The Pioneer Anomaly as a POAMS Effect
The POAMS Effect is described in a new book (2008) entitled Light-Speed, Gravitation and Quantum Instantaneity by A, D, Osborne and N. V. Pope (see website www.poams.org .) ‘POAMS’ stands for the Pope-Osborne Angular Momentum Synthesis, a project which began in 1982 at Keele University, UK as a cross-disciplinary collaboration between a Philosopher and a Mathematician,
Briefly, the POAMS effect is the effect of varying G due to spin angular momentum of freely orbiting bodies. The above-mentioned book may be regarded by some as ‘highly mathematical’, with purposes apart from that of addressing the Pioneer anomaly. However, in that latter regard, the POAMS Effect is susceptible of a simple commonsense paraphrase. Briefly, it is that if the total kinetic energy of an orbiting body consists of the kinetic energy of the orbit plus that of the spin, then, logically, changing the spin energy must change the orbital energy, hence the radius of orbit in the way NASA has discovered.
Such changes in orbital parameters due to spin are, of course, counter to Newtonian mechanics, according to which the ‘gravitational’ effect on bodies is the same whether or not they are spinning, so that for Newton, G is G , no matter what. However, to incorporate the spin angular momentum into the equation for the total angular momentum of an orbiting body in the way POAMS does, necessarily alters the value of G. And that, in a nutshell, is the POAMS effect.
So the Pioneer experiment has discovered varying G, and POAMS predicts varying G. If this is not the explanation of the Pioneer anomaly, then what is?
This is a serious scietific issue. No 'Smart-Alec-ey undergrad responses, please!
Newton's G can not vary, it is composed of pi and a magnetic scaling factor.
G has nothing to do with gravity.
The above is a fruitcake...
G has nothing to do with gravity.
The above is a fruitcake...
You suggest on your website a new explanation for action at a distance but I can find no detail of any substance. Care to tell us more or is this a case of "buy the book"?
QUOTE
You suggest on your website a new explanation for action at a distance but I can find no detail of any substance.
indeed I do... my website is a data base... a collection.
The book is about Global Climate Change..
Re action at a distance... I do talk about some aspects... but some of the theory is not known by earthlings.. it is very sensitive...and I will not go there.. except obliquely
I have tried to start a conversation about the basics... but the ***..holes on this site have shown they know everything...LOL
see
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=21628
so take your query there
I do not mind bringing you up to speed
>G has nothing to do with gravity.
WHAT?
WHAT?
uh ?
Newton's G has nothing to do with gravity... it is a compound value. composed of spherical constants, pi and the scaling factor of magnetism
It is a "matter" constant... related to the "mass of a spherical body"
and NOTHING to do with gravity....
Gravity is to do with FIELD spin.... which is driven from afar.................
Yes weird hey... but its true
Earthlings have gone light years off the mark in so many important scientific concepts.
Newton's G has nothing to do with gravity... it is a compound value. composed of spherical constants, pi and the scaling factor of magnetism
It is a "matter" constant... related to the "mass of a spherical body"
and NOTHING to do with gravity....
Gravity is to do with FIELD spin.... which is driven from afar.................
Yes weird hey... but its true
Earthlings have gone light years off the mark in so many important scientific concepts.
>which is driven from afar.................
Like a remote controlled drone aircraft, or model car???
Who is doing the driving?
Sorry sir but I prefer to stick with accepted.
It sounds to me like a case of "Can't see the trees for the forest"
Like a remote controlled drone aircraft, or model car???
Who is doing the driving?
Sorry sir but I prefer to stick with accepted.
