Bjarne

Please keeps Newton’s laws separated, we are only speaking about a aspect of first law, - (that is only based on astronomical observations. ) Anomalies are so small you cannot detect such unless the speed is pretty large. So Low speed, - down to earh, - phenomena is not a question.. Check this... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/galaxies-mysterious-magne A galactic magnetic field is energy, where does it come from do you think ? What could be "leaking" that energy ? Matter ? The stars and planets ? Or what else? and how ? and why ? One more solved mystery could perhabs be added to the list (?) As you can read in the theory, - circular orbits are often not affected (anomalies cancel out instantly). And even if they were an anomaly it would only be based / could be supported by RRPKE only from DFD, (speed 300 to 600km/s) - and not from the accelerator speed, since this parts cancel out (locally). Due to the time (split second) ½ accelerator orbit takes, an anomaly would be really, really insignificant and even in some situation cancelled out during the second ½ orbit. I have already calculated that too, long ago. Thank you, notice I will meassure and I think I know how. This is what real scientist does.

RRM = Relativistic Resistance against Motion. You have apoint here. It is not a deceleration niether a acceleration, but rather a resistance factor.. The result of that is ""deceleration"" (but not linar deceleration) , - it is a speed depending negative “force” The calculated result is not linear either. – I don’t know what else to call such negatiive speed “factor”. To keep it all in simple acceleration / deceleration terms makes the language a little easier (I hope) The language for all this is already complicated enough allready. 1 st law When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force Not much here on the planet is free, also not in science. Yes there is a always a price to pay. Parts of Newton’s law, is based on 300 years old observation only of the solar system. Since then a lot of water have run to the ocean. This theory do not violate these aspect of relativity what is very evident, such as space-time. But yes GR is maybe not the cause of gravity, this postulate has always been the weakest part of relativity, at least so far I understand. So this is the bill to pay. – and what you get, is a solution where about 25 huge and small mysteries (included the cause of dark matter) is solved. So is the bill really too high? Calculation already shows that this simple innocent theory easy - mathematical - can explain both the Mercury perihelion precession anomaly, as well as the Pioneer anomaly . And of course the flyby (if I had NASA's orbit data) Calculation will follow

All In One Illustration Any addition speed ,relative to the Dark Flow Speed (DDS) , trigger adition local Relatevistiv Resistance Against Motion (RRM) and also adition local Release of Retracted Potential Kinetic Energy (RRPKE), by movement opposite any RRM direction. RRPKE and RMM equalize in orbit A, - provided the orbit is circular. Orbit B, D and especially orbit C is exposed to larger RRPKE, due to movement opposite the DFD. Elliptical orbits are due to the elongated orbits, proportional to the orbit eccentricity, losing RRPKE support. (in local reference frames), which have a local decelerating effect. The rotation effect “arrow R” will not be covered right now, In order to keep this so simple as possible. A space craft send straight against the direction X, Z or Y will decelerate. A spacecraft send straight against the direction W or Q will accelerate, Spacecraft Q, 4 will accelerate 4 times faster than W, - all due to RRPKE. But spacecraft W is also affected by 50% RMB, (spacecraft Q by 0% RMB) Which mean RRPKE and RRM cancel out on spacecraft W’s path. Always think about any object are parts of both an overall reference frame as well as a local one. An object can relative to the DFD move either neutral, away from or against the DFD, all this counts different, as well as local circumstances also does.

