Notices
Results 1 to 62 of 62
Like Tree8Likes
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By AlexG
  • 1 Post By tk421
  • 2 Post By Harold14370

Thread: Pioneer 10 and 11

  1. #1 Pioneer 10 and 11 
    Forum Senior bill alsept's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    386
    Does the answer in this article make sense? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/sc...ml?ref=gravity Does anyone else have a better answer?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,602
    That article is not accessible. There was a recent paper published which analysed and explained this in great detail (thermal effects). Is that what the article is about?


    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    I was able to access the information by clicking on the reference, and yes the article concerns the intrinsic heat energy as the cause of the slowing in excess of Newtonian gravitation.
    Despite the effort that the mathematicians have made to reach that conclusion, the Newtonian concept of and I quote: “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” end of quote; will not allow impact originating from heat energy generated from within the spacecraft to cause a slowing effect. Every impact requires an equal impulse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,602
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    I was able to access the information by clicking on the reference, and yes the article concerns the intrinsic heat energy as the cause of the slowing in excess of Newtonian gravitation.
    Despite the effort that the mathematicians have made to reach that conclusion, the Newtonian concept of and I quote: “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” end of quote; will not allow impact originating from heat energy generated from within the spacecraft to cause a slowing effect. Every impact requires an equal impulse.
    You are sinking to ever lower levels of ignorance. Please stop.

    Radiate energy in one direction and you will be pushed in the other. This is classical physics. It has been known for well over 100 years.
    SpeedFreek likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    Strange.
    Because you were prepared to provide me with constructive criticism of my work, I will assume that your reply to my post above resulted from a lack of knowledge of the proposed reason for the slowing of the Pioneer Spacecraft in excess of that expected from Newtonian gravitation, and not from a misunderstanding of elementary physics. Also in that regard it would be a better approach if you did not assume that a disagreement with your own ideas results from ignorance by others.

    With regards to the decision that the slowing resulted from heat generated randomly from within the spacecraft and impinging on its antenna facing towards the Earth, than that is an incorrect analysis of the problem for the reason stated in my post above. To slow the velocity of the Pioneer craft by a distance of approximately 400 kilometres in one year, all heat energy to do the required slowing would need to have been directed mainly in the direction ahead of the craft’s direction of motion and that would be most unlikely given the manner of the heat generation. Also, and applying the concept that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction in regards to the velocity of the craft, the transmission of electromagnetic radiation back to Earth would have added to the velocity.
    Last edited by GWN; August 22nd, 2012 at 09:12 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,602
    Perhaps you could do the detailed calculations required to show that you are correct and the detailed analysis in that paper is incorrect. You vague generalizations are not really adequate I'm afraid.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,180
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    Strange.
    Because you were prepared to provide me with constructive criticism of my work, I will assume that your reply to my post above resulted from a lack of knowledge of the proposed reason for the slowing of the Pioneer Spacecraft in excess of that expected from Newtonian gravitation, and not from a misunderstanding of elementary physics. Also in that regard it would be a better approach if you did not assume that a disagreement with your own ideas results from ignorance by others.

    With regards to the decision that the slowing resulted from heat generated randomly from within the spacecraft and impinging on its antenna facing towards the Earth, than that is an incorrect analysis of the problem for the reason stated in my post above. To slow the velocity of the Pioneer craft by a distance of approximately 400 kilometres in one year, all heat energy to do the required slowing would need to have been directed mainly in the direction ahead of the craft’s direction of motion and that would be most unlikely given the manner of the heat generation. Also, and applying the concept that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction in regards to the velocity of the craft, the transmission of electromagnetic radiation back to Earth would have added to the velocity.
    Refer here for a detailed analysis :

    [1103.5222v1] Modelling the reflective thermal contribution to the acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    GWN, will you identify which specific steps in the detailed analysis you believe to be faulty and why you believe them to be faulty? Thank you,.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,602
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    heat generated randomly from within the spacecraft
    The heat is not generated "randomly". There are two source of thermal energy. Importantly, these are not point sources which radiate isotropically.

    and impinging on its antenna facing towards the Earth
    The antenna is not the sole source of radiated energy. And the direction the antenna is facing is not the critical factor. The position with respect to the RTGs and the coefficients of reflection of the various surfaces are what is important.

    This is not a trivial problem that can be brushed away with a few words. The effect is small and subtle, which is why such a detailed model of the spacecraft and the heat sources is required.

    all heat energy to do the required slowing would need to have been directed mainly in the direction ahead of the craft’s direction of motion
    If all the energy had been radiated in one direction (which is, as you say, implausible) then the effect would have been significantly larger and the cause would have been rather obvious.