It sounds to me like a case of "Can't see the trees for the forest"
QUOTE
Like a remote controlled drone aircraft, or model car???
well in effect all the spin systems of the Universe are linked like cogs, one driving the other... there are drivers and there are those that are driven
Mach twigged to this quite a while ago... see Mach's principle
but I suppose all are drivers and all are driven, all spins are governed by energy considerations
eg the Sun drives the Earth... the Earth drives the Moon... the galactic spin drives the Sun.... and Jupiter drives the Sun to some degree... what a tangled spinning web!!!
all understandable... but space travelers are going to have to map out the spin zones if they wish to go where no earthling has gone before AND be able to come back, LOL
Now I know g = (G M1*M2)/r^2 Newton
but really g = (Gcentral-spin) / r^2.... ie spin / r^2... or an acceleration resultant towards the centre of spin.
so since the mass of the Earth or whatever cosmic body you wish to point to, is NOT really known...... and, as if you know the mass of the Sun... this is shabby science
to point to mass to generate gravity is totally totally SILLY
so from the above
IF you knew G with certainty... (and G's value is NOT the value published, BTW close but incorrect)
then you may find cosmic mass from Gcentral-spin = G * cosmic Mass
but to use cosmic mass in any equation is just so inaccurate
Cosmic mass is the superposition of all charged and magnetic particles in a spherical body.... mmmh, just a bit hard to play with, LOL
You should go play with DavidD.
and you need to show some respect for science, even if you are not up to understanding any of it..pipsqueek!
Zarkov,
Now your disagreeing with yourself.
Re-read your posts here and then explain gravity and non-spinning objects.
Next your going to say that c has nothing to do with light.
Mach's principle has to do with inertia of both spinning and non-spinning bodies or many different spin rates. quasi frame dragging could have galactic interactions with each others angular motion but,,, g is still the same. but you said that before you disagreed with yourself.
Now your disagreeing with yourself.
Re-read your posts here and then explain gravity and non-spinning objects.
Next your going to say that c has nothing to do with light.
Mach's principle has to do with inertia of both spinning and non-spinning bodies or many different spin rates. quasi frame dragging could have galactic interactions with each others angular motion but,,, g is still the same. but you said that before you disagreed with yourself.
g, he disagrees with me, too. That would be a good thing. 
QUOTE
gravity and non-spinning objects.
READ MY LIPS....
FIELD SPIN not planet rotation !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are reading my words with your own mindset... that is OK by me, but before you cry foul, really try and read what I say CORRECTLY
Space is composed of differentially spinning fields of Poynting vector energies
magnetic-electric field spin... ALL connected via Mach's principle... and yes it is these field spin that dictate INERTIA
But if you wish to discuss this subject.. go to the correct thread...
I will no longer waste time here.
QUOTE (Zarkov+)
I will no longer waste time here.
Whoa. Deja vu!
Whoa. Deja vu!
Me thinks The Zarkster is trying to avoid the issue by wanting to leave (Again).
He has entered into a battle of wits half armed.
>and yes it is these field spin that dictate INERTIA
Now here you are agreeing with me while at the same time arguing about it.
However I said Effect angular motion. NOT "dictate" it.
>really try and read what I say CORRECTLY
Well OK but,,, only if you SAY it correctly first.
>Space is composed of differentially spinning fields of Poynting vector energies
The energy flux of an electromagnetic field, While as I said above, may have some effect on angular motion it is NOT gravity. You are confusing the two.
>Now I know g = (G M1*M2)/r^2 Newton...but really g = (Gcentral-spin) / r^2.... ie spin / r^2... or an acceleration resultant towards the centre of spin.
And I suppose that you are not talking about spinning bodies here either.
So here you are trying to explain how the spin effects an object afar by calculating the acceleration toward the center of the spin.
Damn Son,,(voice of ol' thunder britches) Make up your mind. Which side of the fence are you going to stand on?
He has entered into a battle of wits half armed.
>and yes it is these field spin that dictate INERTIA
Now here you are agreeing with me while at the same time arguing about it.
However I said Effect angular motion. NOT "dictate" it.
>really try and read what I say CORRECTLY
Well OK but,,, only if you SAY it correctly first.
>Space is composed of differentially spinning fields of Poynting vector energies
The energy flux of an electromagnetic field, While as I said above, may have some effect on angular motion it is NOT gravity. You are confusing the two.
>Now I know g = (G M1*M2)/r^2 Newton...but really g = (Gcentral-spin) / r^2.... ie spin / r^2... or an acceleration resultant towards the centre of spin.
