Couldn't this be the work of Dark Energy? It it does indeed exist, then would it not provide the small change in acceleration observed?
Or Dark Matter. If Earth's frame dragging is larger than expected then what effect might an entire galaxy rotating have?
Dark Energy?
Fri Nov 13 00:15:56 GMT 2009 by Remmy Boushard
http://freetubetv.net
It's happening tomorrow (Friday the 13th), potentially there bound to be people who think this has some sort of supernatural element to it.
It's just the mass equivalent of the kinetic energy of rotation of the Earth. Same effect supplies energy for flying saucers.
Oh dear! Maybe joke conceals truth.
It could just as easily be the effect of mundane physics in action
Not if you want an expensive research grant stretching for years it isn't.
mundane physics such as...? You think they're ignoring "mundane physics" in their models?
Solar wind, gravitational dragging, high energy particles, high speed collisions, errors in the data...
Do you really think they model the entirety of known physics?
Anomalies historically have a very very low probability of being anything out of the ordinary
Or Mudane
Wed Nov 11 09:54:41 GMT 2009 by Pete
http://www.ReallyQuick.co.uk
Or magnetic interaction between metallic spacecraft and earths magnetic fields?
"High energy particles" aren't going to do anything, and anyway (if you consider solar wind separately, as you suggest) they come from all directions equally so their effect would be nil. "High speed collisions"...with what, except the particles?
Yes, I do think they model the entirety of known physics. Maybe not all at once but at least separately, perturbatively, to verify that none of the effects are remotely strong enough together or separately to account for the discrepancy. Do you really think everyone would be freaking out, spending months or years to develop special theories to account for this, if they couldn't rule out the things on your list first? Wouldn't they fear being discredited by their peers because they are complete idiots?
The thing that baffles me is you think these people are so stupid. Despite being experts in their field, and despite having studied the data intensively, you really think every one of them has completely overlooked the most obvious explanations in the world.
While its really the asymetrical requirement thats the most intresting, meaning possibly some form of nonlinear effect, Im wondering, because its not really mentioned in simple explanations, do people who do the calculations, add in the mass equivalent gravitational field, of the energy contained in a gravitational field, to that graviational field. I thought that useing simple approximation suggests the mass equivalent of the Suns graviational field, is roughly equivalent to the Rest mass of the planet Earth?
The difference in velocity measured is fractions of parts per million, or an accuracy in the speed of light of tens of metres a second or better?
Will they be using the external measurement possibility of GPS to improve their measurements, accuracy, or is that one of the options already put forward?
Hope this has a nice measureable effect that follows predicted values. Especially if the prediction is based on methods which present thinking is uncertain with. We need new functions, its been over 50 years of stalling in solving the relationship between gravity and quantum mechanics, and others, and I hope this helps some.
Is this perhaps related to the "Pioneer Anomaly"?
I would expect so. I like the explaination on this website. http://www.science27.com/
does this effect work both ways or, is it the oppissite when slungshot clockwise as opposed to anti-clockwise?
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
Perhaps due to the perception of time our brain undergoes in the way our eyes limit our perception, our calculation's become difficult to interpret correctly. This could be due to the speed of the craft covering more space-time in a shorter space of time, making it appear to have miscalculation's when it is simply travelling slightly faster through time. Even with excellent mathmatical formula, surely our limited perception of rate in which time passes and our inability to measure it at the 'planck' length limit's our ability to know where these extra 'millimetres' arise from. Just part of a little theory.
no
according to relativity, if something is travelling faster through space, it travels slower through time.
So Rosetta will fly by at 13 km/s and they expect to measure a change in its relative velocity of 0.0000085%. I wonder what the uncertainty in their velocity measurement is, because even here on Earth such precision requires carefully calibrated instruments and a large number of samples
Uncertainty
Wed Nov 11 07:47:48 GMT 2009 by Darius
http://tulbure.wordpress.com
Perhaps even the Earth has some kind speed variations. At least of this small magnitude.
The article gives a hint of how they do this, when it says that it will take weeks to find out if the anomaly exists. A difference in velocity of 1 mm/s means that, one week after the fly-by, the ship will be 600 m off course. That deviation is what they expect to detect; as you said, they cannot measure the instantaneous velocity with the necessary precision.
The difference speed to predictions will probably be measured over a few thousand kilometers, so less measuring accuracy will be required.
I assume that even that small a variation will become readily apparent given a little time. Since an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force, that very small change will become more and more apparent as the hours, days, and weeks stretch by and the spacecraft deviates further from it's predicted position.
Wes
Assuming S-T distortion is the cause of the acceleration, what type of factor would the distortion be in the orbital mechanics of Saturn's Ring System or that of others? If a ring particle's orbit deviates by latitude, the distortion of Space-Time would exhibit a force gradient that would return the particle back to the equatorial plane. There would effectively be a latitudinal potential well. Perhaps this is a significant factor in stabilizing planetary rings. One might wonder why the distortion would not accelerate a ring particle eventually out of orbit. This may be due to the orbiting particle being in a nearly inertial frame relative to the rotation rate that consequently reduces the acceleration force such that it is insignificant compared to gravity or collisional forces in the ring system. On the other hand, for a vehicle flying by, there is a net energy transfer from the S-T distortion via the acceleration, as seen from a sun-centered inertial reference frame (just the same as with gravitational assists). I am not absolutely certain of my interpretation but I'll throw this out for consideration and feedback and continue to evaluate the mechanics. Alternatively, it may be that the longitudinal acceleration, if it does exist, would not allow planetary rings to persist for long periods but rather disband them.
I think Dark energy is really too much time in one area. It may be time can move mountains and space too. Maybe expanding time has the ability to distort space like gravity.Time is a force to reckon with.
Dark Energy. . . No
Wed Nov 11 02:56:42 GMT 2009 by Jason M.
http://sites.google.com/site/sanguinesilverphotography/
Well if a spinning mass in space distorts space/time (frame dragging), maybe it acted a little like (please do not boo me for this) a warp engine, changing (for lack of a better term) the DENSITY of space slightly. Just an idea.
What about time? Why do we expect to view things in real time from our vantage point? We look at a distant galaxy and wonder why it behaves funny and come up with an explanation for "missing mass" and we call it something nebulous called "dark matter" We are viewing that galaxy as it was millions of light years in the past. And the light reaching us from one side of that galaxy is reaching us hundreds of thousands of years before the light from the other end of that galaxy and we think we can make calculations as if we are viewing it as if the view to us of that galaxy is all happening at the same time. not to mention the slowing of time as we look toward the center of that galaxy where the super massive black hole exists. Is it just me, or are a lot of people missing the basics here?
Does the gain reverse into a loss of speed if the flyby is opposite to rotation and the associated frame dragging
I vaguely remember reading something from the MESSENGER team about this where they are using gravity assists to slow the probe for orbital insertion at Mercury and found a similar anomaly. They discussed multiple hypotheses to try to explain results that were somewhat bewildering. It's also equally possible that my memory is flawed and I'm thinking of something else. For the record, Mensa wouldn't have me. :)
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
Have they ruled out such a mundane explanation like the influence of the Moon itself?
Moon
Wed Nov 11 08:50:11 GMT 2009 by M Cross
http://www.thisistheshapeoftheuniverse.co.uk
'itself?'
Perhaps Ether Needs To Be Dragged Back Into The Equation!!!
Wed Nov 11 09:43:22 GMT 2009 by Cian Foley
http://www.waterfordwebdesign.ie
Could basic turbulance / slipstream effect of the underlying ether or zero point field be responsible for this?
I wish we could go away from this magical space/time theory and start thinking about how the thick energetic medium that we know exists from quantum physics could be affected by gazillions of point particles working in concert.
When exoplanets were detected and described, it was because we could observe stars moving under what was gravityforces caused by the interplay between those suns and theyre previously undiscovered planets.... i see an apparent paralell to these recent discoveries. As the satelites pass a planet it will gain or loose velocity as the solarsystem is a slingshotforce either pulling or holding. when a satelite is moving with or against the pull of the centre gravity force in the centrifugal of the slingshot "throw"... If we should penetrait the system of one of these vibrating suns with theyre big exoplanets pulling on theyre own sun.. our speed would be affected. We could be inbound when the system could be moving away from us, wich would pull on us, if we were under gravity influence....hence our increased velocity...or we would maintaine or even decrease velocity if the solarsystem were posissined to "meet" us before being neutral and then move away from us... The delay provoced by possisions of our satelite will manifistate itself and proove that Einstein was right, but misunderstood these rules on behalf of lack of information at the ime.
in fact ... my theory should then discuss darkmatter while dark matter in it self could be static charge.... in fact .. as the space is filled with radiowaves... wouldnt those waves cause a "floor" of static charged background... and would this background actually be this dark matter we dont know yet... ??
