[JP]

I don’t need to do the maths to know that I am “talking in the right magnitude”.  The anomaly is extremely small but real, just the kind of adjustment that gravitational time dilation should predict.

Actually, you do have to do math to know that you're talking about the right order of magnitude.  Orders of magnitude are quantitative.  How do you know you're not of by a factor of 10, 100 or 1000 if you haven't done the math?

[MikeS]

I don’t need to do the maths to know that I am “talking in the right magnitude”.  The anomaly is extremely small but real, just the kind of adjustment that gravitational time dilation should predict.

JP quote
"Actually, you do have to do math to know that you're talking about the right order of magnitude.  Orders of magnitude are quantitative.  How do you know you're not of by a factor of 10, 100 or 1000 if you haven't done the math?"

Point taken.  Let me substitute "ball park" for magnitude.
The fact remains as I said before The anomaly is extremely small but real, just the kind of adjustment that gravitational time dilation should predict.

Mike

[JP]

The fact remains as I said before The anomaly is extremely small but real, just the kind of adjustment that gravitational time dilation should predict.

But if the real observations are on the order of 10^-9 m/s², and time dilation ends up being 10^-11 m/s², then it isn't responsible for most of the anomaly.  Can you give any justification that they're on the same order of magnitude other than the fact that time dilation should be "small"?

I doubt you'll change your mind, even faced with these facts.  It is also technically possible that the physicists working on this problem have all made a very basic mistake and that you caught it.   However, it seems a bit extreme to post with absolute certainty you have the answer to the Pioneer anomaly that everyone else missed when you can't provide any numbers to show that the effect you're citing is even the right order of magnitude.

[yor_on]

" During the past 30 years, 2.1 GHz maser signals have been transmitted to the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 1 spacecraft and coherently transponded back to earth, the frequency shift of the received signal being used to determine the recessional velocity of the spacecraft for the purposes of navigation. However, Anderson et al. report that when the computed velocity is compared to the velocity predicted by orbital  models, a discrepancy is found, even after adjustments are made for all known forces that might act on the spacecraft. They find a frequency blueshift residual that increases linearly with time, or in direct proportion to the increase in the line-of-sight distance the spacecraft. If interpreted as a Doppler effect, this residual implies the presence of an anomalous force accelerating the craft  toward the Sun, which Anderson et al. calculate to be (8.7 ± 1.3) × 10 ^–8 cm/s^2 .

When the propulsive effects of onboard thermal radiation sources are taken into account,  this decreases to a residual acceleration of (6.85 ± 1.3) × 10^-8 cm/s  

If interpreted as an anomalous acceleration, the effect is perplexing since most plausible  forces,  such  as  gravity,  decrease  rapidly with distance whereas the Pioneer apparent acceleration remains relatively constant with time. Moreover, an anomalous acceleration of similar magnitude does not appear to be acting on the planets, given that their orbital periods experience no similar secular change within the accuracy of current determinations."

You know Mike, there seems to be a mountain of theoretical frameworks discussing the underlying physics out on the net But to define a new 'physics' on one spacecrafts anomaly seems somewhat drastic. I've seen so many weird explanations now, everything from expecting photons to 'naturally' blue shift (Subquantum kinetics) to the tired light explanation where they 'die out' which in a way seems incorporated in the aforementioned explanation too. And you know what They all have tons of math supporting their definitions. Then you have some calling it a redshift instead of a blue shift, finding Andersons et al. definitions and proofs questionable in themselves etc etc.

Let's put a end to this debate. We're not here to judge the best explanation of the Pioneer anomaly and we would need more experiments done to find what it really was/is. The antenna used wasn't that specific (narrowed down) and NASA could neither say with certainty when it was 'closed down' not working, as I understands it. There are so many uncertainties in this material, although I can understand that mathematically inclined physicists threw themselves at the result of the Anderson et all. investigation and started to theorize around it.

And i still have to see how they can define a object moving away from the detector as blue shifted. There has to be an explanation to that idea, I've seen some id* mumbling about accelerating away as explaining it but that one is them mixing the idea of potential energy with red and blue shift.

Take anything moving away, emitting a light, relative you 'standing still'. here is you X and here is the object -- 0 -- when it is still relative you. the '-' is a measure of the lights frequency, the shorter the more energetic/blue shifted here.