And I suppose that you are not talking about spinning bodies here either.
So here you are trying to explain how the spin effects an object afar by calculating the acceleration toward the center of the spin.
Damn Son,,(voice of ol' thunder britches) Make up your mind. Which side of the fence are you going to stand on?
QUOTE
And I suppose that you are not talking about spinning bodies here either.
LOL, you have your knickers covering your (eye)balls ! LOL can't tell the difference, eh ???
FIRST>.... what I started was a PRIMER>.. from little things etc
you are jumping too far into the future
I was STARTING WITH NEWTON !......
I am not returning to this thread
If you wish to pursue this topic go to Cosmic Mechanics.
and do the homework set there......
Zarkaroni,
>FIRST>.... what I started was a PRIMER>..
You didn't start anything here,,, you jumped in with a mistaken reply to Viv Pope's thread. Even after he ask "No 'Smart-Alec-ey undergrad responses, please! "
>you are jumping too far into the future
By pointing out your incorrect statements this early in the thread,
Yes, perhaps I should have waited longer.
>I am not returning to this thread
You said that last time too. But just in case you mean it this time, OK,,,
I will accept your un-willingness to discuss this here as your concession.
>FIRST>.... what I started was a PRIMER>..
You didn't start anything here,,, you jumped in with a mistaken reply to Viv Pope's thread. Even after he ask "No 'Smart-Alec-ey undergrad responses, please! "
>you are jumping too far into the future
By pointing out your incorrect statements this early in the thread,
Yes, perhaps I should have waited longer.
>I am not returning to this thread
You said that last time too. But just in case you mean it this time, OK,,,
I will accept your un-willingness to discuss this here as your concession.
This anomaly can be explained by Newton's Shell Theorem combined with the gravitation formula.
F = GMm/r^2
Now in the naive text book physics, "M" would represent the mass of the sun, while "m" represents the mass of the probe. This is all fine and dandy for discussing a closed, isolated system with only two objects.
But in the real world, with dozens of planets and planetoids and perhaps millions or billions of comets, "M" is NOT the mass of the sun. "M" is the mass of all objects in the solar system inside a shell centered on the sun having radius r.
This means that as the craft gets farther from the sun, "M" actually increases very, very, very slightly. You can see this intuitively by looking at this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oort_cl...Sedna_orbit.jpg
So the discrepency is caused because NASA is using only the mass of the sun in their calculations, but the probe is accelerated (or deccelerated) by ALL the mass of the solar system that is closer to the sun than itself.
the difference is very, very tiny, but it is big enough to be noticed over a period of several years.
F = GMm/r^2
Now in the naive text book physics, "M" would represent the mass of the sun, while "m" represents the mass of the probe. This is all fine and dandy for discussing a closed, isolated system with only two objects.
But in the real world, with dozens of planets and planetoids and perhaps millions or billions of comets, "M" is NOT the mass of the sun. "M" is the mass of all objects in the solar system inside a shell centered on the sun having radius r.
This means that as the craft gets farther from the sun, "M" actually increases very, very, very slightly. You can see this intuitively by looking at this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oort_cl...Sedna_orbit.jpg
So the discrepency is caused because NASA is using only the mass of the sun in their calculations, but the probe is accelerated (or deccelerated) by ALL the mass of the solar system that is closer to the sun than itself.
the difference is very, very tiny, but it is big enough to be noticed over a period of several years.
QUOTE (Viv Pope+May 22 2008, 01:04 PM)
The Pioneer Anomaly as a POAMS Effect
The POAMS Effect is described in a new book (2008) entitled Light-Speed, Gravitation and Quantum Instantaneity by A, D, Osborne and N. V. Pope (see website www.poams.org .) ‘
If this so called POAMS effect is real how come we don't see it in 'spinning' satellites that orbit earth??
And don't tell me the effect is too small unless you are going to provide the EQUATION that describes the magnitude of the effect.
