The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the space itself (differing permittivity)

Science > Physics > The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the space itself (differing permittivity)

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"gravman"
Date:	15 Jun 2007 10:09:40 AM
Object:	The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the space itself (differing permittivity)

"The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation
from expectations of the trajectories of various unmanned spacecraft
visiting the outer solar system, notably Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11.
At present, there is no universally accepted explanation for this
phenomenon; while it is possible that the explanation will be mundane
—such as thrust from gas leakage— the possibility of entirely
new physics is also being considered."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
I would say it is due to the space itself.
The impedance (resistance, density) of space is different
in some regions.
The impedance of free space (Z0) is normally 376.73 ohms,
but can be different in other regions of space.
The value of c defines the permittivity of free space (ε0).
The permeability of free space (μ0) is not dependent on c.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light )
So it is the permeability of the free space (μ0) that varies,
which then gives a different Z0 which then causes the
physics in that region of space to be slightly different.
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity_of_free_space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_of_free_space
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the space itself (differing permittivity)	15 Jun 2007 10:57:02 AM

On 15 juin, 11:09, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.inv> wrote:

rely

new physics is also being considered."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pionee=

r_anomaly
"new physics" simply means better understanding of physical laws.

I would say it is due to the space itself.
The impedance (resistance, density) of space is different
in some regions.

The impedance of vacuum is the same as long as you have
vacuum.

The impedance of free space (Z0) is normally 376.73 ohms,
but can be different in other regions of space.

The value of c defines the permittivity of free space (=CE=B50).
The permeability of free space (=CE=BC0) is not dependent on c.
(seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light)

So it is the permeability of the free space (=CE=BC0) that varies,

Same as for permittivity. the permeability of vacuum is
a constant.

which then gives a different Z0 which then causes the
physics in that region of space to be slightly different.

See also:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_spacehttp://en.wi=

kipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity_of_free_spacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per=
meability_of_free_space
Andr=C3=A9 Michaud
.

User: "Rock Brentwood"
Title: Re: The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the space itself (differing permittivity)	03 Jul 2007 05:28:39 PM

On Jun 15, 10:57 am,

wrote:

Same as for permittivity. the permeability of vacuum is
a constant.

The permeability of the vacuum is most certainly NOT a constant!
Indeed, not only was this the central theme of Maxwell's treatise, but
it is a central element of quantum field theory.
What you recognize as the "renormalization group flow" of alpha,
noting that alpha = e^2/(4 pi epsilon h-bar c) is actually that
associated with epsilon. Near point-like sources, epsilon is highly
variable.
As it must be ... otherwise, the energy of the field associated with
the source would be infinite. In fact, solely from the consistency
requirement you can determine a lot about its behavior near a source.
In terms of epsilon, the energy of the field of a point-like source
will be e^2/(8 pi) integral (du/epsilon), using u = 1/r, where r is
the radial coordinate.
In order for this to converge, epsilon must rise to infinity at least
as fast as u, as u -> infinity (or as r -> 0).
Indeed, this was the essence of the argument made by Maxwell through
two thought experiments in Chapter 1 of his treatise to explain the
absolute necessity of a non-trivial epsilon *even for a vacuum*.
Far removed from sources, you can treat epsilon asymptotically as a
constant. Then you get, as an approximation, the Green's function as
the propagator for the field. But, already, you can see the problem
with confusing the asymptotic behavior with epsilon being everywhere-
constant. The Green's function for such a field would go singular on
the light cone. This, in turn, creates not only the divergence in the
energy integral, but the singularity associated with the field
commutators [A(0), A(x)], which also diverges on the light cone. In
turn, this makes the field a singular operator, rather than an
ordinary operator, and -- when it comes time to construct non-linear
combinations out of them -- it blows up and diverges. Consequently,
the stress tensor is ill-defined, non-linear field laws are ill-
defined.
The various fixes to "subtract out the infinity" all amout to the same
thing: restoring the non-trivial epsilon. Eventually from the 1940's
onward an increasing level of awareness had come to dawn on the
community about the essence of what was going on here, so that by
these days, one sees the situation usually couched back in Maxwell's
original language of the vacuum being a (screening) dielectric medium
near the point source. The renormalization group flow described by the
renormalization group equation effectively gives you the variation of
alpha (and epsilon) with respect to the radial separation from the
source.
Whereas one has non-trivial behavior near sources, one should also
expect that there may just as well be non-trivial behavior for epsilon
at the cosmological scale. One way this could show up, for instance,
is a drift in the value of alpha seen over time. In one way, you
should already expect this to occur. Part of the point of "running the
couplings" is that in the earliest epoch of the Universe, one ought to
see the effective values couplings of the various interactions
converging all to a common value. The point behind this observation is
that cosmologically they drift.
A simple model for the dynamics of epsilon is to bring it fully back
into the standard principal bundle geometry underlying a gauge
theory.. When doing so, you will recognize that epsilon is nothing
less than the metric associated with the gauge group, itself. The
equivalence is k_{ab} <-> epsilon c, where k_{ab} is the gauge group
metric. For electromagnetism, there is only one index, and you just
have k_{ab} = k = epsilon c. For SU(2) gauge theory, you have k_{ab} =
delta_{ab}/g^2, where g is the coupling associated with the SU(2)
interaction and a,b are isospin indices (a,b = 1,2,3). A similar
observation applies to the SU(3) sector (as well as the U(1)
hypercharge sector).
The dynamics can be constructed, for instance, by taking the Einstein-
Hilbert action for the bundle metric. With a suitable definition for
the effective base space metric you end up ultimately getting an
equation of the following form for point-like sources,
d^2/du^2 (epsilon) = -2A^2 epsilon
where A is a constant proportional to the source's charge. When
translated into an equation for alpha, this becomes
d^2/du^2 (alpha) = 3A_p alpha
where A_p is the Planck area.
This is none other than the classical version of the renormalization
group equation for alpha!
.

User: "Richard Saam"
Title: Re: The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the spaceitself (differing permittivity)S	12 Jul 2007 01:39:42 PM

Rock Brentwood wrote:

On Jun 15, 10:57 am,

wrote:

Same as for permittivity. the permeability of vacuum is
a constant.

