Pioneer spacecraft anomolies

More
19 years 11 months ago #11978 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
The amount of energy being considered is 85 watts. That is a lot more energy than is needed to cause the acceleration being observed if it was used in an ejection process such as a rocket(or maybe not I'm not doing math today and even if I did it could be wrong). By dividing E=mC^2 by C to get something that passes for force seems to me to be a stretch. All I'm asking is if that is really what happens in the real world. And, LB, I see your point about the C^2 link. I never before saw E=mC^2 divided by C. It is an interesting detail.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 11 months ago #12264 by Thomas
Replied by Thomas on topic Reply from Thomas Smid
I have addressed this already in a different thread on this forum: in my opinion the data analysis by Anderson et al.( which seems to show an acceleration independent of distance) is based on incorrect assumptions regarding the travel time of the communication signal. A correction for this would in fact result in a decrease of the acceleration with distance which should considerably change the interpretation (I have put this issue recently on my website; see www.physicsmyths.org.uk/pioneer.htm ).



www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 11 months ago #12086 by Larry Burford
Jim,

Two things to consider, as you decide how closely to read these posts -

* The point I was making has nothing to do with c^2. I was talking about speed in general (v) vs a specific speed (c). And, as we all know, c^2 is not a speed.

* Quantoken did not divide E by c. Watts is a unit of power, not energy.

Hope this helps,
LB

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 11 months ago #12087 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Chat does get sloppy but the theme at issue is the division E/c to get momentum for the photon. If that refects real events and is not just a card trick that works out in math then it can be used to get the mass of the photon too. How can it be determined if E/c is real or a math concept like sqrt-1? I see there are some who are proposing a space sail based on this division being real. But, what else is new

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 11 months ago #12324 by Quantoken
Replied by Quantoken on topic Reply from Quan Token
Jim I am disappointed at your last message that you have not learned.

Larry already said:
"* Quantoken did not divide E by c. Watts is a unit of power, not energy."

Why you continue to say "Chat does get sloppy but the theme at issue is the division E/c to get momentum for the photon"

I am not dividing E by C, I am dividing power by C, watts is a unit of power, which is energy (joules) per second, when you divide that by C, it's like dividing energy by the distance traveled by light in one second. And energy divided by distance is Newton, the unit of force, since energy equals to force times distance.

Quantoken

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 11 months ago #11018 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Q, First I agree with you that heat is not the cause of the acceleration but the people who worked out the theory that heat is the cause use E/c as the basis of the theory. I know this is a long standing statement(or as I prefer a card trick)in physics for getting momentum for a massless photon. All I want to determine is weather or not it is valid in the real world or only in math. Anyway, it is off the main topic of this thread so getting back to that-what other explaination is there for the acceleration other than the offical opinion that heat is the cause?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.305 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum