The Puzzle of Astronomy's Unexplained Anomalies

[Nyrath]

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23865/

 

These are a bit esoteric, but any or all of them could be used with a Sinister Explanation as a plot seed for your Star Hero campaign, or as a justification for whatever baloney hand-waving physics you wish to introduce into the background.

[Jomster]

Re: The Puzzle of Astronomy's Unexplained Anomalies

 

A general "that looks a bit technical" silence has followed that one.

 

But yes, they could be quite useful plot seeds.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: The Puzzle of Astronomy's Unexplained Anomalies

 

I knew about all of those except the Saturn one. It'll be interesting to see how those turn out, regardless of it being a new theory or a "um, it was measurement error" end of things.

[sinanju]

Re: The Puzzle of Astronomy's Unexplained Anomalies

 

3. Then there is the Pioneer anomaly, the small but steady slowing of the Pioneer spacecraft as they move out of the solar system. Nobody has been able to satisfactorily explain what's pulling them back, although there has been no shortage of attempts.

 

The universe really IS only 6,000 years old. All the light from all those stars supposedly older than that really IS part of God's plan to mislead those who refuse to take things on Faith.

 

The probe is slowing down because there AIN'T anything outside the solar system. As it approaches the edge of the system, it will go slower and slower and slower--like trying to approach light speed.

[Basil]

Re: The Puzzle of Astronomy's Unexplained Anomalies

 

"www.technologyreview.com could not be found."

 

Dang, what happened? Three days later, and it's gone!

[Nyrath]

Re: The Puzzle of Astronomy's Unexplained Anomalies

 

"www.technologyreview.com could not be found."

 

Dang, what happened? Three days later, and it's gone!

Odd. I can reach it just fine.

[Basil]

Re: The Puzzle of Astronomy's Unexplained Anomalies

 

The page now comes up for me.

 

The first "anomaly" is said to be a change in acceleration. Reading the relevant article however shows it's a change in velocity. Anyone who can't keep straight the difference between acceleration and velocity should not be writing science articles.

 

Regarding #2: The Earth is rotating more and more slowly. Thus, it's angular momentum is decreasing. Angular momentum can be neither created nor destroyed. Thus, there must be an increase in angular momentum somewhere else. An increase in the size of the orbit of the Earth around the Sun is an increase in angular momentum. Now, some may point out that the increase in the size of Luna's orbit is an increase it momentum; true, but is it enough? You see, it is convenient to treat the Earth-Luna system in isolation, but it is incomplete; what should be considered is the Sun-Earth-Luna system (actually, all of the planets have an effect, but those effects are small enough to ignore for a first-pass approximation; the Sun's effect isn't, though it is often treated as if it is). Thus, the question is, since the Earth and Luna are rotating more and more slowly, where does the angular momentum get moved to? The increasing Earth-Luna distance may not be enough to balance out the angular momentum. I don't have the numbers, nor sufficient background, to tell whether this suggestion is borne out, but I hardly find it that much of an anomaly.

 

But it's #4 that shows the writer doesn't understand what he's talking about:

4. Finally, Anderson and Nieto point to the increase in eccentricity of the moon's orbit, as measured by laser-ranging measurements between 1970 and 2008. These data show that the moon's apogee and perigee have increased in distance by about 3.5 millimeters per year.

If the total of the apogee and perigee are increasing, that says damnall about the eccentricity; it means the size of the orbit is increasing. And that's something that (A) has been known for DECADES, and ( is caused by the 'transfer' of angular momentum from the Earth's slowing spin.

OTOH, if the apogee and perigee are each increasing by ~3.5 mm per year, then the eccentricity is DECREASING; the 3.5 mm is a larger fraction of the perigee than of the apogee, and the orbit is thus becoming (slightly) more circular.

 

Though I'm not surprised at these errors --- Anyone who writes something like this is writing junk so full of hogwash it's slopping out of the trough.

 

I didn't bother with the rest of the "anomalies".