The permeability of the vacuum is most certainly NOT a constant!

YES, YES

Indeed, not only was this the central theme of Maxwell's treatise, but
it is a central element of quantum field theory.

What you recognize as the "renormalization group flow" of alpha,
noting that alpha = e^2/(4 pi epsilon h-bar c) is actually that
associated with epsilon. Near point-like sources, epsilon is highly
variable.

As it must be ... otherwise, the energy of the field associated with
the source would be infinite. In fact, solely from the consistency
requirement you can determine a lot about its behavior near a source.
In terms of epsilon, the energy of the field of a point-like source
will be e^2/(8 pi) integral (du/epsilon), using u = 1/r, where r is
the radial coordinate.

In order for this to converge, epsilon must rise to infinity at least
as fast as u, as u -> infinity (or as r -> 0).

epsilon/r = constant

Indeed, this was the essence of the argument made by Maxwell through
two thought experiments in Chapter 1 of his treatise to explain the
absolute necessity of a non-trivial epsilon *even for a vacuum*.

I have tried to work this variability of Permittivity and Permeability with
distance and energy scale using the classical Maxwell concepts of
permittivity(epsilon), permeability, displacement field (D), electric field (E),
magnetic field (Hc) etc. in a particular geometric form (with momentum and real
space identity defined in terms of length dimensions A & B) filling a vacuum and
expressed in CGS notation/units:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905007
k*Tc = h*(1/time)/2
=(h^2/(2*m))*(1/(2*B)^2)
= m*vdx^2/2
= (chain/cavity)*e^2/(gs*Permittivity*B)
= gs^2*(1/2)*(1/(4*pi))*cavity*D*E
= gs^2*(1/2)*(1/(4*pi))*cavity*E*E*Permittivity
= gs^2*(1/2)*(1/(4*pi))*cavity*D*D/Permittivity
= chain*Hc*Hc/(8*pi)
= P*cavity
k = Boltzmann constant
Tc = lattice critical temperature
h = planck's constant
time = lattice resonance time + or -
1/B = wave vector
1/A = wave vector
atan(A/B)= 22.8 degree
m = lattice cell pseudo mass necessary for resonance
= 56 Mev/c2 (1E-25 g) (6.53E11 K/c^2) (non baryonic)
vdx = pseudo mass resonant velocity in x direction
= c/sqrt(permittivity*permeability) + or -
= h (1/B) / (2 m) + or -
= 2*B/time + or -
vdy = pseudo mass resonant velocity in y direction
= (4*B/SQRT(3))/time + or -
= h (SQRT(3)/(4*B)) / (2 m) + or -
vdz = pseudo mass resonant velocity in z direction
= (B/A)^2 * 4*A/time + or -
= h (1/A) / (2 m) + or -
vde = c/sqrt(permittivity) + or -
c = speed of light
e = charge + or -
permittivity = lattice dielectric permittivity (dimensionless)
= D/E
permeability = lattice magnetic permeability (dimensionless)
2*B = lattice cell length
2*sqrt(3)*B^2 = lattice cell area (section)
2*sqrt(3)*B^2*A = lattice cell volume (cavity)
(cells fill lattice volume)
chain/cavity = 2/3
Permittivity/B = constant1 = 2.79E9 /cm
Permeability/B = constant2 = 2.83E12 /cm
D = lattice displacement field vector + or -
= 4*pi*e*cos(angle)/section
E = lattice electric field vector + or -
= m^2*vdx*vdy*vdz*cos(angle)/(e*h)
P = pressure
gs = unitless constant at 1.0097138
Again, the model essentially defines a wave vector 1/B
such that de Broglie velocity (vdx)
and momentum space is defined by
vdx = h (1/B) / (2 m)
with real space dimension B = time * vdx
where
k*Tc = h*(1/time)/2
and in the case of the Universe vacuum critical density state:
m/cavity = critical space density 2 H2 / (8 pi G) = 6E-30 g/cm3
Now define dimensionless Maxwell's permittivity and permeability
such that classically
vdx = c/sqrt(permittivity*permeability) = ve/sqrt(permeability)
= 1.5E-3 cm/sec
vde = c/sqrt(permittivity)
= 1.2E+5 cm/sec
and
Tl = m * c^2 / k
= Energy-Matter Equivalency temperature 6.53E11 K
Tb = m * vde^2 / k
= Black Body radiation (CMBR) at 2.73 K (hc/(3kTe) = .19 cm)
(3*k*Te)/h = 160.2 GHz)
Tc = m * vdx^2 / k
= Dark Matter temperature extremely cold at 8.11E-16 K
and
B = 22 cm
time = 29,600 sec
Model can be extrapolated to any length scale
and has the inherent
'conservation of energy and momentum (elastic)'
assumption.
In the space vacuum, dimensionless permittivity and permeability
are necessarily very large and nearly equal numbers (6E10 & 6E10)
but nothing in theory would prohibit these magnitudes.
So CMBR radiation is emitted in Black Body spectral form
(frequency shifted due to space permeability)
from a Black Body defined by Dark Matter/Energy
with 'c' constraint.
This Dark Matter/Energy Black Body form represents a cell in a lattice
ubiquitous in the Universe
accounting for most of universe mass (non baryonic)
and congruent with pervasive CMBR.
m = 56 Mev/c^2 remains constant
from nuclear to cosmic scales
expressing itself in many ways
-nuclear Fermi energy
-work energy in slowing Pioneer spacecraft
-EGRET extra galactic x-ray spectra
-Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) power spectrum at 1/29,600 sec^-1
-identity of quantum energy = gravitational energy
h * H = (3/2) * G * m^2 / Rp
= 1.5E-44 erg
where:
h = Planck's constant 6.63E-27 g cm2 sec^-1
H = Hubble Constant 2.31E-18 sec^-1
71.2 km/sec-million parsecs
Rp = proton radius 6.65E-14 cm
= 3*h/(32*pi*m*c)
G = gravity constant 6.67E-8 cm3 sec^-2 g^-1
****
Questions:
Assuming the Dark Matter/Energy
is a black body at the extremely low temperature of 8.11E-16 K,
it would not be detectable in usual electromagnetic (EM) spectrum
(it would negligibly absorb more conventional EM in gamma - x-ray - radio waves.
but more completely at frequencies on the order of 1/29,600 sec^-1 ?
An object moving through the Dark Matter/Energy Lattice
would result in momentum transfer from lattice cell to object
releasing m*c^2 energy (56 Mev) per lattice cell?
Observable CMBR apparent black body is linked
to Dark Matter/Energy black body by space permeability?
Why doesn't the model radiate black body at nuclear dimensions?
At this nuclear dimension,
the velocities vx and ve are superluminal (>c) may be the answer?
Mass (m) is a consequence of a resonant elastic condition?
Does the quantum energy = gravitational energy relationship
h * H = (3/2) * G * m^2 / Rp
help explain action at a distance?
Richard D. Saam
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905007
.