Now it starts to move relative you X  ---0- And as you can see it will be blue-shifted relative its direction of motion -> and red shifted relative you <--- being 'still'. It's a very simple phenomena basicly. If I assume the Pioneer to have moved apart from us then the blue shift should be in the direction it moved and any red shift should be relative us. To that you can add that any gravitational field will blue shift a incoming photon, as gravity seem to act as an 'accelerator' of energy.

You might assume that the same should be true for a single photon, but it's not. If we assume it to be blue-shifted it will be so, as I see it, from any vector 'observed'. But it will be combined effect of your motion/mass relative the vector/momentum of that photon. Macroscopic objects express a blue and red-shift through their motion relative you, in their waves/photons. But a single photon I believe to have the same 'energy', always. As I see it that is mainly due to two things, We don't see them until they interact, and assuming a 'propagation' any 'photon' will have a direction, and a momentum, (vector=magnitude and direction) directed into what vector they are 'propagating'. That momentum, expressed, and actually created in the 'interaction' with whatever it 'hits', is what will define its final 'energy', not too unlike a ball moving. This does not contradict the idea of a photon having a intrinsic invariant energy though. Just as little as the balls velocity as it smash into you is contradicted by its 'invariant mass', both will have a relevance to the impact. The other reason is that a photon is a 'point particle', not existing inside our SpaceTime other that as a '(wave) packet of energy'.

As photons does not take any 'place', and does not exist until its interaction we can't really say what a photon does in the immediate 'duration' it 'propagates'. One really need to consider the difference between a object of invariant mass (e.g a ball), and also consider it macroscopically to realize that there is a major difference between the idea of a 'photons propagation', as compared to that ball coming at you in the air. the balls trajectory is 'there' for you, you see it before it hits you, translated by the same 'photons' that only exist in their interactions.

To not admit to what is true is one of the worst mistakes one can do. To generalize a propagation of light is well documented and follow laws of physics that allows us to give light a 'invariant speed', but I prefer to look at that as pure constant myself. And as I said, that lights speed is a 'invariant', a 'constant'. That was what Einstein built his theory on relativity on, not 'time pockets' and gravitational 'field' having their own 'time density'. Although I can see how you can think of it that way. 'motion' and 'distance' is relative in Einsteins universe, not light. Light has one same 'speed' in all frames, and as measured from any frame possible. That's actually what makes light unique. Well, there are more things too it, as always. Ask JP but that's what he built his theory of relativity on.
==

Had to clear it up some

[MikeS]

JP.
Yes, I said “I am absolutely certain that my original explanation is correct.”
This is just my feeling on the subject.  I have already admitted that it is not a scientific approach.  It was never meant to be.  My purpose was to put forth an idea and hope that it would stimulate debate.  The only real debate it seems to have stimulated so far is over my own feelings on the subject and whether I can do the maths.  I have already retracted “magnitude and substituted “ball park”. Whilst I do not want to trivialize the scientific approach, I believe you are “nit picking” and trying to trivialize a much more important issue.  I have already admitted I do not understand the math’s but presumably some amongst you will.  This is an important debate and there is nothing to stop any of you from mathematically investigating the anomaly.


yor_on
Quotes
“If interpreted as an anomalous acceleration, the effect is perplexing since most plausible  forces,  such  as  gravity,  decrease  rapidly with distance whereas the Pioneer apparent acceleration remains relatively constant with time. Moreover, an anomalous acceleration of similar magnitude does not appear to be acting on the planets, given that their orbital periods experience no similar secular change within the accuracy of current determinations."

"Pioneer apparent acceleration remains relatively constant with time."

EXPLANATION  This is because the wavelength of photons emitted by the spacecraft are continually being dilated by gravity as they enter the Solar System.  The dilation is progressive, the further the spacecraft, the more the dilation.  Once the spacecraft is ‘effectively’ outside the gravity of the solar system, the dilation will no longer be progressive but constant.

"Moreover, an anomalous acceleration of similar magnitude does not appear to be acting on the planets, given that their orbital periods experience no similar secular change within the accuracy of current determinations."

