Meassurement of the Fly By Speed Increment Anomalies ?

[Enthalpy]

Was that a scientific answer? "They are known hence right".

 

By the way, Turyshev was in the first team as well, composed of professionals etc etc, which explained that thermal recoil was no possible explanation.

 

And if you read my thread about it, I compared the speeds instead of the accelerations, which puts stronger constraints on the explanations.

 

I'm astonished about how little checking is done on science papers. The other team that "modelled" the thermal recoil had no data at all, but in reports it becomes "several teams coincide in saying".

[Spyman]

Was that a scientific answer? "They are known hence right".

Yes, Turyshev's work is certainly a "scientific answer" and No, I did definitely NOT say that they are correct because they are famous.

 

 

By the way, Turyshev was in the first team as well, composed of professionals etc etc, which explained that thermal recoil was no possible explanation.

Turyshev has done a lot of work and taken part in several papers about the Pioneer anamoly, it is not at all surprising if he changes his conclusion when new data and understanding is presented, that is how a scientist is supposed to act.

 

Here is a paper made between those papers where they conclude that: "the data favor a temporally decaying anomalous acceleration", which hints at a decreasing source on the spacecraft.

Link to paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.2886.pdf

 

 

I'm astonished about how little checking is done on science papers.

Turyshev's paper it is available on Physical Review Letters, which is a peer-reviewed, scientific journal.

Link to paper: http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i24/e241101

 

"Physical Review Letters (PRL), established in 1958, is a peer-reviewed, scientific journal that is published 52 times per year by the American Physical Society."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Review_Letters

 

"Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

[Enthalpy]

What are you trying to achieve? Derail the topic?

 

You can read Anderson's paper which excludes thermal recoil with understandable arguments. I've given the link to arXiv.

You can read Turyshev's paper which describes without material properties some simulation results, by nature little verifyable, for which peer-review brings little. I've given the link to arXiv.

You can read my arguments against thermal recoil. They are simple. I've given the link to the thread in this forum.

 

Then you can tell "this argument doesn't hold because <your reason>". That would be science. Your "professionals at JPL" isn't a scientific argument.

[Spyman]

What are you trying to achieve? Derail the topic?

I am not trying to achieve anything special, I am just participating in the discussion and reporting about current scientific status.

 

Why do you think I am trying to derail the topic? All I have done is answer to your very own posts directed towards me.

 

I would also like to encourage you, (or anyone else), that if you seriously think I am making bad posts that are ruining the discussion, to use the report funktion. It is easy, just click on the report button in the lower right corner of my post and describe the problem.

 

 

You can read Anderson's paper which excludes thermal recoil with understandable arguments. I've given the link to arXiv.

You can read Turyshev's paper which describes without material properties some simulation results, by nature little verifyable, for which peer-review brings little. I've given the link to arXiv.

You can read my arguments against thermal recoil. They are simple. I've given the link to the thread in this forum.

Yes, anyone interested should read the Wikipedia article and the papers mentioned.

(Nothing wrong with reading your thread about it either.)

 

 

Then you can tell "this argument doesn't hold because <your reason>". That would be science. Your "professionals at JPL" isn't a scientific argument.

I have not claimed to be "doing" science, but I like to "discuss" science and that encompasses what scientists already have done.

 

The "professionals at JPL" are doing science so telling about their paper and conclusion are certainly valid comments.

 

You are entitled to have your own personal opinion and question whether Turyshev and his team are correct or not. But instead of chastise my reasoning, I suggest you tell me what I have said that is false, wrong or otherwise untruthful.

[Enthalpy]

The problem is that science is not a matter of opinion, as you seem to suggest. It's a matter of logic and numbers, and I did provide such elements, while you put them in doubt based only on reputation, which is nowhere near good scientific practice.

 

I do not need to show which of your arguments are false, because you have brought none of a nature proper to science.

 

And yes, if a back-of-envelope computation contradicts a computer simulation, then the back-of-envelope must preferred. Naturally and of course. Because it takes less software, less modelling, less bugs, and more importantly, it is verifyable.

 

You put "paper... thoroughly examined with critical eyes by experts in this field": no! The paper - which you should really read before arguing - gives zero data about the spacecraft, hence is not verifyable and has not been verified. Then, one may also wonder how many experts for satellite design are in the review's committee - I'm one, so there are probably more experts on my side (one) than at the review (none?). When a paper styled "we modelled, that's the result, believe us" passes through peer review, this brings zero confidence in its validity.

 

The extreme case was the other paper that modelled the Pioneers, where the authors didn't even have design data about the craft. The paper was peer-reviewed and published.

 

Is there a third paper? I know two: one that hides its data, the other that had none - and of that, journalism buzz is claiming scientific evidence. You have the right to follow such opinion leaders, but science cannot work like that. A figure that, I'm very far from isolated in my opinion.

[swansont]

 

And yes, if a back-of-envelope computation contradicts a computer simulation, then the back-of-envelope must preferred. Naturally and of course. Because it takes less software, less modelling, less bugs, and more importantly, it is verifyable.

