Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Pioneer Spacecraft Speeding Up Options
jim
Posted: Monday, March 24, 2008 1:30:44 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 116
Points: 57
OK, I'll kick off this topic.

Pioneer 10 was launched in 1972. Pioneer 11 was launched in 1973. Pioneer 10 was the first manmade object to leave the solar system in 1983. It is now over 10 billion miles away. Last telemetry receives was in 2003. But both spacecraft were determined to be accelerating (speeding up) for some unknown reason, as if being pulled by some remote gravitational field. Cosmologists and physicists have been unable to explain. Dark matter?

Any ideas?

jdlaw
Posted: Saturday, April 05, 2008 10:23:41 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 79
Points: 237
Location: USA
The anomaly I am familiar with is the anomalous Doppler frequency drift. Are you saying that we now interpret this as an acceleration?

jim
Posted: Sunday, April 06, 2008 6:03:26 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 116
Points: 57
Sorry, actually it is a deceleration against what would be predicted by solar gravity. See this article.
jdlaw
Posted: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 4:15:40 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 79
Points: 237
Location: USA
Ah! Gravity. As you can see by my avatar, I’m into heavy thoughts.

IMHO

You know that this anomaly about the pioneer space crafts was discovered even before they left the solar system. In the September 12, 1998 issue of the distinguished British Science Magazine (Nature Publishing). In these experimental measurements of "NASA tracking of several outer solar system spacecraft -- the 2 Pioneers, together with the Ulysses and Galileo missions -- were all exhibiting 'anomalous orbital behavior' ... indicating a greater solar gravitational attraction than current physics permits." The measurements were based on the "visual" tracking, i.e. the light that reflects off the space craft's hull.

Now you can see why it is really the speed of light propagation problem and not the gravity problem (but aren’t those both the same problem?). Anyway, in a programmed reality, no two particles (micro) or organisms like us (macro) can experience the exact same reality. Sure our realities are all equivalent within the “fringes” because they overlap. (e.g. I'm really posting to this forum and you are really reading it.) But on the fringes, the speed of light is not constant; it is only that the observed speed of light is constant for any one observer.

In other words, the discrepancies for gravity and speed of light were there because of the instrumentation's reference frame to that of the rotating earth reference frame. Any measurement device involving time, distance, speed, or gravity requires adjustments for time (time dilation) and distance (length constriction) - not just for Doppler effects. Doppler effects in light transmission are only as to the wavelengths of the light, not the speed of the propagation.

We need to make sure our instrumentation is in a reference frame close enough to the subject's reference frame to actually observe it at or near its own full spectrum reference momentum. So adding to your “powers of 10” way of thinking … moving the subject away from the observers reference frame begins to put the subject outside the observers programmed reality. Pioneer was still "out there" in its reality moving exactly the speed it is supposed to moving. From pioneer's point of view, one day perhaps millions of our years from now, earth's orbit about the sun will look a whole lot more like a valance shell and a lot less like an orbit.

jdlaw's Neo Laws of Light Speed
1. The observed speed of light in any reference frame is approximately 299,792,458 meters per second.
2. No mass, energy, or quantum particle can be observed directly by another mass energy or quantum particle that has a greater relative difference in velocity than 299,792,458 meters per second.
3. Where two masses, energies, or quantum particles are moving, spinning, or vibrating with velocities separated by greater than 299,792,458 meters per second relative to each other they must exist in a different quantum realities. However, a third mass, energy or quantum particle whose relative velocity is between the two may observe them both.
4. This programmed reality is finite, but the number of programmed realities is infinite.
5. There is another reference frame in some reality that exists somewhere or sometime where this reference frame, you are in right now, is moving at the speed of light relative to that other reference frame.





jim
Posted: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 8:58:07 AM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 116
Points: 57
Cool! First of all, would you mind emailing me outside of the forum? I'd love to chat with you offline about a couple things. And I like your new laws of relativity. We NEED them.

A couple comments on your post...

- Don't you think that the astrophysicists who have been puzzling over this phenomena would have taken all known relativistic effects into account? After all, relativity should be a key part of their arsenal of tools. As I read about this, it seems as if the anomaly still exists beyond relativistic effects.