    Also, and applying the concept that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction in regards to the velocity of the craft, the transmission of electromagnetic radiation back to Earth would have added to the velocity
    Very good (I assume when you say velocity, you mean acceleration. And when you say added, you mean subtracted.). Do you know the amount of radio power transmitted by the antenna? And the angular distribution? Have you calculated the relative effect of this? Have you compared this with the thermal radiation?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    Hello John Galt.Your request. GWN, will you identify which specific steps in the detailed analysis you believe to be faulty and why you believe them to be faulty? Thank you,.
    My reply. The thermal retardation of the velocity of the Pioneer spacecraft in the direction of flight was mainly attributed to heat generated principally by the RTGs (Pu 238) located in cylindrical containers affixed to the external ends of 3 meter long poles that are fastened to the body of the spacecraft. They were set longitudinal ally towards the craft and at an angle between them similar to the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen forming a molecule and with a further extension of approximately one meter further out than the 3 meters because the poles were affixed to the side of the spacecraft. The act of retardation was deemed mainly to be due to a portion of the heat generated by the RTGs impinging the HG Antenna and then being reflected there-from supposedly mainly in the direction of motion of the spacecraft.Because of the law of the angle of reflection equals the angle of incidence, a large portion of that energy impacting the curvature of the HG Antenna would have been mainly reflected (that energy not absorbed especially due to intense cold) towards angles closer to the perpendicular than to the direction of motion of the craft. The heat energy absorbed into the HGA would have no affect to retard because of the equal and opposite law. The absorbed heat energy would have been radiated from the HGA towards the reverse of the direction of motion of the spacecraft and at various angles. Also, most of the heat generated by the RTGs would not impact the spacecraft, and with regards to adding to the spacecraft’s velocity, the results would be an equal balance.Also, there was no mention of the small acceleration in the direction of the spacecraft motion due to the affect of the transmission of electromagnetic radiation back to Earth due to communication. In my opinion, (of no account is the comment from Strange ringing in my ears) there is no doubt that the investigation of the reason for the unexplained slowing of the pioneer spacecraft’s involved a huge amount of effort on the part of the investigators, even so and given the complexities of the task and the unknowns that had to be evaluated, then their potential for success was slim and they deserve commendation for effort. There was another Anomaly regarding the Pioneer 10 spacecraft and that was the increase in velocity in excess of that expected by the application of the Newtonian theory of gravitation during its flyby of Jupiter. That anomaly remains unexplained. Do I have an explanation of both anomalies; yes and although the work in my paper was designed around the fundamental dynamic nature of an electron with no thought regarding anomalies, there is an automatic explanation provided in the paper. By the way, the paper has now been through an updated second addition and is available in the Updated Section of the General Science Journal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,602
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    My reply.
    And do you really think that counts as refutation of a detailed analysis; some vague generalizations?

    at an angle between them similar to the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen forming a molecule
    God only know what that wacky analogy has to do with it.

    Because of the law of the angle of reflection equals the angle of incidence, a large portion of that energy impacting the curvature of the HG Antenna would have been mainly reflected (that energy not absorbed especially due to intense cold) towards angles closer to the perpendicular than to the direction of motion of the craft.
    You did, of course, note in your detailed reading of the paper (you did read it, didn't you?) that they used the Phong shading model and an accurate 3D CAD model of the space craft, which included the appropriate coefficients of reflection for each surface?

    You did notice that, didn't you?

    And I assume someone as brilliant as you understand the implication of that? (Beyond making your waffle in this post utterly irrelevant)

    Just on the off-chance that you haven't fully thought through this (and, heaven forbid, you might not be intimately familiar with the Phong illumination and reflectance model) maybe I should spell it out for you:

    - The angles of reflection from every part of the surface will have been accurately calculated, including factors such as rough surfaces causing diffuse reflection (which of course, makes your primitive "angle of reflection equals the angle of incidence" moot).

    - The amount of heat energy absorbed and the proportion reflected would have been accurately calculated for every surface.

    Compare this accurate and detailed analysis with your "some" and "most" and schoolboy understanding of reflectance. Who is more likely to be right?

    You acknowledge the "complexities of the task and the unknowns that had to be evaluated" and yet you still think someone who demonstrates having almost no understanding of the relevant physics and has no details of the structure of the craft can dismiss an quantitative analysis with a vague handwave and an uneducated opinion.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    Strange, and re your post of the 23rd August. Your statement. The heat is not generated "randomly". There are two source of thermal energy. Importantly, these are not point sources which radiate isotropically.My reply. There were two primary generators of heat energy and one secondary heat source in the form of the instruments; and no, there was no point source that radiated isotropically except for the antenna that transmitted a beam of electromagnet energy towards Earth. Your second statement. The antenna is not the sole source of radiated energy. And the direction the antenna is facing is not the critical factor. The position with respect to the RTGs and the coefficients of reflection of the various surfaces are what is important.My reply. No argument with the first part of the first sentence, however, and because the success of the entire investigation hinges on the statement that heat energy impacting and reflected from the HGA was the principal reason (assisted by radiation in the direction of the craft’s motion of heat generated by instruments.) for the unexplained slowing of the Pioneer 10, then the orientation of the HGA relative to the RTGs becomes vital. Yes to your last sentence. Your third statement. If all the energy had been radiated in one direction (which is, as you say, implausible) then the effect would have been significantly larger and the cause would have been rather obvious.My answer. The effect would have been larger, however and due to the fact that the slowing was unexpected by those in command, there would have been a lot of concern regarding that phenomenon.Your last statement. Very good (I assume when you say velocity, you mean acceleration. And when you say added, you mean subtracted.). Do you know the amount of radio power transmitted by the antenna? And the angular distribution? Have you calculated the relative effect of this? Have you compared this with the thermal radiation? My reply. You have assumed incorrectly. Acceleration implies only a change in speed or direction. Adding to velocity in the direction of motion means precisely what has occurred or is occurring.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    Thanks Markus for the reference, however it was not used because I have extensively read most papers pertaining to this subject, especially the paper provided by the original investigators.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    Strange re your first statement in post made on the 26th August. And do you really think that counts as refutation of a detailed analysis; some vague generalizations?My answer. Providing relevant physical facts does not imply a vague generalisation. Your second statement. God only know what that wacky analogy has to do with it.My reply. AS originally stated, It referred to the similarity between the position of the bonds of the two hydrogen atoms to a oxygen atom when forming a water molecule, and that of the placement of the two RTGs relative to the body and HGA of the spacecraft. Your remaining statements don’t warrant a reply except to say that I did fully and carefully read the original paper several times, and your statements directly pertaining to their endeavor to attempt to achieve accuracy are correct. However by your emphasis placed on reflection from all surfaces instead of radiation from all surfaces indicates that you are not conversant with the physical fact regarding the attempted explanation of the slowing of those spacecraft. The facts are with regards to the principle stated cause of the slowing; we are faced with a zero pressure and approaching zero temperature environment in which most heat energy impacting that extremely cold HGA (the temps are provided by the investigators) would have been absorbed and immediately conducted into the metal of the HGA. Because of that continual absorption of heat energy originating from the craft at speed C and requiring conservation of momentum, the convex side of the antenna would have been prevented from radiating due to much enhanced conduction ability constantly conducting heat energy away to the Earth facing side of the HGA. There would be no radiation from that surface because of the constant unhindered absorption. Due to the relative temperatures of the antenna and that of space, all heat entering the antenna from any source on the craft would have been immediately conducted (reduced resistance due to much reduced random motion of atom comprising the HGA)) to the concave surface of the HGA, then because of the intense cold of space and the momentum of the constantly arriving heat energy at that surface of the HGA, to be immediately radiated in various directions towards Earth. All impulse resulting from the radiation of heat energy by the spacecraft, and impacts resulting from heat energy impacting the HGA would have been almost continually in balance. I stated almost because there would have been almost no impulse in the direction of motion of the spacecraft when the heat energy was radiated from the HGA randomly towards the Earth. Strange, I will leave it to you to attempt to understand the physical reason for that last statement. Yes I know you can’t be bothered because its rubbish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,180
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    Thanks Markus for the reference, however it was not used because I have extensively read most papers pertaining to this subject, especially the paper provided by the original investigators.
    Perhaps then you would be interested to know that the original investigators themselves ( Slava Turyshev et al ) have recently published a paper in the Physical Review Letters :

    Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 241101 (2012): Support for the Thermal Origin of the Pioneer Anomaly

    Their conclusion is as follows (quote) :

    "We investigate the possibility that the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft is due to the recoil force associated with an anisotropic emission of thermal radiation off the vehicles. To this end, relying on the project and spacecraft design documentation, we constructed a comprehensive finite-element thermal model of the two spacecraft. Then, we numerically solve thermal conduction and radiation equations using the actual flight telemetry as boundary conditions. We use the results of this model to evaluate the effect of the thermal recoil force on the Pioneer 10 spacecraft at various heliocentric distances. We found that the magnitude, temporal behavior, and direction of the resulting thermal acceleration are all similar to the properties of the observed anomaly. As a novel element of our investigation, we develop a parametrized model for the thermal recoil force and estimate the coefficients of this model independently from navigational Doppler data. We find no statistically significant difference between the two estimates and conclude that, once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for, no anomalous acceleration remains."
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,602
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    ...
    Still no detailed quantitative analysis then.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,602
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    Providing relevant physical facts does not imply a vague generalisation
    It does if they are not quantified.

    And still no detailed quantitative analysis.

    Byt the way, do you think the Phong model is appropriate in this context, as you are such an expert? Or would you have used a different reflectance model? Torrance-Sparrow perhaps?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    Thanks again Markus for your resent reference to Support for the Thermal Origin of the Pioneer Anomaly. And yes as stated in my earlier post to you today, apart from reading all articles on the pioneer anomaly, I have also carefully read several times their complete joint authored paper titled Support for the Thermal Origin of the Pioneer Anomaly.

    I was particularly interested in the temperature graph supplied in that paper because my work requires that besides the temperature decrease resulting from reducing thermal energy from the Sun, there would also be an excess temperature decrease in proportion to the gradual decrease in the excess slowing, thereby requiring a gradual curving away from a straight line on the graph.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    I have also carefully read several times their complete joint authored paper titled Support for the Thermal Origin of the Pioneer Anomaly.
    And yet you continue to offer only vague and feeble handwaving generalisations in response. Do you honestly expect to persuade anyone that you have a sound refutation without providing at least the same level of deep, quantitative analysis provided by the paper's authors? It's almost as if you watched the Monty Python argument sketch and missed the point that it was a comedy routine, not a tutorial.

    Your continuing disdain for mathematics (on top of your disdain for the quote tag and normal fonts) undermines your credibility to the point that your posts stimulate wonder of a kind you did not intend.
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by bill alsept View Post
    Does the answer in this article make sense? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/sc...ml?ref=gravity Does anyone else have a better answer?
    Yes Bill I believe I have a logical reason for the unexpected slowing of Pioneer 10, and also for the presently unexplained reason for the increase in the velocity in the direction of motion of Pioneer 10 during its flyby of Jupiter.
    Both anomalies resulted from presently unknown (by mainstream Science) changes to the principle parameters responsible for the existence and magnitude of Gravity and also changing circumstances influencing the magnitude of gravitation resulting from the direction of travel of a body (particle, planet, star etc) relative to other bodies, and to the relative masses of and rate of distance changes between all interacting bodies.
    I maintain due to the work provided in my paper, that because all changes in that referred to as physical reality requires a transfer of energy* (that statement also even includes an ability to think) then changes to gravitation must be accounted for because of the reason stated above.

    The reality of a bulk body such as the Earth’s gradual approach too or away from the Sun results in a decrease or increase in mass etceteras, all being due to the changing complexity of the previously mentioned parameters, and demands knowledge of the fundamental complexities of the phenomenon we refer to as momentum.
    The magnitude of the rate of unexpected slowing of Pioneer 10 gradually decreasing in proportion to the decrease in gravitational potential relative to the sun, and varied also due to its varying gravitational potential relative to the great planets.
    According to my work, the gradual slowing of Pioneer 10 as the craft travelled away from the Sun resulted in an increase in mass, the rate of decrease in the unexpected slowing being in direct proportion to the mass increase. An increase in mass under those circumstances would demand an exactly proportional decrease in the rapidity of the random motions of the atoms and molecules comprising the spacecraft, hence a decrease in temperature in excess of that expected. The statement concerning the reason for the temperature decrease due to an increase in mass under the Pioneer circumstances is a challenge for those who declare me ignorant of physics for themselves to post an explanation.

