Bjarne

This is not what I am saying. Let me answer your questions with questions Where does the energy from an electron goes when it disappears and where does it come from when it later pop up a new place ? How does that happen and why ? No, but I am not sure that a photon can be compared to a bullet.. Well a photon pops up (is emitted) How can you know whether the principle for this to happen is exactly so "dramatically (recoil effect) as when firing a classic bullet from a Gun ? How can you know that the all circumstances for comparing these 2 very different phenomena’s are exactly - classical - identical / comparable? Sorry, - Firing a photon is in my universe is a quantum physic phenomena, - firing a bullet something very different, - until someone prove it to be wrong. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that the photon not have momentum, but only the process how it get it could be different from classic phenomena’s. In short, - a photon is really a strange cousin, no doubt about it. I was only asking for hard evidence, - experiments able to convince a person difficult to convince. Anyway - If I get what I am asking for , I can still not believe the Pioneer anomaly is solved There are several reason for this, - as already mention some due the outstanding not solved issues, I never got an answer to the question whether this statement is tested elsewise as inside a calculator?

I wish you would have moved this post as well, because as you can see in my first post in this new thread I wrote (se below)... Yes laser can manipulate atoms, and even created magnetic fields. But I think Niels Bohr would have said, - this is a completely different experiment. Anyway, - as I wrote above, - (in the first post of this (new) thread) - I could accept that radiation bombardment can convert to kinetic energy. ' But I am (especially) not convinced that radiation emitted from a source really can convert to kinetic energy (motion of an object). I don’t believe that a flashlight would begin to move in space. You could then say that if I would accept that radiation impact can convert to kinetic energy - I also have to accept the opposite (recoil effect). In the same way, - that if it will not be recoil from a gun the bullet wouldn’t move. But why is it necessary to keep both these radiation phenomena’s at classical mechanical understanding level? Radiation absorption / impact could have a classic mechanic energy converting effect (radiation to kenetic energy), yes, - but why should that necessarily also apply for emitting radiation. In a quantum mechanics universe not must make logical sense. Think about decay, is it not stupid to claim that due to decay radiation some of the energy go back to the Uran where the emission started. ? What would that energy do there if the radiation is isotropic ? – More hokus pokus seems to be necessary. If this all was true we can build a spacecraft that can travel the next million years, (and who knows maybe reach almost c) just by controlling the reflecting radiation direction form plutonium waste opposite the direction we want to move. I think if NASA would build such s spacecraft they would be dissapointed. Sorry until we have hard evidence this sound to me as science fiction star war hokus pokus science.

As I understand this thread's it about skepticism to whether the Pioneer anomaly really is solved, or not. And in this context, even proposals to send out other new probes to test whether it really is scientific OK to consider the case as closed.. As we all know 18% of the anomaly is still not addressed, as well as it is not addressed why the anomaly first started after the Saturn flyby. So these open question alone is enough to conclude that this case not is closed based on beautiful science. In other words there are indeed reasons to be sceptic. One way to express what could be wrong is to doubt the calculation of the radiation, - as mainly none isotropic , and that this perhabs not is properly understood (as Enthalpy did) and the other point of view is whether the theory of radiation can be considered as well documented science, or not. It is fair to start a new thread regarding this issue , but not to give me a warning. I do not see how skepticism should lead to a warning. It has notning to do with hijacking to do.

Still I am asking for hard evidence. Imagine we will shot a flashlight out in space, with the lights on. Do someone really believe that the flashlight would start accelerating opposite the light cone, as a small fantasy spacecraft in star wars ? It simple exceeds my imagination - until hard evidence shows such thesis is correct. As I see it, - we are possible using a classic mechanical model for understanding a phenomenon that belong only to quantum physics (?) Photons experiments have shown that these are quite impossible really to understand logical or classic/mechanical. Photons even ‘know’ - ‘beforehand’ - whether one slide is open and another closed, in a multi slide experiments. I think such an important issue as the claimed radiation impact must past the scientific method, before it can be taken serious. For me this is not only done by mathematically thesis, but only by physically test, for exsample in space. It is possible to repeat Pioneer experiments, but next time with the radiation emitter a different place. Only serveral systematically experiments can end up with the blue stamp, supporting that the scientific methods really has been passed..