PART 5 Observations & Requirement for new Physics 1st We now know that Jupiter's atmosphere must be created much further from the Sun than Jupiter is now http://www.reasons.org/articles/jupiter-s-migration-miracle What brought Jupiter here? 2nd In Saturn's orbit something is also not as expected http://arxivblog.com/?p=702 3rd We have several times discovered gas-planets too close to a star. These planets should not even exist; (billions of years after a star is formed) because they should (due to the tidal force) have crashed into their mother star immediately after they were created (after a few million years). http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/27/science/sci-planet27 One example might be Wasp-18th It is inconceivable easily get the suspicion that "something unknown 'must have forced this gas planet toward its star (during billions of years), and long before the time the tidal force has been able to' take over 'and forced it to the last dance. 4th We also know that many asteroids must be created further away from the Sun than they are now. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-01-30/news/46828596_1_asteroids-mars-and-jupiter-solar-system The article suspect Jupiter for once having been even closer to the sun, and so on mysterious ways removed again, and thus brought asteroids with it. But such speculation is inconsistent because it seems beyond the fantasy what may have been physically possible (raised more questions than there answers) Fifth The water on Earth (and Venus) is also created further away from the Sun than where it is now located. One could, (in costrast to Jupiter) much easier suspect that asteroids (which should not be so close to the Sun) as well as the solar system very small inner planets, all were brought here by a giant planet the size of Wasb-18 - which crashed on the sun. Four (of its total hundreds of moons), as well as its asteroids - survived the mother planet's crash, and begun to orbit around the sun. The water was thus not brought to Earth and Venus, - but a giant gas planet, - where the Earth (and Venus) once were orbiting ice moons, - brought the planets included the water here. The giant gas-planets last dance of death, then had the side-effect that 4 large moons (the now inner planets of our solar system) that survived the mother planet crash - could be accelerated into space again, in the same way as fly-by accelerating probes further out. Luckily for us - because the ice-moon, -we call Earth, - thus got a little 'borrowed time'. But just a short time. Planet-perturbation and the periods in which the solar system orbit inclination is mainly linearly with DFA, - compels periodic elliptical orbit - and precisely this means that the planets again are losing altitude and 'fall' towards the Sun - in those periods when orbits are elliptical and primarily perpendicular to the DFA axis. 6th Unsolved mysteries with the ice ages periods 7th Space probes have several times revealed that circular orbit not are effected, by fly-by anomalies, - but elongated orbits, are (sometimes) exactly as this theory explains. 8th. Galaxies strange orbits anomalies (dark matter) and many other mysteries associated with galaxies. Do dark matter really exsist ? If this theory is correct, - not at all. 9th Some Galaxies collapses and other extend their size , which is also exactly a predicable consequence of the theoy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwdQbKufsDI 10th Note here in particular that also not around a galaxies black holes are things not how we think they "should" be, - here continues stars to crash onto the black holes, although they "should" maintain stable orbit. http://www.dr.dk/Videnskab/Videnskab/2006/06/27105328.htm 11th Equally self-evident logic is it that some galaxies have active black holes and other apparently not. The answer is again "orbit inclination relative to the DFA" . 12th For several years, astronomers have observed that a handful of the small icy bodies that lie in the so-called "scattered disc" beyond the orbit of the planet Neptune, including the dwarf planet Sedna, deviate from the paths around the sun that would be expected based on the gravitational pulls of all the known objects in the solar system. http://www.livescience.com/20583-planet-edge-solar-system.html 13th. The discovery that many small galaxies throughout the universe do not 'swarm' around larger ones like bees do but 'dance' in orderly disc-shaped orbits is a challenge to our understanding of how the universe formed and evolved "Everywhere we looked we saw this strangely coherent coordinated motion of dwarf galaxies. From this we can extrapolate that these circular planes of dancing dwarfs are universal, seen in about 50 percent of galaxies," said Professor Geraint Lewis. "This is a big problem that contradicts our standard cosmological models. It challenges our understanding of how the universe works including the nature of dark matter." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140721100418.htm 14th Mystery of extrasolar planets' eccentric orbits http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0504/19orbits 15th Is the Pionner Anomaly really solved ? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79814-pioneer-anomaly-still/page-2

Right, I notice the same, and this is maybe the most obvious place the conclusion could be wrong. I am also wondering, as you, - if we can be on the threshold to new physic, this anomaly should be further tested. It should be pretty easy to test radiation from all possible angles, from a similar space craft, - in a lab. To be able to understand whether the radiation could have such impact like the lasts NASA report concludes. I mean it only require a similar construction (and temperatur) to detect how isotropic or anisotropic the radiation really is / was. It should off course be possible to test for much less than sending out new spacecraft, as you suggested.

