Requiem for Relativity

The theoretical mass of Barbarossa, 0.0068 solar mass, and distance from the sun, 191 AU, cause gravitational tidal force which comprises part of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 & 11. O. Oelsen, Astronomy & Astrophysics 463:393+, 2007, Table 1, p. 395, gives, for each of three time intervals for Pioneer 10 & one time interval for Pioneer 11, three different estimates of the anomalous acceleration by different investigators. The standard deviation of these three investigations (considered as a meta-analysis) roughly given by half the range, varies from 1% to 4%, depending on which of the four time intervals is considered. Oelsen remarks that measurement error is believed to be small compared to the differences (~ 10%) observed between time intervals generally.

Using probe distances and heliocentric ecliptic coordinates from "lewes.gsfc.nasa.gov" via "nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov", and a slide rule, I exactly calculated the sunward tidal acceleration due to Barbarossa, for the midpoint of each interval (by tidal, I mean the difference between that at the probe and that at the sun). Subtracting this from the mean of the three values given by Oelsen for each interval, makes these four measurements of the Pioneer anomaly accurately conform to a simple rule:

Rule: [see post of April 24 below for more accurate rule. - Joe Keller]

...


JD Anderson et al, 1998, also quantified a sunward anomalous acceleration for the Galileo and Ulysses probes. For these probes, sunward was grossly different from Earthward or along the velocity vector or along the spin axis. Anderson's estimates, though rough, confirm that the acceleration is sunward, not along those other directions. Anderson's 1998 figures for these nearby probes, fit 7.0 considerably better than 3.5. However, recent authors suggest that Anderson's corrections, more important in the nearby solar system, were inaccurate, and that the true figures might be smaller or zero.

Hi Joe, does this mean that we've lost a newly found asteroid? Now I believe that there are astronomers who do nothing else but look for asteroids. Don't they have to be reported? This might be a useful argument to get people to point telescopes at the region of sky where the planet may be.

These look like the people to see about reporting asteroids. There's also links to some telescope arrchives. I tried to use one but it just didn't recognise that I had put in the coordinates. That might be down to my using an apple mac.

[] I can't put the link up for some reason. Do a google for the, minor planet center.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />Hi Joe, does this mean that we've lost a newly found asteroid? Now I believe that there are astronomers who do nothing else but look for asteroids. Don't they have to be reported? This might be a useful argument to get people to point telescopes at the region of sky where the planet may be.

These look like the people to see about reporting asteroids. There's also links to some telescope arrchives. I tried to use one but it just didn't recognise that I had put in the coordinates. That might be down to my using an apple mac.

[] I can't put the link up ror some reason. Do a google for the, minor planet center.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This asteroid was photographed on a ten-minute exposure, so, the length of the track is consistent with the distance to the orbit of, say, Ceres. (This is inaccurate because not only is the length of the track vague, but increased Earth parallax for nearer asteroids is somewhat compensated by their faster revolution.)

This asteroid might have bright spots on its surface. Assuming it has the relatively high albedo of Ceres (9%), it would be 3km across based on its magnitude, +18.3 by comparison with nearby cataloged stars.

I found another disappearing dot, again on a scanned archival Red plate (absent from two other archival Red scanned plates, also one archival Blue and one archival Optical Infrared). Its Red magnitude is +17.8 by comparison with a nearby star with stable catalog magnitudes. Its coordinates are

RA 11 03 12.4 Decl -5 58 09

This is a POSS I Palomar plate from 1954.154. The position is quite consistent with the track, the period and the 1987 archival object (est. Red mag +17.3) discussed above.

Tonight's coordinates, based on great-circle extrapolation & corrected for Earth parallax are

RA 11 25 49.4 Decl -9 03 02.

Can you say what its ascending node is, and its inclination to the ecliptic, Joe? I thought I'd add it to my planets in the program "Starry Night Back Yard" You might want to donload a demo copy of that and see if it lets you add a planet in demo mode. Setting up a planet is pretty easy as it's all done by sliders, and it does some of the maths for you, like working out the planet's year. About 2600 for this one at 191 AU.

Hi Joe,

Sure enjoying your posts! Wondering about pioneer anomaly, mass accelerations, and the phenomenon of time delayed echo’s of images. Your astute calculations indicated the pioneer anomaly was caused by a zone of differential acceleration towards gravitational center of Sun. Boundary zones of resonance around our solar system may exist where FTL accelerations are more concentrated as they enter this scale. If all mass acceleration is the result of a collapsing higher scale FTL fields (we cannot see because these fields exist outside of our spectrum view plane), then could shells of concentrated resonant electromagnetic fields surrounding solar systems and galaxies result in lensed time delayed echoes of images revealing light wave splitting of image from these boundary zones?

Just how images bounce back and forth on there way through the Elysium or Aether may reveal where these boundary zones exist. A slightly skewed field may bounce the light waves in such a way that reveal a time delayed portion of the spectrum resulting in double images. Space is certainly not empty and from my perspective if you were to look at space from a higher scale viewpoint and were able to take a picture (beyond the frequencies of light) of Universe, all mass in this scale would appear as empty holes/space and then the negative space would reveal bands of extreme frequency energies as they collapsed into this scale. The viewer suddenly would realize that everything we presently see as Universe was the result of this FTL interactions with lower frequency light waves and matter. So, that 90% of the Universe rather then being Dark Matter is now higher scale higher frequency wave forms collapsing into this lower frequency electromagnetic spectrum of light creating mass and accelerations. Just some thoughts….

John