Re: Farmers in orbit

Thus spake Oz <Oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Oh No <notI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Thus spake Oz <Oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

1) Pioneer anomalous acceleration is sunwards (possibly earthwards).

yes.

2) Mondian anomalous velocity is towards an artificially defined origin,
this is usually the galactic centre of the galaxy concerned.

None of these shifts reflect an actual velocity, they are just
previously unmodelled terms in redshift for an expanding universe.

This is what I thought, but I am now challenging it. I have started to
think that the Pioneer acceleration may be real.

If that is so, then you are going to have a problem with the evolution
of the universe.

I don't see why.

It may come about
because the Hubble shift represents only half the velocity of recession

This is not very surprising since it hasn't been constant since the BB.

Actually I think it is surprising. It is half now, and half at all
times
past. That is why the universe comes out so much older.

which it would in the standard theory.

I don't think so. In a universe devoid of dark matter and dark energy
gravity will slow expansion down.

Only if there is enough ordinary matter. That again is an important
result. With half the rate of expansion there is enough ordinary matter

to slow expansion down and let the universe contract again. Note that I

get a better fit for supernovas than standard, without needing to fix
any unexplained parameters.

Note that in the standard theory

Hubble shift represents a recession velocity exactly equal to Doppler
velocity in a local reference frame. But if recession velocity is
halved, that also may show up as an acceleration toward the origin.

Why do I get the feeling someone is clutching at straws?

Because I am not a good enough differential geometer to write down
equations which I can see must give this as an acceleration. If I don't

write the equations down, I can't get the factors of two right either,
and they are always a pig to get right with the teleconnection.
Meanwhile I have a lot on my mind, like affidavits for court and trying

to get son from Urumqi in West China to Shanghai, where he is booked on

to a TEFL diploma course. Probably last chance to see that he does not
become a permanent layabout. Impossible to book flights on the
internet,
and he did not sort it out in time at his end as I told him to.

Within bound systems big-bang redshift is not seen because we do not
exist within a uniform universe and have been mutually interacting via
the vastly stronger force of gravity for some ten billion years,
destroying traces of expansion characteristics.

I think it is not seen because in the standard model it is locally
exactly equivalent to Doppler shift. In expanding coordinates bound
systems accelerate inward at a rate which exactly cancels expansion.

An artefact of the co-ordinate system no doubt. I also note that your
co-ordinate system is shrinking...

shrinking, expanding, it's all relative and depends which way you look
at it.

In short the above is words with no model attached.

Modeling is tricky even in standard gtr. You will see I have asked a
question on spr, to which I expect no answers. MTW spend a page trying
to explain how meaningless it is to ask where the expansion takes place

in gtr. But my model starts to give answers to that question. The
expansion has to be everywhere, but is such that it appears as an
artefact of a coordinate system within bound systems which do not
expand
relative to themselves.

Light, however, is effectively unconstrained by gravity (and here I am
returning to one of your earliest visualisations). In a sense it is
flowing against the expansion at all times. This generates this very
tiny extra term in the doppler/redshift. Of course that's no problem to
astronomers, it simply gets (wrongly) rolled into the 'conventional'
doppler/redshift terms.

So the trick should be for me to unroll it, given that the extra term
in
red shift is no longer exactly equal to Doppler.

I thought that's what you had done originally, thus producing a
different interpretation to expansion rate and distance. Slower
expansion and a much older universe. Which is grand, of course.

Yes. That is what I have done originally. Now I have started to think
that this original argument has implications for the motion of Pioneer.


but

[and here I find not quite sure of your model]
The clock on pioneer is running fast.

As far as two way doppler is concerned, the clock on Pioneer is locked
to a maser here on earth, as with all two way doppler satellite
navigation (like Cassini).

Eh? I assumed pioneer had its own very stable oscillator for the
transmitter. I assumed this was what exhibited the drift.

So did I, to my shame. It is explained in the Anderson paper, but of
course I read the bits I thought relevant thoroughly and missed vital
detail in bits that I thought less relevant, and also had less
understanding of due to lack of background knowledge.

If in fact it
was phase-locked to an earthbound maser then things get slightly more
complex. There should be an associated extra blue shift of the earth
maser as seen by pioneer which then locks onto this blue-shifted
oscillation which it then retransmits to give another blue-shifted
transmission as seen by earth. You should thus halve your figure.