User: "Rock Brentwood"
Title: Re: The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the space itself (differing permittivity)S	16 Jul 2007 07:06:13 PM

On Jul 12, 1:39 pm, Richard Saam <rds...@att.net> wrote:

The permeability of the vacuum is most certainly NOT a constant!

Indeed, not only was this the central theme of Maxwell's treatise, but
it is a central element of quantum field theory.

There may be a misconception, by the way, that a variability in
epsilon would violate Lorentz invariance since it effectively smears
the light cone. It DOES smear the light cone, but does not violate
Lorentz invariance!
The Greens functions for such a field are no longer necessarily
singular, and the propagators (and quantum fields and loop integrals)
would likewise no longer necessarily be divergent.
In fact, the most general Lorentz invariant Lagrangian of the form L =
L(E,B) you can write for the electromagnetic field is L(I1, I2), where
I1 = 1/2 (E^2 - B^2 c^2) and I2 = E.B (where ().() denotes the dot
product).
The derivative epsilon = dL/dI1 is the permittivity. The derivative
theta = dL/dI2 is the Born-Infeld term (specific to 4-dimensional
electromagnetism; absent for instance on 2+1 dimensional
electromagnetism, where you're confined to 2-D surfaces).
The D and H fields are given as the coefficients of the variation of
the Lagrangian, whatever the Lagrangian might be:
delta(L) = D.delta(E) - H.delta(B).
Substituting in for I1 and I2, what you then find is that
D = epsilon E + theta B
H = epsilon c^2 B - theta E.
The coefficients epsilon and theta are functions of I1 and I2 and,
separately from this, may have explicit dependence on the space-time
coordinates (or even on other fields, as happens in the Heisenberg-
Euler Lagrangian).
This is the most general *Lorentz invariant* constitutive law.
Missing this was the biggest mistake made by Lorentz (and well as by
Einstein, though he started to deal with non-linear electromagnetism
by around the 1910's).
Another ramification of this is that the trace of the stress tensor
for the Maxwell field becomes
Tr(T) = T^{mu}_{mu} = 4 (epsilon I1 + theta I2 - L),
which is 0 if, and only if, the Lagrangian is homogeneous in I1 and I2
to the first order. That is, the trace vanishes only for linear
electromagnetism, not for non-linear electromagnetism.
But even if the Lagrangian is homogeneous and the trace is zero,
epsilon and theta need not be constants.
.

User: "Sue..."
Title: Re: The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the space itself (differing permittivity)	15 Jun 2007 11:10:06 AM

On Jun 15, 12:57=C2=A0pm,

wrote:

On 15 juin, 11:09, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.inv> wrote:

tirely

new physics is also being considered."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion=

eer_anomaly

"new physics" simply means better understanding of physical laws.

I would say it is due to the space itself.
The impedance (resistance, density) of space is different
in some regions.

The impedance of vacuum is the same as long as you have
vacuum.

The impedance of free space (Z0) is normally 376.73 ohms,
but can be different in other regions of space.

The value of c defines the permittivity of free space (=CE=B50).
The permeability of free space (=CE=BC0) is not dependent on c.
(seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light)

So it is the permeability of the free space (=CE=BC0) that varies,

Same as for permittivity. the permeability of vacuum is
a constant.

It is their product that is constant in free_space.
They can vary arbitrarily to accomodate different
measuring techniques different ways that nearfield
effects are described. (SI, MKS, cgs )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_susceptibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_rotation
Sue...

which then gives a different Z0 which then causes the
physics in that region of space to be slightly different.

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space

Andr=C3=A9 Michaud

User: ""
Title: Re: The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the space itself (differing permittivity)	15 Jun 2007 03:56:56 PM

On 15 juin, 16:37, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 15, 12:57 pm,

wrote:

On 15 juin, 11:09, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.inv> wrote:

entirely

new physics is also being considered."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi=

oneer_anomaly

"new physics" simply means better understanding of physical laws.

I would say it is due to the space itself.
The impedance (resistance, density) of space is different
in some regions.

The impedance of vacuum is the same as long as you have
vacuum.

When you put a chage pair in it, it isn't a vacuum.
That is why it is characterised as free_space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F=

ree_spacehttp://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html
Well, from my perspective, you have vacuum between these two
charges.
All interactions at the fundamental level occur between elementary
particles. And all of these interactions occur through the vacuum
that separates them.

The impedance of free space (Z0) is normally 376.73 ohms,
but can be different in other regions of space.

The value of c defines the permittivity of free space (=CE=B50).
The permeability of free space (=CE=BC0) is not dependent on c.
(seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light)

So it is the permeability of the free space (=CE=BC0) that varies,

Same as for permittivity. the permeability of vacuum is
a constant.

It isn't even constant between measuring systems.

http://www.geo.umn.edu/orgs/irm/hg2m/hg2m_a/hg2m_a.html

Sue...

A "loop" has to be a macroscopic structure. This is not
about electromagnetism at the fundamental elementary
particles level, it seems to me.
Also, the values don't match between the measuring
systems only on account of the difference in combination
of the units. When you convert from one system to the
other, you recuperate the same constant value.
Andr=C3=A9 Michaud
.

