![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
One more source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delog ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Check this article out bro.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Heat_is_Source_of_Pioneer_Anomaly_999.html 216.246.130.20 ( talk) 23:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It appears that the Pioneer Anomaly can now be explained entirely by a careful modeling of heat radiation from the spacecraft. I propose that there be a mild edit to the lede section of this article and then a deletion of the overwhelming majority of the article. While this was an unresolved open problem in physics, it was highly noteworthy; now that the anomoly has been explained without the need for new physics, it is much less so.
A lot of work was done in collecting and organizing the citations in this article, so I think a brief sentence or two for each existing citation might reasonably remain. The wide-range of suggested explanations should remain to demonstrate that the anomoly was actively studied for many years.
Citations for the resolution of this problem should include (if they are not already listed in the article)
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424750/nasa-releases-new-pioneer-anomaly-analysis/ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7362/full/477009d.html http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423504/pioneer-anomaly-solved-by-1970s-computer-graphics/ http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Heat_is_Source_of_Pioneer_Anomaly_999.html
plus the publication data for http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5222 http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.3985 http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507
I don't want to step on anyone's toes, so I'll wait until 26 August 2012 before massively revising this article. 86.182.157.114 ( talk) 20:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
First, a disclaimer - I've written articles on the anomaly, so I have a dog in this hunt. I'd suggest a different re-write, emphasizing the "history of science" type aspects. It would resemble a more formal and documented version of THE PIONEER ANOMALY: A WILD GOOSE CHASE?. This would include:
It would be great to end with a 'scientific retrospective" paper, describing why this took so long to straighten out. One of the main factors is that new physics get you a Nobel prize, whereas overlooked engineering trivia get you a cite or two. However, no one to my knowledge has written this paper yet, so we probably can't include this. LouScheffer ( talk) 00:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The Pioneers anomalies are indeed two: the first, is the linear deceleration sufferred by the space probes.The secondary one, is the spindown of the spin when spacecrafts were non-perturbed by, say, engines turned on.According to the Planetary Society , as it can be easily found by any reader, they found no expalanation that is by now, acceptable.Of course, they have i mind the so-called thermal emission guys.I published a whole book, and several papers, counting in some of them with co-author Fernando Gomide,where I show that Universal Rotation, gives the numerically correct observed results,through well-known General Relativity Theory.Universal rotation, has been observed experimentally, and also was calculated through indirect experimental extrapolation of rotational states of increasing astronomical to astrophysical and, ultimately, to cosmological scales.Just look my books published recently (2012), "General Relativity and the Pioneers Anomaly", and "Realization of Einstein´s Machian Program", by Nova Science Publishers, New York, and some papers you may find, in the journal Astrophysics and Space Science (late 2011, and early 2012), I am the author, and in Cornell University Library, some more, which shall be published in this month by Journal of Modern Physics, with F.M.Gomide.(Special issue on Gravitation, Astrophysics and Cosmology).
Msberman ( talk) 14:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
It is just a question of looking the amount of papers, and even two books, written by a Brazilian group of physicists, on the General Relativistic origin of the Pioneer Anomaly, bymeans of the already observed Universal Rotation, to get convinced that thermal emission, is just as well as this---an explanation of the deceleration, but with the physicists explanation, to the contrary of the engineers one, the other two NASA anomalies(spindown, and FlyBy), are also explained. I do not agree with the deletion of one side´s theory, in favour of the other, as has been systematically done in the main page of the Pioneer Anomaly, by the "engineers".I shall wait about 48 hours, in order to get other opinions, and then, I shall post in the main page, again, the material on the general relativistic rotational explanation.I repute immoral, and unethical, the deletion of such material, and it does not serve the cause of Science, to make such restrictions.Indeed, the unsuspect New York Academy of Sciences Magazine, in its Spring 2008 issue, has informed that the main scientist within the Brazilian group of general relativists, has indeed "solved the NASA problem". Deletion of general relativitic EXACT solution of the Pioneer deceleration, in favour of the engineers thermal emission numerical calculation, is tantamount to replace Albert Einstein, by someone else in the engineering business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.73.40.80 ( talk) 04:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC) I happen to have changed my mind, and went ahead, replacing again what had been deleted about the General relativistic explanation, in the main page. Please do not delete such replacement, before the scientific communitty gets the feeling for it, and reaches a consensus. 189.73.40.80 ( talk) 05:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Unfortunately, obscurantism has surpassed the frontier of logic and reasonability, and the General Relativistic explanation was again deleted by the engineers.They forget that an EXACT solution, in General Relativity, is louder than engineering numerical stuff. 189.73.40.80 ( talk) 13:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Very well---the vice-versa, is already placed by you, namely, it is up to the engineers to construct a model, tha tkeeps General Relativistic solution of the problem as well, for Physics comes before engineering.First, goes General Relativity.One more thing--in the General Relativistic equations, you may include a radiational energy density---that of course represents thermal radiation, but it would make no big difference,it makes for a small correction. 189.73.40.80 ( talk) 20:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
One more source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delog ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Check this article out bro.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Heat_is_Source_of_Pioneer_Anomaly_999.html 216.246.130.20 ( talk) 23:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It appears that the Pioneer Anomaly can now be explained entirely by a careful modeling of heat radiation from the spacecraft. I propose that there be a mild edit to the lede section of this article and then a deletion of the overwhelming majority of the article. While this was an unresolved open problem in physics, it was highly noteworthy; now that the anomoly has been explained without the need for new physics, it is much less so.
