The Flyby Anomaly and the Effect of a TopologicalTorsion Current
Mario J. Pinheiro1
aDepartment of Physics, Instituto Superior Tecnico - IST, Universidade de Lisboa - UL,Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal
Abstract
A new variational technique determines the general condition of equilibrium of
a rotating gravitational and/or electromagnetic system and provides a modified
dynamical equation of motion from where it emerges a so-far unforseen topo-
logical torsion current (TTC) [Mario J. Pinheiro (2013) ’A Variational Method
in Out-of-Equilibrium Physical Systems’, Scientific Reports 3, Article number:
3454]. We suggest that the TTC may explain, in a simple and direct way, the
anomalous acceleration detected in spacecrafts during close planetary flybys.
In addition, we theorize that TTC may represent an unforeseen relationship
between linear momentum and angular motion through the agency of a vector
potential.
Keywords: Variational Methods in Classical Mechanics; Statistical physics,
thermodynamics, and nonlinear dynamical systems; Celestial mechanics
(including n-body problems); Relativity and gravitation
1. Introduction1
Flyby (or swing-by, gravitational slingshot, or gravity assist maneuver) is2
a well-known method in interplanetary spaceflight to alter the path and the3
speed of a spacecraft using the gravity of a planet or other astronomical object4
URL: http://web.ist.utl.pt/d2493/ (Mario J. Pinheiro)[email protected]
Preprint submitted to Elsevier August 12, 2014
(see, e.g., Ref. [1]). The rescue of the Apollo crew in 1970 was the first flyby5
maneuver ever did, using the Lunar flyby [2].6
But the flyby anomaly is one among other, possibly related, several astro-7
metric anomalies that are referred in the technical literature, such as the change8
of the solar mass over time M� (changes that result from a balance between the9
mass loss due to radiation and solar wind compensated by falling materials con-10
tained in comets, rocks and asteroids) leading to the observation of a decrease of11
the heliocentric gravitation constant per year GM�/GM� = (−5.0±4.1).10−1412
per year and a changing of the astronomical unit by approximately 10 m per cen-13
tury [3]. Quite surprisingly, dark matter does not have a gravitational influence14
in the solar system because its density is very low [4]. The angular momentum15
of the Sun seems to be smaller than expected (S� ≤ 0.95 × 1041 kg m2 s−1)16
unless the prediction of the gravitomagnetic perihelion precession of Mercury in17
the frame of the best theory of the gravitational interaction which is the Ein-18
steinian General Theory of Relativity is wrong [5, 6]. The anomalous behavior of19
the Saturnian perihelion cannot be explained in the framework of the standard20
Newtonian and Einsteinian General Theory of Relativity [7], also suggesting21
the need of new physics or the effect of an external tidal potential acting on the22
Solar System or a new hypothetical huge body, Tyche [8, 9]. The phenomeno-23
logical modification of Newtonian dynamics proposed by MOND doesn’t offer a24
satisfying explanation for Cassini spacecraft anomaly [8]. The Faint Young Sun25
Paradox [10, 11, 12] can possibly be accommodated within a certain general26
class of gravitational theories with nonminimal coupling between metric and27
matter predicting a secular variation of the Earth heliocentric distance [13, 14].28
Recent analysis of a Lunar Laser Ranging data record revealed an anomalous29
increase of the eccentricity rate of the lunar orbit [15, 16, 14, 17]. This effect30
is not related to a possible change of the speed of light [16] or some dissipation31
at the lunar core and mantle [15], but possibly non-tidal explanations can be32
viable [17].33
However, astrometric data points to the existence of at least four unexplained34
anomalies, from the small and constant Doppler frequency drift shown by the35
3
radio-metric data from Pioneer 10/11, which can be interpreted as a uniform36
acceleration of aP = (8.74 ± 1.33)10−8 cm/s2 towards the Sun found in the37
data of both spacecraft when they were at a distance of 20 au away from the38
Sun [18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23] to the disturbing observation that a number of39
satellites in Earth flyby have undergone mysterious energy changes [22]. This40
effect is essentially a slight departure from Newtonian acceleration (see also41