JW
The POAMS Effect is described in a new book (2008) entitled Light-Speed, Gravitation and Quantum Instantaneity by A, D, Osborne and N. V. Pope (see website www.poams.org .) ‘
If this so called POAMS effect is real how come we don't see it in 'spinning' satellites that orbit earth??
And don't tell me the effect is too small unless you are going to provide the EQUATION that describes the magnitude of the effect.
JW
Just in case anybody is interested in, say, mainstream physics... And even less probable, is willing to consider the possibility that other humanoids having spent some thoughts at the Pioneer Anomaly didn't need to be stupid and ignorant...
Well, here's the original paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064
But I shall warn you that it consists of several pages, and contains many arguments and computations and formulas, which in turn may require efforts and previous knowledge to understand.
Even worse, the authors had to work together to analyze numerous and varied possibilities, because one single scientist is unlikely to fully understand them all.
So, such a reading is probably a very bad investment, as it takes hours or days, just to establish that the authors have already disproved additional masses (no effect on Neptune), collisions with dust and particles, electromagnetic fields, radiation pressure from the RTG and the Sun, degassing etc. Quite disappointing, and not the time worth.
I shall apologize for the inconvenient interruption.
Well, here's the original paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064
But I shall warn you that it consists of several pages, and contains many arguments and computations and formulas, which in turn may require efforts and previous knowledge to understand.
Even worse, the authors had to work together to analyze numerous and varied possibilities, because one single scientist is unlikely to fully understand them all.
So, such a reading is probably a very bad investment, as it takes hours or days, just to establish that the authors have already disproved additional masses (no effect on Neptune), collisions with dust and particles, electromagnetic fields, radiation pressure from the RTG and the Sun, degassing etc. Quite disappointing, and not the time worth.
I shall apologize for the inconvenient interruption.
Yes tragic isn't it Enthalpy..... a real analysis that covered all KNOW bases......
You meant "known"?
These bases have some distinct advantages, like making all our technology work.
This is why people aren't willing to abandon them, and look after better explanations.
Even better: these bases allow helium to be solidified.
These bases have some distinct advantages, like making all our technology work.
This is why people aren't willing to abandon them, and look after better explanations.
Even better: these bases allow helium to be solidified.
QUOTE
Even better: these bases allow helium to be solidified.
and even better, to find out the colour of oxygen ...and water !
Obvious explanations usually are not correct...
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+May 31 2008, 11:15 AM)
So the discrepency is caused because NASA is using only the mass of the sun in their calculations, but the probe is accelerated (or deccelerated) by ALL the mass of the solar system that is closer to the sun than itself.
Yeah, I'm sure NASA forgot about that one
Yeah, I'm sure NASA forgot about that one
The replies to my last sending are noted. This is further to my earlier posting on the POAMS Effect. It is an encapsulation of the main argument regarding the Pioneer and the Missing Mass anomalies
Newton’s Spin’ Anomaly
The orbital equations NASA uses to track the trajectories of their space-probes are essentially Newtonian. The velocities of these probes are too small to be relativistic, so Relativity doesn’t come into it on that level.
All these probes have to spin in order to maintain their orientations with respect to the earth and the other planets they visit, yet it is characteristic of Newtonian mechanics that it takes no account of the spin angular momentum of orbiting bodies. All that counts in the Newtonian schema is the ‘gravitational attraction’ of one body for another due to an assumed invisible in vacuo ‘force’ that is the product of their masses and the inverse of the square of their distance apart, in a constant empirical relation G. This ‘force’ is the same, regardless of whether or not the orbiting bodies are spinning.
However, angular momentum is a conserved quantity, so the total angular momentum of an orbiting body that is spinning has to include both its orbital and its spin angular momentum. And because that total angular momentum is conserved, any change in the spin angular momentum of the body must affect its orbital angular momentum, and vice versa. This changes its orbital radius and velocity – and, of course, the value of ‘G’. According to standard dynamics, when the proportion of spin to orbital angular momentum increases, the body orbits nearer to the sun, with increased orbital velocity and kinetic energy, which is precisely the ‘anomaly’ NASA has discovered with the ‘anomalous acceleration’ of their spinning space probes.