Abstract For decades, two aspects of nature have been overlooked and poorly / not understood. The one is an Anisotropic Dark Flow Acceleration (DFA). The other is Relativistic Resistance against Motion (RRM). The consequences for our picture of the Universe are tremendous. (This is a beta version).. PART 1 Anisotropic Dark Flow Acceleration. In order for even a rather significant Anisotropic Acceleration to be measurable on Earth (e.g. with a gravimeter), it requires rather specific conditions to be present. Regardless of the inclination of the solar system in proportion to a (theoretical) anisotropic acceleration direction (which in the following will be referred to as the Dark Flow Acceleration direction, in short DFA), it wouldn’t be possible to directly measure such a DFA, even if we presume its magnitudeto be somewhere around 100 µGal. It is somewhat similar to the situation that it is also impossible to measure the acceleration of Earth’s orbit acceleration from Earth (given that everything on Earth is part of the same acceleration frame of reference). However, there is an indirect method of measuring DFA. This is illustrated and described in the following. In order to get started, we now presume that DFA is in the direction straight south and that Earth’s orbit inclination relative to DFA is approx. 20 degrees. (It can be different). This means that in case of a solar eclipse, Earth will be affected by a maximum pull towards the Sun and the Moon, and there will therefore also be – at certain times of the year – slight acceleration toward North, away from the DFA direction. The Sun and the Moon’s attraction of Earth (the tidal force) will be different at different places on Earth which means that a testing body on Earth (the red spot in the picture) as well as Earth itself at times are affected differently by two force applications: Partly by the tidal force and as a result partly also by DFA What is important to note is that Earth in the example shown accelerates slightly opposite DFA because of the angular relationship between the tidal force and DFA whereas a testing body on Earth (e.g. on Earth’s night side) will be less (directly) affected by the tidal force than Earth and will, specifically in this situation, be exposed to the DFA force to a higher degree than Earth (this proportion can also be reverse). This means that as a result of Earth’s rotation, a testing body (a gravimeter) on the right place on Earth will be able to measure DFA’s strength during one earth rotation (24 hours) to the extent that DFA is exposed, which means to the extent that the tidal force affects Earth and the testing body differently (which should not be expected to be more than max. 20 % of DFA’s full force (presumably around max. 15 µGal)). We therefore only have the possibility of measuring a rather small part of DFA in favorable conditions, and only as differences between the two forces. It is the rotation of Earth that over 24 hours may briefly get a (properly placed) gravimeter to measure linear to DFA, thereby measuring changes in the force of acceleration with which a testing body (a gravimeter) is being affected. This will show that the gravimeter is in a variable acceleration frame of reference relative to Earth itself. Thus, the gravimeter will only measure the difference with which DFA affects Earth and a testing body but will not measure DFA’s full force. The job therefore is to do 24 hours of gravitation measurements at many places on Earth and on those times where solar eclipses cause the biggest possible exposure of DFA. The next favorable time is Friday 20 March 2015. - It is not certian this is the perfect time, September 13, 2015 could be better and agian 1 September 2016 However, an anisotropic acceleration frame of reference with the expected, significant acceleration can have dramatic consequences of all orbits, also for galaxies and cluster which could bring new light to the so-called Dark Matter Phenomenon. It is impossible to claim that these thoughts have been pulled out of thin air. The cause for the Allais effect may be interpreted based on such unknown acceleration. The next part (2) of the theory have been discussed at this forum before, but a lot was wrong, incomplete and parts 1 was missing. PART II Relativistic Resistances Preface We know it requires ever more energy to maintain constant acceleration. No scientific method has ever proven that such relativistic resistance against motion only applies during the acceleration period. This theory claims that resistance against motion also happens by constant speed. We will refer to this as Relativistic Resistance against Motion (Hereafter “RRM”). This, of course, means that Newton’s first law is incorrect. Basic A possible cause of this could be that an object’s speed increment causes energy and therefore also mass increment. Due to mass increment, the curvature of space near a moving object also increases. Space resists deformation (e.g. the release of tension of space results in a gravitational wave). - There are several reasons to believe that the Lorentz transformation (speed of an object converts to; mass/kinetic energy/deformed-space) is a reversible process. Space must have some kind of elastic nature woven together with matter. So the Lorentz transformation is also an expression of the tension increase of space that a fast-moving object exerts. When the force (causing the speed of an object) stops, speed-related tension on space is automatically released too, so the Lorentz transformation factor is also a resistance factor. Relativistic resistance is a reversible process, and the Lorentz equation reflects the magnitude of resistance against motion and the magnitude of possible deceleration at the same time. We have recently discovered several space probe anomalies, some decelerating and some accelerating. The biggest mystery has been why only small objects were affected and apparently not bigger objects such as astronomic objects. The answer is that all objects and all orbits are, in fact, affected, but many anomalies cancel out after a certain period, some are still not discovered and some only active in periods. Even Earth is constantly