No, I placed a negative coefficent in the second derivative. This is completely consistent with the acceleration of the Pioneer probes towards the sun.

Come on! We all know the orbits of the planets are too circular to explain with simple capture scenarios and there is too much evection to explain orbital mechanics with simple condensation models. The mechanics of the solar system are up in the air.
Thanks Demigog, Tailiak and Elias. Kurcharek’s comments are very useful:
If what you say is true, this is a major/minor hole in my theory. Do you know what navigational parameters they used to calculate the trajectory? Ammunition makers have equations that model ballistic properties - these models are not based upon theory, but mostly upon empirical results. I have data that suggests that Voyager II had to conduct an automated unplanned burn to keep from falling into Saturn. Are we throwing in correction factors that are based upon prior missions? Is the correction for the solar wind over or understated?

What about the pass near Jupiter, and other encounters? I am looking very, very subtle but consistant variations.
I found this about Pheobe:
I don't know who the “Stanford.edu” group is, but they seem to be saying Doppler shifts during the Pheobe fly-by were too great, and the rotation of Pheobe was off as well. This is exactly what I hypothesized caused the 1% discrepancy in Saturn’s rotation during Voyager II’s fly-by.
Notice that the possible causes for the Pheobe anomally are completely different form the possible causes cited for the Voyager Saturn anomally. They can both be explained as unexpected variations in acceleration.

Can anyone shed any light on this? Is this Stanford of California, Connecticut, or Kansas?
I hope so - I hope a 300% greater g force than anticipated is ok.
Not a change in mass, a change in the ‘momental capacity’ of the spacecraft. We are used to Newton’s idea that momentum is inherent in the mass of an object and independent of the mass of nearby objects. I am hypothesizing that a quantity of electro-gravitational) field strength is necessary to sustain momentum. If the field strength is not strong enough to support the object in motion, the path the object follows changes coarse, and energy is conserved by either rotating or by radiating the excess kinetic energy - the greater the momentum, the higher the frequency of the radiation.

I think all momentum in a gravitational system is governed by the total mass, not just the mass of the object in motion. Look what is happening at the edges of galaxies: The stars have too much momentum, they should be flying farther out from the gravitational center. There are two well known theories that explain this, MOND and Dark Matter. Neither of them work all the time. I am hypothesizing that stars near the edges of galaxies do not follow the path that their inertial energy dictates because there is not a ‘strong’ enough 'electro-gravitational' path near the edges of galaxies to follow. So they stay in lower orbits, radiating the difference in energy between the orbital velocity as predicted by Newton and the observed angular momentum. This is why galaxies are radio loud. This is also why jets emitted from galactic cores stay collimated for such great lengths.

For a more local example: assume Neptune was captured by the Sun into what started as a highly elliptical orbit elliptical orbit. But when Neptune tried to use the momentum it picked up accelerating toward the sun to return to in a highly eliptical orbit like a comet, it was only able to 'climb' into the orbit it is now in. This is where it ran out of the supportive 'electro-gravitational' field strength necessary to sustain momentum away from the solar system. The slight differential in the field effects converted some of the inertia energy of Neptune into rotational momentum, settling the planet into a nearly round orbit.

The remaining rotational energy is slowly being radiated away as thermal energy. This would explain why Neptune radiates 2.7 times more radiant energy than it receives, and why my prediction for Neptune’s density (5.765g/cc) is so much higher than the other planets (4.47g/cc). It also explains the quirky observation that the rotational velocity of planets is proportional to the amount of excess radiation they give off, as Lunatik has pointed out. (It could even explain why Neptune is an exception to Bodes’ law: Neptune could be a recent acquisition.) Spooky, huh?

Papageno says I don’t have any evidence, when in fact I have supplied him with many observations that are consistent with this concept, such and the examples above, but also including:

The Tully-Fisher relationship: There is a relationship between the rotational velocity and the luminosity of Galaxies of similar types over a range of ~7 magnitudes - that is a factor of 600! Tully-Fisher can be explained a predictable relationship between the mass distribution and kinetic energy of each morphological type of galaxy. The kinetics at the edges of the galaxy are completely dictated by the total mass of the system.

The same thing happens with supernova: In the plane of the galaxy they can expand very rapidly, but they cannot expand nearly so quickly perpendicular to the plane of the host galaxy. The parts of the star accellerated in these directions are stopped in their tracks and emit an extremely powerful cosmic ray that last for a few minutes to hours after the explosion. This is why there is a "knee" in the cosmic ray light curve, and this explains why elliptica rings form in supernova debris that emit gamma rays whenever new matter from the core explosion reaches the ring. It explains why the Crab nebula quit expanding so soon, and why it still emits x-ray flashes.

But even if the hypothesis is wrong, when I find that a simple log/log plot reveals that Venus, Mars and Pluto, and more than a half dozen moons of the gas giants have the same density within 1% - Something systemic is involved. I would not make the numbers that close if I were making up the data, and what theory I have is based upon supernova and cosmic observations, not sitting around rolling the planetary dice until something odd popped out. This was my first roll.

The ESA (European Space Agency) seems to be very puzzled by it:

I am hypothesizing that since they underestimated the gravitational pull on Voyager during its closest pass, they miss-judged the amount of space Voyager traveled during one orbit of Saturn. If the magnetic forces are playing havoc with the radio waves from the surface, we should have the same problem using radar to fix the rotations of Jupiter, Uranus and the Sun.

How an object so light can withstand the crushing forces encountered in its elliptical orbit. The shear rate upon the inner moon is enormous, especially since the rotation is slightly out of sinc with the orbit.

What evidence is there that is was a nitrogen volcano, and not just a normal molten lave type?
[/quote]

Every single time NASA uses a systemic explanation for what I think should be a gravitational failure, I must have a reasonable argument against NASA’s determination. Has NASA seen pictures that show a crash landing? What else do we know?

In the Global Surveyor mission, that we are told failed because of a metric/Texan unit conversion error, when you read the details that is not precisely what happened, the radar imaging data told the navigators the Surveyor was coming in hot, so hot they assumed that there must be an error in the radar data, so they ignored it and went instead with the estimates from acceleration calculations – estimates that we now know were off by a conversion error. But the reason the probe accelerated toward Mars at a higher than expected acceleration was explained as a “difference in the orientation of the solar panels”.

Current theory says Neptune is made up of mostly water, while the Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Pluto systems are made up mostly of lighter gases. In a condensation scenario for the solar system, the inner planets consist of higher density material and the outer planets of material of decreasing density. Water is more dense than the hydrogen and helium saturn and jupiter are suppose to be made out of. Why isn't the orbit of Neptune inside the orbit of jupiter? Until we can explain this, and why Neptune emits 2.7 x as much radiation as it receives, until we can explain how a planet made out of water generates a relatively strong magnetic field, we don’t have a workable model of the solar system.

You are probably correct, but I can’t buy into the densities measured for the moons of Uranus and Neptune.

Huygen may have enough parachute braking to survive. If there is a big discrepancy between the predicted acceleration and the observed acceleration, don’t automatically chalk it up to instrumental error or partial deployment of the parachute.

Pioneer 10 & 11 gave us a definitive test of Newtonian gravity, and Newtonian gravity failed the test. It is that simple.

And we all wonder what happens next.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?