All this is just plain commonsense and a bit of elementary practical physics. For instance, a student on an Advanced Driving course is shown that when driving on ice and an obstacle appears in front of him, to avoid a collision he must not brake but must kill his forward momentum by flicking the car into a spin with the small bit of resistance to his wheels that the ice offers. This transfers the one part of the total angular momentum into the other in accordance with the principle of overall conservation. It is the same, of course, when a skater stops dead by turning her forward motion into a spin, which is further enhanced by drawing in her extended arms. Note that the effect is the same, regardless of whether the spin is clockwise or anti-clockwise. That is to say, it is a matter of amounts, or magnitudes only. Vectors are a superimposition on these amounts and are as described in the book Light-Speed, Gravitation and Quantum Instantaneity by A. D Osborne and N. V. Pope, Chapter 7, [see www.poams.org ]
Now why doesn’t our standard Newtonian mechanics apply that simple, commonsense rule of conservation to orbiting bodies? Why is it not recognised by astronomers when calculating the ‘mass of the universe’? There is a lot of spin out there as, for instance, in the prodigious spin angular momenta of the spiral galaxies and in the spins of just about everything else. If the totality of that spin is ignored, as it is in Newtonian orbital equations, then no wonder there are anomalies!
Viv Pope,
Newton’s Spin’ Anomaly
The orbital equations NASA uses to track the trajectories of their space-probes are essentially Newtonian. The velocities of these probes are too small to be relativistic, so Relativity doesn’t come into it on that level.
All these probes have to spin in order to maintain their orientations with respect to the earth and the other planets they visit, yet it is characteristic of Newtonian mechanics that it takes no account of the spin angular momentum of orbiting bodies. All that counts in the Newtonian schema is the ‘gravitational attraction’ of one body for another due to an assumed invisible in vacuo ‘force’ that is the product of their masses and the inverse of the square of their distance apart, in a constant empirical relation G. This ‘force’ is the same, regardless of whether or not the orbiting bodies are spinning.
However, angular momentum is a conserved quantity, so the total angular momentum of an orbiting body that is spinning has to include both its orbital and its spin angular momentum. And because that total angular momentum is conserved, any change in the spin angular momentum of the body must affect its orbital angular momentum, and vice versa. This changes its orbital radius and velocity – and, of course, the value of ‘G’. According to standard dynamics, when the proportion of spin to orbital angular momentum increases, the body orbits nearer to the sun, with increased orbital velocity and kinetic energy, which is precisely the ‘anomaly’ NASA has discovered with the ‘anomalous acceleration’ of their spinning space probes.
All this is just plain commonsense and a bit of elementary practical physics. For instance, a student on an Advanced Driving course is shown that when driving on ice and an obstacle appears in front of him, to avoid a collision he must not brake but must kill his forward momentum by flicking the car into a spin with the small bit of resistance to his wheels that the ice offers. This transfers the one part of the total angular momentum into the other in accordance with the principle of overall conservation. It is the same, of course, when a skater stops dead by turning her forward motion into a spin, which is further enhanced by drawing in her extended arms. Note that the effect is the same, regardless of whether the spin is clockwise or anti-clockwise. That is to say, it is a matter of amounts, or magnitudes only. Vectors are a superimposition on these amounts and are as described in the book Light-Speed, Gravitation and Quantum Instantaneity by A. D Osborne and N. V. Pope, Chapter 7, [see www.poams.org ]
Now why doesn’t our standard Newtonian mechanics apply that simple, commonsense rule of conservation to orbiting bodies? Why is it not recognised by astronomers when calculating the ‘mass of the universe’? There is a lot of spin out there as, for instance, in the prodigious spin angular momenta of the spiral galaxies and in the spins of just about everything else. If the totality of that spin is ignored, as it is in Newtonian orbital equations, then no wonder there are anomalies!