No. If you look at fig 4b, for classical measurement pioneer's motion
is
composed of a broken line. The classical limit makes this into a
continuous line, which restores classical laws to gtr. The result is an

apparent difference in the relationship between quantum and classical,
when we look at quantum phenomena from a remote vantage point. In other

words, in a classical Doppler measurement I expect exactly the same
result as standard. I only expect funny stuff when looking at quantum
phenomena.

This is because the photon (in effect) popped out of (part of) our
universe for 24 hours (as it travelled to earth) and so lost 24 hours of
expansion (although it presumably did see 25 light hours of spatial
expansion).

It should be subjected to 24 hours expansion.

Ok, and arrive back here redshifted, not blueshifted.

As it does. The blueshift just means the redshift is an eensy bit less
than expected.

and but

Distant galaxies have their rotation curves measured. Here we take the
distance of the galaxy as the redshift of the central core and assign
velocity doppler to the offset. We see a blueshift on one side and a
redshift on the other side and interpret this as a rotation. The outer
reaches of galaxies are rotating in lockstep as a rigid disk. This extra
doppler shift should be interpreted, not as a velocity, but as the extra
term you put on doppler/redshift.


Yes, but not directly so. It should be a term due to an eigenstate of
acceleration toward the centre of the distant galaxy. I want to look at

this again, but I think I am best to get the Pioneer argument right
first.

I think you need both together, one checks the consistency on the other
to some extent. Properly modelled with no fudging.

I agree, but I am pretty sure if I can do Pioneer, I will be able to do

MOND. The argument will be much as is, but a line or two different at
the beginning.

=================
The other possibility is that it is an actual real acceleration.
It is claimed that this cannot be so within our solar system because we
would see the planets follow different paths. Personally I am not
completely convinced by this. I presume they know m(solar)G to very high
precision but I'll bet that with newton is not accurate enough. I'll bet
there are a whole flock of adjustments that need to be made and not just
corrections for the effect of the gas giants. I'm not completely
convinced you cannot hide such a low level acceleration in corrective
terms.

No, I think this is pretty accurate, from the orbits of the planets.
From Anderson "For Earth and Mars, 0 >equivalent real acceleration)
is about -21 km and -76
km. However, the Viking data determines the difference
between the Mars and Earth orbital radii to about a 100
m accuracy, and their sum to an accuracy of about 150
m. The Pioneer effect is not seen."

Ok so in my book that is conclusive that the pioneer effect is one of
misinterpreted measurement due currently incomplete theory.

Its NOT REAL.

Which is good, IMHO.

This may be so, and indeed many physicists take the view that Pioneer
is
probably just a modelling problem. But I don't think so. I think
Anderson and the JPL guys did a pretty thorough analysis, and
eliminated
the possibilities. Also, the further out Pioneer goes, the less fast it

is going as compared to the standard model with twice Hubble expansion.

So there is definitely an inward acceleration compared to standard.

===============

Anyway, it seems to me that its either a real acceleration everywhere,
or its a figment of incorrectly modelled shift everywhere. Given that
everything in the observable universe is bound to some extent and yet
follows a free unfettered acceleration-free geodesic to some extent, I
think you will be rightly shafted by all scientists (including me) if
you start (effectively) picking and choosing to suit what you think are
solid experimental results.

One cannot get around the fact that the pioneer effect is seen for
pioneer but not for the planets.

Of course you can. Even with pioneer, an unpowered, spin-stabilised and
particularly simple and symmetrical satellite very far from perturbing
gravitational fields, and some 24 light-hours away, its horribly hard to
get significant results. For any satellite in the inner solar system you
won't be able to detect it and even those round saturn are being
perturbed by moons, adjustments to their orbits and orientation and
pointing of various internal thingummies.

Not to mention solar pressure.


I think a lot of scientists think the
Pioneer effect must be an unmodelled systematic error for precisely
this
reason. However, I think there has to be some effect of "slipping of
space" while it expands. This can cancel out for bound orbits, leaving
MOND as only an optical effect, but I have to get the analysis right.

Yes, you do have to get MOND right.
Absolutely bollock-perfect with no holes of any sort.
I don't think you have yet.

