NASA Baffled by Unexplained Force Acting on Space Probes - Page 13

borman · #**361** (**permalink**) 11-August-2009, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borman

A possible role for the flyby anomaly to interpret the Milagro results

The main text can be found on the arxiv at:

Discovery of Localized Regions of Excess 10-TeV Cosmic Rays
Abstract: http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.3827

A significant energy boost or increase in Delta V of the cosmic ray particles is needed to offset the sources of energy drain if these bumps are coming from a distance. From Figure 1, one sees region (A) extending from -15 to -30 degrees below the galactic plane while region (B) extends from about 27 to about 45 degrees above the galactic plane.

From the empirical Anderson formula for the flyby anomaly, one can see that the proportional Delta V increase in the hyperbolic velocity is directly proportional to the product of the angular velocity of the planet times the radius divided by the speed of light where the effect is maximized by having test bodies enter along the equator and leave along a pole according to the difference in cosines of geocentric declinations.

For Earth’s radius and rate of rotation the amount maximizes to only a few parts per million.

To get a more significant boost either the rotation or radius needs to be increased and only those test bodies that went from 0 degrees to + or - 90 degrees would benefit from the potential boost.

An extreme astrophysical environment that may satisfy the energy boost requirements involves a binary system where the cosmic ray source is a pulsar whose spin axis is pointed at a very rapidly spinning black hole partner. While the black hole radius is likely to be smaller than the Earth radius, it is possible for the rotation to be measured in milliseconds. There will be a contribution due to a General Relativity frame dragging or Lense-Thirring effect. But the flyby anomaly is many orders of magnitude greater than the GR effect. It is an open question whether the flyby anomaly still behaves the same way in the strong field as it appears to behave in the weak field.

Because of the fast spinning of the black hole, the anomaly can then be between one and two orders of magnitude increase in the Delta V rather than the parts per millions seen for Earth. But the boost will only be to those cosmic rays that head out on a polar trajectory from the equator.

From the Milagro results, this suggests that the plane of the binary is only slightly inclined to the galactic plane and lies only slightly above the plane to be the source for both regions (A) and (B). This assumes that the galactic magnetic field can bend the paths of the cosmic rays to where some of them intersect the upper atmosphere to initiate the excess cascades monitored by Milagro.

Geminga and MILAGRO observations linked to cosmic rays

From Physicsworld:

EXCESS POSITRONS LINKED TO GEMINGA PULSAR
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40065

Whether magnetic fields alone can account for the compactness of regions (A) and (B) in the MILAGRO observations can render the "charge blind" gravitational lensing hypothesis superfluous whether by flyby anomaly or rogue black hole focusing. If one hypothesis alone can resolve the problems of focus (magnetic), there is no need to introduce additional lenses (gravitational or inertial).

gfellow · #**362** (**permalink**) 06-November-2009, 09:17 PM

A somewhat heuristic submission, but I came across this "Extended Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment."
Barring errors in the experimental parameters, could it relate to the unexplained force?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E

borman · #**363** (**permalink**) 07-November-2009, 12:55 AM

I don't think so. The gravitational assist can be positive or negative and a great deal of velocity can be gained or lost using Gravitational assists. But the flyby anomaly does not correlate with the sign of the assist. The little bit extra velocity gained or lost via the flyby anomaly is independent of whether the greater velocity from the assist was either positive or negative. The determining factor for the anomaly seems to be whether the assist took the craft from the pole towards the equator or from the equator towards the pole. It does not matter whether there was a net large gain or loss due to gravity assist.

borman · #**364** (**permalink**) 07-November-2009, 01:01 AM

Also of note is Rosetta's third gravity assist by Earth in the next few days. The 1 millimeter prediction for the last assist was not bourne out by observation. But the distance from Earth was great and there may be a depth parameter lurking in the data. The new closest approach is more intermediate in distance between the first and second flybys so it may be possible to check for a depth parameter depending, of course, on whether the cosine function does not minimize the effect.

01101001 · #**365** (**permalink**) 07-November-2009, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gfellow

A somewhat heuristic submission, but I came across this "Extended Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment."
Barring errors in the experimental parameters, could it relate to the unexplained force?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E

Would have been nice if you had described what you were recommending.