Surely the spacecraft will have built up some electrical charge on it by now and here it comes slicing through the earth's magnetic field? Is that not enough to do the trick? This effect would certainly be stronger on closer passes
when someone remembered to include the earth's rotation in the calculations. I'm sure there was even an article in the NS about it 2 or 3 years ago.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
NewScientist is turning into a headline monger. This whole article is just one giant headline, an interesting one, but no real content. I would have liked to see more of an explanation of the velocity measurement techniques being used, what factors have already been considered to explain the effect, and a glimpse of Mr. Anderson's equation.
Johann
Yes, they have taken account of the moon etc. And yes theres one predictive french theory to be tested, but it didnt seem to match other flyby issues. I believe Cian is closest, with the dark energy (Chris mentioned earlier) and Ether comment, not accounted for. This would also solve the Doppler shift anomolies;
Our bow shock has very high particle densities, and the field within it is in rapid motion, with the planet, round the sun through the heliopause.
Voyager has just been slowed by the same thing as it exits the heliopause into the galactic space through which the solar system is doing 45,000mph. So the model has two combined effects; acceleration by dark energy mass, and by the effective change of velocity between fields. The prediction varys subject to vector and range but can be estimated
there is a view that we live in a simulation:
excess velocity during flyby's could be an artifact of a simulation?
if the time step is not quite infinitesimally small, then probes will accelerate too much
Does the gravitation constant come into this?
It is only known to 1 part in 10,000. The electrostatic explanation also looks good.
There is a computed (observed?)anomaly in the predicted( actually measured?) changes is speed of space probes as they swing around the Earth. As I see it there are 3 possible explanations.
1. Its the cumulative errors in measurements. Whate are the error limits in estimating/measuring these speeds? ( which all good scientists should really be quoted)
2. Its a real phenomenon and we just have not yet identified all the factors that can affect the speed of an object in space
3. Its a mistake. And anyway why should "exotic physics" (whatever that is?!) be the reason?. Einstein's relativity theories have been tested over and over again and been repeatedly validated. Logically there is a reason for the speed change anomalies, but it will most likely be a simple explanation, rather than a total upheaval and rewriting of Einstein's work all all its implications. As for reconciling gravity with quantum mechanics here we go again. Gravity is a distortion of space-time which tends towards 0 at atomic levels, that is why we cannot reconcile it!....
So Basically. . . . . . .
Fri Nov 13 13:05:59 GMT 2009 by Zephir
http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/
It's an application of SUSY, which I explained in discussion therein.
In AWT supersymmetry is based on idea, inside gradient driven reality every gradient has its mass. When we pile a huge amount of lightweight particles, such pile would have a larger mass, then the simple sum of original particles, because it creates more pronounced gradient of mass density/space-time curvature along surface of resulting pile. The difference can be assigned to virtual particles, called neutralinos. If we broke resulting cluster, we wouldn't find them in their individual state, as they evaporate into gravitational waves, i.e. tachyons.
The same result follows from relativity theory as well, if you will think a bit about it. From GR follows, every curvature of space has it's own energy density - this is basically, what the Einstein's field equations are about. But as we know from E=mc^2 formula, every energy density can be assigned to its corresponding mass energy density, which should exhibit it's own additional gravitational field and resulting additional curvature of space.
This idea can be applied ad infinitum onto resulting solution, which would make relativity recursively nested, implicit theory of geometrodynamics.
Of course, we can explain strangelets by one theory and dark matter in another one - but why, if we could use the same principle for boths?
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
Is it possible that scientists are off in calculating Earth's gravitational field? Maybe it is slightly stronger than once thought.
I think this is probably the work of errors in calculations. Over a period of many years, a rounding error out to the tenth or fifteenth decimal will play a big factor in the trajectory. I think this error is causing the satellite to be closer to the earth, hence making it pick up extra speed, albeit a small increase.
Only 2,500 Km above the surface? Shouldn't we warn the FAA? ;)
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
To check this, next time they should try a flyby in the opposite direction with respect to the earth's rotation, and see if there is an anomalously lower than expected acceleration boost.
And... no, the existence of the aether was never disproven. It was simply concluded to be undetectable by any early 20th century technology, and therefore deemed completely irrelevant. But we are living in a new century.
Might The Earth Be Twisting The Aether?
Thu Nov 12 08:12:31 GMT 2009 by MaDeR
http://madcio.no-ip.org/index.php/Butterfly
"It was simply concluded to be undetectable by any early 20th century technology, and therefore deemed completely irrelevant."