User: "Sue..."
Title: Re: The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the space itself (differing permittivity)	15 Jun 2007 04:50:47 PM

On Jun 15, 5:56=C2=A0pm,

wrote:

On 15 juin, 16:37, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 15, 12:57 pm,

wrote:

On 15 juin, 11:09, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.inv> wrote:

=E2=80=94such as thrust from gas leakage=E2=80=94 the possibility o=

f entirely

new physics is also being considered."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/=

Pioneer_anomaly

"new physics" simply means better understanding of physical laws.

I would say it is due to the space itself.
The impedance (resistance, density) of space is different
in some regions.

The impedance of vacuum is the same as long as you have
vacuum.

When you put a chage pair in it, it isn't a vacuum.
That is why it is characterised as free_space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

Well, from my perspective, you have vacuum between these two
charges.

All interactions at the fundamental level occur between elementary
particles. And all of these interactions occur through the vacuum
that separates them.

The impedance of free space (Z0) is normally 376.73 ohms,
but can be different in other regions of space.

The value of c defines the permittivity of free space (=CE=B50).
The permeability of free space (=CE=BC0) is not dependent on c.
(seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light)

So it is the permeability of the free space (=CE=BC0) that varies,

Same as for permittivity. the permeability of vacuum is
a constant.

It isn't even constant between =C2=A0measuring systems.

http://www.geo.umn.edu/orgs/irm/hg2m/hg2m_a/hg2m_a.html

Sue...

A "loop" has to be a macroscopic structure. This is not
about electromagnetism at the fundamental elementary
particles level, it seems to me.

Einstein and a few other students of gravity/inertia don't seem
to share your view.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm

Also, the values don't match between the measuring
systems only on account of the difference in combination
of the units. When you convert from one system to the
other, you recuperate the same constant value.

No... it is more than just a combination of the units but
also a different way of characterising free_space.
<< Extremely few, if any, textbooks inform the
students to where the (now P&P of V) came from or even
what it actually is. Excluding the time of one second,
it was a result of changing the units of
measurement from the cgs SINGULAR values
to the MKSA multiple values. The old equation for the
force of charges no longer worked. The new unit of
energy was the Joule. The force in the MKSA was
named a Newton. G only had its powers changed.
Here is the true definition of the P&P of V:

From Lemer & Trigg, Encyclopedia of Physics: >>

http://www.wbabin.net/science/schreiber33.pdf
It is moot anyway because
the space-probes mentioned in the OP don't use
any of the measuring systems. If there are more nuclei
on a path (density) there is potential for tighter induction
coupling.
Sue...

Andr=C3=A9 Michaud- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

User: ""
Title: Re: The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the space itself (differing permittivity)	15 Jun 2007 10:41:43 PM

On 15 juin, 17:50, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 15, 5:56 pm,

wrote:

On 15 juin, 16:37, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 15, 12:57 pm,

wrote:

On 15 juin, 11:09, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.inv> wrote:

"The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation
from expectations of the trajectories of various unmanned spacecr=

aft

visiting the outer solar system, notably Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 1=

1=2E

At present, there is no universally accepted explanation for this
phenomenon; while it is possible that the explanation will be mun=

dane

=E2=80=94such as thrust from gas leakage=E2=80=94 the possibility=

of entirely

new physics is also being considered."http://en.wikipedia.org/wik=

i/Pioneer_anomaly

"new physics" simply means better understanding of physical laws.

I would say it is due to the space itself.
The impedance (resistance, density) of space is different
in some regions.

The impedance of vacuum is the same as long as you have
vacuum.

When you put a chage pair in it, it isn't a vacuum.
That is why it is characterised as free_space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wi.=

..=2E

Well, from my perspective, you have vacuum between these two
charges.

All interactions at the fundamental level occur between elementary
particles. And all of these interactions occur through the vacuum
that separates them.

The impedance of free space (Z0) is normally 376.73 ohms,
but can be different in other regions of space.

The value of c defines the permittivity of free space (=CE=B50).
The permeability of free space (=CE=BC0) is not dependent on c.
(seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light)

So it is the permeability of the free space (=CE=BC0) that varies,

Same as for permittivity. the permeability of vacuum is
a constant.

It isn't even constant between measuring systems.

http://www.geo.umn.edu/orgs/irm/hg2m/hg2m_a/hg2m_a.html

Sue...

A "loop" has to be a macroscopic structure. This is not
about electromagnetism at the fundamental elementary
particles level, it seems to me.

Einstein and a few other students of gravity/inertia don't seem
to share your view.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.htmlhttp://einstein.stanfor=

d=2Eedu/http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
I am aware of the fact. Very few actually believe that elementary
particles are localized at all times. I have learned to live with
this fact of life. I am however in sync with de Broglie.

No... it is more than just a combination of the units but
also a different way of characterising free_space.

Absolute agreement. It was Maxwell himself who suggested
to that it would be a good idea to convert to MKS (explained
in "Electromagnetic Theory" by J.A. Stratton) because it
allowed to more easily define a unit of capacitance per
meter of vacuum (eps0) and a unit of inductance per
meter of vacuum (mu0), which would be better suited
to deal with the then new concept EM field in vacuum (that
he considered being some kind of ether at the time).

<< Extremely few, if any, textbooks inform the
students to where the (now P&P of V) came from or even
what it actually is. Excluding the time of one second,
it was a result of changing the units of
measurement from the cgs SINGULAR values
to the MKSA multiple values. The old equation for the
force of charges no longer worked. The new unit of
energy was the Joule. The force in the MKSA was
named a Newton.

Yes, and if you simplify the Newton to its basic units,
you end up with joules per meter, another useful unit
for dealing with EM energy at the fundamental level.

G only had its powers changed.
Here is the true definition of the P&P of V:
From Lemer & Trigg, Encyclopedia of Physics:

http://www.wbabin.net/science/schreiber33.pdf

I am reading your paper (not finished) but I can see your
objections to the SI system.
On my part, I also find the SI system restrictive in a sense,
but only because of the kilogram, which I always resolve
to more basic units in whatever complex units it appears
into. For example, to reduce the Newton to more useful
more basic units.