    The reasons for the immediate above statements form a large portion of the information contained within my paper and referrers to the parameters responsible for the fundamental dynamic nature of an electron.

    The unexpected increase in the velocity of the Pioneer 10 spacecraft during the flyby of Jupiter resulted because the gravitational ability of any particle or a bulk body remains in exact balance despite changes to the velocity of a particle or bulk body; in this case involving both Jupiter and Pioneer 10.
    Because Pioneer 10 passed behind the direction of motion of Jupiter, the magnitude of increase to velocity resulted. Had Pioneer 10 passed ahead of Jupiter’s direction of motion, there would have been a decrease to the magnitude of expected velocity.

    To further confuse the experts, I will provide further information from my paper they refuse to read and that is: for a given mass of a planet in an elliptical orbit about a star, the momentum remains unchanged despite constant changes to Velocity (implying both speed and direction) and the varying distances between the interacting bodies. And to accommodate part of your requirements Markus regarding which mass is changing, then for momentum to remain unchanged under the referred to circumstances, rest mass, relativistic mass and kinetic energy potential are all undergoing change in proportion to changing circumstances.

    The reasons stated above required a lengthy explanation as outlined in my paper, and in that regard I do not expect any person not familiar with the information in the paper to be able to understand why I have concluded that mass changes due to changing distances towards or away by bulk interacting bodies.

    *As stated several times on other threads, all physical changes of any description whatsoever require an accounting for the required exchange of energy. There are no free lunches in physics; a payment of energy is mandatory for changes to occur.
    Last edited by GWN; September 6th, 2012 at 07:51 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Pure useless made up word salad (and in a damn unreadable font to boot)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Pure useless made up word salad (and in a damn unreadable font to boot)
    With apologies to Bill Shakespeare, GWN's posts are full of sound and fury (but never any math), signifying nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    Meteor Wayne and tk412, your last posts are eloquent indicators regarding your lack of ability to understand the complexities that originate from the changing parameters that underlie and enforce the realities I referred to in my last post regarding Pioneer !0 and all bodies being subjected to changes to the parameters responsible for the magnitude of their gravity. Also as stated previously, gravity and gravitation although related, are differing phenomenons.

    Contained within my post of the 29th August 2012, my statement that regards to the conservation of momentum; “rest mass, relativistic mass and kinetic energy potential are all undergoing change in proportion to changing circumstances”. In that regard, on person has been prepared to place their opinions and knowledge of fundamental physics on record. Perhaps I can encourage a response by stating that the use of rest mass was deliberate in preference to invariant mass because the phenomenon referred to, the one and only amassed energy constituting all particles is not invariant due to changes to the parameters extant in that locality affecting the constantly reoccurring M of those particles. Reoccurring M refers to the rapidity of phase changes (alternating rapidly between) of the wave-particle duality of matter forming particles.

    With regards to the lack of mathematics supporting my work, all have been supplied over many years by mathematicians except for the maths that could be derived by a mathematical analysis of the information obtained from a gravitational reason for the magnitude of unexpected slowing of Pioneer 10 and 11. In that regard, my paper supplies a reason why such a mathematical analysis should be undertaken. Why don’t I do it; I haven’t the mathematical ability and NASA would not answer me let alone provide me with the required information.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    That was a lot of verbiage in relation to a stunning lack of substance.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    Flick Montana. So sorry to hear of your mental reaction to my post, but don’t worry, the mental incapacity of being stunned is generally temporary and hopefully of short duration. Perhaps when you have sufficiently recovered, you may be able to inform me of the reasons pertaining to physics that had such a devastating effect on you; then again and because you were so easily stunned, perhaps you should refrain from attempting to understand the intricacies of the fundamental dynamics of physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    the mental incapacity of being stunned is generally temporary and hopefully of short duration
    Yes, if you read enough, you get inurred to the lack of substance in GWN's posts. In fact, you come to expect it.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    the mental incapacity of being stunned is generally temporary and hopefully of short duration
    Yes, if you read enough, you get inurred to the lack of substance in GWN's posts. In fact, you come to expect it.
    It's fascinating how some folks repel reality. GWN is still clinging to the desperate hope that there is still an unexplained anomaly in the Pioneer data. Although he's been directed to a paper that provides a quantitative explanation -- along with an independent check on the model used -- he is so closed-minded that he simply ignores the paper. At the same time, he continues to lecture others on their alleged closed minds. I guess he lacks the irony-detection gene.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by bill alsept View Post
    Does the answer in this article make sense? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/sc...ml?ref=gravity Does anyone else have a better answer?
    Over the years there have been a great many explanations of the Pioneer anomaly. Most of them sound pretty good to me. This one is no exception. The pioneer anomaly is very small concerning the drag effect but there is another effect less discussed. That is the location of probes relative to their predicted location. These distance variations are now extensive but this too can also be explained by thermal recoil such as in your link.

    Other probes are not yet far enough away, or have had in route corrections that make such analysis difficult. Although preliminary indications of other much closer probes have shown the possibility of the same anomaly, none have shown a significant enough effect yet to confirm this effect for them.

