Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tensor
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
I hate to keep beating on the same drum, but the accelerations of the Pioneer probes, taken at face value, indicate that you are wrong - exactly wrong! Our most careful, precise measurements do not agree with the theory.
|
Jerry, I'll ask for the fourth time: Where is your evidence that the other 6 or 7 possible reasons for the Pioneer anomaly have been definitely shown not to be the cause? Not possibly, definitely. You constantly ask us to believe your ideas based on if this or if that. Well, what if one of those other possble causes are the cause of the anamoly? |
Nothing is definite. This is especially true if I have proposed it.
John Anderson has been very active in investigating possible causes - He updated his basic paper on ths subject March 10 of this year, again concluding:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anderson
Much effort has been expended looking for possible systemic origins of the residuals, but none has been found.
|
|
Where exactly did you see that in the conclusion? You obviously missed this quote from the conclusion of the paper:
Quote:
|
Until more is known, we must admit that the most likely cause of this effect is an unknown systematic. (We ourselves are divided as to whether “gas leaks” or “heat” is this “most likely cause.”)
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Here are some other recent references:
|
From the above paper:
Quote:
|
In conclusion, there are two main possible explanations of the origins for the detected anomalous acceleration. The first is on-board generated systematics. Dispassionately, this is the most likely cause of the anomaly, but until now the smoking gun still had not been found. The second possible origin is new physics.
|
What I find interesting is the major part of the paper is how to reduce the effects of the possible systematic effects and nothing about the new physics possibilities.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
|
Again from the conclusion of the above paper:
Quote:
To further quote from ourselves,1 “... we anticipate that, given our
Search for a Standard Explanation of the Pioneer Anomaly analysis of the Pioneers, in the future precision orbital analysis may concentrate more on systematics.”
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
|
From the paper:
Quote:
If, as is probably the case, the anomaly is due to some systematic,
understanding this will greatly aid future mission design and navigational programs.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
|
Ok, this
possibly eliminates one of the proposed mechanisms.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
|
Ahhhh, Jerry, you do realize that this paper is an almost exact copy of the first paper, by three of the same authors, submitted about 2 years after the first paper? And it’s conclusions are almost identical.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
|
Gee Jerry, This isn’t an extremely good reference for you, if you’re trying to show GR to be wrong.
A couple of quotes from the conclusion of that paper:
Quote:
We find that general relativity has held up under extensive experimental
scrutiny.
...
Although it is remarkable that this theory, born 80 years ago
out of almost pure thought, has managed to survive every test,
|
Do you even read these papers before you bring them up for references to support your ideas?
And for Lunatik, who thinks the mainsteam continues to accept and use GR blindly without testing it another quote from that paper:
Quote:
The question then arises, why bother to continue to test it? One
reason is that gravity is a fundamental interaction of nature, and as such
requires the most solid empirical underpinning we can provide.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
While I was looking, I came across this:
Quote:
Improved Test of General Relativity with Radio Doppler Data from the Cassini Spacecraft
Authors: John D. Anderson, Eunice L. Lau, Giacomo Giampieri
Comments: This paper has been withdrawn
This paper was withdrawn at the recommendation of the Cassini Radio Science Team.
|
I would love to know the story behind that! |
Yeah, that would be interesting.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
The Pioneer Navigation is not my primary motivation: I reject the Big Bang because critical analysis of the supernova light curves does not demonstrate the expansion necessary to support time dilation. Since this is fundamental to every aspect of cosmology, a basic premise must be incorrect.
|
I have no problem with your previous objections to the supernova light curves. There you were making some coherent objections. But, your foray into trying into attempting to show gravity wrong, using the Cassini probe, are extremely convoluted and are explained much more simply by unknowns within Titan’s atmosphere.