It is moot anyway because the space-probes mentioned
in the OP don't use any of the measuring systems.

My own view is that the data (mostly doppler) can be dealt
with with any coherent unit system one choses.

If there are more nuclei on a path (density) there is potential
for tighter induction coupling.

Sue...

Andr=C3=A9 Michaud
.

User: "John C. Polasek"
Title: Re: The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the space itself (differing permittivity)	16 Jun 2007 01:06:27 PM

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:41:43 -0700,

wrote:

On 15 juin, 17:50, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 15, 5:56 pm,

wrote:

snip-hope you don't mind

I am aware of the fact. Very few actually believe that elementary
particles are localized at all times. I have learned to live with
this fact of life. I am however in sync with de Broglie.

No... it is more than just a combination of the units but
also a different way of characterising free_space.

Few realize the profound difference in cgs vs SI. In texts you have to
hunt a bit to see if the author used cgs or SI.
In cgs, there is no longer a coulomb; it has to be volt*meter called
esu.
If e/eps >> q, then we have
coul/(coul/(volt/meter)) = q volt*meter (esu)
(Farad =coul/volt)
The coulomb has been corrupted by casting out eps0 and so when another
corrupted coulomb is brought up to compute force, the "Coulomb
Constant" has to be used to exorcise one of the charges otherwise, as
Andre points out, it no longer works.
(I have written this composition several times with little effect)
Do not think a statvolt is 300 "regular" volts as I did when I was
taught cgs E&M-the units are all wrong. Many think cgs vs SI is simply
the preference for the cm or meter. It is a hidden trap.
In cgs D = E and B = H. Let me explain the difference.
H is a forcing function and B is a resultant by virture of mu0.
Man can make H by a design of his choosing, sending exactly I amperes
through exactly N turns per meter, but only God and a few
mathematicians can tell you exactly what B will turn out to be via
B = mu*H, due to boundary conditions.
In physics you MUST be able to attach units, real ones, to equations
and in an equation like B = H, we are waiting for an explanation.

Yes, and if you simplify the Newton to its basic units,
you end up with joules per meter, another useful unit
for dealing with EM energy at the fundamental level.

G only had its powers changed.
Here is the true definition of the P&P of V:
From Lemer & Trigg, Encyclopedia of Physics:

http://www.wbabin.net/science/schreiber33.pdf

I am reading your paper (not finished) but I can see your
objections to the SI system.

I don't see a message by Schreiber but in his paper (above) he railed
against the SI system. His major premise about h being so many EVolts
is wrong:
h = 4.136e-15electron volt SECONDS.
It is common knowledge that h = energyxtime.
He later recognized it, but then stipulated one second, implying you
really wouldnt need it (!).

On my part, I also find the SI system restrictive in a sense,
but only because of the kilogram, which I always resolve
to more basic units in whatever complex units it appears
into. For example, to reduce the Newton to more useful
more basic units.

It is moot anyway because the space-probes mentioned
in the OP don't use any of the measuring systems.

My own view is that the data (mostly doppler) can be dealt
with with any coherent unit system one choses.

If there are more nuclei on a path (density) there is potential
for tighter induction coupling.

Sue...

Andr� Michaud

User: ""
Title: Re: The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the space itself (differing permittivity)	16 Jun 2007 06:16:48 PM

On 16 juin, 14:06, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:41:43 -0700,

wrote:

On 15 juin, 17:50, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 15, 5:56 pm,

wrote:

snip-hope you don't mind

I am aware of the fact. Very few actually believe that elementary
particles are localized at all times. I have learned to live with
this fact of life. I am however in sync with de Broglie.

No... it is more than just a combination of the units but
also a different way of characterising free_space.

Few realize the profound difference in cgs vs SI. In texts you have to
hunt a bit to see if the author used cgs or SI.

In cgs, there is no longer a coulomb; it has to be volt*meter called
esu.
If e/eps >> q, then we have
coul/(coul/(volt/meter)) =3D q volt*meter (esu)
(Farad =3Dcoul/volt)
The coulomb has been corrupted by casting out eps0 and so when another
corrupted coulomb is brought up to compute force, the "Coulomb
Constant" has to be used to exorcise one of the charges otherwise, as
Andre points out, it no longer works.
(I have written this composition several times with little effect)
Do not think a statvolt is 300 "regular" volts as I did when I was
taught cgs E&M-the units are all wrong. Many think cgs vs SI is simply
the preference for the cm or meter. It is a hidden trap.
In cgs D =3D E and B =3D H. Let me explain the difference.
H is a forcing function and B is a resultant by virture of mu0.
Man can make H by a design of his choosing, sending exactly I amperes
through exactly N turns per meter, but only God and a few
mathematicians can tell you exactly what B will turn out to be via
B =3D mu*H, due to boundary conditions.
In physics you MUST be able to attach units, real ones, to equations
and in an equation like B =3D H, we are waiting for an explanation.

Yes, and if you simplify the Newton to its basic units,
you end up with joules per meter, another useful unit
for dealing with EM energy at the fundamental level.

G only had its powers changed.
Here is the true definition of the P&P of V:
From Lemer & Trigg, Encyclopedia of Physics:

http://www.wbabin.net/science/schreiber33.pdf

I am reading your paper (not finished) but I can see your
objections to the SI system.

I don't see a message by Schreiber but in his paper (above) he railed
against the SI system. His major premise about h being so many EVolts
is wrong:
h =3D 4.136e-15electron volt SECONDS.
It is common knowledge that h =3D energyxtime.
He later recognized it, but then stipulated one second, implying you
really wouldnt need it (!).

Hi John
I also noted that he treats h as a quantum of energy, which
it is not. Real energy quanta are E=3Dh nu or better yet
E=3D hc/lambda, which makes much more obvious that
the quantum size depends only on the wavelength
of the quantum, which in turn depends entirely on
the physical circumstances of the emission.
Andr=E9 Michaud
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the space itself (differing permittivity)	16 Jun 2007 06:17:04 PM

On 16 juin, 14:06, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:41:43 -0700,

wrote:

On 15 juin, 17:50, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 15, 5:56 pm,

wrote:

snip-hope you don't mind

I am aware of the fact. Very few actually believe that elementary
particles are localized at all times. I have learned to live with
this fact of life. I am however in sync with de Broglie.