 

 

Um, no. Back-of-the-envelope implies some very rough estimations. A careful calculation is always preferred, but none of that guarantees anything is correct.

[Spyman]

The problem is that science is not a matter of opinion, as you seem to suggest.

I would like you to stop twisting my words, I did NOT suggest anything like that.

 

 

It's a matter of logic and numbers, and I did provide such elements, while you put them in doubt based only on reputation, which is nowhere near good scientific practice.

I am sorry and apologize if I said something or expressed myself badly, such that I did insult or otherwise hurt your feelings, that was never my intention. I doubt a lot of things, based on many different factors, but it is not a personal thing against you.

 

 

I do not need to show which of your arguments are false, because you have brought none of a nature proper to science.

While I didn't ment it as a demand, I can't really understand what you are arguing against if you don't tell me. Since you keep on posting on the subject and attacking my position, there must either be some kind of misunderstanding or you are actually unable to comply.

 

 

And yes, if a back-of-envelope computation contradicts a computer simulation, then the back-of-envelope must preferred. Naturally and of course. Because it takes less software, less modelling, less bugs, and more importantly, it is verifyable.

So, have you notified NASA about how you have verifiable evidence that their computer simulation must be wrong? Or have you published a paper that have passed through peer review, where you with logic and numbers show undeniable facts that the Pioneer anamoly can't be caused by heat radiation from the spacecraft? If you are able to help science to progress and solve this problem, I think you should.

 

Since this seems to be your main issue with what I have said, I am fully willing to admit that Turyshev's model and simulation could very well be wrong. I have no personal investment in it and if you reread my first post in this thread you can see that I, already before this argument started, was expressing myself very carefully about consensus. But are you willing to admit that you also could be wrong?

 

 

You put "paper... thoroughly examined with critical eyes by experts in this field": no! ...

Where are the papers opposing their conclusion and why are there not experts more openly criticizing Turyshev's paper?

 

 

Then, one may also wonder how many experts for satellite design are in the review's committee ...

For the rest of your post, I am not interested in your issues with the peer review process or media hype, that is for another thread.

[Enthalpy]

So, have you notified NASA [...]? Or have you published a paper that have passed through peer review [...]?, I think you should.

 

I have no such desire nor intention. My arguments are there, where you can read them, and even for free:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79814-pioneer-anomaly-still/

[...] I am fully willing to admit that Turyshev's model and simulation could very well be wrong. [...]

 

But are you willing to admit that you also could be wrong?

 

If you had read my arguments about that, you'd see that Turyshev has fit the acceleration curve, on which uncertainties accept a significant discrepancy, while I have shown a misfit in the speed curve, on which the uncertainty is smaller.

 

I admit easily to be wrong when evidence shows it. Up to now, your messages only tell about reputation, which is not a receiveable argument for me.

Where are the papers opposing their conclusion and why are there not experts more openly criticizing Turyshev's paper?

Because Turyshev doesn't share his data, despite repeated requests from other experts. This is a regular criticism from them.

Maybe I'm the first to check if the curve speed fits, not just the acceleration curve.

[...] I am not interested in your issues with the peer review process or media hype, that is for another thread.

 

You brought this point in the discussion, nobody else. Unfortunately, that's the core of your arguments, together with reputation - and I certainly agree that Turyshev is an expert, but for Relativity.

 

You have to understand that peer review is no guarantee for accuracy. It is an imperfect filter against nonsense. Peer review does not save the reader's need to make his own opinion through critical reading.

 

If you had read the other paper that "modelled" Pioneer's thermal recoil: they modelled without having the spacecraft's data (which Turyshev doesn't share), but the review let this through. At one point they took a multilayer insulator as a surface of 0.5 emissivity, and the review let this through. Just one example to tell that the review panel had no expert for satellite design, who should have reacted quickly.

[Spyman]

I have no such desire nor intention...

Aha, they wont gracefully accept your arguments and immediately correct their previously conclusion.

 

I admit easily to be wrong when evidence shows it...

But what I really asked was if you can consider the possibility of being wrong before any evidence shows up?

 

Because Turyshev doesn't share his data, despite repeated requests from other experts. This is a regular criticism from them.

So, not even one single opposing paper and the only criticism is about the sharing of data. Any public references about this?

 

Unfortunately, that's the core of your arguments...

Yes, I am no expert and have never claimed to be any. Yes, like you say, I have only told what I have read and what scientists have written in their papers. Yes, peer review is no guarantee for accuracy, papers could still be wrong. Yes, my arguments and knowledge depends on my non-expert ability and understanding of available peer reviewed papers. Yes, my critical thinking and knowledge can always improve.

 

However, right now, my non-expert opinion based on my limited knowledge, still favors the possibility that the Pioneer anomaly could have been caused by heat radiation from the spacecraft. At least until evidence shows up that convince the experts at NASA otherwise.

 

Like I already have said, anyone interested should read Turyshev's paper and form their own opinion, it is also for free:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507

 

If you don't have anything new to bring to the table, I suggest that we agree to disagree and wait for the future to bring clarity.

