The Universe Solved

 


Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Pioneer Spacecraft Speeding Up Options
jim
Posted: Monday, March 24, 2008 1:30:44 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 971
Points: 2,919
OK, I'll kick off this topic.

Pioneer 10 was launched in 1972. Pioneer 11 was launched in 1973. Pioneer 10 was the first manmade object to leave the solar system in 1983. It is now over 10 billion miles away. Last telemetry receives was in 2003. But both spacecraft were determined to be accelerating (speeding up) for some unknown reason, as if being pulled by some remote gravitational field. Cosmologists and physicists have been unable to explain. Dark matter?

Any ideas?

jdlaw
Posted: Saturday, April 5, 2008 10:23:41 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
The anomaly I am familiar with is the anomalous Doppler frequency drift. Are you saying that we now interpret this as an acceleration?

jim
Posted: Sunday, April 6, 2008 6:03:26 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 971
Points: 2,919
Sorry, actually it is a deceleration against what would be predicted by solar gravity. See this article.
jdlaw
Posted: Tuesday, April 8, 2008 4:15:40 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
Ah! Gravity. As you can see by my avatar, I’m into heavy thoughts.

IMHO

You know that this anomaly about the pioneer space crafts was discovered even before they left the solar system. In the September 12, 1998 issue of the distinguished British Science Magazine (Nature Publishing). In these experimental measurements of "NASA tracking of several outer solar system spacecraft -- the 2 Pioneers, together with the Ulysses and Galileo missions -- were all exhibiting 'anomalous orbital behavior' ... indicating a greater solar gravitational attraction than current physics permits." The measurements were based on the "visual" tracking, i.e. the light that reflects off the space craft's hull.

Now you can see why it is really the speed of light propagation problem and not the gravity problem (but aren’t those both the same problem?). Anyway, in a programmed reality, no two particles (micro) or organisms like us (macro) can experience the exact same reality. Sure our realities are all equivalent within the “fringes” because they overlap. (e.g. I'm really posting to this forum and you are really reading it.) But on the fringes, the speed of light is not constant; it is only that the observed speed of light is constant for any one observer.

In other words, the discrepancies for gravity and speed of light were there because of the instrumentation's reference frame to that of the rotating earth reference frame. Any measurement device involving time, distance, speed, or gravity requires adjustments for time (time dilation) and distance (length constriction) - not just for Doppler effects. Doppler effects in light transmission are only as to the wavelengths of the light, not the speed of the propagation.

We need to make sure our instrumentation is in a reference frame close enough to the subject's reference frame to actually observe it at or near its own full spectrum reference momentum. So adding to your “powers of 10” way of thinking … moving the subject away from the observers reference frame begins to put the subject outside the observers programmed reality. Pioneer was still "out there" in its reality moving exactly the speed it is supposed to moving. From pioneer's point of view, one day perhaps millions of our years from now, earth's orbit about the sun will look a whole lot more like a valance shell and a lot less like an orbit.

jdlaw's Neo Laws of Light Speed
1. The observed speed of light in any reference frame is approximately 299,792,458 meters per second.
2. No mass, energy, or quantum particle can be observed directly by another mass energy or quantum particle that has a greater relative difference in velocity than 299,792,458 meters per second.
3. Where two masses, energies, or quantum particles are moving, spinning, or vibrating with velocities separated by greater than 299,792,458 meters per second relative to each other they must exist in a different quantum realities. However, a third mass, energy or quantum particle whose relative velocity is between the two may observe them both.
4. This programmed reality is finite, but the number of programmed realities is infinite.
5. There is another reference frame in some reality that exists somewhere or sometime where this reference frame, you are in right now, is moving at the speed of light relative to that other reference frame.





jim
Posted: Tuesday, April 8, 2008 8:58:07 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 971
Points: 2,919
Cool! First of all, would you mind emailing me outside of the forum? I'd love to chat with you offline about a couple things. And I like your new laws of relativity. We NEED them.