No... it is more than just a combination of the units but
also a different way of characterising free_space.

Few realize the profound difference in cgs vs SI. In texts you have to
hunt a bit to see if the author used cgs or SI.

In cgs, there is no longer a coulomb; it has to be volt*meter called
esu.
If e/eps >> q, then we have
coul/(coul/(volt/meter)) =3D q volt*meter (esu)
(Farad =3Dcoul/volt)
The coulomb has been corrupted by casting out eps0 and so when another
corrupted coulomb is brought up to compute force, the "Coulomb
Constant" has to be used to exorcise one of the charges otherwise, as
Andre points out, it no longer works.
(I have written this composition several times with little effect)
Do not think a statvolt is 300 "regular" volts as I did when I was
taught cgs E&M-the units are all wrong. Many think cgs vs SI is simply
the preference for the cm or meter. It is a hidden trap.
In cgs D =3D E and B =3D H. Let me explain the difference.
H is a forcing function and B is a resultant by virture of mu0.
Man can make H by a design of his choosing, sending exactly I amperes
through exactly N turns per meter, but only God and a few
mathematicians can tell you exactly what B will turn out to be via
B =3D mu*H, due to boundary conditions.
In physics you MUST be able to attach units, real ones, to equations
and in an equation like B =3D H, we are waiting for an explanation.

Yes, and if you simplify the Newton to its basic units,
you end up with joules per meter, another useful unit
for dealing with EM energy at the fundamental level.

G only had its powers changed.
Here is the true definition of the P&P of V:
From Lemer & Trigg, Encyclopedia of Physics:

http://www.wbabin.net/science/schreiber33.pdf

I am reading your paper (not finished) but I can see your
objections to the SI system.

User: "Sue..."
Title: Re: The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the space itself (differing permittivity)	16 Jun 2007 12:56:26 AM

On Jun 16, 12:41=C2=A0am,

wrote:

On 15 juin, 17:50, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 15, 5:56 pm,

wrote:

On 15 juin, 16:37, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 15, 12:57 pm,

wrote:

On 15 juin, 11:09, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.inv> wrote:

"The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation
from expectations of the trajectories of various unmanned space=

craft

visiting the outer solar system, notably Pioneer 10 and Pioneer=

11.

At present, there is no universally accepted explanation for th=

phenomenon; while it is possible that the explanation will be m=

undane

=E2=80=94such as thrust from gas leakage=E2=80=94 the possibili=

ty of entirely

new physics is also being considered."http://en.wikipedia.org/w=

iki/Pioneer_anomaly

"new physics" simply means better understanding of physical laws.

I would say it is due to the space itself.
The impedance (resistance, density) of space is different
in some regions.

The impedance of vacuum is the same as long as you have
vacuum.

When you put a chage pair in it, it isn't a vacuum.
That is why it is characterised as free_space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w=

i=2E..

Well, from my perspective, you have vacuum between these two
charges.

All interactions at the fundamental level occur between elementary
particles. And all of these interactions occur through the vacuum
that separates them.

The impedance of free space (Z0) is normally 376.73 ohms,
but can be different in other regions of space.

The value of c defines the permittivity of free space (=CE=B50).
The permeability of free space (=CE=BC0) is not dependent on c.
(seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light)

So it is the permeability of the free space (=CE=BC0) that vari=

es,

Same as for permittivity. the permeability of vacuum is
a constant.

It isn't even constant between =C2=A0measuring systems.

http://www.geo.umn.edu/orgs/irm/hg2m/hg2m_a/hg2m_a.html

Sue...

A "loop" has to be a macroscopic structure. This is not
about electromagnetism at the fundamental elementary
particles level, it seems to me.

Einstein and a few other students of gravity/inertia don't seem
to share your view.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.htmlhttp://einstein.sta...

I am aware of the fact. Very few actually believe that elementary
particles are localized at all times. I have learned to live with
this fact of life. I am however in sync with de Broglie.

No... it is more than just a combination of the units but
also a different way of characterising free_space.

Yes, and if you simplify the Newton to its basic units,
you end up with joules per meter, another useful unit
for dealing with EM energy at the fundamental level.

G only had its powers changed.
Here is the true definition of the P&P of V:
From Lemer & Trigg, Encyclopedia of Physics:

http://www.wbabin.net/science/schreiber33.pdf

I am reading your paper (not finished) but I can see your
objections to the SI system.

I don't necessarly agree with the author's ideas to
improve the situation but he makes the case about
as well as anyone. When we homogenize a space
for convenience of some theory or metrology, it is all
too easy to forget that material structures are responsible
for some of the properties. The free-space definition offers
enough flexibilty to include or exclude structrues as an
application requires. If you put a planet between the
earth and moon, you will increase the attraction between
the earth and the moon. It is a good indication we can't
simply treat the region as chunks of matter and chunks
of empty space. The induction forces in both the massive
chunks and the interstellar gas has to be considered.
We can't make the hydrogen and helium go away so
we have to consider all their properties, radiative
and inductive.
<< Our experience in elementary-particle physics has
taught us that any term in the field equations of physics
that is allowed by fundamental principles is likely to be
there in the equations. It is like the ant world in
T=2E H. White's The Once and Future King: Everything that
is not forbidden is compulsory. >> --S.Weinberg
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html

It is moot anyway because the space-probes mentioned
in the OP don't use any of the measuring systems.

My own view is that the data (mostly doppler) can be dealt
with with any coherent unit system one choses.

If it the only concern is confirming the trajectory I would
agree. But in forming hypothesis about the trajectory
we can't ignore possible causal agents simply because
a particular system homogenises them for convenience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_Faraday_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_effect#Faraday_rotation_in_the_interst=
ellar_medium
Sue...

If there are more nuclei on a path (density) there is potential
for tighter induction coupling.