[Enthalpy]

You have still to bring your first scientific argument.

[Spyman]

You have still to bring your first scientific argument.

What the heck does that mean?

 

I have now read through this thread several times with special notion to your remarks for me "to not be making scientific arguments" and the most reasonable interpretation I can make is that you consider Turyshev's paper to not only be wrong but nonsense.

 

But I could of course be wrong and misunderstand you, maybe you are saying that talking about scientific work done by others don't count.

 

Since I can't really know what you are arguing against when you refuse to tell me, I ask again, can you please clarify your statement.

 

Do you consider Turyshev's paper to not be scientific enough or that telling about it is not a valid scientific argument?

[Enthalpy]

Fantastic. You have spent one page telling

"I have not read the papers, can't understand them, and nevertheless this is my opinion"

and

"I believe what other people say based on reputation, rather than making my rationale opinion".

Congratulations.

 

This is exactly how science cannot be made.

 

When you put wrong words in my mouth, it is a not a scientific method neither.

 

For your information, a scientific argument is not

"I will follow what I suppose to be Nasa will tell".

It looks more like

"the emissivity of a paint doesn't decrease by 0.2 with space weathering, rather the absorptivity increases by 0.1"

and then, if this were not common expert knowledge, you would reference to measurements.

[Spyman]

Fantastic. You have spent one page... /snip/ Congratulations.

Thank you, and BTW, Congratulations to you too! One amazing fact is that half of this page actually consists of your posts.

 

A page where your recurrent argument is a cryptic statement that you refuse to explain...

 

Let me remind you that you are the driver in this discussion, you are attacking my position and I am only defending myself. I have played with open cards, been polite and honest, admitted that I could be wrong and even apologized, lastly I tried to offer you to agree to disagree. But no, you still keep pushing that same strange argument over and over again without ever explaining yourself.

 

If you think this is a waste of space or time, then you are free to stop trying to convince me that NASA must be wrong, anytime you like. But until then don't complain about your own course of action, at least half of the page is your fault and not mine, it takes two to tango.

 

When you put wrong words in my mouth, it is a not a scientific method neither.

I find it somewhat strange how I am being accused of putting words in your mouth when all I did was asking for a clarification while you are the one that repeatedly keep twisting my words.

 

"I have not read the papers, can't understand them, and nevertheless this is my opinion"

I did not say that.

 

"I believe what other people say based on reputation, rather than making my rationale opinion".

Nor that.

 

"I will follow what I suppose to be Nasa will tell".

I have not made such an argument either.

 

...if this were not common expert knowledge, you would reference to measurements.

And I did provide a reference to a model by experts with common knowledge.

 

If you don't think misrepresenting is a proper scientific method, then please stop distorting what I actually have said and done.

 

For your information, a scientific argument is not...

But that is not what I asked for, is it? Again you are avoiding to tell me what I ask for and answer something else.

 

My question was very simple and only required yes or no answers:

 

Do you consider Turyshev's paper to not be scientific enough? Yes or No?

 

Do you consider telling about it to not be a valid scientific argument? Yes or No?

 

You have also not yet given an answer to this question:

 

Can you consider the possibility of being wrong before any evidence shows up? Yes or No?

 

If you want to uphold your own scientific standard, then I suggest that you stop evading my questions now.

 

This is exactly how science cannot be made.

Yes, I agree. I think dishonesty and dodging questions are not acceptable in a discussion, science or no science.

 

I hope you are a sincere person and will give straight forward answers in your next reply so that we can put this misunderstanding to end.

[Enthalpy]

My arguments are there

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79814-pioneer-anomaly-still/

and your scientific arguments are nowhere. What you put here is rhetoric, not science.

[Spyman]

...your scientific arguments are nowhere. What you put here is rhetoric, not science.

Your objection is duly noted but not accepted due to missing explanation.

[Enthalpy]

I figured my text was clear enough. It isn't much more than multiplications and divisions.

[Spyman]

I figured my text was clear enough. It isn't much more than multiplications and divisions.

Well, that's your opinion, for myself I don't even think it's "clear" if you are talking about the same "text" as me.

 

It gets more and more evident that you seem to either be trolling or otherwise obfuscating my arguments on purpose.

 

You have been asked to explain yourself several times, WHY are you so unwilling to accommodate this simple request?

[Ophiolite]

My arguments are there

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79814-pioneer-anomaly-still/

and your scientific arguments are nowhere. What you put here is rhetoric, not science.

I have been following this discussion. I too would welcome a simple set of direct answers to the questions raised by Spyman in post #38.

 

I can see no good reason to fail to answer those questions. They are reasonable and pertinent. By refusing to answer them you are deflecting the discussion from the issue. I find that to be bizarre.

[Enthalpy]

Maybe, but I won't. All these claims and questions are nothing that can decide whether one thesis is right or wrong.

 

One tries to argue about intentions or behaviour of people, the other about my desire or not. I don't go in such sterile debates.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Please stop this bickering