The reason for EVERYTHING.

Originally posted by Red73Eng
If what OP is saying is true, than I don't understand why he cares about way how he publish the data in possesion?

Unfortunately I don't have "possession" of any of the data so I can't actually "publish" it here or anywhere else. I can point you to places where you can discover it for yourself, in the form if "links" to sites or documents though.

Originally posted by Trublbrwing
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

I have read the data, it does not rule out the presence of a perturbing force, it rules certain types of objects as being the source for those perturbing forces. The author is one of the few who will even consider the possibility of an unseen perturber and has written extensively in support of the Planet X hypothesis.

That is because the suggestions of a gravitational perturbing force, such as a gravitational body or The Modified Newtonian dynamics or MOND hypothesis have not been substantiated:

Gravity:

It is possible that deceleration is caused by gravitational forces from unidentified sources such as the Kuiper belt or dark matter. However, this acceleration does not show up in the orbits of the outer planets, so any generic gravitational answer would need to violate the equivalence principle (see modified inertia below). Likewise, the anomaly does not appear in the orbits of Neptune's moons, challenging the possibility that the Pioneer anomaly may be an unconventional gravitational phenomenon based on range from the Sun

MOND hypothesis:

The Modified Newtonian dynamics or MOND hypothesis proposes that the force of gravity deviates from the traditional Newtonian value to a very different force law at very low accelerations on the order of 10−10 m/s2.[37] Given the low accelerations placed on the spacecraft while in the outer solar system, MOND may be in effect, modifying the normal gravitational equations. The Lunar Laser Ranging experiment combined with data of LAGEOS satellites refutes that simple gravity modification is the cause of the Pioneer anomaly.[38] The precession of the longitudes of perihelia of the solar planets[11] or the trajectories of long-period comets[39] have not been reported to experience an anomalous gravitational field toward the Sun of the magnitude capable of describing the Pioneer anomaly.

While the thermal recoil force fits nicely, they are still looking into verifying it, either with New Horizons on it's way to Pluto, and/or with a dedicated mission that would take a new craft out to 200 AU.

The point is, the Pioneer Anomaly does not provide proof positive of a Planet X or large unknown body.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
This is some trippy stuff. I'd like to know where you got your information...

Believe it or not I got the information from the exact same people and organizations who deny the existence of this problem. Long boring conferences, peer reviewed journals, scientific community blogs in short, the most boring places on Earth.
I have suffered greatly to bring this to the table for you.

Originally posted by RueBakon
Sooo....If "it" is the reason for everything, what is the conclusion exactly?

There is a ton of "X" commentary to sift through on ATS.....Is what you're saying something that could compliment an existing thread on this subject?

There really isn't any conclusion yet, which is the reason for the thread. I think we're all being led to believe the scientific community has things under control, that they know what's going on. I don't think they have any idea what's happening. Simply creating mathematical formulas by the dozen until one fits and plugs a hole in the data is not the same as looking at why things happen. It has gotten to a point where the mountain of data coming in from multiple sources has overwhelmed the people who are supposed to analyze it. The use of "Monte Carlo" aka random numbers is no longer the exception, it is the standard operating procedure.

reply to post by eriktheawful

Again, I apologize for not posting the quote since I get lost when there are more than two posts, so I'll respond in order of your comments.
1. Regarding gravity, while not confirming it's existence, there is reference to an "unidentified source" as a possible cause. Secondly they only rule out our own Sun as a source of the Pioneer Anomaly not any other source.
2. Regarding MOND (Modified Newtonian Gravity) they again dismiss our own Sun as a source of the anomaly but offer no other solution.
I think the biggest mistake NASA made was only sending Pioneer in that direction, to this day the area "behind the Sun" is virtually unknown.

Originally posted by Trublbrwing
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

Again, I apologize for not posting the quote since I get lost when there are more than two posts, so I'll respond in order of your comments.
1. Regarding gravity, while not confirming it's existence, there is reference to an "unidentified source" as a possible cause. Secondly they only rule out our own Sun as a source of the Pioneer Anomaly not any other source.
2. Regarding MOND (Modified Newtonian Gravity) they again dismiss our own Sun as a source of the anomaly but offer no other solution.
I think the biggest mistake NASA made was only sending Pioneer in that direction, to this day the area "behind the Sun" is virtually unknown.