affected. As a whole, RRM and DFA have several significant consequences. These can be verified and recognized everywhere. Think about the ice ages. Only 3 million years ago, there were no ice ages. After that, the cycle duration only took 41,000 years, and even the known cause of the current 100,000 year cycles are not strong enough to explain the full cause of ice ages. Some understanding seems to be missing. On the biggest scale, galaxies and clusters of galaxies are affected as well. That same law of nature is responsible for the strange orbits that we believe is caused by so-called dark matter. The consequences are that a long list of mysteries resolves itself. Thinking of RRM as a reversible process combined with DFA leads us to a different understanding of the nature of the Universe whereby all known kinematic orbit and trajectory anomalies and mysteries (listed later below) are solved nearly automatically. PART III Absolute Motion, Absolute Acceleration, and Relativistic Resistance against Motion Principle 1 As long as there is no orbit acceleration or motion away from the Dark Flow Direction (Hereafter DFD), and the maximum Dark Flow Speed (DFS) has been reached, the Dark Flow Acceleration (DFA), -and Relativistic Resistance against Motion (RRM) - counteract each other. Principle 2 The magnitude of RRM (seen from an absolute motion frame) always depends on true speed. When the dark flow is e.g. 300 km/s and a galaxy moves in the opposite direction at 200 km/s, the true, absolute speed (dark flow) is reduced to 100 km/s and RRM is reduced to only = 5,6 ×10-8m/s. This means that speed is reduced to 1/3 compared to the dark flow, but RRM is now 9 times less. Principle 3 RRM is a reversible process. This means that if no force pushes / pulls an object towards the DFD, the object will decelerate. The RRM affecting an object can be compared to a retracted arrow. All that is required for the retracted, potential, kinetic energy of the arrow to be released is that the force of the string is released. (which also illustrates that motion opposite DFD will cause less RRM, also simple to calculate based on the Lorenz equation) Release of Retracted Potential Kinetic Energy (in short RRPKE) will affect any object moving more or less away from DFD, depending of the angle of movement away from DFD. The speed-dependent RRM is the same magnitude due to movement perpendicular to the DFD axis as it is moving straight towards DFD while it is gradually decreasing, starting from perpendicular movement to movement opposite DFD. It will be zero at absolute rest. From a local perspective, the resulting RRPKE influence will look as if it is positive (accelerating), but seen from an absolute perspective, it will look just a little less negative (less decelerating). Principle 4 Seen from a local perspective, additional motion against any direction is affected by RRM, regardless of the absolute speed of the astronomic object (for instance the Earth or Solar System). RRM must always be calculated based on the Lorentz equation based on a certain reference frame. Even though the Earth is already traveling fast (for example 300 km/s) due to acceleration towards the DFD, this already affects the reference frame (time and distance) that the Earth is part of. This means that time and distances in the reference frame of the Earth are not the same as time and distances in a different or absolute reference frame (observer at absolute rest). Therefore, absolute motion speed can only be calculated ‘correctly’ by an “absolute observer”, not by a “local observer”. ( principle 2 and 3 must off course always be incorporated in any calculation) Principle 5 Absolute speed (and RRM) applies in all directions between perpendiculars and linearly relative to the DFD axis. Regardless of the angle relationships, all directions in this area will be equally by the aforementioned deceleration. Against the directions between perpendiculars and exact opposite DFD, - RRM also applies, but the impact due to RRPKE must be deducted. Principle 6 DFD and DFA could be against the same direction, but not necessarily, DFA could instead be at 90° relative to DFD, that would indicate that DFA (and Dark Flow) is caused by acceleration due to gravity from our own universe, and not a pull from a another Universe, In that case all cluster of galaxy is orbiting a common barycenter, -like galaxies does in a cluster. That would be the most credible. A. Circular Orbits Predominantly Perpendicular Relative to the DFD Axis - (inclination between 45 to 90°) Astronomic objects following these orbits appears to be unaffected by RMB. But it is not correct. RMB is a reversible 'elastic' property (see principle 3). Thus, on the one hand an object orbiting against the DFD will expose to RRM. But on the other hand, - due to the object is continuously changing direction of movement, a circular orbit is also an expression of equal movement away from a direction in which it before was affected by RMB. In a complete circular orbit, on the one hand Release of Retracted Potential Kinetic Energy (in short RRPKE) and on the other hand RMB - completely equalize each other since there are equal opposite forces. B. Circular Orbits Predominantly Linear Relative to Relative to the DFD Axis - (inclination between 0 to 45°) Orbital movement away from the DFD will reduce the absolute speed, and hence cause less RRM. A planet or spacecraft orbiting away from DFD is therefore less affected by RRM for example relative to the Sun. We can say such movement triggers RRPKE The kinetic energy contribution seen from a local perspective appears to be acceleration contribution. These orbits will also be characterized by perihelion precession anomalies. C. Elliptical orbit Predominantly Perpendicular to the DFD Axis - (inclination between 45 to 90°) Objects orbiting such orbits are periodically stronger exposed by RMB than RRPKE, and as the result therefore collapsing, obviously proportional to the degree of inclination relative to the DFD. Also these circuits will also be characterized by perihelion precession anomalies. D. Elliptical Orbit Predominantly Linear in DFD Axis (0 to 45°) - (inclination between 0 to 