    Does anyone else have a better answer?
    My expectation is that this anomaly will show up for other ongoing probes that we are able to stay in-touch with. If so it will be difficult to use radiation recoil as an explanation when the design of these probes are all very different. If so then my own model predicts this effect while the extent of which is presently speculative. In the parlance of the standard model it could be called dark matter drag, in my own model it is predicted as aether drag via pushing gravity. Depending upon its constituents, dark matter could also be called an aether depending upon the chosen definition of aether. The simplest definition might be "a particulate background field that comprises the Zero Point Field."

    So my bet is presently on "aether-drag" as being the primary cause of the Pioneer anomaly even though I think radiation recoil certainly cannot be discounted as being one of the causes if not the primary or sole cause.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/sc...ml?ref=gravity
    Last edited by forrest noble; September 5th, 2012 at 05:01 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The pioneer anomaly is very small concerning the drag effect but there is another effect less discussed. That is the location of probes relative to their predicted location. {snip snip}

    So my bet is presently on "aether-drag" as being the primary cause of the Pioneer anomaly even though I think radiation recoil certainly cannot be discounted as being one of the causes if not the primary or sole cause.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/sc...ml?ref=gravity
    You seem to be confused. The anomaly is (or, rather, was) precisely that some "mysterious" drag was causing the location of the probes to differ from their predicted location (this is discussed in the paper linked to earlier, as well as the NYT article you link to below). The drag is best explained in the recent paper implicitly described in the article: Radiation recoil, arising from within the spacecraft, quantitatively explains what is observed. And as the paper itself shows, the model used was checked independently. This is by far the best work done on the problem, and fully explains observations, in vindication of GR.

    It's thus important to note that the NYT article you link to says the following, in describing how mainstream physics fully explains what is observed: "You may dream of freaky new physics, but sometimes freaky old physics is all you need."

    To bet on some freaky new physics here is to indulge in the fantasy that the quantitative match obtained is in error.
    Last edited by tk421; September 5th, 2012 at 05:15 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The pioneer anomaly is very small concerning the drag effect but there is another effect less discussed. That is the location of probes relative to their predicted location. {snip snip}

    So my bet is presently on "aether-drag" as being the primary cause of the Pioneer anomaly even though I think radiation recoil certainly cannot be discounted as being one of the causes if not the primary or sole cause.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/sc...ml?ref=gravity
    You seem to be confused. The anomaly is (or, rather, was) precisely that some "mysterious" drag was causing the location of the probes to differ from their predicted location (this is discussed in the paper linked to earlier, as well as the NYT article you link to below). The drag is best explained in the recent paper implicitly described in the article: Radiation recoil, arising from within the spacecraft, quantitatively explains what is observed. And as the paper itself shows, the model used was checked independently. This is by far the best work done on the problem, and fully explains observations, in vindication of GR.

    It's thus important to note that the NYT article you link to says the following, in describing how mainstream physics fully explains what is observed: "You may dream of freaky new physics, but sometimes freaky old physics is all you need."

    To bet on some freaky new physics here is to indulge in the fantasy that the quantitative match obtained is in error.
    I was just reading that other existing probes may never be able to be similarly analyzed for this effect because of the numerous additional variables involved and that only future probes designed to make such studies might be able to confirm this effect if it exists. Some theorists were hoping to explain this effect on dark matter drag for evidence to support dark matter. The link below discusses the idea of dark matter drag but proposes thermal exhaust as the most likely culprit.

    Mysterious Pioneer Anomaly May Finally Be Solved : Discovery News
    Last edited by forrest noble; September 6th, 2012 at 04:55 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I was just reading that other existing probes may never be able to be similarly analyzed for this effect because of the numerous additional variables involved and that only future probes designed to make such studies might be able to confirm this effect if it exists.
    We got lucky with Pioneer that the relevant data were available and that the unintended experiment was clean enough to allow a test.

    Some theorists were hoping to explain this effect on dark matter drag for evidence to support dark matter. The link below discusses dark matter drag and proposes thermal exhaust as the culprit.
    Whenever there is a puzzling result, many hypotheses will inevitably be considered -- that's the way science works. And then these hypotheses are tested, and most (sometimes all) will eventually drop out of the running. In this case, mainstream physics explains what is observed, so there's no need of, nor support for, "dark matter drag" or other exotica. It certainly would've been exciting if the Pioneer data had pointed to some new physics, but we'll just have to be "disappointed" this time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    Flick Montana. So sorry to hear of your mental reaction to my post, but don’t worry, the mental incapacity of being stunned is generally temporary and hopefully of short duration. Perhaps when you have sufficiently recovered, you may be able to inform me of the reasons pertaining to physics that had such a devastating effect on you; then again and because you were so easily stunned, perhaps you should refrain from attempting to understand the intricacies of the fundamental dynamics of physics.
    I have a functioning understand of fundamental physics. What I'm struggling with is your barrage of words which don't seem to fit my idea of a cohesive thought. In fact, if you just communicated via equations, I'd probably have an easier time figuring out what you're trying to say.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    AlexG. To provide the inaccuracy of your post of the 6th September, first check the meaning of the word “substance” in the Oxford dictionary and then reread my post on this thread of the 29th August 2012.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    Tk421. You cling tenaciously to the idea that a concept is invalid unless it is also accompanied by a mathematical explanation. I maintain that both mathematics and conceptual explanations of physical phenomena each have their relative importance. I will supply the following as an example: To a person sufficiently interested and possessing a knowledge of fundamental physics; my post of the 29th August 2012 would be wringing the alarm bells with regards to calculating (yes mathematically) the affect of the Earth’s gravitational field on the future orbital path of an asteroid that will pass close by Earth. With regards to the future velocity of the asteroid, then both the magnitude of speed and deflection are involved. If there is a simple application of Newtonian gravitation theory without concern for whether the asteroid passed ahead or behind the Earth’s direction of motion, the predicted orbit will perhaps be dangerously inaccurate because we cannot simply activate jets as are available on spacecraft to make a flight correction.