Please.........for the love of all that is decent, do not use that phrase: "behind the sun".

There are way too many here on ATS that seem to lack even the basics in astronomy, and seem to think that celestial object can some how hide behind the sun (like a animal waiting to ambush it's prey), and I do mean literally, right behind the sun, or that objects can some how approach the Earth from the direction of the south pole and not be seen by anyone in the southern hemisphere......or worse, it's behind the sun AND approaching towards the Earth south pole....

The reason that Pioneer 11, Voyager 1 and 2 were sent in the directions that they were sent in was to allow for their approach to their target planets. Pioneer 10's mission was to fly by Jupiter, and due to it's 11 year orbit and when it was launched, is why it went in that direction. 11's mission was to do the same thing, but also Saturn, and was launched a year later, so it's path took it in the direction that it went

New Horizons is being sent in towards where they went because that is where Pluto will be.

I'm confident that if there is any large enough body to be found out there, the WISE data should show it. So far the data has not.

Originally posted by Ghezuz
I am ready to follow you in this thread, but first I would like for you to show me any data, orbital changes or statistic demonstrating that the premise of your thread is correct.

The premise being that the earth's gravitational orbit has been altered in any way by an object in space that we have not detected.

Astronomers have found some unexplainable perturbations in the orbits of the outer planets. They believe that there is an as yet undiscovered planetary body of great mass but too far out to see yet with current telescope technology. Who knows, maybe there really is a Niburu.

Originally posted by happykat39

Originally posted by Ghezuz
I am ready to follow you in this thread, but first I would like for you to show me any data, orbital changes or statistic demonstrating that the premise of your thread is correct.

The premise being that the earth's gravitational orbit has been altered in any way by an object in space that we have not detected.

Astronomers have found some unexplainable perturbations in the orbits of the outer planets. They believe that there is an as yet undiscovered planetary body of great mass but too far out to see yet with current telescope technology. Who knows, maybe there really is a Niburu.

en.wikipedia.org...:Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field_diagram.jpg

You think Hubble can't see that far? Ummm, I think you might be wrong about that.

The only news I can find about changing orbits is in relation to the changes to Uranus' orbit, which they are attributing to Neptune. So not unknown, so you may possibly also be wrong about that.

physics.stackexchange.com...


EDITED: - I can't get that wiki link to work as it points to a wiki file. Try this, manually,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field_diagram.jpg

reply to post by nothingwrong


Not all astronomers agree with each other and some data may just be out of date. I honestly don't remember where I read it but the article definitely stated that the disturbances in the orbits of the outer planets could not be accounted for by just the effects of any of the nearer planets. I'm typing this in the middle of the night on a potty break. I will do a Google search when I am fully awake and post the results.

Originally posted by happykat39
reply to post by nothingwrong

 

Not all astronomers agree with each other and some data may just be out of date. I honestly don't remember where I read it but the article definitely stated that the disturbances in the orbits of the outer planets could not be accounted for by just the effects of any of the nearer planets. I'm typing this in the middle of the night on a potty break. I will do a Google search when I am fully awake and post the results.

OK, sounds good - I am always up for reading new stuff about the planets etc... Any and all new links are welcome! :O)

I will have a dig around too. But I have to admit to being highly skeptical.

reply to post by Trublbrwing


I've bookmarked this thread and will keep an eye on it. Still expectant. No, I'm not pregnant.

reply to post by happykat39


Your information is about two decades out of date. When Voyager 2 did a fly-by of Neptune we learned that our estimates of it mass were off. With the new mass plugged in the perturbations disappeared.

Originally posted by Trublbrwing

Originally posted by Red73Eng
If what OP is saying is true, than I don't understand why he cares about way how he publish the data in possesion?

Unfortunately I don't have "possession" of any of the data so I can't actually "publish" it here or anywhere else. I can point you to places where you can discover it for yourself, in the form if "links" to sites or documents though.

So earlier when you said you have all this data but are awaiting the right time to post was a lie?

Everyone can browse the web, that doesn't mean they have proof/data of anything other than their word that they can use the internet.

Originally posted by Trublbrwing

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
This is some trippy stuff. I'd like to know where you got your information...