45°) Object orbiting such orbits are periodically stronger exposed to both increased and decreased kinetic energy impact, determined by (on one side) whether periodic motion is not compensated by RRPKE and on the other, whether movement happens away from the DFD. These orbits cause perturbation, apsis and eccentricity anomalies, depending on the orientation of the orbit inclination relative to DFD. (It is especially during such periods, the missing piece for understanding the ice the mystery to be found.) E. Orbit Rotation Anomalies; - By Motion Opposite DFD . Beside eccentricity, apsis and perturbation anomalies, already described above RRM and RRPKE is also causing orbit rotation anomalies, these will due to simplicity reason not be covered in this article, since the importance of understanding these are secondary. Period 1. (Predominantly linear DF inclination) Galaxy orbit Inclination between 0° and 45° relative to Dark Flow will cause galaxies to collapse, simply because motion opposite DFD will disturb the balance between DFA and RRM (principle 1), whereby DFA will be exposed and dominate the orbit which will lead to collapse in the long run. The inclination of secondary orbits, relative to dark flow (such as solar systems), will not collapse (during period 1) but only change their apsis. This is because the motion speeds of secondary orbits are always in addition to the absolute dark flow speed caused by DFA, whereby ‘win’ and ‘lose’ due to different RRM influences periodically counteract each other without local interference from DFA. Period 2. (Predominantly perpendicular DF inclination) Due to the absence of (so-called) dark matter, orbit inclination between 45° and 90° (relative to DFA) will allow all kinds of galaxies to expand their size due to the centrifugal force. This solves one two big mystery. One of these is If the duration of these periods is very long and the inclination relative to DFD is right, ring-galaxies might be the result. The other is a NASA discovery , links will follow. Astronomic objects following circular secondary orbits (such as the solar-system) are constantly changing directions (relative to an absolute motion frame) whereby RRM and Release of Retracted Potential Kinetic Energy momentarily equalize each other. Such an orbit therefore peridically more or less unaffected (during period 2). However, elliptical orbits are characterized by periodically elongated paths, which allow RRM periodically to dominate. Later on, it will be further covered the effects from that, for example for the orbit of Mercury. PART 4 Allais Effect and DFA Meassurement Possibilities Common for all reported Allais Effect phenomena are Acceleration of the Earth. All kinds of Allais Effect as well as gravitational anomalies reported by an eclipse, right after an eclipse, or before an eclipse, are all caused due to DFA. To be able to measure the DFA, two conditions must be met. The first is that the Earth must accelerate more or less opposite the Dark Flow Direction, (DFD). The second condition is that a test body on the Earth must be differently affected by the force pulling the Earth opposite the Dark Flow Direction. Even though the Dark Flow Direction (DFD) is against a southern direction, we shall not expect the angular relationship of the orbit inclination of the Earth to be exactly 90° relative to DFA. This means that by solar (and lunar) eclipse, the moon can exert a slight pull of the Earth away from the DFA, and at the same time exert a different pull in a test body on the Earth. The Cause of Torsion-Balance Anomalies The Torsion-Balance (hereafter TB) can be disturbed in 2 different ways. One option is when a TB follows the rotation of the Earth. By an eclipse, the rotation of the Earth brings the TB “under the Moon” – and this means that the TB is due to the rotation of the Earth brought to gradually stronger acceleration towards the Sun/Moon. This means that the TB can be brought from a stage where it is weakly affected by the DFA and a few hours later increasingly interacting with DFA and finally stronger affected than the Earth. The opposite is also possible. Different acceleration frames trigger anomalies. The TB is bound to the Earth’s rotation, but the different acceleration frame will try to force the TB to follow a different path. Tension will build up between the DFA and the TB, whereby the TB constantly is disturbed. The azimuth of the TB is therefore disturbed randomly. Pendulum Anomalies. These devices can interact much simpler with the exposed DFA because the pendulum also accelerates. It will not be further covered because it is straightforward. Gravity Measurements When it comes to gravity measurement, things are a little different. One requirement is that DFA (also in this case) must be exposed. This means that the Earth must accelerate away from DFA. The gravimeter must also be in a different acceleration frame than the Earth. But this is most likely not enough to get a convincing result. It is not always easy to prove that relatively weak gravitational anomalies were due to the Allais Effect. On many places on Earth, gravitational anomalies will develop during a period of 12 hours and then decrease the following 12 hours. In other words, the anomalies are elongated and flat and therefore difficult to distinguish from ocean tide water influence etc. But due to the rotation of the Earth, some places are expected to reveal the exposed dark flow acceleration faster. Close to the 35 to 40 degree latitude, it seems that it is possible to uncover DFA within few hours. This is demonstrated by the gravity measurement illustration done by D.C Misra in North India in 1995.. The requirement are as follows: The rotation of the Earth Combined with the exposed DFA (Earth acceleration opposite DFA) Combined with measurement the right place and time (direction) Gravity measurement must be preferable because gravimeters can measure/tell much more about direction and not only ‘random disturbances’ characterized by anomalies measured by a pendulum. The Allais Effect can contribute to prove that Dark Flow is real, and this will completely change our view on Dark Matter. Consequences will follow...