Do you really think that measurement (you probably thinking of Michelson-Morley experiment) was done only once in history of science? I love crackpots that have no idea about how science works. :)
From wikipedia:
"In recent times versions of the Michelson-Morley experiment have become commonplace. (...) The first such experiment was led by Charles H. Townes, one of the co-creators of the first maser. Their 1958 experiment put an upper limit on drift, including any possible experimental errors, of only 30 m/s. In 1974 a repeat with accurate lasers in the triangular Trimmer experiment reduced this to 0.025 m/s, and included tests of entrainment by placing one leg in glass. In 1979 the Brillet-Hall experiment put an upper limit of 30 m/s for any one direction, but reduced this to only 0.000001 m/s for a two-direction case (i.e., still or partially entrained aether). A year long repeat known as Hils and Hall, published in 1990, reduced the limit of anisotropy to 2 x 10^−13."
"But we are living in a new century."
Yes, we are living in a new century. We performed many, many more experiments with less and less error bars. And guess what? Still NO aether. :)))
The MM and subsequent experiments actually supported the Fresnel/ Handiside/ Stokes et al ether drag theory; "Concerning the experiment of Michelson and Morley, H. A. Lorentz showed that the result obtained at least does not contradict the theory of an aether at rest." (AE.1952). He only 'stipulated' it's 'immobility' had to be removed for SR.
I'ts they who are fool enough to call others crackpots Mr MaDer who are keeping science in the previous century. Full marks Mr Ruggy. Voyager has just found a similar effect hitting the field outside the heliosphere. But yes, we do need 21st not 19th century science to resolve it!
Could the Moon rotating with the Earth distort Space/Time in an elliptical way? (contrary to the classic circle view)
Or Maybe Einstein Had It Just A Little Wrong. .
Wed Nov 11 20:27:37 GMT 2009 by Bob Freeman
http://www.btbsoftware.com
It could be a slight modification of Einsteins theory, proposed here (http://www.h2liftship.com), which seems to have no one accepting it....so it goes
Bob
Hoax
Wed Nov 11 20:47:49 GMT 2009 by christo
http://www.spiration.co.uk
This is surely a wind-up
The obesity plague: More mass = more acceleration.
I have a theory that "dark energy" is just evidence that like magnetism, the force of gravity is also polar. Mysterious accelerations were discovered in the universe as a whole. The LHC will further possibly confirm this
Not just becaus the speed of light is so damn limiting but just as Galileo was wrong and Newton was wrong they all still deduced a further part of the truth.. So much conflicting evidence is coming to light that we are surely on the verge of another discovery all it takes is someone clever who doesn't worry about standing on the giant's shoulders to see further.
I Want Einstein To Be Wrong
Fri Nov 13 22:14:11 GMT 2009 by stella
http://www.newscientist.com/commenting/browse
Here I am,standing on the giants shoulders and sticking my neck out.What if instead of just one big bang there was two,a miss fire if you like14,000million light years apart.The second "Big Bang"would be racing after the first one and being drawn towards it.This would certainly explain"The Event Horizion"anomaly.the radiation being 28,000million light years across.It would also explain the other 12 anomalies mentioned in new scientist previous issues.Last but not least it would explain the mysterious accelerations of satellites etc in our own galaxy as they whissed past our already affected planets
In this article, they're saying how they cannot account for the strange boosts in accelerations of satellites launched from Earth, yet, in this article;
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411
They're saying how there is now a mathematical formula which can succesfully reproduce these so-called anomalies, so why're they so insistent on blaming it on 'exotic' physics now?
Read the book NOTHING BUT PHYSICS.
AND READ the PDF format, or any of the formats.
http://www.unusualresearch.com/TomKar/index.htm
All the science is posted on the website, so you can go back and double check the science journals
Sun And Moon
Fri Nov 13 01:23:42 GMT 2009 by Jerome E. Goodwin Sr.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18135-will-probes-upcoming-flyby-unlock-exotic-physics.html
Were the posistions of the Sun and Moon concidered? Also the Solar wind?
i donot know what is it
can you explane it for me?
tankyou
Perhaps it is an effect of a barely-detectable event-horizon-type thing; a kind of wake of spiralling arms, or cross-tearing, on which a satellite's speed might be boosted.
Could this phenomena be a result of gravity waves? When two sets of waves on a lake cross, they can form a field of standing peaks and troughs. If the Sun and Earth predominantly emit constant-frequency gravity waves, couldn't something like that be happening in space, causing variations in the local gravity field? I wonder if anyone has measured the velocity of long-range probes over time to see if their velocities varied up and down about the expected range.
Could it be the effect of ordinary gravity from a black hole about 15 Neptune distances away, which our "Solar" system orbits?
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
