What decides which flybys show an anomaly?
Five answers, none aheadNone is ahead yet. See what would settle it.
Where it stands
Five answers have been proposed. None is ahead on the evidence yet. Five are still possible.
Why it matters
Any explanation must account for both the anomalies and the nulls; the empirical formulas proposed so far have not predicted new flybys[1].
Answers 5
History
- Anderson et al. puts forward: the difference between incoming and outgoing declinations, as in the Anderson formula.
- Anderson et al.: fits the six flybys known in 2008.For: The difference between incoming and outgoing declinations, as in the Anderson formula.
- Busack puts forward: an alternative empirical formula (Busack 2007) that predicted the Rosetta null results.
- Acedo puts forward: local parameters at perigee, as for a latitude-dependent force of about 300 km range.
- Acedo: a multivariate fit of nine flybys predicts non-zero values only for Galileo II, NEAR and Cassini within…For: Local parameters at perigee, as for a latitude-dependent force of about 300 km range.
- Acedo et al.: juno showed no clear anomaly against a predicted +6 mm/s.Against: The difference between incoming and outgoing declinations, as in the Anderson formula.
- Acedo et al.: juno's anomaly was at the threshold of detection or absent.Against: An alternative empirical formula (Busack 2007) that predicted the Rosetta null results.
- Yalcinbas puts forward: the land-sea distribution under the trajectory modulates the effect.
- Yalcinbas: a stable sign structure across the primary flyby set under changes of weighting.For: The land-sea distribution under the trajectory modulates the effect.
- Asked on this site