Yes we do know that there is a lot we don't know

Why should I answer (again) it seems that you not are reading it anyway. Watch the video, it is about electrons, - photons belong to the same mysterious reality. It is so much we simply don't know.

Yes One way could maybe be to bombard one side of the mill fromj 180° angle and the other from fx 135° ? Or ? But why use time on it when something similar is done This is the bone of content, to uncover, - with this thread, - nothing else. It could be nice, I am very lazy. I mean why invent the soup palet agian if someone allready did that. Take it easy Rom was not drunk at one day. Even a blind chicken can find a grain of gold. You wrote that not me I ask for test, maybe allready done, maybe not, so simple that a almost deaf and blind chicken can understand it

Exactly, and this is also why I wrote that this is the strongest evidence. The point is I was asking for and looking for test, that experimentally insulate the radiation impact and recoil effect, - to be able to confirm whether these in fact 2 predictions also fits the theory. That would be even better evidence to convince such hard core skeptic, like me. After reading what I was advised to, - I was searching further, to get some kind of impression, what else can justify that the Pioneer anomaly indeed deserves to be reinvestigated. I still don’t know where the garbage is buried; only that it smells ugly, so soon I get too close to Nasa’s 2nd research paper. As you know this Radiation pressure stuff is new for me. I am not a kind of person that closes my eyes, just after to have had a discussion at the internet, 2 days. The possibility that misunderstood science can be found at any weak point, always exist. Even Strange seems to agree to that, and that tells a lot. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.0537.pdf You know in science reseach the most important is to ask the right question Try to ask me why I am so convinced that the Pioneer anomaly is not solved?

I wish you would have used the time on answering a specific question, - rather that teelling me about the sky is blue, - which not is true, - it is grey.

Which page exactly, - shows specific tested experimental hard evidence, - that objective confirms the specific radiation recoil (double impact) effect. Test that shows that absorbed photons only converts to the half the kinetic energy compared to reflected / emiited photons. I did NOT found anything what so ever, - only postulates.

To make this entire pretty short (as possible) here is a copy / paste of post 1 Notice the bold text and notice I was only asking for hard evidence for whether the radiation recoil effect was evidently. This was the question and this was the only thing I really wanted to know. YES I was confused when the Nichols radiometer was mention after first to get a link to Crookes Radiometer. Google images search, - as well contributes to such confuion. But I am not the first, Qoute “This apparatus is sometimes confused with the Crookes radiometer of 1873.” - source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichols_radiometer Even if I would have read this article first (without confusion), - the functionality is very sufficient described, no functionality illustration , and no specific evidence shows whether radiation pressure really is a result of a recoil effect OR only radiation impact, - and exactly THIS is and was the question. Maybe a better detailed illustrated explantion would make me change my mind, but I found nothing better at the internet. Yes, after finally getting links I ask for, it seems very evident that radiation pressure impact is a fact and can be used to spacecraft propulsion (as I never denied) But I am still not convinced that radiation recoil also is true. It will at least not surprise me if not; - so long I am not sure whether specific and critical radiation recoil experiments have been done, (and compared to the impact effect) which then could confirms that the kinetic energy conversion really double. Yes experiments have been done with solar sails, but only in labs. Test seems to fit to the theory. And this was the best I could find to read, that could looks like some kind of (hard) evidence. Solar sails were mention in this thread, but the link came first in post 37. Well I could have done a google search, but like Strange stated above, I too don’t take anything serious if there are no source. Still I did not find hard evidence that really shows whether such test has been done specific to confirm the claimed recoil effect. Maybe you will all say I am too skeptical, - maybe I am, - just keeping all doors open, - This doesn’t mean that I don’t accept FACTS. I have very (personal) good reasons to be very sceptical especially in this case, - simply because there is no doubt in my mind that the pioneer anomaly is not solved. Not at all, even not 15 % is solved. So either is it not true that the radiation did have the anisotropic deceleration impact the way NASA claims, or there is something wrong with our understanding of (recoil) radiation. Sorry I see no other option; I trust that the Magnitude of the anomaly is more or less correct. But I don't trust NASA,s latest paper. It seems too much is sweeped under the blanked And agian, I am not alone. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.0537.pdf