A lot of work was done in collecting and organizing the citations in this article, so I think a brief sentence or two for each existing citation might reasonably remain. The wide-range of suggested explanations should remain to demonstrate that the anomoly was actively studied for many years.
Citations for the resolution of this problem should include (if they are not already listed in the article)
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424750/nasa-releases-new-pioneer-anomaly-analysis/ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7362/full/477009d.html http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423504/pioneer-anomaly-solved-by-1970s-computer-graphics/ http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Heat_is_Source_of_Pioneer_Anomaly_999.html
plus the publication data for http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5222 http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.3985 http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507
I don't want to step on anyone's toes, so I'll wait until 26 August 2012 before massively revising this article. 86.182.157.114 ( talk) 20:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
First, a disclaimer - I've written articles on the anomaly, so I have a dog in this hunt. I'd suggest a different re-write, emphasizing the "history of science" type aspects. It would resemble a more formal and documented version of THE PIONEER ANOMALY: A WILD GOOSE CHASE?. This would include:
It would be great to end with a 'scientific retrospective" paper, describing why this took so long to straighten out. One of the main factors is that new physics get you a Nobel prize, whereas overlooked engineering trivia get you a cite or two. However, no one to my knowledge has written this paper yet, so we probably can't include this. LouScheffer ( talk) 00:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The Pioneers anomalies are indeed two: the first, is the linear deceleration sufferred by the space probes.The secondary one, is the spindown of the spin when spacecrafts were non-perturbed by, say, engines turned on.According to the Planetary Society , as it can be easily found by any reader, they found no expalanation that is by now, acceptable.Of course, they have i mind the so-called thermal emission guys.I published a whole book, and several papers, counting in some of them with co-author Fernando Gomide,where I show that Universal Rotation, gives the numerically correct observed results,through well-known General Relativity Theory.Universal rotation, has been observed experimentally, and also was calculated through indirect experimental extrapolation of rotational states of increasing astronomical to astrophysical and, ultimately, to cosmological scales.Just look my books published recently (2012), "General Relativity and the Pioneers Anomaly", and "Realization of Einstein´s Machian Program", by Nova Science Publishers, New York, and some papers you may find, in the journal Astrophysics and Space Science (late 2011, and early 2012), I am the author, and in Cornell University Library, some more, which shall be published in this month by Journal of Modern Physics, with F.M.Gomide.(Special issue on Gravitation, Astrophysics and Cosmology).
Msberman ( talk) 14:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
It is just a question of looking the amount of papers, and even two books, written by a Brazilian group of physicists, on the General Relativistic origin of the Pioneer Anomaly, bymeans of the already observed Universal Rotation, to get convinced that thermal emission, is just as well as this---an explanation of the deceleration, but with the physicists explanation, to the contrary of the engineers one, the other two NASA anomalies(spindown, and FlyBy), are also explained. I do not agree with the deletion of one side´s theory, in favour of the other, as has been systematically done in the main page of the Pioneer Anomaly, by the "engineers".I shall wait about 48 hours, in order to get other opinions, and then, I shall post in the main page, again, the material on the general relativistic rotational explanation.I repute immoral, and unethical, the deletion of such material, and it does not serve the cause of Science, to make such restrictions.Indeed, the unsuspect New York Academy of Sciences Magazine, in its Spring 2008 issue, has informed that the main scientist within the Brazilian group of general relativists, has indeed "solved the NASA problem". Deletion of general relativitic EXACT solution of the Pioneer deceleration, in favour of the engineers thermal emission numerical calculation, is tantamount to replace Albert Einstein, by someone else in the engineering business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.73.40.80 ( talk) 04:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC) I happen to have changed my mind, and went ahead, replacing again what had been deleted about the General relativistic explanation, in the main page. Please do not delete such replacement, before the scientific communitty gets the feeling for it, and reaches a consensus. 189.73.40.80 ( talk) 05:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Unfortunately, obscurantism has surpassed the frontier of logic and reasonability, and the General Relativistic explanation was again deleted by the engineers.They forget that an EXACT solution, in General Relativity, is louder than engineering numerical stuff. 189.73.40.80 ( talk) 13:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Very well---the vice-versa, is already placed by you, namely, it is up to the engineers to construct a model, tha tkeeps General Relativistic solution of the problem as well, for Physics comes before engineering.First, goes General Relativity.One more thing--in the General Relativistic equations, you may include a radiational energy density---that of course represents thermal radiation, but it would make no big difference,it makes for a small correction. 189.73.40.80 ( talk) 20:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)