Viv Pope,
Viv,
I asked you a specific question relating to action at a distance when you started this thread. I have had no response and, if it were my thread, I would not add further posts until I had dealt with all issues arising from the original post. So, can we have your interpretation of this issue before we go any further.
regards
edward
I asked you a specific question relating to action at a distance when you started this thread. I have had no response and, if it were my thread, I would not add further posts until I had dealt with all issues arising from the original post. So, can we have your interpretation of this issue before we go any further.
regards
edward
QUOTE (Viv Pope+Jun 18 2008, 08:49 AM)
The orbital equations NASA uses to track the trajectories of their space-probes are essentially Newtonian. The velocities of these probes are too small to be relativistic, so Relativity doesn’t come into it on that level.
Wrong. They do use relativistic corrections.
Of course? The "logic" here makes much less sense than you think it does. Consider what it takes to make a probe start spinning. We'll ignore the simplest method, which is to spin up a flywheel inside the probe. The probe will spin but the total angular momentum of the craft will remain completely unchanged. Consider instead rockets paired on opposite sides and pointed in opposite directions. When fired briefly they cause the probe to spin. The total force cancels out so the probe's velocity is unchanged. How is angular momentum conserved? The expended fuel rushes away with an angular momentum exactly opposite to that imparted to the probe. The probe retains the same orbit but has lost mass, so it's orbital angular momentum has decreased, some of it having been transferred to the cloud of expanding fuel.
So by leaving out the details of how the probe acquires spin and changes its orbital angular momentum, you can pretend it's due to some mysterious effect called POAMS, but when analyzed using a bit of common sense it's obvious that the real cause is rockets firing.
Wrong. They do use relativistic corrections.
QUOTE
However, angular momentum is a conserved quantity, so the total angular momentum of an orbiting body that is spinning has to include both its orbital and its spin angular momentum. And because that total angular momentum is conserved, any change in the spin angular momentum of the body must affect its orbital angular momentum, and vice versa. This changes its orbital radius and velocity – and, of course, the value of ‘G’.
Of course? The "logic" here makes much less sense than you think it does. Consider what it takes to make a probe start spinning. We'll ignore the simplest method, which is to spin up a flywheel inside the probe. The probe will spin but the total angular momentum of the craft will remain completely unchanged. Consider instead rockets paired on opposite sides and pointed in opposite directions. When fired briefly they cause the probe to spin. The total force cancels out so the probe's velocity is unchanged. How is angular momentum conserved? The expended fuel rushes away with an angular momentum exactly opposite to that imparted to the probe. The probe retains the same orbit but has lost mass, so it's orbital angular momentum has decreased, some of it having been transferred to the cloud of expanding fuel.
So by leaving out the details of how the probe acquires spin and changes its orbital angular momentum, you can pretend it's due to some mysterious effect called POAMS, but when analyzed using a bit of common sense it's obvious that the real cause is rockets firing.
Three new crank's topics about the Pioneer Anomaly within a week...
My explanation: a governmental agency tries to prevent someone from finding another topic about the Pioneer Anomaly on this same forum.
My explanation: a governmental agency tries to prevent someone from finding another topic about the Pioneer Anomaly on this same forum.
QUOTE (Edward 3+Jun 18 2008, 08:26 PM)
Viv,
I asked you a specific question relating to action at a distance when you started this thread. I have had no response and, if it were my thread, I would not add further posts until I had dealt with all issues arising from the original post. So, can we have your interpretation of this issue before we go any further.
regards
edward
Viv replies
I'm sorry, Edward, but somehow I was dropped out of this forum before I could answer, because it was assumed - mistakenlyas it turned out - that the website to which I would have directed you was no more than a commercial site for selling my book. It was not noticed that there are papers for free downloading which should tell you in detail what my stance is on action at a distance.
In fact I was one of the editors of a whole collection of international papers on action at a distance, followed by two international Workshops I was asked to organise on the subject. These were held in July 2001 and April 2002. Unfortunately, these papers were published in the books on the website I am barred from mentioning, although the books were published, not by me, but by the publishers who pocketed practically all the proceeds.