A couple comments on your post...

- Don't you think that the astrophysicists who have been puzzling over this phenomena would have taken all known relativistic effects into account? After all, relativity should be a key part of their arsenal of tools. As I read about this, it seems as if the anomaly still exists beyond relativistic effects.

- Slight correction to #1: should read "in a vacuum", right?

- Do you believe that relativity is a purely observational phenomena or is it absolute?

- If there were a backchannel information transfer mechanism that exceeded the speed of light, couldn't you exist in the same reality with and communicate with someone beyond the distance permitted by the speed of light limitation? If no, why not? In a programmed reality, such backchannel should be possible.
minorwork
Posted: Sunday, August 17, 2008 1:25:54 PM

Rank: Newbie
Groups: Member

Joined: 6/2/2008
Posts: 9
Points: 27
Location: central U.S.
I couldn't pass calculus, much less differential equations. Lost 2s deferment because of my failure and had to go for pre-induction physical 2 weeks before the draft was over in the early '70s. 6 pounds overweight and the army would not take me. Whew.

So, an evaluation on my part of the competence or failure of any doing the equations on the data received from the Pioneer holds as much water as my knowledge of giving birth. However, the following reference claims by Miles Mathis that there is nothing to fear over the controversy and that in fact the data strengthens the concept of relativity. http://milesmathis.com/pion.html

Has anyone else heard of the works of Miles Mathis?



The most merciful thing in the world ... is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but someday the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality... That we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.� - H. P. Lovecraft
jim
Posted: Sunday, August 17, 2008 10:27:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 971
Points: 2,919
very interesting and thanks for the post. while calculus used to be my forte, that was a really really long time ago. Angel

i only wish he would have used his corrections to show how they actually explain the pioneer anomaly. he makes the claim, but doesn't close the argument. so, i guess i'm still waiting.
jdlaw
Posted: Saturday, September 27, 2008 6:45:08 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
Jim & Minorwork,

Sorry, I had kind of lost this thread because there were so many other interesting topics going in this forum.

I must agree that the pioneer anomaly only helps prove Einstein's and Lorentz's theories. It is just that we have to look at them now under our new understandings about a programmed reality. And yes those folks at JPL are very smart (I know a some of them) but a new view of relativity in a programmed reality is actually just a little to easy for them to grasp.

Minorwork, you do not need to know calculus to get a good grasp on these concepts. Most people already understand the basic theories of calculus and differential equations anyway, because they just exist in every day life. (e.g. velocity is the derivative of position over time and acceleration is the derivative of velocity over time.)

The reason you found passing the math class difficult was just because you had to either learn or otherwise memorize all the rules about differentiation and integration -- you know the derivative of X squared is 2x and so forth. If you would have just practiced many many different types of integrating problems, the rest of the stuff would have been easy.

All of these theories about relativity have there bases in plain old newtonian physics anyway; F=MA (force equals mass times acceleration).

First law: An object at rest tends to stay in rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion in a straight line at constant speed unless acted upon by an external, unbalanced force.
Second law: The rate of change of momentum of a body is proportional to the resultant force acting on the body and is in the same direction.
Third law: To every action (force applied) there is an equal and opposite reaction (equal force applied in the opposite direction). Another way of stating Newton's third law, an interaction between two objects, is that, if object A exerts a force on object B, object B will exert the same magnitude force on A, but in the opposite direction.

You add in the behavior of light, which is that the observed speed of light in any reference frame is always precisely 299,792,458 meters per second. This doesn't matter if you are moving toward the source of the light or moving away; you will still observe it coming toward you at the the speed of light which is usually denoted using the lower case "c".

