to accept Special Relativity.

As regards gravity at Mercury behaving badly, I don't really see a problem yet with the cm DeltaV scale, up and down, being associated with mascons. When monitored after orbital insertion, the mascons should become better mapped in accordance with the suggestions of the MESSENGER team; that would be my guess.

What is troubling is the large size of 6mm residual in the context of the empirical Anderson formula. My earlier comments about a core that may not librate as the surface are unlikely to improve the situation enough to account for the difference. A solar contribution to the residual may be where to look. The experimental evidence comes by noting the parity violation discovered by Tajmar when experiments were performed in South America as contrasted to results from Austria. The experimental data seems to "know" within which Earth hemisphere the experiment is being performed. So while the Tajmar experiments seem a small lab scale version, but highly magnified, of the flyby anomaly, the experiment is still sensitive to the "classical" large Earth scale flyby anomaly even though it is four orders weaker. Perhaps a solar flyby anomaly also impacts upon the residual from the Mercury flyby in the same way in order to augment its value up to the observed 6mm.

[borman]

Adler presents a short overview and update on his hypothesis regarding Dark Matter as the source of the flyby anomaly:

Solar System Dark Matter
Abstract: http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.4879

In the article he outlines four approaches to the problem

One is an artifact but so far all the possibilities so far have not turned up any suspects. Another is electromagnetic, but an effect this large would have been discovered already.

A third is the possibility of new gravitational physics, but most of the metric theories can’t get an effect this big. He does mention non-metric theories as a possible avenue for investigation and cites both McCullogh and Gerrard and Sumner which also have been cited earlier in this thread.

The fourth possibility is a Dark Matter Particle approach that he is researching.

[captain swoop]

This is the primary problem, not as much with this forum, as with the entire mainstream approach to science. The 'peer review' process almost demands that papers be consistent with the existing body of physics - that is, tracable to first principles.

There is a glaring exception granted to well-established, funded, researchers who whittle the evidence down to the fewest possible new parameters AND gain a popular consensus within the astrophysical community. It is ironic that the rapid acceptance of 'dark energy' is cited as evidence that the MS thought process is evolving and willing to accept new ideas. It is exactly the opposite: The proponents of 'dark energy' were very quick to tie the 'dark energy' concept to the coat tails of Albert Einstein, even though he called the cosmological constant his biggest blunder. This is conservation of established opinions, not critical thinking.

The evidence we have today of 'bad gravity' near Mercury is many times more compelling evidence of an unphysical anomally than the hundreds of papers publish this century in support of 'dark energy'. Carefully monitored probes in our own solar system that are not moving 'according to Hoyle' are better evidence something is systemically wrong than every distant supernovae event, and every CMB observation. We can't solve problems at the cosmic horizon when we don't understand what is happening in our own house.

Jerry, this is not the place to promote your ATM theory. Please desits.

[Jerry]

As regards gravity at Mercury behaving badly, I don't really see a problem yet with the cm DeltaV scale, up and down, being associated with mascons. When monitored after orbital insertion, the mascons should become better mapped in accordance with the suggestions of the MESSENGER team; that would be my guess.

Ref: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/1802.pdf

If I understand the process correctly, this was a three step process: 1) They had to discard the mass calculated from the Mariner 10 flyby. 2) They assumed a virtually spherical shape, with no concentration of mass near the equator. 3) They assumed rather dense mascons both above and below but not at or very near the equator.

On the first flyby the spacecraft was occulted from Earth for
approximately 47 minutes, during which time tracking data were unobtainable. The velocity perturbation on flyby 2 was unexpectedly much larger than for flyby 1. Both ground tracks were slightly south of the equator and on opposite sides of the planet and should be
equally sensitive to the equatorial ellipticity and equally insensitive to the polar flattening.
Estimating new values for GM (the product of the gravitational constant and mass of Mercury) and the low-degree gravity field in a combined two- MESSENGER-flyby solution reduced the residual Doppler near closest approach from 4.3 to 2.1 cm/s on
flyby 1 and from 14.1 to 2.9 cm/s on flyby 2...
Increasing the number of gravity coefficients reduced the magnitude of the residual patterns, but the value of the flattening became negative, implying a prolate mass distribution, which is implausible...We also estimated 10° x 10° block gravity anomalies along the ground tracks [2]. In individual flyby solutions, the addition of six gravity anomalies for flyby 1 decreased the residual pattern to 3 mm/s with acceptable values for GM and the degree 2 gravity coefficients. But for flyby 2, the addition of eight anomalies reduced the residual pattern to only 6 mm/s, the gravitational flattening went negative, and some of the correlations between the parameters exceeded 0.9.

The article does not provide important details: What is the new mass, and does it fall within prior constraints? A planet the size and age of Mercury that is rotating about the equator should have an equatorial bulge. Is it consistent with known geophysics to assume mascons, but not a bulge? If the mascons are similar to those of the moon, there is an essential assumption that these heavy concentrations percolated from a liquid mantle. Again, this would in any likely planet formation scenario lead to an equatorial bulge.

[borman]

Is there more than one coefficient of inertia?

Perhaps they will write a more extensive paper. These are actually extended abstracts rather than full articles. Sometimes one does not get all the data one would like because authors were concerned with some data while not considering other data relevant at the time. Recall that the Anderson paper was published at a very close time to the MESSENGER teams original announcement of apparent surprises from the first flyby. It is possible they were quite unaware of Anderson's empirical formula and did not consider whether the equation might be relevant for discussing any residual that might still be left over after correcting for mascons. Perhaps they will present an explicit use of the Anderson equation in a footnote to test whether it could be within an order of magnitude of explaining any leftover residual. It is possible they have the values for the variables that need to be plugged into the equation to test it.

