21 augustus 2017

Is de Pioneer-anomalie verklaard?

De Pioneer 10, die een vreemde versnelling ondergingIn de jaren tachtig ontdekte men dat er met de Amerikaanse ruimteverkenners Pioneer 10 en 11 iets vreemds aan de hand is. Deze vaartuigen, die op dat moment richting buitenste delen van het zonnestelsel vlogen, bleken door onbekende oorzaak een versnelling mee te maken. Voor beide vaartuigen bleek de versnelling 8.74


  1. freddy verhelst zegt:

    Pioneer anomaly??

    It all comes to what is gravity and what are the consequences.
    The former and until recent idea was that gravity was the result of the attraction between 2 or more bodies.
    To sustain that idea the particle graviton was postponed but never found.
    A more recent idea is that a body makes an indentation in the 4D space surface, an idea that fits with my believes and the model of the universe I have.
    I will not elaborate about the total concept or model I stand for, but only about a particular consequence about that principle, one that is linked to the pioneer anomaly.
    Indentation in a 4D space surface can been seen as a try of a force to expel a body out of that space, while the surface field hold it in as long as possible, as long as the expelling force is smaller than the elastic reaction force of the field to keep it in.
    This expelling force on a body causes a deformation, we best can compare with the deformation of the surface of a trampoline when we put a solid (iron) body in its middle.
    The deformation line curve follows on the exception of the beginning a nearly straight line. It is bended and the inclination angle is determined by the reaction moment that is constant and the counter moment that is determined by the surface it covers.
    A simple experiment can prove this. The iron ball ( an ancient canon ball weighs 7,0 kg.)is put in the middle. On a distance of 1 meter from the center, the trampoline sheet has an indentation depth (depending of the trampoline) of let’s say “X”.
    We replace now the iron ball by a balloon filled with water with the same weight. Result: we get a different indentation angle, due to the fact the counter moment has changed. The indentation depth is now “Y” and less deep.

    Let’s return to our solar system embedded in the surface of the 4D. Where the surface of the trampoline could be determined in 2 D on the exception of the indentation. But this could easily been deduced from the acceleration a body has towards the center. We can do the same with our solar system. It’s surface can be determined in 3D and its indentation can be deduced from the acceleration power towards the sun in every point.
    Until recently (for me) for determining the acceleration towards the sun (excluding small players as radiation, and some others) you need a power constant defining speed in function of distance.
    That constant is 132759 and equal to v²R. If I use the unit km/sec for “v” and millions of km for “R”, then for any distance from the sun the orbit-velocity is determined. By dividing that constant by “R²” the acceleration speed towards the sun is obtained.
    This were true to the last drop if the sun and its mass was located in one point.
    Indentation is caused by the working impact of all moments, the reaction moment on the sun as a force and the counter moment as the sun is a body with a mass, volume and so density and dimensions.
    In case of the sun the mass component is calculated in the constant. The fact it isn’t a point but a body and it is non-uniform in density, it isn’t in the constant nor in the calculations.
    Taking into account the fact the sun is a body already gives a difference. We see that the acceleration force decreases a bit towards the sun and increases a bit if we calculates it for orbits further than the earth orbit. You can see that evolution on the excel file in the attachment.
    – blue is the value by which : 1. Increase of the orbits; 2. Increase of the radius of the sun
    – purple is the calculated distance of the orbit
    – green is: 1 “a final” acceleration towards the sun taking into account the sun is a body; 2. “a original” acceleration towards the sun according the classic system
    – yellow is the difference between the “new” and “classic” calculation.
    I believe the density of the sun is an increasing factor (from surface to center) bringing down the difference (yellow column) in value. However the trend is set by introducing the sun as a body and can’t be undone by whatever curve the density pattern makes.
    I have taken our orbit as starting point because that is the point of which we are certain the acceleration force is the most correct. All other factors and orbits are between a margin uncertain.
    That this may solve the pioneer anomaly is not important. Important is that by introducing this, together with the mass evolution in time of the sun, in my planetary model it gets possible to maintain a habitable planet like our earth for over billions of years as well in the past as in the future.
    In the standard model the planets remains (on the exception of very early supposed migrations) on fix orbits. How to explain that a billion or more years ago the temperature on earth was similar than today with an evolving sun???
    If you introduce the sun as a body with its evolution in energy production and mass, then you get a dynamic system with a continuous migration in time of all planets (outwards).
    It is best shown if you go (in the added excel file) to the end-time of our solar system (S3 put on 150, distance increase (blue) =0,radius increase of the sun (blue) = 2). You see then dropping down the acceleration while the sun is expanding. This means only one thing: when the sun expands the planets migrate outwards. None of the planets will be swallowed.

    I could go on, but for a simple mail I believe it is already long enough.

    The FAN
    Freddy Verhelst

    Excel file can be sent

Laat wat van je horen