Sue...

Andr=C3=A9 Michaud- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

User: ""
Title: Re: The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the space itself (differing permittivity)	16 Jun 2007 12:11:39 PM

On 16 juin, 01:56, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 16, 12:41 am,

wrote:

On 15 juin, 17:50, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 15, 5:56 pm,

wrote:

On 15 juin, 16:37, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 15, 12:57 pm,

wrote:

On 15 juin, 11:09, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.inv> wrote:

"The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviat=

ion

from expectations of the trajectories of various unmanned spa=

cecraft

visiting the outer solar system, notably Pioneer 10 and Pione=

er 11.

At present, there is no universally accepted explanation for =

this

phenomenon; while it is possible that the explanation will be=

mundane

=E2=80=94such as thrust from gas leakage=E2=80=94 the possibi=

lity of entirely

new physics is also being considered."http://en.wikipedia.org=

/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly

"new physics" simply means better understanding of physical law=

s=2E

I would say it is due to the space itself.
The impedance (resistance, density) of space is different
in some regions.

The impedance of vacuum is the same as long as you have
vacuum.

When you put a chage pair in it, it isn't a vacuum.
That is why it is characterised as free_space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedancehttp://en.wikipedia.org=

/wi...

Well, from my perspective, you have vacuum between these two
charges.

All interactions at the fundamental level occur between elementary
particles. And all of these interactions occur through the vacuum
that separates them.

The impedance of free space (Z0) is normally 376.73 ohms,
but can be different in other regions of space.

The value of c defines the permittivity of free space (=CE=B5=

0).

The permeability of free space (=CE=BC0) is not dependent on =

c=2E

(seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light)

So it is the permeability of the free space (=CE=BC0) that va=

ries,

Same as for permittivity. the permeability of vacuum is
a constant.

It isn't even constant between measuring systems.

http://www.geo.umn.edu/orgs/irm/hg2m/hg2m_a/hg2m_a.html

Sue...

A "loop" has to be a macroscopic structure. This is not
about electromagnetism at the fundamental elementary
particles level, it seems to me.

Einstein and a few other students of gravity/inertia don't seem
to share your view.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.htmlhttp://einstein.sta.=

..=2E

I am aware of the fact. Very few actually believe that elementary
particles are localized at all times. I have learned to live with
this fact of life. I am however in sync with de Broglie.

No... it is more than just a combination of the units but
also a different way of characterising free_space.

Yes, and if you simplify the Newton to its basic units,
you end up with joules per meter, another useful unit
for dealing with EM energy at the fundamental level.

G only had its powers changed.
Here is the true definition of the P&P of V:
From Lemer & Trigg, Encyclopedia of Physics:

http://www.wbabin.net/science/schreiber33.pdf

I am reading your paper (not finished) but I can see your
objections to the SI system.

My view of things is much simpler, and I don't have
to deal with these complex considerations in my model.
In it, interaction between large masses systematically
boils down to the sum of interactions between the elementary
particles that make up matter. Even protons and neutrons
are complex structures in this model that do not interact
as units with other particles because they are made up
of elementary particles (scatterable quarks up and down)
that interact across the vacuum that separates them
within the nuclei.
Even in complex nuclei, it is not the nucleons that
interact as units with other nucleons, but the quarks
making up the nucleons that interact with the quarks
making up the other nucleons.
All elementary particles interact with other elementary
particle across the intervening vacuum. The interaction
is very simply the well known electrostatic inverse
square interaction and at close range, the magnetostatic
inverse cube interaction. Even the dynamic structure
of elementary particles, including photons is very
simple and fully Maxwell compliant.
Nothing is missing to allow the universe to build up as
we know it.

<< Our experience in elementary-particle physics has
taught us that any term in the field equations of physics
that is allowed by fundamental principles is likely to be
there in the equations. It is like the ant world in
T. H. White's The Once and Future King: Everything that
is not forbidden is compulsory. >> --S.Weinberghttp://www.aip.org/pt/vol-=

58/iss-11/p31.html
This would be fine if the current flavor of fundamental
principles really accounted for all that can be observed.
The very so-called "anomalies" observed in the behavior
of the Pioneer crafts is proof that the current set
of "fundamental principles" is still not perfectly in sync
with objective physical reality.
I say "so-called" anomalies because they are "anomalies"
only with regards to our current theories. Underlying
it all, there is no physical anomaly, but only the normal
physical reality that our current set of popular theories
are not extensive enough to fully account for.

It is moot anyway because the space-probes mentioned
in the OP don't use any of the measuring systems.

My own view is that the data (mostly doppler) can be dealt
with with any coherent unit system one choses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_Faraday_effecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/=
wiki/Faraday_effect#Faraday_rotation_in_the_i...
If you are talking of the current set of theories that can't
account for the trajectory, I agree. There is the second
anomaly also, which has by nature a cause different
from the trajectory "anomaly". I am talking about the
"so-called anomalous" axial spin slowdown, which
current theories also can't account for.
Note both are naturally predicted by my model.
Andr=C3=A9 Michaud
.

User: "Sue..."
Title: Re: The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the space itself (differing permittivity)	16 Jun 2007 01:34:38 PM

On Jun 16, 2:11 pm,

wrote:

Note both are naturally predicted by my model.

Does your model also predict Tate's mass anomaly
and Tajamar-deMato's London moment ?
Sue...

Andr=E9 Michaud- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

User: ""
Title: Re: The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the space itself (differing permittivity)	16 Jun 2007 04:37:38 PM

On 16 juin, 14:34, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 16, 2:11 pm,

wrote:

Note both are naturally predicted by my model.

Does your model also predict Tate's mass anomaly
and Tajamar-deMato's London moment ?

Sue...

You'd have to explain to me what they are and direct me
to formal refs, because I never heard of these.
andr=E9 Michaud
.

User: "Sue..."
Title: Re: The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the space itself (differing permittivity)	16 Jun 2007 05:29:12 PM

On Jun 16, 6:37 pm,

wrote:

On 16 juin, 14:34, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 16, 2:11 pm,

wrote:

Note both are naturally predicted by my model.