Believe it or not I got the information from the exact same people and organizations who deny the existence of this problem. Long boring conferences, peer reviewed journals, scientific community blogs in short, the most boring places on Earth.
I have suffered greatly to bring this to the table for you.

The other people at these conferences are there due to and interest and understanding of their sciences if you find them boring then either you have a misunderstanding of the science or a lack of interest which then questions your agenda for posting your interpretation of this info and pushing it as being right.

Have you made a mistake in your interpretation of the papers you supplied or are have you got something else going?

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
reply to post by Trublbrwing

 

I've bookmarked this thread and will keep an eye on it. Still expectant. No, I'm not pregnant.

I appreciate your being patient, I can assure you there is more information coming, just need the best way to post it.
Past experience has taught me the method of presentation is far more important then what's on the plate, if it's not easily understood or has holes in it I'm wasting everyone's time.

reply to post by Trublbrwing


Acknowledged and understood. Standing by.

Originally posted by InhaleExhale

Originally posted by Trublbrwing

Originally posted by Red73Eng
If what OP is saying is true, than I don't understand why he cares about way how he publish the data in possesion?

Unfortunately I don't have "possession" of any of the data so I can't actually "publish" it here or anywhere else. I can point you to places where you can discover it for yourself, in the form if "links" to sites or documents though.

So earlier when you said you have all this data but are awaiting the right time to post was a lie?

Everyone can browse the web, that doesn't mean they have proof/data of anything other than their word that they can use the internet.

First, I don't lie, ever.
Second, my comment was I don't have "possession" of the documents which is true in the sense that I have no ownership or right to publish them. What I do have is direct links to hundreds of documents from multiple credible sources, along with copious notes on the contents of those documents.
I'm not waiting for "the right time" to post the links, I'm looking for the right links to the documents that will explain the situation without anyone else having to spend months combing through them. My original plan was to do a "dump" and just post everything, then I realized the chances of anyone actually reading it all was less than zero. On more than one occasion I have wrestled with the idea of saying nothing.
I'm not some kind of crusader with a goal of saving humanity from a pending cataclysm, I'm a person who has seen certain things which are not public knowledge and in my opinion they should be.

Originally posted by InhaleExhale

Originally posted by Trublbrwing

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
This is some trippy stuff. I'd like to know where you got your information...

Believe it or not I got the information from the exact same people and organizations who deny the existence of this problem. Long boring conferences, peer reviewed journals, scientific community blogs in short, the most boring places on Earth.
I have suffered greatly to bring this to the table for you.

The other people at these conferences are there due to and interest and understanding of their sciences if you find them boring then either you have a misunderstanding of the science or a lack of interest which then questions your agenda for posting your interpretation of this info and pushing it as being right.

Have you made a mistake in your interpretation of the papers you supplied or are have you got something else going?

I won't get into the pro's and con's of journals and conferences with you because it really isn't a major component of the thread. To your other points I will say, my interest in the subject matter should be obvious, and I have no agenda beyond sharing information I believe everyone should see.
How I interpret the data IS a major component, and that is the entire reason for the thread. We all assume the space program is in good hands and all is well unless we hear otherwise, it is because of this perception that NASA was comfortable using "Gravity Recovery" in a mission title with no hesitation. By posting the definition of the word "Recovery" I have invited you to interpret the real purpose of the GRAIL and GRACE missions.
Gravity changes in the Sun-Earth-Moon system would account for virtually every climate issue we are seeing and I intend to prove that in this thread.

Originally posted by WhoDat09
reply to post by Trublbrwing

 

So then how would we know if they found or saw anything? I don't think they'll release anything about it even if they do.

Also I wouldn't think that finding a huge rogue planet somewhere in our solar system would require very sophisticated equipment, if it is coming right at us .....surely someone with a telescope somewhere in the world would have seen it by now? or am I wrong?

Mais cher t'bebe, I've got an Orion XT8 Intelliscope......what'cha wan' me to look for, dat?

reply to post by stupid girl

Mais cher t'bebe, I've got an Orion XT8 Intelliscope......what'cha wan' me to look for, dat?

Intelligent life, 'cause I sure as hell ain't found any here on Earth.