EXPLANATION  Of course, it does not affect the planets or anything else within the Solar System as the strength of gravity within the Solar System remains fairly constant

“You know Mike, there seems to be a mountain of theoretical frameworks discussing the underlying physics out on the net But to define a new 'physics' on one spacecrafts anomaly seems somewhat drastic. I've seen so many weird explanations now, everything from expecting photons to 'naturally' blue shift (Subquantum kinetics) to the tired light explanation where they 'die out' which in a way seems incorporated in the aforementioned explanation too. And you know what They all have tons of math supporting their definitions. Then you have some calling it a redshift instead of a blue shift, finding Andersons et al. definitions and proofs questionable in themselves etc etc.”

"But to define a new 'physics' on one spacecrafts anomaly seems somewhat drastic."

CORRECTION  It’s at least three very similar spacecraft anomalies, could be four or more.  Possibly enough to be statistically significant but this is not the point.

CORRECTION   I never mentioned anything about new ‘physics’ nor was it my intention so to do.  Throughout this debate, I have continuously referred to General Relativity gravitational time dilation as being the cause of the anomaly.  This is not new ‘physics’.  This idea was originally suggested, as it seemed the most obvious answer to the question.  If you have read the above then you will have seen that when analyzing the problem gravitational time dilation was ignored.  As I pointed out, it seems they choose to ignore General Relativity because they thought it irrelevant but they were wrong.

"They all have tons of math supporting their definitions"

As I have already mentioned maths supporting conflicting theories just shows how unreliable maths can be.

“And i still have to see how they can define a object moving away from the detector as blue shifted. There has to be an explanation to that idea, I've seen some id* mumbling about accelerating away as explaining it but that one is them mixing the idea of potential energy with red and blue shift.”

This was my original post and it contains the complete explanation.

“The Pioneer anomaly is due to time dilation that is caused by the gravity of the SolarSystem.  As pioneer leaves the solar System the rate of flow of time increases causing a doppler blue shift relative to our perspective.  This blue shift reduces the expected red shift so the red shift is not as far red shifted as expected.  The craft is where it is supposed to be, it just appears to be closer to us than it is.”


Another way of putting this is:-
The wavelength of photons emitted by the spacecraft are gravitationally red shifted as they enter the Solar System. 


What I said was:-
As pioneer leaves the solar System the rate of flow of time increases causing a
doppler blue shift relative to our perspective.


CORRECTION  I never said light was blue shifted only that it appears blue shifted from our perspective.  (Actually, thinking about it, yes it is blue shifted.  The blue shift reduces the expected red shift.  The red shift is not as far red shifted as expected.)


“To not admit to what is true is one of the worst mistakes one can do. To generalize a propagation of light is well documented and follow laws of physics that allows us to give light a 'invariant speed', but I prefer to look at that as pure constant myself. And as I said, that lights speed is a 'invariant', a 'constant'. That was what Einstein built his theory on relativity on, not 'time pockets' and gravitational 'field' having their own 'time density'. Although I can see how you can think of it that way. 'motion' and 'distance' is relative in Einsteins universe, not light. Light has one same 'speed' in all frames, and as measured from any frame possible. That's actually what makes light unique. Well, there are more things too it, as always. Ask JP but that's what he built his theory of relativity on.”


“To not admit to what is true is one of the worst mistakes one can do.
The implication being that I am knowingly refusing to admit to what is true.
There is nothing true that you or the scientific community have said that I have refuted.  On the other hand you have almost continually refuted, distorted and misquoted most of what I have said.  This is a fact documented by this thread.[/color]

“And as I said, that lights speed is a 'invariant', a 'constant'. That was what Einstein built his theory on relativity on, not 'time pockets' and gravitational 'field' having their own 'time density'”.


I have never mentioned ‘Time Pockets’ or ‘time density’, they are your inventions. 
What I have mentioned and is consistent with General Relativity is gravitational time dilation.  If you accept gravitational time dilation as a very real, observable and quantifiable effect, which it has proved to be then you must accept that as the strength of gravity varies in the universe on a local scale so must the rate of flow of time.  In other words the speed of light is a constant because the rate of flow of time is a variable.  It is built into General Relativity.  It’s not my idea, I am not proposing anything new.

All the explanations above I have given before, I have to keep repeating the same facts.

I add this so there is no mistake on what I have proposed.  The Pioneer anomalies can and should have been explained by General Relativity.  No new physics are required


As I mentioned a few posts ago, I have e.mailed JPL with the above suggestion.  If and when I receive a reply I will post it here, assuming the thread to still be open of course.