Does your model also predict Tate's mass anomaly
and Tajamar-deMato's London moment ?

Sue...

You'd have to explain to me what they are and direct me
to formal refs, because I never heard of these.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607086
Sue...

andr=E9 Michaud

User: ""
Title: Re: The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the space itself (differing permittivity)	16 Jun 2007 06:12:38 PM

On 16 juin, 18:29, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 16, 6:37 pm,

wrote:

On 16 juin, 14:34, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 16, 2:11 pm,

wrote:

Note both are naturally predicted by my model.

Does your model also predict Tate's mass anomaly
and Tajamar-deMato's London moment ?

Sue...

You'd have to explain to me what they are and direct me
to formal refs, because I never heard of these.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607086

Interesting, but this is only an abstract from the looks
of it. Do you know where I can look at a complete
account of the experiments ?
This seems to refer to the know experiments that
result in a small magnet floating above some super
cooled material. As far as I have been able to
analyze such setup, it is just plain magnetism
at play. Nothing to do with gravity.
andr=E9 Michaud
.

User: "Sue..."
Title: Re: The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the space itself (differing permittivity)	16 Jun 2007 06:54:44 PM

On Jun 16, 8:12 pm,

wrote:

On 16 juin, 18:29, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 16, 6:37 pm,

wrote:

On 16 juin, 14:34, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 16, 2:11 pm,

wrote:

Note both are naturally predicted by my model.

Does your model also predict Tate's mass anomaly
and Tajamar-deMato's London moment ?

Sue...

You'd have to explain to me what they are and direct me
to formal refs, because I never heard of these.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607086

Interesting, but this is only an abstract from the looks
of it. Do you know where I can look at a complete
account of the experiments ?

This seems to refer to the know experiments that
result in a small magnet floating above some super
cooled material. As far as I have been able to
analyze such setup, it is just plain magnetism
at play. Nothing to do with gravity.

It is nothing to do with gravity if you dismiss
the reports that refer to it a "gravity made in the lab"
Look in the upper right hand corner of the absract
page and right click on the PDF.
Also arxiv and LANL sources at bottom of:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
Sue...

andr=E9 Michaud- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

User: ""
Title: Re: The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the space itself (differing permittivity)	16 Jun 2007 08:41:24 PM

On 16 juin, 19:54, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 16, 8:12 pm,

wrote:

On 16 juin, 18:29, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 16, 6:37 pm,

wrote:

On 16 juin, 14:34, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 16, 2:11 pm,

wrote:

Note both are naturally predicted by my model.

Does your model also predict Tate's mass anomaly
and Tajamar-deMato's London moment ?

Sue...

You'd have to explain to me what they are and direct me
to formal refs, because I never heard of these.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607086

Interesting, but this is only an abstract from the looks
of it. Do you know where I can look at a complete
account of the experiments ?

This seems to refer to the know experiments that
result in a small magnet floating above some super
cooled material. As far as I have been able to
analyze such setup, it is just plain magnetism
at play. Nothing to do with gravity.

It is nothing to do with gravity if you dismiss
the reports that refer to it a "gravity made in the lab"

Look in the upper right hand corner of the absract
page and right click on the PDF.

Also arxiv and LANL sources at bottom of:http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/=

SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

Sue...

Ok, got them. I recall having studied this stuff some
years ago. I'll refresh on those and will be back with
my comments.
Andr=E9 Michaud
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the space itself (differing permittivity)	16 Jun 2007 09:32:12 PM

On 16 juin, 21:41,

wrote:

On 16 juin, 19:54, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 16, 8:12 pm,

wrote:

On 16 juin, 18:29, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 16, 6:37 pm,

wrote:

On 16 juin, 14:34, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 16, 2:11 pm,

wrote:

Note both are naturally predicted by my model.

Does your model also predict Tate's mass anomaly
and Tajamar-deMato's London moment ?

Sue...

You'd have to explain to me what they are and direct me
to formal refs, because I never heard of these.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607086

Interesting, but this is only an abstract from the looks
of it. Do you know where I can look at a complete
account of the experiments ?

It is nothing to do with gravity if you dismiss
the reports that refer to it a "gravity made in the lab"

Look in the upper right hand corner of the absract
page and right click on the PDF.

Also arxiv and LANL sources at bottom of:http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GS=

P/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

Sue...

Ok, got them. I recall having studied this stuff some
years ago. I'll refresh on those and will be back with
my comments.

Andr=E9 Michaud

I get the picture. Of course the observed effect is real.
In my model, however, such an effect due to a difference
in frequency between the macroscopic magnetic fields
can only be repulsive, and can only be short range, and
has nothing to do with gravity or antigravity.
The ranges obtained don't look surprising to me. But this
can't lead much further (in my model).
I can't really fall in sync with the math since they
address stuff that doesn't exist in my model (gravitons).
If you are curious about the exclusively repulsive
magnetic interaction due to frequency differences
at the fundamental level, you can have a look at
the second part of this paper that I separated
some time ago from the main text, starting at
about page 10
On the magnetostatic inverse cube law and
magnetic monopoles
http://www.wbabin.net/science/michaud2.pdf
Might be difficult to really grasp however without
understanding the first part of the paper.
Regarding macroscopic magnetic field interaciton,
I also separated
On the Einstein-De Hass and Barnett effects
http://www.wbabin.net/science/michaud3.pdf
Andr=E9 Michaud
.

User: "Sue..."
Title: Re: The Pioneer anomaly is due to the characteristics of the space itself (differing permittivity)	17 Jun 2007 02:41:43 AM

On Jun 16, 11:32 pm,

wrote:

On 16 juin, 21:41,

wrote:

On 16 juin, 19:54, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 16, 8:12 pm,

wrote:

On 16 juin, 18:29, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 16, 6:37 pm,

wrote:

On 16 juin, 14:34, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 16, 2:11 pm,

wrote:

Note both are naturally predicted by my model.

Does your model also predict Tate's mass anomaly
and Tajamar-deMato's London moment ?

Sue...

You'd have to explain to me what they are and direct me
to formal refs, because I never heard of these.