    If the mathematicians whom supposedly provided the reason for the unexpected slowing of Pioneer 10 were to recheck the information pertaining to Pioneer 10, there will be a very slight cooling in excess of expectation that also decreases with distance, as also would the unexpected slowing. Also, and during the flyby of Jupiter, besides the unexpected extra boost to the speed of the spacecraft, there would have been an excess in the deflection (not mentioned in literature available) towards Jupiter that would have later required a direction of flight correction.

    Arriving at a more correct understanding of fundamental physics is deserving of much more importance than now exhibited by some of the posters to this forum. I only persist in the hope that a physicist with some standing in the scientific community will read and evaluate my work because I believe that therein is contained an important message for humanity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    [FONT=Calibri][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Calibri]Tk421. You cling tenaciously to the idea that a concept is invalid unless it is also accompanied by a mathematical explanation.
    No, that is not correct, GWN. I cling tenaciously to the idea that without a mathematical explanation, it is not possible to select among multiple hypotheses that might make qualitatively similar predictions. Thus, one cannot preclude the "pink unicorn" theory from consideration. You seem still not to understand this quite fundamental point.

    I maintain that both mathematics and conceptual explanations of physical phenomena each have their relative importance.
    No one has disputed this in this thread as far as I can tell. What you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge is that without math, you don't actually have a theory. It can't be tested against other hypotheses. I don't know why you continue to fight this simple truth. It's the core of the scientific method. You would have us return to millennia-old discredited notions that we can just sit and think about things and gain access to Platonic Forms that underpin "reality."

    I will supply the following as an example: To a person sufficiently interested and possessing a knowledge of fundamental physics; my post of the 29
    th[SIZE=3] August 2012 would be wringing the alarm bells with regards to calculating (yes mathematically) ...

    You and I must be using two different internets. I see zero mathematics in your post of 29 August. Without the math, I do not see how one calculates anything, alarm bells notwithstanding. I do see huge walls of text, but there's not much one can really do with that.

    I'll repeat what I've said before: No math = no theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    If the mathematicians whom supposedly provided the reason for the unexpected slowing of Pioneer 10 were to recheck the information pertaining to Pioneer 10, there will be a very slight cooling in excess of expectation that also decreases with distance, as also would the unexpected slowing. Also, and during the flyby of Jupiter, besides the unexpected extra boost to the speed of the spacecraft, there would have been an excess in the deflection (not mentioned in literature available) towards Jupiter that would have later required a direction of flight correction.
    Again, you are simply making an assertion. These "mathematicians" that you refer to have published their model. I invite you to show -- mathematically -- where they have erred. You will have to show how they were able to get the right answer despite their error. You will have to show that their independent check of the model yielded the right parameters by accident, or perhaps by a fortuitous cancellation of multiple errors. But make no mistake, GWN, you have to show the work. Mathematically. You can't just keep beating your chest and claim you know the truth when you haven't shown it. No one will take you seriously, and no one should, unless and until you do the math.

    So, go do it, for Pete's sake, instead of posting more walls of text. That's how you demonstrate to the world that your concepts are correct.

    No math = no theory = just some guy's opinion.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    Tk421. You cling tenaciously to the idea that a concept is invalid unless it is also accompanied by a mathematical explanation. I maintain that both mathematics and conceptual explanations of physical phenomena each have their relative importance. I will supply the following as an example: To a person sufficiently interested and possessing a knowledge of fundamental physics; my post of the 29th August 2012 would be wringing the alarm bells with regards to calculating (yes mathematically) the affect of the Earth’s gravitational field on the future orbital path of an asteroid that will pass close by Earth. With regards to the future velocity of the asteroid, then both the magnitude of speed and deflection are involved. If there is a simple application of Newtonian gravitation theory without concern for whether the asteroid passed ahead or behind the Earth’s direction of motion, the predicted orbit will perhaps be dangerously inaccurate because we cannot simply activate jets as are available on spacecraft to make a flight correction.

    If the mathematicians whom supposedly provided the reason for the unexpected slowing of Pioneer 10 were to recheck the information pertaining to Pioneer 10, there will be a very slight cooling in excess of expectation that also decreases with distance, as also would the unexpected slowing. Also, and during the flyby of Jupiter, besides the unexpected extra boost to the speed of the spacecraft, there would have been an excess in the deflection (not mentioned in literature available) towards Jupiter that would have later required a direction of flight correction.

    Arriving at a more correct understanding of fundamental physics is deserving of much more importance than now exhibited by some of the posters to this forum. I only persist in the hope that a physicist with some standing in the scientific community will read and evaluate my work because I believe that therein is contained an important message for humanity.
    From what I can understand you have the idea that mass increases for an object in free motion like the Pioneer spacecraft. As others have pointed out, as long as there is more common explanations for what was observed, like radiation recoil, then it would seemingly be difficult to posit a seemingly more unlikely new-physics explanation. That being said, like you I also think this effect may show up in other ways and via future spacecraft. Maybe you might try explaining to me how and why you think the mass of the spacecraft could accordingly increase while the velocity of the spacecraft is ever so slowly decreasing via the sun's gravity.

    The standard model explanation of the Higg's field being the source of mass in general, I think is also very speculative so I will be interested in your explanation.
    Last edited by forrest noble; September 7th, 2012 at 02:07 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    AlexG. To provide the inaccuracy of your post of the 6th September, first check the meaning of the word “substance” in the Oxford dictionary and then reread my post on this thread of the 29th August 2012.
    You're confusing volume with substance.