Mike

[MikeS]

I have just noticed this from my last post:-

"As I pointed out, it seems they choose to ignore General Relativity because they thought it irrelevant but they were wrong.

"They all have tons of math supporting their definitions"

As I have already mentioned maths supporting conflicting theories just shows how unreliable maths can be."

If I am correct in thinking that there is no anomaly, it is just an artifact of using the wrong math then it shows just how unreliable mathematics can be when applied by the Human mind.

Mike

[MikeS]

Perhaps this will help to put things into context.

I have just done an online search, phrased in different ways, to find online gravity calculators.
There is an abundance of calculators for Newtonian gravity, likewise an abundance for relatavistic calculators as regards speed. 

I haven't found one that can calculate time dilation due to gravity.  It's obviously something that people just don't consider. 

That might make me the world expert! []

Mike

[imatfaal]

Mike - you are starting to sound like a crackpot.  I can absolutely guarantee that time dilation due to both relative velocities and due to gravitational potentials are taken into account within the calculations for orbital positions of satellites. 

You seem to be failing to grasp how maths and science is inter-twined, and the power of falsification;  maths can support many ideas at the same time - but it can also rule out absolutely an idea that doesn't agree.  As a very simple example
- you are given an unknown function y=f(x)
- and told if x=2 then y=4
- the speculations abound ie y=2x or y=x^x or y=4 or y=x^2
- all are potentially valid
- but y=x^3 is not valid
- you are then given additional info if x=1 y=1; two of the above are ruled out and two remain
etc...

The maths behind the theory is an essential part of the physics - without engagement with the maths all we have is pipedreams

[MikeS]

Mike - you are starting to sound like a crackpot.  I can absolutely guarantee that time dilation due to both relative velocities and due to gravitational potentials are taken into account within the calculations for orbital positions of satellites. 

You seem to be failing to grasp how maths and science is inter-twined, and the power of falsification;  maths can support many ideas at the same time - but it can also rule out absolutely an idea that doesn't agree.  As a very simple example
- you are given an unknown function y=f(x)
- and told if x=2 then y=4
- the speculations abound ie y=2x or y=x^x or y=4 or y=x^2
- all are potentially valid
- but y=x^3 is not valid
- you are then given additional info if x=1 y=1; two of the above are ruled out and two remain
etc...

The maths behind the theory is an essential part of the physics - without engagement with the maths all we have is pipedreams

Iv'e already said in an earlier post that general relativity is used in calculations relating to gps satelites.  So what we are not talking about satelites.  We are talking about craft exiting the solar system and the specific method used to analyse signals from them.  If you,ve read my earlier posts you will see that JPS have admitted that they did not use general relativity in their calculations.

You seem to be totally missing the point.  I am not proposing anything new.  The maths that should have been used to analyse the pioneer data was general relativity but it wasn't used.  If I am wrong then it is easy to prove do the math.

If I am right and had done the math and confirmed the 'anomaly' was due to JPL not using General relativity then I could have contacted them myself, end of story.  I thought the idea of a science forum was for debate.

The first of my last three consequtive posts was mainly in answer to clear up a load of miss quotes.  There is a lot of things in there that you could query or disagree with.  Stick to what I have said and if you disagree say why.  I really do not understand your attitude all I have ever said is that the Pioneer anomaly can be understood through the mathematics of General Relativity.  Jps have themselves admitted that they have not used General relativity in their calculations.  And your calling me a crackpot.  If there is anything appertaining to the pioneer anomaly that I have said that you disagree with then please tell me.

Mike

[JP]

Stick to what I have said and if you disagree say why. 

Mike, what I disagree with is that this is a science Q&A forum and your response to the initial question is based entirely on an unscientific guess.  Your defense of your original answer isn't based on science either, it's based on your intuition.  Why post this on a science forum if you aren't willing to engage with other posters using the scientific method of offering quantitative and falsifiable results?

[yor_on]

I do agree on "gravitational time dilation as a very real, observable and quantifiable effect." Mike, as described when measuring between frames of reference. To really show it you need a 'twin-experiment' though. And this is because only then will you be able to measure a quantitative difference between the twins, the traveling twin being younger biologically. What i don't like is the idea of it existing places where 'time' goes slower, and where as I understood you to put it before, time do so to to adapt to lights 'constant speed'.