We know there is dark matter out there (even though there is no evidense all all) We know that the universe is expanding (even though it is never proven that cosmological redshift only can be interpreted like this) Ohh boy I could continue for weeks

Everything that haven't passed the method you can read from the images attached in the previous post 1.) Only (matematical based) speculation 2.) No it demonstrate hot air in motion, and has nothing with this dicussion to do 3.) I have never hear that such are tested, hence this too is only speculation 4.) Only (matematical based) speculation It is today presented almost as certain knowledge that we are dealing with unknown kind of matter. Every other option is out of question

On the one hand, yes I know that words (or mathematic) is not enough. The scientific method must be passed, before something can be said to be “certain knowledge” On the other hand, much of what we today call science, has never passed any scientific method, but anyway presented like, - certain knowledge. Also the discussion we have here, is hard for me to see really have passed the any scientific method. As I so fare see it, - it is only a mathematically based speculation (?) Unless hard evidence really can be presented (which unfortunately, doesn’t seems to be the case) - I (at least) will remain sceptic until then. .. New observation is constantly bombarding us. Still more and more knowledge that too many times, -.simply cannot adapt to our (narrow) picture of the Universe. Every time (for instant) we discover a new orbit anomaly (and there are plenty) we try to find a speculative new theory for each single of these. The pioneer anomaly is only one of many “case closed” histories, - that who knows, - in reality maybe means “eyes closed”. When it comes to huge galaxy and cluster orbit anomalies, we need more and more speculation builds on the top of each other, to be able to keep the old already wobbling paradigm alive. And again it is certain knowledge that it really is dark matter out there, and no other possibilities. It seems almost that it is not allowed to look for a possible common denominator that could have been overlooked, if this means that (too) must have to be thrown overboard. Maybe because too many will get red ears if such possible can succeed. One should not throw stones if one lives in a glass house. ?

So how much will the Earth be affected on yearly basis ? 9.08 µPa (µN/m2) I understand that we have mathematical ‘evidence’.. But does any objective evidence for instant experimental or experience really support both phenomena? That radiation really can convert to kinetic energy,… a.) by hitting / being absorbed by an objet b.) emitting radiation - from and object Satellite navigation was mentioned in a post above, - how excactly does that happen ? by radiation ? absorbation ? or ? Solar sails was mentioned, - are such allready tested, or is this so far only theory? Other objective facts ? I really like to read more about this and would appreciate some links to objective facts, and not only mathematical ‘facts’

Agree Can you expain more in details Has it ever really been demonstrated that photons emitted (from a spacecraft) towards a certian direction (towards empty space) really, - really can move a space craft the oppesite direction? Do you have a source I can read ? (Or are you only talking bout evidence that shows that impact of photon bombardment / absorbed photons can convert to kenetic enrgy, and thereby move a space craft. ?) So how much do you think radiation can account for ? I wonder about .... how can we be sure that emitting photons possible should have the same effect as a recoil from a gun. I mean there is no logical recoil connected to photons emitted from a nuclear explosion etc... What happens with that 'recoil-energy' if the radiation is isotropoic ? Maybe I have no reason to be sceptical, if so please convience me.. I am not sure you can use classis Newtonian physics. Emitting photon energy is released from a nuclear a quantum process (so fare I understand) a process we maybe not fully have understood. I mean we even don’t know what a photon really is, it have no known physical structure and is massless, and even time and distance should exist from its own view point.. I think we have to be carefully to connect it with classic properties, unless there is sufficient evidence

So to explain the Pioneer Anomaly, only photons hitting hte antenna, should be enought to come to that result as Anderson and his team did ?

Momentum of electromagnetic radiation is the correct question. How can radiation from the space probe towards empty space possible have a decelerating impact on the pioneer space probes. Are there any scientific evidence for such statement ? It sounds acceptable that the opposite, - which mean photon bombarding / hidding the space probe - could have an effect, and either accelerate of decelerate the space probe. But photons leaving the space probe? - no, - unless there are hard evidence, - such is really difficult to believe.

How can we be sure that heat radiation at all will have any decelerating effect on the pioneer space probes.? Which scientifically prove can support such conclusion ?

Which way is geographic south of the Earth pointing at the WMAP ?

Agree, but it will be different in the future Edit...PS Nobody knows what causes these strange hiccups in spacecraft speed but there is no shortage of theories, some of which we’ve discussed here and here. If scientists are ever to get to the root of this phenomenon, they need to have a way of measuring it repeatedly, unambiguously and in detail. But flyby’s are few and far between. And even when they do occur, NASA’s Deep Space Network which monitors spacecraft from the ground is not designed to study the effect in detail. The most serious problem is that the network cannot follow spacecraft when they are very close to Earth. This results in a gap in communications during a flyby lasting a few hours, just when the most interesting effect is happening. As a result, the fly-by anomaly has never been caught in flagrante. Instead, it arises as the difference between the observed and expected velocity after a flyby Sourece http://www.technologyreview.com/view/425472/gps-satellites-could-solve-flyby-anomaly/ More about this future option here http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/2012/11/26/esa-ste-quest-mission-unravel-origin-flyby-anomaly/