If you take F=MA, you can also conclude kinetic energy, which is just -- 1/2 mass times velocity squared (1/2 mv2) Sorry, I can't seem to do superscripts using this texting tool here)

I can't easily show the formulas here, but you can hopefully see that this is where simple understandings can replace calculus. If you know that a certain force in F=MA is needed to accelerate something, that's an instantaneous thing, right? You smack the baseball and it goes flying. But velocity is a state of something over time. The math says you have to use calculus to get that instantaneous F=MA out over time and get the 1/2 MV(squared) thing.

That's how in newtonian physics the kenetic energy equation was KE = ½mv2. The only time the traditional kenetic energy equation is true is when you consider your standing place on earth to be the proper universal reference frame from which to measure. Your velocity on earth then must be considered zero. The problem is that you are not standing still. The earth is rotating on its axis; it is rotating about the sun; and the sun is moving hundreds of thousands of meters per second in relation to the nearby stars.

Therefore, in a programmed reality, the proper inertial system must take extension into account and the proper inertial equation is: KE = ½m(vi - vr)2 (where i = the inertial system and r = the reference system). But that assumes we have any idea what "v" is is a universal sense. What we are really saying about kenetic energy is that we are not measuring the universal energy of a system, but the energy of one system related to another; in other words the difference in the amount of energy needed to change the velocity of one inertial system to match with another.

Einstien then taught us that the speed of light must also come into the inertial equation, because the speed of light is always constant in any reference frame. Under the general theories of relativity, the kinetic energy without extension is also a fallacy. mc2/ (1-v2/c2)½ is Einstein's equation for the inertial system (raising something to the ½ power is really just another way of saying square root). But Einstein's equation still didn't take into account that it is is also not true without a universal reference frame. In the equation, v is for velocity, but how do you ever know something's velocity in a universal sense (remember the earth is moving, the sun is moving, and the universe itself is moving)

So unless you believe that your motion is at a stand still on the earth (you are not really standing still) or you believe that light might be the great equalizer (i.e. light is the universal reference frame -- this is the mistake Einstein made) Einstein's equation is also not entirely true.

Programmed reality suggests that the proper kinetic energy must take extension into account and the proper equation for general relativity, then is mc2/ (1-(vi - vr)2/c2)½ (again, i = the inertial system and r = the reference system). With the Einteinian relativity, this reference velocity idea was simply ignored because it was just assumed that light speed was the great equalizer (the velocity that leads to the Grand Unification of the Universe). But what if things can move faster than the speed of light, but it is just our inability in our own programmed reality to observe things outside our program?

Thus, I explain the Pioneer anomaly with my new laws of light and extrapolate them to JDlaw's new (neonewtonian) laws of physics:

The New Laws of Light Speed
1. The observed speed of light in any reference frame is approximately 299,792,458 meters per second.
2. No mass, energy, or quantum particle can be observed directly by another mass energy or quantum particle that has a greater relative difference in velocity than 299,792,458 meters per second.
3. Where two masses, energies, or quantum particles are moving, spinning, or vibrating with velocities separated by greater than 299,792,458 meters per second relative to each other they must exist in a different quantum realities. However, a third mass, energy or quantum particle whose relative velocity is between the two may observe them both.
4. This programmed reality is finite, but the number of programmed realities is infinite.
5. There is another reference frame in some reality that exists somewhere or sometime where this reference frame, you are in right now, is moving at the speed of light relative to that other reference frame.

The "neoNewtonian" Laws of Inertia:

1. An object is at rest only in relation to another object. The difference in momentum of any two objects appearing at rest (in relation to each other) must have a very small non-zero reference volocity in relation to each other. Unless either of the two objects are acted upon by a third object, they will tend to stay in rest in relation to each other. An object in motion in relation to the two objects tends to stay in motion in a straight line at constant speed unless acted upon by yet another external, unbalanced force.
2. The rate of change of a reference momentum is proportional to the resultant force acting on a body and is in the same direction.
3. In order for an interaction to happen between two objects, their reference volocities in relation to each other must be a speed less than the speed of light and greater than zero. That is, if object A contacts object B, object B will exert a force on A with the same magnitude that A will exert a force on B, but the forces will be in the opposite direction to each other.