As I see it, when you do so you redefine light as having different speeds but with 'time' now adapting itself to, more or less, fool us That's not how Einstein saw it, and it's not how I see it either. Light is the foremost constant I know, it has only one 'speed' and doesn't care about where it comes from. It can come from a black hole, a torch light in your hand, or a speeding rocket and hit your eye simultaneously, all three will have the same speed. And if you go those to three places you will find your own time durations, as measured by you, to be 'as always'. So, according to you, there will be nowhere that 'time' slows down, that is, you will not by any experiment made prove that idea. This does not mean that time on earth has the same 'durations'. There has been experiments done with extremely sensitive 'radiative clocks', where you by placing one on the floor and the other on a table being able to show a difference in their measure of temporal durations. But you do not , whether you stand up or lay down change anything about the duration that is measured for you. Your life expectancy will not become any longer by laying on the floor.

So your time will always be the same, but durations between positional systems in SpaceTime will differ when compared. And why they do it is because light only have one speed in a vacuum. And so the idea of gravitational time dilation becomes one where you only can get it confirmed by a twin-experiment, where there is a comparison done between two human 'systems' having a 'exact same' biological clock and a same temporal origin, being 'twins', one leaving to then come back again. But, none of those twins will ever have noticed time 'moving differently'. There's a difference.

[MikeS]

“Mike, what I disagree with is that this is a science Q&A forum and your response to the initial question is based entirely on an unscientific guess.”

Rubbish, my initial answer was based on firm scientific proven fact.
General Relativity states that mass dilates time but that was not taken into account, hence the anomaly

“Your defense of your original answer isn't based on science either; it's based on your intuition.”

Rubbish, my intuition has told me to base it on known facts.  If you dispute this, tell me what I have said that is wrong.

“Why post this on a science forum if you aren't willing to engage with other posters using the scientific method of offering quantitative and falsifiable results?”

Rubbish, I am and have been more than willing, as evidenced by my posts in this thread, to engage with other posters.  Have any of them answered any of my points, ever? 

I have not proposed a new theory or new physics therefore there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to offer quantitative and falsifiable results.

What I have maintained is that the physics to explain the anomaly already exist but have been ignored.  This has so far been confirmed to be correct.  Virtually all of the points that I have posted have been ignored, not debated.  I have been continually miss-quoted by you, which I have mentioned before but none of that has been addressed 

You accuse me of bad science but really you need to look at a lot of what you have written, it’s mostly ideas and waffle and wrong

I have just written this before reading your last post which is mostly a load of rubbish.

[JP]

Well, Mike, I give up on trying to explain where you and the scientific method don't agree.  It's clear you have your own opinion and aren't willing to hear others.  It's a shame, because your point about time dilation was interesting, but the certainty with which you present along with your dismissal of the need for mathematics leads to a host of scientific problems with the idea and have bogged down any useful discussion.

[yor_on]

Mike, don't take our views to hard. You have what we might call a hypothesis. To prove it you need to create some proofs. That's what the math is for, I tried to look for your question and although I found, especially some Russian scientists that seemed to wonder in a similar fashion I found none asking the exact same. As you say, no matter how you and me argue, you base it on what you see as the theory of relativity which in a way is quite palatable to me I'm a avid fan of the theory of relativity myself, and you want to have it proved or disproved.

Well, then you need to do the math I think, because then you will have the definition laid out for us to look at. And your and mine discussion might or might not come in there, but I think we will agree on what math there is needed. Don't get all angry, Imatfaal is a very knowledgeable young man, and JP even more so. You need to remember that without any mathematical definitions it's awfully hard to 'count on it' and see if it will make sense. And you can't expect us to do the math for you, it's your theory and your math that should define it, not ours.

There are three different 'red shifts' in astronomy, Doppler, gravitational and cosmological (space expanding), and then above 0,4-5 'c' we find the Lorentz contraction expressing itself too. And all 'normal' photons you see are expected to come from exited atoms. Law of Energy Conservation and the Doppler Effect. It's a lot of math in that one but this one may be more palatable to start with Redshift components. And for those wanting a overview(?)

