Talk:Pioneer anomaly/Archive for 2009
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Pioneer anomaly. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
OK, hopefully no one hates me for this
I converted many inline links and many bare refs into cite webs. I dug down and cited underlying refs in a couple of cases. I worked on copy throughout. I removed content obsoleted by time (some not updated since 2005, it appears).
There is still much that can be done.
I am CONFIDENT that I damaged something, somewhere, and I apologize for that. I found a few and fixed them where I saw them.
I think overall the article is better now.
Best regards. :) sinneed (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Conjecture?
"The magnitude of the Pioneer effect is numerically quite close to the product of the speed of light and the Hubble constant, but the significance of this, if any, is unknown." This part seems a reasonable part to drop, or at least flag and then drop it eventually if no one sources why it should even conceivably be significant... there are so many constants and measurements that almost any number will be numerically similar to a product/sum/whatever of some of them. :) I was going to restore the sourced bit about the expansion of the universe thing. I wondered if it might be better in the "possible explanations" area.
I read the edit summary, and I think that is what the IP was saying... 1 sentence conjecture, 2nd sentence nice but belonged somewhere else. I don't think the 2nd bit should have been cut...maybe moved and reworked a bit. Either way, you beat me to the restore. :)sinneed (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
What about gravity waves?
Redshifting gravity waves could make a craft like that deacelerate. But we know so little about that.
I wonder too if you could make the same experiment with blueshifting gravity waves trowing something to the sun at high speeds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.33.63 (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Predicted by Paul LaViolette
According to this interview (time ca. 01:42:00) this phenomenon was first predicted by Paul LaViolette. __meco (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out. A quick goggling found this online excerpt from LaViolette's 1985 paper, and this press release. I have my doubts about his claim, but I'll have to read up on this before I can form an opinion about including it in the article. Paradoctor (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that claim is credible. -- BenRG (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Great. Why? Paradoctor (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)