So, I'll do it.

It's a many-minute video of an amateur interferometer on a rotating platform, in two contrasting scenarios. In one the platform spins horizontally and the force of Earth gravity is always normal to the path of the light beams. In the other, the platform spins vertically, and the force of gravity is sometimes parallel to the beams (and their non-rigid support) and sometimes across the beams. In the second scenario the interference fringes appear to remain the same width apart, but drift slightly, in a way I would expect to be highly correlated with the stretching and compression of the frame.

It may not be worth your nickel.

Jerry · #**366** (**permalink**) 07-November-2009, 06:18 PM

No surprise; M&M woulf hsve found the same effect if they had pointed their interferometer straight down. It is a a well-known result that is accounted for in General Relativity, but it should not be inferred that GR is the only plausible explanation.

jimmarsen · #**367** (**permalink**) 08-November-2009, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 01101001

Quote:

Originally Posted by gfellow

A somewhat heuristic submission, but I came across this "Extended Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment."
Barring errors in the experimental parameters, could it relate to the unexplained force?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E

Would have been nice if you had described what you were recommending.

So, I'll do it.

It's a many-minute video of an amateur interferometer on a rotating platform, in two contrasting scenarios. In one the platform spins horizontally and the force of Earth gravity is always normal to the path of the light beams. In the other, the platform spins vertically, and the force of gravity is sometimes parallel to the beams (and their non-rigid support) and sometimes across the beams. In the second scenario the interference fringes appear to remain the same width apart, but drift slightly, in a way I would expect to be highly correlated with the stretching and compression of the frame.

It may not be worth your nickel.

Yes, I believe this experiment has a simple explanation.

The fringes shift because the mirrors are pulled alternately toward and away from the center beam splitter by gravity.

Neither mirror is rigidly attached to the base; both have vernier adjusters.

If both mirrors are affected equally by gravity they will move 90 degrees out of phase of each other so the fringes will shift according to

sin(a) + cos(a)

a is the angle of the exit beam with respect to vertical as the experimental apparatus is rotated around a horizontal axis. a=0 when the exit beam is pointing toward the floor.

The maximum and minimum of sin(a)+cos(a) occur at a = 45 and 225 degrees respectively. This is where the maximum and minimum fringe shifts are observed in the video.

gfellow · #**368** (**permalink**) 08-November-2009, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 01101001

he second scenario the interference fringes appear to remain the same width apart, but drift slightly, in a way I would expect to be highly correlated with the stretching and compression of the frame.

I thought so too and expressed the same on the video site - I have a soft spot for alchemic garage experimenters. But ashes and sack-cloth to you, it was careless not to have re-posted a summery of the experiment with my comment. Upon reflection, perhaps my ulterior motive was to tweak the brains of the forum to see if anyone had further thoughts on the topic of the original thread.

gfellow · #**369** (**permalink**) 08-November-2009, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borman

The determining factor for the anomaly seems to be whether the assist took the craft from the pole towards the equator or from the equator towards the pole. It does not matter whether there was a net large gain or loss due to gravity assist.

Could some kind of Coriolis effect be dismissed? I'm almost sure this has already been considered.

borman · #**370** (**permalink**) 08-November-2009, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gfellow

Could some kind of Coriolis effect be dismissed? I'm almost sure this has already been considered.

Earlier in this thread, the Sumner and Gerard paper discussed this force with the addition of a fifth spatial dimension. The application to the Pioneer Anomaly however predicts a value that does not remain constant as per observation.

EARTH FLYBY AND PIONEER ANOMALIES

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...807.3158v2.pdf

coliver · #**371** (**permalink**) 09-November-2009, 06:34 AM

Were they all moving toward the sun? Toward the light? This fits well with my ATM theory of a Luminiferous Aether. A small portion of velocity is added to the ships trajectory as it moves toward light. Just an idea?

Jens · #**372** (**permalink**) 09-November-2009, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coliver

Were they all moving toward the sun? Toward the light? This fits well with my ATM theory of a Luminiferous Aether. A small portion of velocity is added to the ships trajectory as it moves toward light. Just an idea?

