This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pioneer anomaly article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pioneer anomaly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I see the MOND section has had a dispute placed on it for a long time but I don't see a discussion. Shall we remove this template?
--MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
It has been claimed that the anomaly is equal to difference of relativistic and galilean doppler shifts, and might be an error in the JPL code. Even if they are numerically approximately equal, this is not the explanation for the anomaly. Since the effect is subtle, many have doubted the original calculation (which the double checked with independent navigation code in the very first paper), making a software error exceedingly unlikely. Some of the many replications are:
And according to The Pioneer Anomaly Project, there are at least 3 others.
So this hypothesis should not go into the article until it gets at least some independent backing from a reliable source (cites, peer review, etc.) LouScheffer (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
This section is written as if the anomaly is not well-explained, e.g. stating without citation that the accepted explanation only accounts foe 10% of the anomaly, in contradiction to the rest of the article. It also provides no citations to papers or other research supporting the claim that the anomaly can be explained by Celestial ephemerides. It reads like original research (or to put it less politely, somebody's pet theory.)
I propose that this subsection be removed entirely. Czetie (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I removed the "factual accuracy disputed" tag from 2014 on the sub-section "MOND". Since all the sub-sections here in the fall under the section "previously proposed explanations", all that is required is to show they were indeed proposed, not that they are now believed to be correct. LouScheffer (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)