So many even at high level education, - teaching student bogus. Welll it is possible. But this is not the only bogus they are told. Listen now, - I do not have concrete in my ears, - but I did not knew anything about radiation pressure. And here is what happen. If you go through the context you will discover that I all the time was asking for hard evidence and experimental facts First I got a link to some university math that had nothing to do with experiments or hard evidence I was asking for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure#Radiation_pressure_by_emission Then I got a link to the radio meter (more confusion) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer I read that thermal motion was the cause of rotation, and was confused when I right after also got a link to Nichols radiometer, I tried to google images Nichols radiometer and saw most radio meters I just had read about. Then I got a link to more advanced math, I not a ‘was asking for http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node429.html Then I got a link to alternative theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Alternative_theoriesAlso something I not have ask for Then this link, also something else I haven’t ask for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence So I thought Ok this is all only speculation, no hard fact seems to exsist. First in swanson post 27, it was a link – that was worth a little but still not what I ask for. And first in post 37 Strange finally got the point and send me several links – what was I asking for I was not asking for university math headache . Well it is still hard to imagine that a piece of atomic garbage in space will travel to a distance galaxy, due to radiation pressure, it sounds like science fiction- but well we shall never say never. There are several reasons to attack the latest NASA report regarding the "Pioneer Anomaly Closed” conclusion, - ( i have my own) . If the theroy of radiation pressure is OK, the answer could maybe be here http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.0537.pdf

Here is a paper worth to read The Pioneer Anomaly: an inconvenient reality or NASA‟s 12 year misconception? http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.0537.pdf

I think it is because you dont understand the difference between "CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE". and CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE. I think it is because you are not willing to understand the difference between "CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE". and CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE. Ohh yeahh, You are completely right . I have long ago understood this. I mean even if something is written clearly "on the sky"and even in capital letters (which can not be larger) experience shows it can be hard to see (like for example this Galileo saw his binoculars) Yes you surpose. My friend, many times we have only speculation as basis for what could be the cause of a phenomena. For example dark matter If I would suggest a controversial solution, - that could be correct, - it is ignored without any reason. Only because it is controversial Also even though it would be simple and cheap to prove As I wrote controversial research is easy reaching a wall of intolerance. This have always been like that. As I wrote controversial research is easy reaching a wall of intolerance. This have alsways been like that. But sometime the answer is based on a controversal understanding. Sometimes, yes - and sometimes intolerance makes it impossible, except when one single man will refuse to give up, and do all the research alone. And now please get back to the subject of this thread.

As I wrote it is not my invention Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGoDK18b3LE#t=71 The BB theory predicts a isotropic univers 13,4 mia years ago. It is NOT

quibbling right https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGoDK18b3LE#t=71 Ohh no, this is not beutifull And NASA know it Quote "We still have an uncertainty in our study of less than 18 percent. But for me, this is the answer. Some may argue it is not final, but in my mind we did a good job, and it's very clear what happened" Boasting? And as i wrote why did the anomaly first started when passing Saturn ? We cannot sweep this under the blanked. Doing so is coward sceince. I have, but I know that doesn’t matter how good, ice-cold and perfect it is, it is not popular to attack "certain knowledge" So I better prove it first, or do you think it will be taken serious if I ice-cold could describe which simple and cheap experiments must be done to reveal what dark matter really is (and how this at the same time solve every orbit anomaly discovered.) I think it is certian that Venus orbit the Sun It is often really hard to see that science really is tolerant / open to new thought.. And what about before their thoughts was accepted? Its the human nature you is up against For exsample If I am right they will say I am a German, if I am wroing they will say I am a jew. What excatly is wrong with that? Call them "strange" if this helps, or crackpots. Since the first days of science a "strange idiot" (crackpots) suggested the earth was round, and another crackpot that Venus not orbit the Earth and this is how it went. We also had a crackpot Dane (Tycho brahe) here, the king deported him to a desert island, you know this is how we always have treatment such strange idiotic crackpots, that refused to subservience “certain (almost fanatic) knowledge” No it shows that the unthinkable is many time possible People are in general not willing to cooperate, to bring "certain knowledge" down, - Even if they get paid for it It is almost forbidden to deal with such crackpot business, at least not very popular.. New controversial science is many times discovered accidental This is why I ask whether it ever really is tested especially whether the radiation recoil effect ever really is confirmed and not only speculation. I have got some links and will read it, But maybe you could beforehand tell me which experiment is the best to read , to understand the radiation recoil , - is true? OK then tell me in your own simple words, how is the radiation recoil effect tested (experimental). We will forget the other part, - as mean the impact effect (solar sails etc) - I think I have to admit this part is certain science, after reading just alittlke about it.. Many of my simple questions were first answered late in this thread. One link had nothing with the queston to do Another I did a wrong google (image) search. Still I have not had time to read all the links you finally gave me, and off course I will.