Ref. [24] for an overview of unexplained phenomena within our Solar system42
and in the universe) having been shown in different number of ways [18, 20]43
that it is not a real gravitational phenomena that would certainly have impacted44
also other major bodies of the solar system. The possibility that this uniform45
Sunward acceleration, as the one experienced by the Pioneer spacecraft, might46
have a gravitational nature, was shown to be erroneous [25, 26, 27, 28], not even47
being able to affect the motion of the outer planets of the Solar system [29, 30].48
Rindler-type extra-acceleration on test particles were ruled out altogether since49
it would affect the main features of the Oort cloud [31] and exotic physics is50
most probably not affecting Pioneer spacecraft trajectories [32].51
The possibility the the Pioneer anomaly might have a different non-gravitational52
origin, like a recoil force associated with an anisotropic emission of thermal ra-53
diation off the spacecraft was proposed [33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39]. As referred54
before, a secular change in the astronomical unit (au) d(au)dt = 7±2 m cy−1 [40]55
was reported [41, 40, 42] and several explanations were proposed, among them,56
the change in the moment of inertia of the Sun due to radiative mass loss [43]57
but the possible variation of the dark matter density was ruled out [44]. The58
huge importance of the problem and the uncertainties related to the causes of59
its variation lead to the proposal of fixing the value of au [45, 46, 47]. There is60
other proposed explanations for this effect, among them we may refer: an adi-61
abatic acceleration of light due to an adiabatic decreasing of the permeability62
and permittivity of empty space [48]; the dilaton-like Jordan-Brans-Dicke scalar63
field as the source of dark energy and giving rise to a new term of force with64
magnitude aP = Fr/m = −c2/RH (RH is the Hubble scale), see Ref. [49]; light65
speed anisotropy [50] based on Lorentz space-time interpretation and resorting66
4
from the earlier measurement od D. C. Miller (see also Ref. [51] which gives an67
interesting reformulation of special theory of relativity); a computer modeling68
technique called Phong reflection model [52] may apparently explains the effect69
as mainly due to the heat reflected from the main compartment, but it still70
needs confirmation.71
The flyby anomaly appears as a shift in the Doppler data of Earth-flybys72
of several spacecrafts and it is currently interpreted as an anomalous velocity73
jumps, positive and negative, of the order of a few mm s−1 observed near closest74
approach during the Earth flybys [53, 54]. Several attempts to explain the flyby75
anomaly have been put forth so far. For example, as far as standard physics76
is concerned, it was shown that Rosetta flyby is unlikely due to thermal recoil77
pressure [55], it is not due to Lorentz forces [56], might be due to gravitoelec-78
tric (contributing up to 10−2 mm s−1)and gravitomagnetic forces (up to 10−579
mm s−1) [57]. It was shown that the general relativistic Lense-Thirring effect80
or a Rindler-type radial uniform acceleration were not the cause of the flyby81
anomaly [23]. Exotic explanations were advanced based on a possible modifi-82
cation of inertia at very low acceleration when Unruh wavelengths exceed the83
Hubble distance [58]; the elastic and inelastic scattering of ordinary matter with84
dark matter, although submitted to highly constraints [59, 60]; how Conformal85
Gravity affects the trajectories of geodesic motion around a rotating spherical86
object, but are not expected to cause the flyby origin [61].87
In this paper, we suggest a possible theoretical explanation of the physical88
process underlying the unexpected orbital-energy change observed during the89
close planetary flybys [22, 62] based on the topological torsion current (TTC)90
found in a previous work [63]. Anderson et al. [64] proposed an helicity-rotation91
coupling that is more akin to our proposal. However, the anomalous acceleration92
cannot be explained by means of their mechanism due to its small magnitude.93
The topological torsion current was obtained in the framework of a new varia-94
tional principle based on the fundamental equation of thermodynamics treated95
as a differential form. That formulation gives a set of two first order differen-96
tial equations that have the same symplectic structure as classical mechanics,97