If you search for 'Quantum Touching' you will see (for free) what my views are on the subject of action at a distance. Briefly it is the same as what Gilbert Lewis discovered about Special Relativity, in 1927, namely, that while, for the observer of a distant event there is a time-delay s/c between the event and his seeing it, the time of the quantum contact itself (the so-called 'proper time') is instantaneous. This makes the 'source' of the quantum and its 'sink' one and the same event, a veritable touching in which, like a collision, involves both atoms simultaneously. This is regardless of their observational distance apart.It is a transfer of energy in accordance with Newton's third law of simultaneous and reciprocal action/reaction. This obviates any need to imagine a quantum (qua 'photon') swanning around the void searching for a billet, and it solves automatically the chronic puzzle of the Two-Slit Experiment (see free publication 'The Tantalising Two-Slit Experiment' on the (unmentionable POAMS website. Regarding the term 'photon' as inapproriate as a decriptive term for that instantaneous quantum connection, it offers the word 'photum', as less suggestive of an enigmatic space-travelling 'particle' - or even more enigmatic 'wave-particle'.
This is difficult to conceive in terms of our customary paradigm of physics, hence it requires a wholesale paradigm shift from one philosophical mind-set to another. This new paradigm (Lateral Thinking in the words of Eduard De Bono) is accessible on the Web under the heading 'Normal Realism'. Unfortunately, this is not easy to digest without some background knowledge of Philosophy, comparing the various roots of natural philosophy which have led to what we now know as 'Physics'
More than this I cannot say in the short space of a posting such as this. The whole story is in the books - which, of course, is why those books were written. However, for anyone who does not wish to read those books, there is enough free information available on Google to convey the gist of what Normal Realism stands for and what its stance is on instantaneous action at a distance.
Good hunting,
Viv Pope
I asked you a specific question relating to action at a distance when you started this thread. I have had no response and, if it were my thread, I would not add further posts until I had dealt with all issues arising from the original post. So, can we have your interpretation of this issue before we go any further.
regards
edward
Viv replies
I'm sorry, Edward, but somehow I was dropped out of this forum before I could answer, because it was assumed - mistakenlyas it turned out - that the website to which I would have directed you was no more than a commercial site for selling my book. It was not noticed that there are papers for free downloading which should tell you in detail what my stance is on action at a distance.
In fact I was one of the editors of a whole collection of international papers on action at a distance, followed by two international Workshops I was asked to organise on the subject. These were held in July 2001 and April 2002. Unfortunately, these papers were published in the books on the website I am barred from mentioning, although the books were published, not by me, but by the publishers who pocketed practically all the proceeds.
If you search for 'Quantum Touching' you will see (for free) what my views are on the subject of action at a distance. Briefly it is the same as what Gilbert Lewis discovered about Special Relativity, in 1927, namely, that while, for the observer of a distant event there is a time-delay s/c between the event and his seeing it, the time of the quantum contact itself (the so-called 'proper time') is instantaneous. This makes the 'source' of the quantum and its 'sink' one and the same event, a veritable touching in which, like a collision, involves both atoms simultaneously. This is regardless of their observational distance apart.It is a transfer of energy in accordance with Newton's third law of simultaneous and reciprocal action/reaction. This obviates any need to imagine a quantum (qua 'photon') swanning around the void searching for a billet, and it solves automatically the chronic puzzle of the Two-Slit Experiment (see free publication 'The Tantalising Two-Slit Experiment' on the (unmentionable POAMS website. Regarding the term 'photon' as inapproriate as a decriptive term for that instantaneous quantum connection, it offers the word 'photum', as less suggestive of an enigmatic space-travelling 'particle' - or even more enigmatic 'wave-particle'.
This is difficult to conceive in terms of our customary paradigm of physics, hence it requires a wholesale paradigm shift from one philosophical mind-set to another. This new paradigm (Lateral Thinking in the words of Eduard De Bono) is accessible on the Web under the heading 'Normal Realism'. Unfortunately, this is not easy to digest without some background knowledge of Philosophy, comparing the various roots of natural philosophy which have led to what we now know as 'Physics'
More than this I cannot say in the short space of a posting such as this. The whole story is in the books - which, of course, is why those books were written. However, for anyone who does not wish to read those books, there is enough free information available on Google to convey the gist of what Normal Realism stands for and what its stance is on instantaneous action at a distance.
