Comment: A Solution to the Pioneer Anomalous Annual and Diurnal Residuals by E. D. Greaves, et al., 2021 Progress in Physics, vol. 17, 2, p. 168
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparison is made between Greaves, E. D., Bracho, C., Gift, S., and Rodrigues, A. N., 2021. A Solution to the Pioneer Anomalous Annual and Diurnal Residuals, Progress in Physics, vol. 17, 2, p. 168. and Hodge, J. C. 2006. Scalar potential model of the Pioneer Anomaly.arXiv: astro-ph/0612567v1. Both papers suggest the Pioneer Anomaly obser- vation is due to the signal being modified by a characteristic of space that is influenced by the Sun and Earth. The papers differ by what that characteristic is and how it influences the signal. The former paper uses “energy density” (a scalar) which is proportional to distance (r-4) from bodies. All the characteristics of the former paper were accounted in the original calculation of the Pioneer Anomaly. The latter paper used a vector proportional to r-2, a gravitational force exerted on photons that was not accounted. The different treatment of r by the latter provides a more accurate treatment of the periodicities and all 10 anomalous characteristics of the Pioneer Anomaly. The conclusions of the former that the velocity of light is Galilean additive and the use of the “gravitational density” are not supported.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".