    Word salad is not very filling.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    GWN, with your math-free "theory," you fit the mold of a crank. While we tolerate cranks to a certain extent, I think you will find that there is a limit. Those cranks who have imposed themselves upon the forum with incessant and repetitious nonsense for a long enough time have been banned. You are convincing nobody, and are becoming a bore, so you will need to find something new to say in the future. Otherwise, you will suffer the same fate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    tk421. Further to my earlier reply to you today, then based on the knowledge of gravity popularly now believed by mainstream science, the reference to the need for care when calculating the future orbit of that asteroid is a conceptual statement that makes a prediction; it is not a measured prediction because the incentive for a mathematician to apply changed mathematics to make a precise prediction of the orbital path is not likely to be present without a logical reason provided by a conceptual explanation of that presently unknown phenomenon. The last statement regarding the involvement of a mathematician would not be possible and will not be possible unless there is a revaluation of the vital information now effectively buried by the decision that the Pioneer anomaly resulted from radiation retardation. The Pioneer information provides some of the measurable physical facts pertaining to an ability to accurately measure the future orbit of that asteroid due to the influence of the gravitational field of the Earth.



    The information contained in the paper you and others refuse to read resulted from a need to understand the fundamental dynamics of momentum involving a conceptual as against a mathematical understanding. The mathematics was supposedly well known. All other interconnected and interrelated information contained in the paper pertains mainly to the attributes and behaviour of an electron under the action of gravity and gravitation; also electrical and other reasons for its acceleration etceteras. All other explanation of anomalies including the so called excess speed of the spiral arm stars of our galaxy are an offshoot of the physical information provided in that paper, and had no influence when originally that information regarding an electron was being provided by what I consider to be a logical conceptual analysis of mysterious physical phenomena.



    Harold 14370. I composed this post directed to tk421 before reading the posts of the other posters above. I have read your post and if that is your opinion of me then it is your prerogative to ban me. In that regard it is your decision to take the responsibility to protect the present beliefs of those contented with their mainstream scientific beliefs when responding to New Ideas. I cannot post my paper on this forum because it is much too long, and those who mainly reply remain ignorant of my work because they won’t attempt a fair reading.
    By the way, did you read the comment regarding the possibility of a misunderstanding when calculating the orbit of an asteroid made in my previous post. That is possibly the reality and not the results of what you contemptuously imply to be the misguided self delusions of a person ignorant of physical phenomena and unkindly referred to as a cracked pot. If this is to be my last post on this forum, then so be it. I see you are an administrator and so will be motivated by a desire to protect the competency of the principal posters with regards to the extent of their knowledge with regards to fundamental physics.
    To date the value to me for all my effort on this forum has been the revelation by the main posters of their ignorance of the difference between gravity and gravitation, because when being informed of that possibility, they called me stupid, and perhaps I am for believing that their knowledge of the fundamental nature of physics was sufficiently advanced to sustain the shock. The other assistance was contributed by Strange when he or she supplied me with the information regarding the difficulty attached to imagining the amassing of energy to form a unit of virtual matter. That difficulty has been rectified by a part rewriting of that section of my paper.
    Last edited by KALSTER; September 7th, 2012 at 04:57 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    GWN,
    please summarise your argument for asserting gravity and gravitation are different phenomena. Ideally provide a clear definition of each, perhaps conveying relevant relationships by means of appropriate formulae.

    I also offer some advice. Your writing is over-elaborate. Even if your arguments were wholly sound and your hypotheses 'true' that verbosity would generate the claims of 'word salad'. If you maintain that style you will continue to obscure anything of value in your posts. You have the opportunity to do things differently. It is your choice.
    Last edited by John Galt; September 7th, 2012 at 07:57 AM. Reason: Correct several sloppy typing errors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    I cannot post my paper on this forum because it is much too long, and those who mainly reply remain ignorant of my work because they won’t attempt a fair reading.
    Nobody will read your long paper if you cannot post something intelligible in your forum posts.

    By the way, did you read the comment regarding the possibility of a misunderstanding when calculating the orbit of an asteroid made in my previous post.
    Yes, I did. Like your other posts, it has no mathematical formulation and does not qualify as a scientific hypothesis. It's word salad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    I cannot post my paper on this forum because it is much too long, and those who mainly reply remain ignorant of my work because they won’t attempt a fair reading.
    Nobody will read your long paper if you cannot post something intelligible in your forum posts.
    His PDF is 68 pages long. IF anyone wants to take a look: LINK. I am afraid it is a lot of work without any scientific merit.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Wow. I skimmed it and didn't find a single mathematical model or illustration of the physics explained in that incredibly long document. It was literally paragraph after paragraph of assumptions and made-up terminology.

    That is an incredible amount of work, but I'm not seeing any substance except the parts that quote the research of real physicists. If someone actually reads it thoroughly, I commend you and I'd love to hear the input. I have neither the time nor the willpower to do so.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Wow. I skimmed it and didn't find a single mathematical model or illustration of the physics explained in that incredibly long document. It was literally paragraph after paragraph of assumptions and made-up terminology.

    That is an incredible amount of work, but I'm not seeing any substance except the parts that quote the research of real physicists. If someone actually reads it thoroughly, I commend you and I'd love to hear the input. I have neither the time nor the willpower to do so.
    That's precisely what all of us are saying, but he doesn't seem to get that message.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Wow. I skimmed it and didn't find a single mathematical model or illustration of the physics explained in that incredibly long document. It was literally paragraph after paragraph of assumptions and made-up terminology.