At the moment my argument rests on the argument for Pioneer. If Pioneer

is a classical modeling problem, that is a big hole.

===============

As originally proposed in outline (after I had pushed you towards
astronomical conundrums) the 'second order correction to
dopple/redshift' which generated an apparently phantom blueshift
produced:

1) Explained pioneer anomalous acceleration.
2) Converted galactic rotations to newtonian form using only visible-
light related mass terms. Ie MOND
3) Made the universe significantly older and thus more compatible with
observations of distant galaxy ages and old stars and clusters.
4) Removed the need for unobserved and theoretically unexplainable dark
matter and dark energy to explain (2) and (3) conventionally.

3 & 4 are still true, and in these cases the analysis is mathematically

rigorous, also give (marginally) better fit with SN Ia and no
inconsistency in CDM lensing profiles. But I can't get round the fact
that my Pioneer argument always was somewhat heuristic.

Hmmm....

Note that the above were (and for some still are) hugely controversial
and have only become generally accepted following years/decades of
controversy, very close examination and confirmation by varied
independent sources.
They are thus data/results of the very highest confidence.

Still needing examination is the doppler shift data for the milky way
galaxy. You seem to suggest some evidence for corrections to newton
although to me this seems still unformed and preliminary.

Yes. I have done some plots, which indicate a better fit than the MOND
interpolation function,

Real or imaginary?
That is, do the average to newton when you apply francis-modian
correction?

Very close I would say, given the accuracy of data, which is not great.

also probably no need to fiddle inclinations of

distant galaxies as did de Blok. Also hope to resolve inconsistency of
Hipparcos measurement of Pleiades parallax. My current analsysis is
that
the MOND effect is the same in the Milky Way as it is in distant
galaxies. However, I feel I must resolve the Pioneer acceleration
properly before I can be sure of MOND analysis.

Maybe.

Its failed:

1) Extra blueshift doesn't seem to be seen for other solar satellites
and planets. I would say this is a very low quality objection given the
poor accuracy and data.

If my current thoughts are right, it is a very low quality objection
indeed. Two way Doppler is very accurate, but the constant corrections
made to the DNS system could wipe out any effect, and in any case my
argument is that I only expect an effect when initial state for
emission
of photon is correctly modeled on distant system. I do not expect the
effect in a correctly modeled classical system (e.g. a series of beeps
at a rate of 10per sec, which is what they actually do). My problem is
that Pioneer also uses two way Doppler, so I think this effect is
either
real acceleration or modelling error. But since pioneer is going onto a

path in deep space where it's recession velocity will be half of
standard Hubble, that strongly suggests I ought to be predicting an
inward acceleration compared to standard.

2) An apparently blindingly accurate experiment with cassini that I have
as yet not evaluated. My immediate reaction is some italian lily-
guiding.

As far as I gather, Cassini is just using the same DSN (Deep Space
Network) that everything else uses.

====================================

If the milky way turns out to be correctable to newton then its definite
that the correction is one of theory and thus 'not real'.

Which is where we came in ....

Unfortunately, even if I can show consistency for the Hipparcos
Pleiades
distance, I do not think one measurement in the Milky Way will be
regarded conclusive. When Gaia has been up a few years, then we will
have some useful data.


Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Farmers in orbit
    ... Mondian anomalous velocity is towards an artificially defined origin, ... Hubble shift represents a recession velocity exactly equal to Doppler ... that also may show up as an acceleration toward the origin. ... The clock on pioneer is running fast. ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: Farmers in orbit
    ... With half the rate of expansion there is enough ordinary matter ... exactly equivalent to Doppler shift. ... that this original argument has implications for the motion of Pioneer. ... If you look at fig 4b, for classical measurement pioneer's motion ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: Pioneer Anomoly
    ... >>along their velocity line, regardless of direction. ... And the sun has everything to do with it - the ... >>that is all we have to study withr the Pioneer. ... John Polasek ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Pioneer anomaly
    ... equipped with accurate transponders for suitable doppler and ranging. ... pure newtonian motion. ... Pioneer 10/11 probes did. ... mechanics against a result derived from general relativity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Pioneer anomaly engineering questions
    ... Pioneer Anomaly. ... I'm not asking about the physics or relativity, ... The Doppler shift for this velocity can be calculated as about ...
    (sci.physics)