It is not my invention, but just a well known fact , - for a photon (perspetive or not) no time, distant can exsist. I don't agree that a new theory must explain why Anderson/Turyshev is wrong, New physics could for example be based on new space probes experiments, which then show "something" is wrong. Let's say you will get the exact same magnitude anomaly, and no longer have the radiation explanation to blame What then ? I only show a link, which is one of many example showing that sometime we are forced to rethink what everybody thought was certain knowledge. Science is full of histories showing that "idiots" was right. Another example is the WMAP data now confirm that there are gigantic holes in the BB theory. Few years ago it was unthinkable that something could be wrong. Maybe the BB theory is wrong. Maybe there was something before the BB These are words that comes from Europa’s fines University The point is, that I think not many really are prepared for “certain knowledge” to be totally wrong. Another point is, that we should not be so irritated (an punish) if someone ask idiotic and skeptical questions The garbage can be buried where you least expect it. In my mind it was always the point, but yes I didn’t write it. It is really difficult to suggest or imagine what a photon maybe does and not does. It will only be speculation. But I am asking whether a recoil effect really is a property of emission, or rather whether it is possible that the photon get its momentum in a way we simply cannot imagine, and that have nothing with classic mechanism to do. The only way answering this is to experientially test. Maybe this is already done, maybe not (I haven’t so far had time to read through the links I got yesterday, to be convinced that such (classic) recoil effect really exist.

Try to google l "time distance doesn't exist photons" No I am not I ask for hard evidence to understand why the "Pioneer cass closed" seems to be based on such ugly science. I have far from made my final conclusion that matter, but only begun to ask skeptical questions. If my conclusion one day should be that here is a camel buried I promise you I will try to prove it (if I can) And don't worry before I die I will prove that the Pioneer anomaly is not solved. Sorry it was the wrong link, and I corrected it before you replied http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/oct/02/the-mystery-of-the-varying-nuclear-decay I think that even if you would use the rest of your lifetime you would not be able to count how many times the internet is full claims, as for exsample we know the universe expands, we know there must be dark matter etc. etc and we know this and that. I have no problems But I think many will agree,that the radiation recoil speculation is a "immovable facts". And well maybe it is, - all I did was only to ask for hard evidence, and not the same kind of "evidence" we so often hear. This is not the impression I got here at the forum the last 2 days. Rather is seems that is evenh not very popular to be sceptical and ask critical questions, - and this is all I did. If the cause of the pioneer anomaly should be proven different, - what then about the radiation theory ? Are you saying you could be force to give up the Nasa explantion ? Could you accept that this could be a wrong conclusion? Or where would you then set in the artillery? I mean where do you think the possible weakest point in NASA's explanation could be? Dont ask me, I am as I said first beginning to analyse a possible weakness. Don't put words in my month I never wrote. Agree, this is normally our experience But never say never. Nasa's explanation is not nice, - furthermore I am convinced the last word in this case is not said. You are most likely right, but my point is only how did the photons get the momentum ? Do we know everything about this process ?

Yes i was googling images of NICHOL'S radiometer and saw must at all images of radiometer (as i allready know about) Thank you this is what I was asking for. Now I will read all this. I must say I have never read about it before. Allready I read a little about solar sails, yes it sounds convincing But still the recoil part- hmmm how strong is that evidence ?

Ahh I did first a google image search on Nichols radiometer and saw mostly Crookes' Radiometer

Seen from a photons own perspective no time and space exist, therefore also no motion. Hence it must be everywhere at the same time. It seems to be at least so strange as a electron. How can you know whether it is our point of view or the photons point of view (the quantum reality) that really matter ? (in some cases).. I am not saying this or that is correct or wrong, but only that I am not convienced all the time when I hear we know this and that. For exsample, yesterday I read this http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/oct/02/the-mystery-of-the-varying-nuclear-decay If someone would have suggested this before the discovery was done he would be considered as a complete idiot, not able to understand anything. Because the day before this was a absolute immovable fact. All the time we are forces to change our understanding. Let me ask a last question. What if we one day is forced to understand that the pioneer anomaly not was solved. What then about all the radiation "knowledge"? Which parts of science must then be thrown over board ?

Still I have only your words, not any source / links to detailed described test, - done at real solar sails. And regarding the Nichols radiometer, it rotate due rotation of warm air, so fare I have understood, not du to (only) reflected radiation. I have mention this before, but did not got a reply to it. An electron can absorb energy in very small amounts (called quanta), disappear and instantly reappear at higher energy state as if it was teleported. It's called a quantum leap and occurs through the wave–particle duality principle. The electron kind of turns from a particle into a wave and back into a particle again in a different location. This has led to the idea that the electron vanish an reappear in and out of existence. There are no describtion here that shows evidence for what I was asking for . It seems you did't got my point.