    That is an incredible amount of work, but I'm not seeing any substance except the parts that quote the research of real physicists. If someone actually reads it thoroughly, I commend you and I'd love to hear the input. I have neither the time nor the willpower to do so.
    That's precisely what all of us are saying, but he doesn't seem to get that message.
    The forum posts were enough to put me off. But that "paper"... whew. That's a tough read.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I have a 358 page whopper for you from another dodgy ex-member if you feel inclined to lose your mind?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I'm assuming it was published as a twelve part series in Nature?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    If cranks put the same amount of work into learning physics as they do in their obsessions...
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    To Kalster. Many thanks for posting that link to my paper. I tried for months to get a direct link to my paper from The General Science Journal all to no avail. It is a pity that you felt the need to state that there was no science contained in the paper. In that regard and to all those on this Forum whom have declared me lacking of knowledge regarding physics, I would suggest that Jaaanosik and his inquiry on the First Principle of Special Relativity thread, has presented us with an opportunity to prove the veracity of those charges.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I, for one, am not questioning your knowledge of physics. I honestly don't know how competent you are in that field. The reason I don't know is because your posts and paper are so convoluted yet lacking in physical models. You say a lot, but you prove nothing. It's very hard for me to make a determination on your knowledge of physics based upon that.

    If you don't provide the math to back up your claims, what good are you claims?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I'm assuming it was published as a twelve part series in Nature?
    If it was published, it must have been in Psychology Today.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    As a case study?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    @GWN - did you miss my post #41.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    Hello again to John Galt.
    John I did not miss your post number 41.
    With regards to your suggestion that I supply a summary of my belief that Gravity and Gravitation are two different phenomenons, then perhaps at the expense of again being declared to lack even an elementary knowledge of physics, I will again defend that belief on this Forum if there is a genuine willingness by others to participate in a productive debate. Also that the debate is not based on the assumption that a concept developed during a 70 year study of physics is the delusions of a crackpot simply because the information does not strictly conform to presently believed concepts.
    Personally, it is my belief that the present belief that Gravity and Gravitation are one and the same phenomenon inhibits further progress in the understanding of physics.

    On another thread GWN’s gravity, and from memory; I was challenged to provide the relationship of gravity and gravitation to a proton and a neutron. My reply implied that the existence of and magnitude of the mass of a particle was dependent on the magnitude of its gravity, and gravitation was simply an interference to the gravity of the particle by the presence of another or other particles. Then instead of continuing to debate me regarding why I believed that there was a difference, there was only attack based on the present beliefs of the posters and a stated determination not to read my paper.
    Because there is such a wide gap between the present belief concerning gravity and gravitation, and my beliefs as provided in my paper, than an understanding cannot be reached without at least a proper reading and a genuine attempted understanding of the first ten pages of the paper starting from Chapter 1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    I've had my fill of GWN. With this latest non-response he has exceeded his quota of word salad. He's gone.
    KALSTER and MeteorWayne like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    As a case study?
    Yep.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    GWN, I held out what I hoped was a helping hand. I offered you an opportunity to concisely summarise the distinction between gravity and graviatation as you see it. You responded and Harold, seeing only prevarication, equivocation and word salad has banned you.

    Now, I've read and re-read your post and I think you may actually have offered an answer: it was just very badly phrased and then buried in a sea of waffle.

    If this accurately captures what you were trying to say and had you said this, then Harold would not have banned you. You might wish to consider this if you post on other forums, or if your ban here is temporary.


    Gravity is an inherent property of particles and is related to the mass of the particles.

    Gravitation is a measure of the action of one particle upon another and of the interference of one particle by another.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,602
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Gravity is an inherent property of particles and is related to the mass of the particles.

    Gravitation is a measure of the action of one particle upon another and of the interference of one particle by another.
    Once again, you have shown a remarkable ability to read between the lines and extract (perhaps) the intended meaning.

    I can't help feeling that the inability of people like GWN to express their ideas clearly is related to an inability to think clearly. They have several vague, inter-connected concepts banging around in their head and all they can do is blurt it out in a flood of disconnected words. To make matters worse, he (and others) can't see how poorly expressed their ideas are and therefore blame others for not understanding (e.g. because they are lazy, stupid, trapped in an outmoded way of thinking, brainwashed, etc.)

    Even if he learns no science, I hope he has learnt a little about expressing himself well (from your post at least, if not mine and others' attempts).
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Once again, you have shown a remarkable ability to read between the lines and extract (perhaps) the intended meaning.
    Thank you. I fear it may be because I am also insane.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    GWN,

    It's never too late to study math/ physics to develop or adopt equations to suit your proposal. For future postings on this or other forums I suggest an extensive explanation needs to be in a thread that you started. I realize this thread asked a question that you are very interested in, but I think that your extended proposal and explanation might best be served in its own thread. I suggest working on your paper to simplify and clarify it. It might not be too hard in time to find an editor gratis to help you with this process. I found a good editor for my own book and tech papers. Good luck in the future
    Last edited by forrest noble; September 11th, 2012 at 01:37 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Gravity is an inherent property of particles and is related to the mass of the particles.

    Gravitation is a measure of the action of one particle upon another and of the interference of one particle by another.

    It's a distinction without a difference. It's more to do with grammar or linguistics than physics. He is not saying how that affects his calculations (if he had any calculations).
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. The Pioneer Anomaly
    By Harold14370 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 17th, 2010, 10:18 AM
  2. The Pioneer Anomaly
    By Viv Pope in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: May 24th, 2008, 06:29 AM
  3. pioneer anomaly solved, real solution
    By nduriri in forum Physics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 24th, 2006, 03:20 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •