On Oct 20, 2004, at 10:38 AM, Creon Levit wrote:


On Oct 19, 2004, at 5:54 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

OK so what does

To produce our anomalous acceleration
even only out to 50 AU would require the total dark
matter to be greater than 3 × 10^−4M⊙. But this is in
conflict with the accuracy of the ephemeris, which allows
only of order a few times 10^−6M⊙ of dark matter even
within the orbit of Uranus [8]".

really mean? How far out does this "ephemeris" constraint really extend?

I think it means that if there was enough dark matter distributed as 1/r to explain the PA then planetary motions would not be predictable using the standard post-Newtonian model. But that model explains planetary motions (i.e. produces the ephemerides) with great accuracy.

Yes, but how far out in space does that go? It is obvious that this shoots down the idea of solid sphere of exotic vacuum centered at the Sun inside the solar system. Tony Smith suggested a hollowed out sphere of /\zpf = (LpR(t)r)^-1 starting out beyond the solar system. BTW this would be like the topological defect called a "hedgehog" for gradient lines of the scalar exotic vacuum potential /\zpf. So the issue is whether Tony's multiply-connected extension of my original simply connected halo without a hole in the middle is consistent with the ephemeris constraint or not? Perhaps you can talk to some experts at NASA about this?

LaViolette's model is too eccentric to even mention in our paper. If Carlos wants us to mention his paper, OK but we will say that all models of min acceleration from graininess of space-time stretched out to ~ c^2/(Hubble Scale) are falsified by this ephemeris constraint. We can leave his name out of it altogether if he wishes and just make a generic statement.


The authors of gr-qc/0104064 are admirably thorough.

Yeah, I will study it this weekend. I am having another serious tooth pain (different tooth) and getting gum surgery Fri AM meantime I am on huge doses of pain killers. Meantime see if you can find out if this ephemeris stuff shoots down even Tony's hedgehog.


Some relevant quotes and references regarding the "ephemeris constraint" are:

"...The analyses
are modeled to include the effects of planetary perturbations,
radiation pressure, the interplanetary media,
general relativity, and bias and drift in the Doppler and
range (if available). Planetary coordinates and solar system
masses are obtained using JPL’s Export Planetary
Ephemeris DE405, where DE stands for the Development
Ephemeris. [Earlier in the study, DE200 was used. See
Section VA.]

"We include models of precession, nutation, sidereal rotation,
polar motion, tidal effects, and tectonic plates
drift. Model values of the tidal deceleration, nonuniformity
of rotation, polar motion, Love numbers, and Chandler
wobble are obtained observationally, by means of
Lunar and Satellite Laser Ranging (LLR and SLR) techniques
and VLBI. Previously they were combined into
a common publication by either the International Earth
Rotation Service (IERS) or by the United States Naval
Observatory (USNO). Currently this information is provided
by the ICRF. JPL’s Earth Orientation Parameters
(EOP) is a major source contributor to the ICRF.

references:

[49] E. M. Standish, Jr., X X Newhall, J. G. Williams, and D. K. Yeomans, “Orbital ephemeris of the Sun, Moon, and Planets,” in: Ref. [55], p. 279. Also see E. M. Standish, Jr. and R. W. Hellings, Icarus 80, 326 (1989).
[50] E. M. Standish, Jr., X X Newhall, J. G. Williams, and W. M. Folkner, JPL Planetary and Lunar Ephemeris, DE403/LE403, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Internal IOM No. 314.10-127 (1995).
[55] P. K. Seidelmann, ed., Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac (University Science Books, Mill Valley, CA, 1992).
[68] P. A. Laing, “Implementation of J2000.0 reference frame in CHASMP,” The Aerospace Corporation’s Internal Memorandum # 91(6703)-1. January 28, 1991.
[70] E. M. Standish, Astron. Astrophys. 114, 297 (1982)
[125] We thank E. Myles Standish of JPL, who encouraged us to address in greater detail the nature of the annual/ diurnal terms seen in the Pioneer Doppler residuals. (This work is currently under way.) He also kindly provided us with the accuracies from his internal JPL solar system ephemeris, which is continually under development.

Yeah, so actually this is hopeful. What we need to find out from the NASA experts is: can we imagine a hollow sphere of exotic vacuum of effective "mass" ~ 10^-3 M(Sun) say between 20AU and 50AU from the Sun. Will that conflict with the ephemeris constraint or not? If not, we are systems go! If it does conflict, then the Pioneer anomaly is still a mystery - not an exotic vacuum effect.

On the surface of it, it looks like my original model is shot down - even Tony's hollow sphere variation. Carlos's idea also seems obviously shot down?

So where do we go from here? Is there any fundamental difference between dark energy and dark matter w.r.t. these counter-arguments from gr-qc/0104064 ?

No, that makes no difference here. If the hollow sphere works it will be a dark energy hedgehog defect halo of negative zero point pressure because we need a positive exotic vacuum potential energy per unit test mass of

Vzpf =c^2r/LpR(t)

So the acceleration induced by the local exotic vacuum dark energy scalar field is -GradVzpf = -c^2/LpR(t) ~ 10^-7 cm/sec^2

where the DIMENSIONLESS FRW scale factor at present epoch where T ~ 2.7 degK is R(t) = 10^61, with Lp = 10^-33 cm.