- Slight correction to #1: should read "in a vacuum", right?

- Do you believe that relativity is a purely observational phenomena or is it absolute?

- If there were a backchannel information transfer mechanism that exceeded the speed of light, couldn't you exist in the same reality with and communicate with someone beyond the distance permitted by the speed of light limitation? If no, why not? In a programmed reality, such backchannel should be possible.
minorwork
Posted: Sunday, August 17, 2008 1:25:54 PM

Rank: Newbie
Groups: Member

Joined: 6/2/2008
Posts: 8
Points: 24
Location: central U.S.
I couldn't pass calculus, much less differential equations. Lost 2s deferment because of my failure and had to go for pre-induction physical 2 weeks before the draft was over in the early '70s. 6 pounds overweight and the army would not take me. Whew.

So, an evaluation on my part of the competence or failure of any doing the equations on the data received from the Pioneer holds as much water as my knowledge of giving birth. However, the following reference claims by Miles Mathis that there is nothing to fear over the controversy and that in fact the data strengthens the concept of relativity. http://milesmathis.com/pion.html

Has anyone else heard of the works of Miles Mathis?



The most merciful thing in the world ... is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but someday the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality... That we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.� - H. P. Lovecraft
jim
Posted: Sunday, August 17, 2008 10:27:17 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 116
Points: 57
very interesting and thanks for the post. while calculus used to be my forte, that was a really really long time ago. Angel

i only wish he would have used his corrections to show how they actually explain the pioneer anomaly. he makes the claim, but doesn't close the argument. so, i guess i'm still waiting.
jdlaw
Posted: Saturday, September 27, 2008 6:45:08 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 79
Points: 237
Location: USA
Jim & Minorwork,

Sorry, I had kind of lost this thread because there were so many other interesting topics going in this forum.

I must agree that the pioneer anomaly only helps prove Einstein's and Lorentz's theories. It is just that we have to look at them now under our new understandings about a programmed reality. And yes those folks at JPL are very smart (I know a some of them) but a new view of relativity in a programmed reality is actually just a little to easy for them to grasp.

Minorwork, you do not need to know calculus to get a good grasp on these concepts. Most people already understand the basic theories of calculus and differential equations anyway, because they just exist in every day life. (e.g. velocity is the derivative of position over time and acceleration is the derivative of velocity over time.)

The reason you found passing the math class difficult was just because you had to either learn or otherwise memorize all the rules about differentiation and integration -- you know the derivative of X squared is 2x and so forth. If you would have just practiced many many different types of integrating problems, the rest of the stuff would have been easy.

All of these theories about relativity have there bases in plain old newtonian physics anyway; F=MA (force equals mass times acceleration).

First law: An object at rest tends to stay in rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion in a straight line at constant speed unless acted upon by an external, unbalanced force.
Second law: The rate of change of momentum of a body is proportional to the resultant force acting on the body and is in the same direction.
Third law: To every action (force applied) there is an equal and opposite reaction (equal force applied in the opposite direction). Another way of stating Newton's third law, an interaction between two objects, is that, if object A exerts a force on object B, object B will exert the same magnitude force on A, but in the opposite direction.

You add in the behavior of light, which is that the observed speed of light in any reference frame is always precisely 299,792,458 meters per second. This doesn't matter if you are moving toward the source of the light or moving away; you will still observe it coming toward you at the the speed of light which is usually denoted using the lower case "c".

If you take F=MA, you can also conclude kinetic energy, which is just -- 1/2 mass times velocity squared (1/2 mv2) Sorry, I can't seem to do superscripts using this texting tool here)

I can't easily show the formulas here, but you can hopefully see that this is where simple understandings can replace calculus. If you know that a certain force in F=MA is needed to accelerate something, that's an instantaneous thing, right? You smack the baseball and it goes flying. But velocity is a state of something over time. The math says you have to use calculus to get that instantaneous F=MA out over time and get the 1/2 MV(squared) thing.

That's how in newtonian physics the kenetic energy equation was KE = ½mv2. The only time the traditional kenetic energy equation is true is when you consider your standing place on earth to be the proper universal reference frame from which to measure. Your velocity on earth then must be considered zero. The problem is that you are not standing still. The earth is rotating on its axis; it is rotating about the sun; and the sun is moving hundreds of thousands of meters per second in relation to the nearby stars.

Therefore, in a programmed reality, the proper inertial system must take extension into account and the proper inertial equation is: KE = ½m(vi - vr)2 (where i = the inertial system and r = the reference system). But that assumes we have any idea what "v" is is a universal sense. What we are really saying about kenetic energy is that we are not measuring the universal energy of a system, but the energy of one system related to another; in other words the difference in the amount of energy needed to change the velocity of one inertial system to match with another.

Einstien then taught us that the speed of light must also come into the inertial equation, because the speed of light is always constant in any reference frame. Under the general theories of relativity, the kinetic energy without extension is also a fallacy. mc2/ (1-v2/c2)½ is Einstein's equation for the inertial system (raising something to the ½ power is really just another way of saying square root). But Einstein's equation still didn't take into account that it is is also not true without a universal reference frame. In the equation, v is for velocity, but how do you ever know something's velocity in a universal sense (remember the earth is moving, the sun is moving, and the universe itself is moving)

So unless you believe that your motion is at a stand still on the earth (you are not really standing still) or you believe that light might be the great equalizer (i.e. light is the universal reference frame -- this is the mistake Einstein made) Einstein's equation is also not entirely true.

Programmed reality suggests that the proper kinetic energy must take extension into account and the proper equation for general relativity, then is mc2/ (1-(vi - vr)2/c2)½ (again, i = the inertial system and r = the reference system). With the Einteinian relativity, this reference velocity idea was simply ignored because it was just assumed that light speed was the great equalizer (the velocity that leads to the Grand Unification of the Universe). But what if things can move faster than the speed of light, but it is just our inability in our own programmed reality to observe things outside our program?

Thus, I explain the Pioneer anomaly with my new laws of light and extrapolate them to JDlaw's new (neonewtonian) laws of physics:

The New Laws of Light Speed
1. The observed speed of light in any reference frame is approximately 299,792,458 meters per second.
2. No mass, energy, or quantum particle can be observed directly by another mass energy or quantum particle that has a greater relative difference in velocity than 299,792,458 meters per second.
3. Where two masses, energies, or quantum particles are moving, spinning, or vibrating with velocities separated by greater than 299,792,458 meters per second relative to each other they must exist in a different quantum realities. However, a third mass, energy or quantum particle whose relative velocity is between the two may observe them both.
4. This programmed reality is finite, but the number of programmed realities is infinite.
5. There is another reference frame in some reality that exists somewhere or sometime where this reference frame, you are in right now, is moving at the speed of light relative to that other reference frame.

The "neoNewtonian" Laws of Inertia:

1. An object is at rest only in relation to another object. The difference in momentum of any two objects appearing at rest (in relation to each other) must have a very small non-zero reference volocity in relation to each other. Unless either of the two objects are acted upon by a third object, they will tend to stay in rest in relation to each other. An object in motion in relation to the two objects tends to stay in motion in a straight line at constant speed unless acted upon by yet another external, unbalanced force.
2. The rate of change of a reference momentum is proportional to the resultant force acting on a body and is in the same direction.
3. In order for an interaction to happen between two objects, their reference volocities in relation to each other must be a speed less than the speed of light and greater than zero. That is, if object A contacts object B, object B will exert a force on A with the same magnitude that A will exert a force on B, but the forces will be in the opposite direction to each other.





jdlaw
Posted: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 10:42:36 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 79
Points: 237
Location: USA
The universe is accelerating.

jim
Posted: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 11:29:40 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 116
Points: 57
Fantastic! This will take a little more think time than I have at the moment. Maybe this weekend. Thanks for sharing!!!
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Universe Solved Theme Created by Jim Elvidge (Universe Solved)
Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.2 (NET v2.0) - 9/27/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
This page was generated in 0.795 seconds.