I guess some may want that, listening to the arguments. I find this one a very nice description of Doppler relative Lorentz contraction, making good sense to help one see the basic differences. C-ship: The Doppler Shift And JP I expect to know exactly what he talks about, when he doesn't he will tell you.

[MikeS]

JP,

I think it is a shame, none of you give any encouragement only criticism.  I have not had any positive feedback at all.  Yes I am confident that I have identified the source of the anomaly, but that's how I feel and I will have to deal with it if I am wrong.

I have never criticised the scientific method, it's essential in science.  I'm a firm believer in maths, as I said in a previous post but maths isn't the answer to everything.  I didn't think and I still don't think that maths is required to suggest what the reason is to explain what I consider to be obvious.  I sincerely believe that my explanation of the anomaly is the first thing that should have been considered to see if it explains the mystery.  The idea, it could be argued has little to do with science but a lot to do with common sense.  I have already reiterated on numerous occasions that I wish I understood the maths but I don't.  According to your reasoning that gives me no right to make any suggestions.  The world would be a much poorer place if everyone shared those views.  If you look back through all of the posts you will see there never was the start of any useful discussion.  There was never any feedback on the content and quality of what I suggested just a continuous stream of repeated attacks.

One question:-
It is known that gravitational time dilation is real and observable.  So it is known that any craft that leaves the Solar System will be affected by it.  What should have been the first suggestion to explain the anomaly?

[Geezer]

Mike,

I think it is necessary to quantify effects in science and, unfortunately, the only way to do that is mathematically. Also, math provides a common language that promotes common understanding in a way that spoken languages never do. Without some math to sort out the significant from the insignificant, we are liable to descend into acrimonious debates, QED this thread.

Perhaps we should lock this topic before matters deteriorate any further.

[Democritus]

"If anyone can prove to me for certain that the anomaly is not due to time dilation in the Solar System I would be delighted to hear from them." &
"I am absolutely certain that my original explanation is correct."
Mike

Would that I have such certainty!
I have been thrilled and astounded for a very long time now with the progress of science. If I have learned anything it is this:
As in love and war, and politics and life, so it is that nothing is certain in physics, astronomy and cosmology. []

[imatfaal]

Mike - firstly keep it civil or one of the mods will lock the thread (btw prefixing every paragraph of a reply with rubbish is not imo civil). 

 I have just reread one of the papers by the JPL incl Turyshev - it details the methods that JPL use.  I can quite understand that it is difficult to grasp - but the calculation regarding gravity used various Parameterised Post-Newtonian Formalisms.  PPN is a method that directly engages with GR (as well as many other metrics) in situations where all speeds are significantly sub-luminal and the gravitational field is weak.  The measurement of the the light that you worried was not taking into account the gravitational potential time dilation/gravitational red-shift is calculated using the correct relativistic equations and comparisons with ephmeris time / barycentric coordinate time ie all times and rates are adjusted in terms of a clock outside the gravity well and is accurate to one part in 10^17.

That Turyshev says that the difference between Newtonian calcs and GR are negligable is due to the fact that both were calculated and the difference was negligible. 

These calcs are summarised at around pages 55-60 of the latest Tuyrshev article.  If you wish to continue the debate please engage with the previous paragraphs as they confirm to my mind that you have been misunderstanding Turyshevs comments.  A repeating of the line that Turyshev said GR wasn't used will not be responded to.

[mattyh]

First of all, hello peeps.  I had a similar thought to yours mike and after a bit of searching, i was directed here.

I have to say, having read through the thread several times i feel that you've been treated unfair.  All your posts made total sense to myself and used terminology that I'm familiar with. The OP however repeatedly misquoted you and often coined his own phase's.

Maybe we're (well, i am) just of a lesser intellect and dint understand the big picture, lol.

Like yourself the maths of this is way over my head, I had a hunch and decided to research it. Don't all theories start off that way? obviously at some point they need backed up with hard facts, but i guess since we cant do that, maybe we should keep quiet.

Afterall someone may do the maths, write a paper on it and win a nobel prize or something.

[yor_on]

Mattyh, one don't has to like it, but one do need to know the 'mainstream' definition, Einsteins own actually, first. As for needing the math? Oh yes, you will need to learn it, and as you do you also will need to redefine Einstein's definitions to fit this idea of 'variable light'.

Myself I don't find it possible.