Deep Space Atomic Clock Ticks Toward Success

It look obvious to me that the flyby anomaly is increasing more or less proportional to the trajectories are asymmetric relative to the equator. If the anomaly is due to an acceleration of order 10e-4m/s^2 it is really strange. Which kind of possible force is possible to blame ? - nothing, - even not theoretical. When possibilities to the Space probes anomalies are discusses, SR has often been mentioned, we still can’t be sure whether this is an option. In 2016 ISS will be able to do some serious SR /GR testing http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Human_Spaceflight_Research/Atomic_Clock_Ensemble_in_Space_ACES I wonder what would for example happen if SR only can be fully understood in an absolute anisotropic reference frame (asymmetric to equator). Are there any reason that this should not should be an option ? If not I think the anomaly could develop during a half of the “orbit” (trajectory) period (I mean during +/- 1 year period as such period normally take) and the acceleration therefore only of order 10e-9m/s^2. Then would calculated trajectories simple not fit to these we are measuring. Is that an option

I agree, all we can say is that by perigee and infinity we are able to discover that "something" is wrong, but we don't know what. So my guess is… The anomalies could be caused by a fast acceleration which seems to be the first direct impression. But it is also possible that we calculated some trajectories wrong, because something is different as we know, - whereby a slow acceleration can cause the same speed increment , but but first revealed, when the measured trajectory not follows the path we calculed and expected. So all we can say for certain is that we have an unexpected speed increment up to 13 mm/s Is this what you mean ?

The speed increment by perigee, and infinity (up to 13mm/s) is not a question. But there are a 2 very different opinions available at the internet, whether these fly by speed increments was a result of few minutes acceleration or whether it happens all the way from infinity (acceleration during a period of +/- 1 year) This is what confused me..

Possible We are all only humans I am, sure that I hear John say so, but he is maybe not an expert in these space probes equipment. Maybe John have misunderstood what was on board and what was proposed for the future, or what maybe he did not dig deeper into the Clock acceleration speculation... I Only found this NPL article... Quote.. Optical clocks have been proposed as a useful addition to future missions designed to resolvethe causes of the Pioneer anomaly with the scheme being to compare a stableclock on board the spacecraft with a reference clock located on earth. http://www.npl.co.uk/upload/pdf/atomic_clocks_space.pdf And as I wrote in this case it must be possible to send a signal, asking the space probe clock, - what time is it, - and get a reply..... something like this.. Dont Forget ..New Question.. Some places at the internet I have read the flyby anomalies are of the of order 10e-4m/s^2 Other places that the order is the same as the order of the pioneer anomaly, - 10000 times smaller. So what is correct

By googling pioneer + atomic clock, serveral speculation comes up, showing that the clocks on board maybe not was ticking as expected, and that this could cause the deceleration, wheby SR maybe was not correct etc... Also wikipedia Clock acceleration Clock acceleration is an alternate explanation to anomalous acceleration of the spacecraft towards the Sun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly

It was mentioned in an interview with John Leif Jørgensen from DTU (about 5 years ago) Because John had then invented a star camera navigation equipment today on board Juno. In this context the old Pioneer distance measurement eqipment was mentioned excactly e as I wrote it. So I am 100% sure you can count with this information I wrote (this man is not stupid, he know what he talks about) You can google translate more about the star camera navigation equipment invention here.. http://ing.dk/artikel/danske-stjernekameraer-rejser-til-jupiter-i-aften-120975 But this article is not mentioned anything about the equipment on board the Pioneer probes. I think it can be differcult to use Doppler on very large distances (?) so this is perhabs why a different system was used then...(?) Sorry I have no more information than that... New Question.. Some places at the internet I have read the flyby anomalies are of the of order 10e-4m/s^2 Other places that the order is the same as the order of the pioneer anomaly, - 10000 times smaller. So what is correct

I hear it many years ago in the a science hour in the radio. But I think this technic only was used in the space probes travellng to the edge of the solar system and longer New Question.. Some places at the internet I have read the flyby anomalies are of the of order 10e-4m/s^2 Other places that the order is the same as the order of the pioneer anomaly, - 10000 times smaller. So what is correct

How was the speed anomalies of the space probes NEAR, GALILEO, ROSETTA etc. measured I often hear that Doppler Effect was used. But how does that work ? Once I hear a atomic clock was ion board the Pioneer 10 and 11 space probes. A signal was send from earth and to the pioneer probes, - asking what time it is (on board) , the atomic clock on board replied, - and the signal was turn back to Earth with that information. Now it was easy to calculate the distance based on the time it took the signal to return. But this has (so far I understand) nothing with Doppler Effect measurement to do. What is this time calculation technic called ? So fare I understand Doppler it is to measure the change of wavelength of a certain frequency that is send from the space probe to the Earth - Correct ? And this doesn't involve time measurement of any kind ? Was different technique used for measuring the Space Probes anomalies ? ( I read somewhere that only Doppler was used when discovering the flyby anomalies )

1.) Will it come data regarind Juno's flyby anomaly (if any) ? 2.) What is the inclination of the tracjetory of Juno ?