jdlaw
Posted: Wednesday, October 1, 2008 10:42:36 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
The universe is accelerating.

jim
Posted: Wednesday, October 1, 2008 11:29:40 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 971
Points: 2,919
Fantastic! This will take a little more think time than I have at the moment. Maybe this weekend. Thanks for sharing!!!
RedDog
Posted: Friday, July 3, 2009 12:32:22 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 6/1/2009
Posts: 52
Points: 156
Location: Washington
Shhh If I view your question through the filter of "The Universe Solved" I see evidence that
this reality starts to break down when you approach the known (to us the observers) barrier.
Like in the movie "The Thirteenth Floor", when the character does something outside of his
character and drives west without stopping, finally coming to the end of the simulation.
jim
Posted: Friday, December 17, 2010 8:27:20 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 971
Points: 2,919
update on the Pioneer anomaly:

http://www.popsci.com/pioneeranomaly
jdlaw
Posted: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 10:02:47 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
I quote from page 2 of the update article:

"Their arguments persuaded hordes of physicists, who began vying with great gusto for the thrones of Einstein and his non-relativistic assistant Newton. At conferences and meetings in Germany, Switzerland, the United States, and elsewhere around the world, they pronounced from the podiums such theories as: The anomaly really reflects a cosmic acceleration of time itself! The anomaly shows that Riemannian geometry, from which Einstein’s spacetime is built, is incomplete! We have discovered a new force! The solar system is expanding! The solar system is a hologram! String theory dimensions are tugging on the spacecraft! The lively joust of ideas—or as Viktor Toth describes it, “wild speculation”—has not died down since."

See I have always had this wrong. I always thought it was accelerating away from the sun. Guess I don't really know anything. But, What are the chances that pioneer's own heat is really the cause of this?

I still haven't given up.
jdlaw
Posted: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 10:15:58 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA


Jim,

You know I can't resist this. Its the non-locality equation. Velocity does not exist without a reference. Acceleration does not exist without space. Real empty space is different from nothing or imaginary space.
RedDog
Posted: Friday, December 31, 2010 12:20:41 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 6/1/2009
Posts: 52
Points: 156
Location: Washington
I still like my idea that our creation is simply travelling beyond the boundries
of our local space time PERCEPTION. As more people focus their conscious
creator minds out to this region, the region takes on more of our percieved
shape and charactistics we have pre-defined here, more locally.

Our consciousness sphere, like the heliosphere would appear to have some
physical limits, and our creation, Voyager, is hitting that boundry.

Or it could be that gravity is not what we THINK it is. Think
Calimore
Posted: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 8:55:57 AM

Rank: Newbie
Groups: Member

Joined: 1/12/2011
Posts: 6
Points: 18
Location: Phoenix
From the viewpoint of a programmed reality, having these probes speed up and eventually whisked away solves the problem of porting more and more interesting telemetry data through them.

Perhaps the curvature of space created by total mass of a solar system creates a gradual stepping up process, allowing probes to travel faster because they are eased into relatively "flat" interstellar space, where every other object is so far away that gravity all but completely stops creating "drag". Do they then get caught completely up by the process of "inflation"?

Either way, it all seems tied to Inflation, the Programmer's perfect Solution to keep us from getting too much of the Big Picture for any of us to handle at any given Time.

Calimore Callierionde
ebb101
Posted: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 2:56:53 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/5/2010
Posts: 80
Points: 255
It could be that NASA did not figure bathroom breaks into their calculations.
jdlaw
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 4:15:28 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
I am sure most of you have at least heard of "string" theory -- or as is better understood today -- "brane" theory. Brane theory just takes its name from the term "membrane" where strings were first posited as one-dimensional, but the math did not work. So, then we went to the two-dimensional plane or "membrane" theory as "slices" of time in the time-space continuum.