The total effective mass of this exotic vacuum halo with a hole big enough to fit the entire solar system is ~ 10^-3M(Sun).

BTW Carlos' willingness to make R bigger than 10^28 cm in his c^2/R formula would mean it could not explain Pioneer anomaly at all in that case. Time to leave a sinking ship! :-)


"We conclude that the Viking ranging data limit any
unmodeled radial acceleration acting on Earth and Mars
to no more than 0.1 × 10−8 cm/s2. Consequently, if the
anomalous radial acceleration acting on spinning spacecraft
is gravitational in origin, it is not universal. That
is, it must affect bodies in the 1000 kg range more than
bodies of planetary size by a factor of 100 or more. This
would be a strange violation of the Principle of Equivalence..."

This is OK so far for Tony's idea.




What's this about "spinning spacecraft"? Huh?

Are the Pioneers rotating about their centers of mass?

Yes, they are spin-stabilized. Relevant quotes from the paper:

"... At launch they were spinning
at approximately 4.28 and 7.8 revolutions per minute
(rpm), respectively, with the spin axes running through
the centers of the dish antennae [HGA]. Their spin-stabilizations
and great distances from the Earth imply a minimum
number of Earth-attitude reorientationmaneuvers are required.
This permits precise acceleration estimations, to
the level of 10−8 cm/s2 (single measurement accuracy averaged
over 5 days). Contrariwise, a Voyager-type three-axis
stabilized spacecraft is not well suited for a precise
celestial mechanics experiment as its numerous attitudecontrol
maneuvers can overwhelm the signal of a small
external acceleration.

Oh, well this makes the situation more complex than I thought. I was basically thinking of a point test particle. So it's not so simple. We will need more than the Newtonian limit I was using. It could be a STRONG gravimagnetic exotic vacuum effect from the full tensor /\zpfguv. In my above model I simply used /\zpfgoo! Are they seeing sinusoidal variations in the Doppler shifts in the raw data like in pulsar measurements and then deducing the anomaly from that? How big is the solar system in AU? I mean from beyond Uranus. I am assuming that there is no Pioneer anomaly until it passed the Uranus orbit - correct? OK Google says that's 20 AU. OK, so are we OK with the ephemeris constraint if we have ordinary vacuum /\zpf = 0 out from Sun to 20AU and then we start with
/\zpf ~ (LpR(t)r)^-1

"The spacecraft is attitude-stabilized by spinning about
an axis which is parallel to the axis of the HGA. The
nominal spin rate for Pioneer 10 is 4.8 rpm. Pioneer 11
spins at approximately 7.8 rpm because a spin-controlling
thruster malfunctioned during the spin-down shortly after
launch. [Because of the danger that the thruster’s
valve would not be able to close again, this particular
thruster has not been used since.]...

"There were no anomalies in the engineering telemetry
from the propulsion system, for either spacecraft, during
any mission phase from launch to termination of the
Pioneer mission in March 1997. From the viewpoint of
mission operations at the NASA/Ames control center,
the propulsion system performed as expected, with no
catastrophic or long-term pressure drops in the propulsion
tank. Except for the above-mentioned Pioneer 11
spin-thruster incident, there was no malfunction of the
propulsion nozzles, which were only opened every few
months by ground command. The fact that pressure was
maintained in the tank has been used to infer that no
impacts by Kuiper belt objects occurred, and a limit has
been placed on the size and density distribution of such
objects [7], another useful scientific result."


I thought this was an anomalous tug ~ 10^-7 cm/sec^2 back to Sun on their centers of mass?

Well, have a look at the paper and see if you can figure it out. I can't tell if the anomalous acceleration is measured A) along the spacecraft spin axis B) radially from the sun or C) towards the earth.

Now here's a weird idea: Back in ISSO days I was fascinated by the reports of several experimenters who measured anomalous weight differences between spinning and non-spinning objects, There was even a publication in phys. rev. B with a positive result, and John Brandenburg's group at RSI also got positive results in two separate implementations of the experiment - one funded (if I recall correctly) by ISSO. There was a Japanese group that did drop-tower tests and published positive results. There were also the results of Bruce DePalma ("effect of gravity on spinning objects" - much more straightforward and believable than his free energy machine "results", FWIW)

Yes, this would be some kind of exotic vacuum gravimagnetic effect from the motional gravimagnetic components in the full /\zpfguv tensor term in Einstein's GR field equation. We don't want any eccentric Hal Puthoff PV model or LaViolette Galilean ether in our paper - only battle-tested Einstein mainstream. No need to look for new paradigms. It ain't broke.

We tried to replicate some of this at ISSO. Had to quit. Ran out of money. Too bad. So simple. So important. It's another example of an experiment that "everyone knows" must produce a null result, so nobody bothers to actually check it.

So could that be what we are seeing? A slight difference between the effect of gravity on a spinning object versus its effect on a non-spinning "point mass" ?

I am sure that's where gravimagnetism from the exotic vacuum field comes in. Simply the "Lorentz force" terms in /\zpfguv. Maybe the exotic vacuum hedghog defect is also rotating?