It only happens when they get close to the planetary bodies. If your theory were correct, they would experience the anomaly during the whole trajectory. It wouldn't only happen during flybys.

coliver · #**373** (**permalink**) 09-November-2009, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Newton, faced in May 1686 with Hooke's claim on the inverse square law, denied that Hooke was to be credited as author of the idea, giving reasons. Among these, Newton recalled that the idea had been known to and discussed with Sir Christopher Wren previous to Hooke's 1679 letter.[11]. Newton also pointed out and acknowledged prior work of others,[12] including Bullialdus,[13] (who suggested, but without demonstration, that there was an attractive force from the Sun in the inverse square proportion to the distance.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_gravity

Jens · #**374** (**permalink**) 09-November-2009, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coliver

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_gravity

Did you post this in the wrong thread by mistake? I don't see how it is relevant to the issue of the flyby anomaly.

coliver · #**375** (**permalink**) 09-November-2009, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens

Did you post this in the wrong thread by mistake? I don't see how it is relevant to the issue of the flyby anomaly.

No, it just seemed since the effect is only apparent when they encounter planetary mass that some gravitational effect might be the culprit? I was just pointing to a Newtonian Gravity idea that was discussed concerning a possible attraction by the sun?

Jens · #**376** (**permalink**) 09-November-2009, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coliver

No, it just seemed since the effect is only apparent when they encounter planetary mass that some gravitational effect might be the culprit? I was just pointing to a Newtonian Gravity idea that was discussed concerning a possible attraction by the sun?

But that's about ancient history. It's just talking about the fact that Newton (and others) thought that gravity was an inverse-square law, which it basically is. It has nothing to do with any anomaly.

coliver · #**377** (**permalink**) 09-November-2009, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens

But that's about ancient history. It's just talking about the fact that Newton (and others) thought that gravity was an inverse-square law, which it basically is. It has nothing to do with any anomaly.

Oh, my mistake..

I just noticed it while reading about Newtonian Gravity and thought it might be relevant. If my ATM theories are correct the anomalies could be perhaps related to the magnetic fields encountered by the craft when moving into areas of mass as opposed to space , void of substantial matter? I was just trying to avoid posting anything too controversial..

The idea is that galaxies are created by long GRBs in voids, generating magnetic fields, within the aether that actually holds the planets in orbit, rather than gravity. I was just thinking that and/or the additional velocity from the aether idea might have something to do with it.

tusenfem · #**378** (**permalink**) 09-November-2009, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coliver

Oh, my mistake..

I just noticed it while reading about Newtonian Gravity and thought it might be relevant. If my ATM theories are correct the anomalies could be perhaps related to the magnetic fields encountered by the craft when moving into areas of mass as opposed to space , void of substantial matter? I was just trying to avoid posting anything too controversial..

The idea is that galaxies are created by long GRBs in voids, generating magnetic fields, within the aether that actually holds the planets in orbit, rather than gravity. I was just thinking that and/or the additional velocity from the aether idea might have something to do with it.

Please keep this nonsense in your own ATM thread.

borman · #**379** (**permalink**) 11-November-2009, 12:41 AM

The Anderson et al team makes a prediction of 1.1 mm/sec anomaly with Rosetta. While there is now thought to be a depth parameter, it is not clear from the press article whether this value uses a new formula that includes the depth parameter or if it only uses the older formula used to make the previous Rosetta prediction that was not borne out by observation. In any event, it appears the cosine function will not completely minimize a value that can be measured. It is unknown whether Rosetta will be monitored throughout the path before and after closest approach to discover how quickly the anomaly rises to its terminal value.

Will probe's upcoming fly-by unlock exotic physics?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...c-physics.html

borman · #**380** (**permalink**) 11-November-2009, 03:50 AM

From graphs of the expected path, it appears Rosetta will pass over Australia, head north to Closest Approach near Java and head out a bit north of the Equator. So the 1.1 mm/sec should likely be negative leading to the impression that Rosetta very slightly increased in mass as a result of the flyby.

Regarding the question of how the anomaly can be so "smart" to "know" to have a net energy transfer during hyperbolic orbits but not bound eccentric orbits or else eccentric GPS craft would drift further away with each orbit may be due the fact that hyperbolic flybys only have a perigee and no apogee while closed orbits have both.

