Pioneer Anomaly Caused by Earth's Rotation?

Lowell (1915) analyzed the residuals of the outer planets (particularly Uranus) and predicted that a mass of about 7 earth masses at the present orbit of Pluto would resolve the anomalies. Tombaugh found Pluto at Lowell's predictions in 1930 (although Lowell had photographed Pluto but missed it)but this can only be considered a coincidence due to the paucity of Pluto/Charon's mass. On the other hand, a mass of 7.4 earth masses in precisely Lowell's predicted orbit would exactly negate the observed Pioneer anomaly (8.74exp-10m/s)where Uranus is at aphelion (20.04 AU, 26 February, 2009). But, the Pioneer anomaly seems to be homogeneous beginning at 20AU. There is the possibility that the Pioneer RPG generators could somehow simultaneously create the anomaly by (a)generating a heat loss (from the nuke generators)in a perfectly uniform manner and in a perfectly uniform angle or (b)helium is produced in the RPG's and could theoretically escape in a perfectly uniform manner and in a perfectly uniform angle to both craft. JPL just sent all 30 years of the Pionner data to the Planetary Society for ongoing analysis. This will take years but as all other possible mechanical explanations have been ruled out, this is the best mechanical hope.

If the Pioneer anomaly were somehow physically real and engages the solar field at 20AU per the Pioneer data, then a simple test could determine if the phenomena is real. During 2008, Uranus will cross the 20AU boundary precisely per the Ephermis tables. If the anomaly is real, Uranus will see a sudden drag towards the sun, and a sudden boost in orbital velocity. The planet would wobble and its moons and rings would be affected. Uranus would also "ring like a bell". By late 2009, the planet would have stabilized and its elliptical orbit would then suddenly again cross the 20AU boundary back towards the sun. The same process would occur.

The net effect is that residuals would suddenly appear in direct opposition ro the Ephemeris tables. All the planets (and any satellites about them)would be (more or less) affected (including earth). The GPS platform is sensitive enough to detect this disturbance and that leads to an interesting experiment. If the anomaly is real, then as Uranus enters the 20AU boundary, the perturbations are instantaneous. If the perturbations are real, the GPS platform will detect them. One could then determine if the gravitational effect travels at (a) the speed of light, (b) at some greater speed, or (c) instantaneously. Tom van Flandern does have a dog in this fight. The good thing about it is (if the anomaly is real) we would have two chances to verify it (if not, we have to wait another 84.1 years).

At any event, if the anomaly is real, then the above will happen and will be noticed even if no one is looking for it. If it doesn't, I would bet on gas as the Pioneer anomaly cause.

paul gibson

paul gibson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pgibson</i>
<br />Lowell (1915) analyzed the residuals of the outer planets (particularly Uranus) and predicted that a mass of about 7 earth masses at the present orbit of Pluto would resolve the anomalies.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There was never any unique solution. In fact, about six different predictions by various planet hunters were still live at that time, and fairly well covered the ecliptic so that any find was bound to be within striking distance of one of them. As I recall, Lowell's prediction was never closer that 7 degrees to Pluto. And getting that close presumes choosing the comparison date fortuitously so as to minimize the discrepancy.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">a mass of 7.4 earth masses in precisely Lowell's predicted orbit would exactly negate the observed Pioneer anomaly (8.74exp-10m/s)where Uranus is at aphelion (20.04 AU, 26 February, 2009).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't know where you are getting this, but this is wildly wrong on many levels. No missing mass confined to a single body can explain the Pioneer anomaly, neither Uranus nor Pluto is near either Pioneer, an undiscovered mass that large could not be missed in pulsar timing data, it isn't consistent with perturbations on other planets, etc., etc.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But, the Pioneer anomaly seems to be homogeneous beginning at 20AU.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is a data selection effect unrelated to behavior of the anomaly. The nearly identical Ulysses anomaly is closely similar even at Jupiter's orbit.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There is the possibility that the Pioneer RPG generators could somehow simultaneously create the anomaly<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There is a certainty that the heat generated has enough thrust to create an anomaly 30 times larger. However, because most of this heat is radiated isotropically, the thrusts in all different directions tend to cancel. But any asymmetry in this thrusting, inevitable because of the spacecraft's shape, would produce a smaller thrust in one direction. The anomaly perpetrators tried to argue that the required 3% asymmetry was not present, that it was only 1.5%. Others do not agree; but even if that were true, it would mean that half the anomaly was already accounted for.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">During 2008, Uranus will cross the 20AU boundary precisely per the Ephermis tables.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There is no "boundary" there or anywhere else. "20 au" just a number representing a relative distance: that Uranus is 20 times farther from the Sun than Earth's average distance from the Sun.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If the anomaly is real, Uranus will see a sudden drag towards the sun, and a sudden boost in orbital velocity. The planet would wobble and its moons and rings would be affected. Uranus would also "ring like a bell".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Are you making this stuff up, or are you swallowing someone else's internet hoax? None of this has any legitimate basis, and cannot be justified to someone knowledgable in celestial mechanics.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">if the anomaly is real, we would have two chances to verify it (if not, we have to wait another 84.1 years).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What's the matter with the data from the last 84 years? Or the 84 years before that?

You need better criteria about whom to pay attention to, or you will waste much of your life chasing moths and never catch a butterfly. -|Tom|-

Just an update on this:

Two weeks ago, I emailed 2 relevant people at JPL about my observation that the acceleration anomaly could be linked to the earth's rotation (as explained in my opening post), but so far I did not get any response.
In the meanwhile I put therefore this issue on my webpage Explanation of the Pioneer 10 and 11 Acceleration Anomaly (note that the previous issue under this URL has now moved to a different page Speed of Light and Anomalous Acceleration ).
I also started a newsgroup thread about this ( groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.astro/brow...ad/64e0c795ebc8aa88/ ).

Thomas