Regarding a bulge, remember that Mercury does not rotate as fast as Earth. A greater concern might be solid tides due to the sun that may help constrain how much of the core might still remain liquid. The presence of the magnetic field seems to support the idea that some portion of the core or mantle is still liquid.

One of the ideas to be taken from figure 1 is that, while there is a dip or rise due to potential mascons, there is the reutrn to the 0 level in both cases. What we observe in the flybys of some spacecraft around Earth as depicted by the Anderson formula is that at the mm/sec level there is not a return to the 0 level. The before and after do not match up. This is observed not only in the Dopplers, but the ranging values as well.

Try as one may, it has not been possible yet to explain the anomaly as an effect of "gravity" misbehaving. Such "misbehavior" would be manifest in many other settings and this is not generally observed where it should be if it "misbehaves" in a universal manner. Meanwhile we have a good theory for gravity in Einstein's GR theory that has been tested by Cassini to 11 decimals while there are future experiments that push the test to 16 decimals of accuracy.

There are a variety of theories that explore the possible straying from the Einstein theory that might explain the anomaly and still try to remain within the present observational agreements of GR. Like TeVeS, MOND, MOG, DGP,string theory, and other theories, there is at some point a departure from from the predictions of GR which they are forced to make. But as GR keeps passing tests at higher and higher decimal accuracy, these theories will face elimination. When facing an anomaly as large as the Pioneer Anomaly (10^-10) or the much larger flyby anomaly (10^-4), as pressed by the ever greater success of GR to higher decimals, the likelyhood that any of these theories can address the anomalies becomes progressively more remote.

Furthermore, the idea of modified inertia falls into the same trap as modified gravity theories. The idea that there is only one gravity and it has to suffer modifications to explain the anomalies is pressed out of consideration by ever more accurate tests including the Eotvos tests. That there is only one universal inertia that needs to be modified to explain the anomalies eventually runs into the same problems that the modified gravity theory although one may be able to go further with modified intertia than with modified gravity as regards the flyby anomaly before encountering the problems that GR seems to pass.

At least the avenue that I find of present interest is not to consider the modification of one gravity or the modification of one inertia, but rather to consider that there may be more than one coefficient of inertia in play at one time. We already have quite a number of possible observations that suggest this. At high pressure and low temperatures we observe the NCRI of supersolid helium. At the astronimcal scale so far all examples of multiband observations of galaxy cluster interactions where the bands are x-ray, optical, and weak lensing show a violation of the typical "conspiracy" between baryonic and the Dark Matter Effect. What one sees here is not an example of gravity behaving badly, but examples of the Dark Matter Effect behaving badly. This may not make too much sense if one persists in assuming that as yet undiscovered particles are responsible for the Effect but are positioned just so in order to use the GR theory to describe their effect. A hallmark of the Dark Matter effect is its apparent inverse linear appearance. But the GR equations in the weak field limit approach the Newtonian inverse squared law. One has to invoke large halo distributions to attmept as resolution between observation and GR. But this presupposes that there is only one coefficient of inertia. Yes, this idea also has "baggage" that accompanies it like the other theories. But it has the virtue of not trying to alter GR and permitting it to remain the best theory for normal gravity.

[Jerry]

...

Try as one may, it has not been possible yet to explain the anomaly as an effect of "gravity" misbehaving. Such "misbehavior" would be manifest in many other settings and this is not generally observed where it should be if it "misbehaves" in a universal manner. Meanwhile we have a good theory for gravity in Einstein's GR theory that has been tested by Cassini to 11 decimals while there are future experiments that push the test to 16 decimals of accuracy.

I'm not sure this is true - an Anderson paper elaborating on this Cassini GR test was withdrawn shortly after it was posted in archives ~2005. I haven't found any explanations as to why.

[borman]

I'm not sure this is true - an Anderson paper elaborating on this Cassini GR test was withdrawn shortly after it was posted in archives ~2005. I haven't found any explanations as to why.

The reference I was using was Turyshev:
Experimental Tests of General Relativity: Recent Progress and Future Directions
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3730

Another “White Paper” by Turyshev et al is also of relevant interest:

Opportunities for Probing Fundamental Gravity with Solar System Experiments
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3004

[Kwalish Kid]

While there may be a number of threads in the ATM section that belong there because there is a mainstream theory, the deciding criteria of inclusion is whether there is a mainstream theory in the first place to be against.

So far no one has presented anything resembling a mainstream theory describing the flyby anomalies either here or elsewhere that I am aware of. The number and variety of theories I have cited by others attests to the absence of a mainstream theory. With due respect to these authors, what they have offered is just a theory that can neither be mainstream or ATM. There is simply no mainstream theory to guage against whether a particular theory is more mainstream or more ATM. There is no basis for comparison.

The burden upon the board, then is to either present THE mainstream theory that can give a satisfactory explanation of these observations and present references or open a new forum, presumeably still in "the proving grounds" for theories for observations for which there does not yet exist a mainstream theory. Another option is permit discussion in the present thread as it deals with these observations.

In case anyone was curious, the lead authors I had intended to cite were Clowe, Jee, and especially Mahdavi.

This is, frankly, a pathological view of science. Simply because there is no explanation for a given phenomenon does not mean that we should be willing to freely entertain any hypothesis that purports to explain the phenomenon, especially when these hypothesis may have significant influence on other aspects of physics. In the absence of a mainstream theory, all theories are abberant.