If conservation laws apply here in this particular Rosetta flyby, then Earth loses a very tiny amount of mass comparable to Rosetta's gain.

More dramatic exchanges likely occur between galaxies within a cluster where halo truncation of smaller sattelite galaxies contribute to the larger central BCG area to increase its lensing mass. Within the LCDM paradigm, the explanation is tidal stripping of Halo Dark Matter Particles by the interior massive halos.

Applying this LCDM interpretation is slightly different from Adler's two Dark Matter fluid that has both elastic and inelastic particles that produce heat in the craft upon crossing various densities of the fluids. Here is just a simpler LCDM notion that polar to equatorial paths steal Dark Matter Particles or Effect from Earth and the craft loses its Dark Matter Particles or Effect to the Earth when transiting from the equator towards the pole.

dgavin · #**381** (**permalink**) 11-November-2009, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borman

Earlier in this thread, the Sumner and Gerard paper discussed this force with the addition of a fifth spatial dimension. The application to the Pioneer Anomaly however predicts a value that does not remain constant as per observation.

EARTH FLYBY AND PIONEER ANOMALIES

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...807.3158v2.pdf

It's to bad this didn't pan out totaly, but sounds like they might be on the right track.

What occured to me after reading this paper is applying a fifth dimention that is the radial curvature of 4D spacetime, sounds almost, for the lack of a better word, sort of like star-trekish Sub-space.

borman · #**382** (**permalink**) 12-November-2009, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgavin

It's to bad this didn't pan out totaly, but sounds like they might be on the right track.

What occured to me after reading this paper is applying a fifth dimention that is the radial curvature of 4D spacetime, sounds almost, for the lack of a better word, sort of like star-trekish Sub-space.

Yes, the idea that the flyby anomaly and perhaps the Pioneer anomaly are related to the Dark Matter Effect whether by appeal to modifications of gravity or inertia or appeal to two Dark Matter Particle fluids is intriguing.

The Sumner and Gerard approach is to look from the prospect of adding a higher spatial dimension so that proper conservation laws depend on a 5 dimensional perspective where violations might appear on the 4 dimensional subspace perspective.

Since the Dark Matter Effect appears to be more inverse linear than inverse squared, this might suggest the projection is coming up from a 2+1 subspace rather than a higher dimension looking down into a 3+1 subspace. The anomalies could then result from slight changes in the angle of projection of the subspace onto the 3+1 space caused by the flybys. This implies the ratio of Dark Mass to normal Mass can be changed by flyby interactions and remains peculiar to the objects affected. Support for this notion might come from detailed analysis that shows the Pioneer Anomaly is absent prior to gravity assists. There is some evidence that the anomaly rises to its canonical values after gravity assist, but it is still important to show the anomaly is not present prior to any assist. But the somewhat unique behavior, if one does not also include the near hyperbolic speeds of some long period comets, of the Pioneer Spacecraft might then be "explained" because the typical mass ratio has been altered.

borman · #**383** (**permalink**) 12-November-2009, 09:55 PM

Rosetta to be tracked during closest approach

From ESA

ESA spacecraft may help unravel cosmic mystery

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Rosetta/SEMUCV3VU1G_0.html

While there may be a 20 minute gap, this appears to come after CA. Usually, due to too close a proximity during the assist, there is often a sizeable gap where no monitoring occurs during the critical time where the larger portion of the anomaly occurs and one is left with two ends of Doppler data that do not match up when the anomaly actually does show itself. This time, monitoring will follow any anomaly that accrues up to some point past CA allowing a history of any anomaly rise to be transcribed.

While there may be, as yet, no live internet broadcast of the event, one can monitor an ESA blog to see if one occurs:

http://webservices.esa.int/blog/post/5/867

Jerry · #**384** (**permalink**) 13-November-2009, 02:39 AM

ESA, playing close to their vest as always.

Meanwhile, the Messenger Teams said in a press conference that the third fly-by of Mercury was 'the most accurate of all;' but in terms of anomalies, they did not spell out whether they used the same surface anomalies they have modeled in the past; and whether the 'most accurate' means prior anomalies were either confirmed or not. Just like with Rosetta, these deviations are small and take a while to sort out.

borman · #**385** (**permalink**) 13-November-2009, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry

ESA, playing close to their vest as always.