As string theory developed, we saw that the math simply never worked out unless it was expanded to 3 dimensions ("3-brane") 4 dimensions ("4-brane") or "x" dimensions ("p-branes" -- yes, theoretical physicists do have a sense of humor).

Currently, I think mathematicians have settled on 11 dimensions -- 10 space dimensions plus time, but you never want to let physicists get in arguments with mathematicians. (… recall the corny anecdote about Einstein, the physicist, arguing with, Pythagoras, the mathematician, at a highschool dance party. Pythagaras insists that if he walks half way over to a very cute girl on the other side of the ballroom, and then half way again, and repeats this process for an infinite number of times, he will never reach her. Meanwhile the Einstein is already more than half way across the ballroom, turns back to the mathematician and says, "Yah, but I can get close enough.") But I digress.

Then, it turns out we just live in a 3 dimensional projection of a world in which we perceive -- or more precisely in a world in which the electromagnetic photons and W and Z bosons (messenger particles) confine the boundaries of all of our perceptions. i.e. the "real" world is only what can see, hear, touch, taste, or experience through some electromagnetic messenger platform. But is the "real" world -- all there is?

You may also be familiar with the concepts of "holography." Several types of holograms can be made, but the most common today and for this discussion, we can just talk about "transmission holograms" because those are the ones that are most readily understood in this "messenger particle" or "transmission" experience world we live in. Transmission holograms are viewed by shining laser light through a flat two dimensional plate. A hologram is not like a photograph - the hologram records all the information about light reflecting off of an object, including phase and amplitude. A photograph records only the average intensity of light from an area. This "extra" information on the hologram plate allows the hologram to display the object in three dimensions.

A later refinement, the "rainbow transmission" hologram, allows more convenient illumination by white light rather than by lasers. Rainbow holograms are commonly seen today on credit cards as a security feature and on product packaging. These versions of the rainbow transmission hologram are commonly formed as surface relief patterns in a plastic film, and they incorporate a reflective aluminum coating that provides the light from "behind" to reconstruct their imagery.

The reason I am introducing this totally 20th century discover of holograms is because it directly relates to our discussion about why Newtonian or even Einsteinian physics just can neither explain physical behavior at the largely (extremely large) macroscopic world (such as cosmological calculations) nor explain physical behavior at the very small (extremely small) microscopic world (such as inside particle accelerators).

Juan Martín Maldacena (born September 10, 1968) is a theoretical physicist born in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Among his many discoveries, the most famous one is the most reliable realization of the holographic principle - namely the AdS/CFT correspondence, the conjecture about the equivalence of string theory on Anti de Sitter (AdS) space, and a conformal field theory defined on the boundary of the AdS space.

If you look at Maldacena's work on gravity, which actually takes into account this "string" theory or multi-dimensional "brane" theory, then you begin to see why macro and micro world calculations never do work out well with just Newtonian or Einsteinian physics.
jim
Posted: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:10:07 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 971
Points: 2,919
As I see it, holograms are either storage devices or projections of data stored in such a storage device. I always liked David Bohm's view of the holographic construct (all information being at any point in space-time), because it offered an explanation for a lot of the scientific (e.g. entanglement) and metaphysical/paranormal (e.g. precognition) anomalies that apparently exist. But it is really nothing more than a good metaphor, isn't it? Where the data is stored, and how we access it could be completely different than a hologram, and yet the effect is the same.

The math that describes our reality is probably quite a bit beyond our understanding at this point. Not sure if the 10/11-dimensional models are heading in the right direction, but then again, the Program can make that determination by molding the experimental results and leading us down whatever path it wants, right? Angel
jdlaw
Posted: Monday, January 24, 2011 5:18:21 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Universe Solved Theme Created by Jim Elvidge (Universe Solved)
Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.2 (NET v4.0) - 9/27/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
This page was generated in 0.335 seconds.