Good hunting,
Viv Pope
QUOTE
then what is?
I was seriously discussing
G has nothing to do with the Pioneer Anomaly.
The Earth value is incorrect... while in reality G has basically nothing to do with anything except geometry and scaling. That is not speculation as the opening post clearly was.... total conjecture with NO DATA, NO LOGIC, NO MATH... nothing
But that is from math... not my opinion... and if you don't like it... suck eggs Viv
you have no credence... do you ever post credible information.
I am not going to share my math.
Look, I'll make it simple.
Some people can't add two and two wihout going into integral calculus.
So, forget the math. Let's just talk plain commonsense logic,
Here is something I've posted off to NASA:
Re. the NASA Pioneer anomaly
Surely, there is a logical answer to this anomaly. An orbiting body that is spinning has two kinds of angular momentum, orbital and spin. The total amount of its angular momentum is therefore the sum of these two quantities.
Now angular momentum is a conserved quantity, so it follows that the greater the amount of spin angular momentum the smaller the orbital angular momentum, and vice versa.
All the NASA space-probes have to spin in order to maintain their orientations with respect to earth. Logically, then, their orbital trajectories will be different from those of non-spinning bodies. In that case, a spinning body in solar orbit will orbit nearer to the sun than if it were not spinning, which is what NASA have discovered with their space-probes.
The 'anomaly', then, is that the Newtonian dynamics used to plot these orbital trajectories takes no account of spin, so it treats a spinning body as a non-spinning one.
This, then, surely, is the 'anomaly', that the space-probes do not follow a Newtonian orbit.
The same applies to the Newtonian dynamics used to estimate the amount of matter in the universe. There is a huge amount of spin angular momentum in the spins of the spiral galaxies and just about everything else. If that is left out of account, then it must seem that there is some 'missing mass'. The two 'anomalies', the Pioneer anomaly and the 'missing mass' anomaly are therefore, surely, the same.
Taking account of the spin will, of course, slightly affect the value of G. But that is scarcely surprising for a theory devised for falling apples to be applied to orbiting space-probes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Viv Pope.
PS:
Note that this is all about magnitudes. Vectors don't come into it, since it is the magnitudes that are conserved, not the vectors.
Some people can't add two and two wihout going into integral calculus.
So, forget the math. Let's just talk plain commonsense logic,
Here is something I've posted off to NASA:
Re. the NASA Pioneer anomaly
Surely, there is a logical answer to this anomaly. An orbiting body that is spinning has two kinds of angular momentum, orbital and spin. The total amount of its angular momentum is therefore the sum of these two quantities.
Now angular momentum is a conserved quantity, so it follows that the greater the amount of spin angular momentum the smaller the orbital angular momentum, and vice versa.
All the NASA space-probes have to spin in order to maintain their orientations with respect to earth. Logically, then, their orbital trajectories will be different from those of non-spinning bodies. In that case, a spinning body in solar orbit will orbit nearer to the sun than if it were not spinning, which is what NASA have discovered with their space-probes.
The 'anomaly', then, is that the Newtonian dynamics used to plot these orbital trajectories takes no account of spin, so it treats a spinning body as a non-spinning one.
This, then, surely, is the 'anomaly', that the space-probes do not follow a Newtonian orbit.
The same applies to the Newtonian dynamics used to estimate the amount of matter in the universe. There is a huge amount of spin angular momentum in the spins of the spiral galaxies and just about everything else. If that is left out of account, then it must seem that there is some 'missing mass'. The two 'anomalies', the Pioneer anomaly and the 'missing mass' anomaly are therefore, surely, the same.
Taking account of the spin will, of course, slightly affect the value of G. But that is scarcely surprising for a theory devised for falling apples to be applied to orbiting space-probes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Viv Pope.
PS:
Note that this is all about magnitudes. Vectors don't come into it, since it is the magnitudes that are conserved, not the vectors.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.