Meanwhile, the Messenger Teams said in a press conference that the third fly-by of Mercury was 'the most accurate of all;' but in terms of anomalies, they did not spell out whether they used the same surface anomalies they have modeled in the past; and whether the 'most accurate' means prior anomalies were either confirmed or not. Just like with Rosetta, these deviations are small and take a while to sort out.

Actually, I think ESA has been more open than usual regarding the flyby anomaly. They are poised to make an important discovery by seeing the patch through closest approach and can fill in information that has been lacking in earlier flyby anomalies where the "lights go out" because craft have been too close to Earth to be monitored. I suspect it will take time to tease out the anomaly as it will be one part in 3 million compared to the assist even though its sign should be opposite to the assist velocity direction. It seems they are sharing a joint interest with NASA by working with the Anderson et al team as well. Getting an extra decimal of accuracy, if possible, even if it takes a bit longer, will be worth the time to sort out how a depth parameter reveals itself.

I suspect there are limitations upon the MESSENGER team to give any further accurate estimates regarding surface anomalies and any residual anomaly until they can procure a better "ground truth" by mapping the gravity after orbital insertion. By getting an order or better accuracy from mapping, they can go back to the earlier flyby data and get a more accurate estimate of the residual by subtracting the more accurate surface gravity anomalies out.

It may be that their mascon theory has found support however indirect from the discovery of iron compounds on the surface. The iron is not bound up in silicates. If ihe iron comes up from the interior, the particular paths may correlate with a mascon. I wonder if the mascons are magnetised? If so, they are pages of a history book on Mercury's magnetic evolution.

borman · #**386** (**permalink**) 15-November-2009, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gfellow

Could some kind of Coriolis effect be dismissed? I'm almost sure this has already been considered.

The absence of the flyby anomaly in the 2007 flyby is a curiosity. So I went back to the ESA site to monitor the graphic of the second and third flyby and also a look at the photos of the first flyby (no animation of the first flyby was available). The first flyby, that also exhibited the anomaly, crossed over Norfolk and then down past Mexico and appeared to cross the equator during the flyby. The animation of the second flyby showed the craft to stay south of the equator. The third, from the map that shows the path over Earth shows the craft passing from Australia up to the equator, but the animation shows the craft already receding quite some distance from Earth before crossing the equator.

The Anderson et al formula seemed to show a relation to Earth's rotation both in the constant and with regard to the cosine function. The question of a depth parameter is still open, but one might also wonder if crossing the equator serves as a trigger to enable the anomaly. I am reminded of anomalous hemispheric anisotropy discovered by Tajmar when he did his experiments in South America after performing them in Austria. The experiment could detect which side of the equator the experiment was being conducted in.

For what it is worth, we also remember that cyclones rotate one way south of the equator while hurricanes rotate the other way north of the equator. What happens when one storm passes across the equator?

Jens · #**387** (**permalink**) 15-November-2009, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borman

For what it is worth, we also remember that cyclones rotate one way south of the equator while hurricanes rotate the other way north of the equator. What happens when one storm passes across the equator?

Though I could be wrong, I'm virtually certain that once a storm has started rotating, it will continue to rotate in that direction regardless of where it goes, because of the tremendous momentum. I don't think they can stop and reverse direction. It could be that they lose the rotation and end up dissipating or something like that.

gfellow · #**388** (**permalink**) 16-November-2009, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens

I don't think they can stop and reverse direction

...although the same might not be true as far as the force acting upon a space probe passing across the equator?

Jens · #**389** (**permalink**) 16-November-2009, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gfellow

...although the same might not be true as far as the force acting upon a space probe passing across the equator?

Of course.

By the way, does anybody have any information about what happened to Rosetta?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Elemental Energy Wave/Particle; definitely Against the Mainstream	Bogie	Against the Mainstream	358	30-January-2007 01:05 AM
Discussion: Gravity Probe B's First Month In ...	Fraser	Universe Today Story Comments	2	26-May-2004 06:26 AM
100+ Space products and services	cygonaut	Space Exploration	0	07-October-2003 10:55 PM
GIGANTIC Moon Hoax page written by one Brad Guth. It just go		Conspiracy Theories	25	19-June-2002 04:00 AM