5
fluid dynamics and thermodynamics. That procedure can be applied to inves-98
tigate out-of-equilibrium dynamic systems and from that approach it emerges99
a topological torsion current of the form εijkAjωk, where Aj and ωk denote100
the components of the vector potential (here, the gravitational) and where ω101
denotes the angular velocity of the accelerated frame.102
2. Outlines of the method103
A standard technique for treating thermodynamical systems on the basis of104
information-theoretic framework has been developed previously [65, 66, 67, 63].105
We can find in technical literature several textbooks that give an overview over106
the subject, see e.g., Ref. [68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73]. The referred work may be107
applied to a self-gravitating plasma system, and the extended mathematical108
formalism developed to investigate out-of-equilibrium systems in the framework109
of the information theory, can be applied for the analysis of the equilibrium and110
stability of a gravitational and electromagnetic system (e.g., rotating plasma,111
or spacecraft in a gravitationally-assisted manoeuver).112
Our method is fundamentally based on the method of Lagrange multipliers113
applied to the total entropy of an ensemble of particles. However, we use the114
fundamental equation of thermodynamics dU = TdS−∑k Fkdx
k on differential115
forms, considering U and S as 0-forms. As we have shown in a previous work [67]116
we obtain a set of two first order differential equations that reveal the same117
formal symplectic structure shared by classical mechanics, fluid mechanics and118
thermodynamics.119
Following the mathematical procedure proposed in Ref. [67] the total entropy
of the system S, considered as a formal entity describing an out-of-equilibrium
physical system, is given by
S =
N∑α=1
{S(α)[E(α) − (p(α))2
2m(α)− q(α)V (α) + q(α)(A(α) · v(α))−
6
m(α)φ(α)(r)−m(α)N∑β=1
φ(α,β)] + (a · p(α) + b · ([r(α) × p(α)])}. (1)
Although it has been argued that S was defined for equilibrium states and had120
no time dependence of any kind, one might think that it must be possible to121
describe entropy by some means during the evolution of a physical system. But122
if the time evolution of others physical quantities can be made, like energy E,123
pressure P and number of particles N , then why not S. As in our previous124
work [63], regardless of these uncertainties, the explanation proposed here pro-125
vides a different input to move further toward a better understanding of the126
role of entropy.127
The conditional extremum points give the canonical momentum and the
dynamical equations of motion of a general physical system in out-of-equilibrium
conditions. Then the two first order differential equations can be represented in
the form (see Ref. [67]):
∂p(α) S ≥ 0 (2)
∂r(α) S = −η∂r(α)U (α) − ηm(α)∂tv(α) ≥ 0. (3)
Here, η ≡ 1/T is the inverse of the ”temperature” (not being used so far), and
we use condensed notation: ∂p(α) ≡ ∂/ ∂p(α) . Then we obtain a general equation
of dynamics for electromagnetic-gravitational systems:
ρdv
dt= ρE + [J×B]−∇∇∇φ−∇∇∇p+ ρ[A×ωωω]. (4)
The last term of Eq. 4 represents the topological torsion current [67] (TTC)128
and we may stress how A may be considered physically real, even in the frame129
of the gravitational field, despite eventually the arbitrariness in its divergence.130
This force does work in order to increase the rotational energy of the system,131
producing a rocket-like rotation effect on a plasma, or the orbital-energy change132
7
observed during the close planetary flybys, an issue thoroughly discussed in133
Ref. [74]. Moreover, the topological torsion current emerge from the universal134
competition between entropy and energy, each one seeking a different equilib-135
rium condition (this happens in the case of planetary atmospheres, when energy136
tends to assemble all atmospheric molecules on the surface of the planet, but137
entropy seeks to spread them evenly in all available space). This TTC may138
be envisaged as the missing force term in the traditional hierarchy of agencies139
responsible for the motion of matter, as depicted in Fig. 1, and following along140
the same electromagnetic analogy proposed by Chua [75]. The basic four phys-141
ical quantities are the electric current i (or speed v), the voltage V (or the142
force F ), the charge q (or the position x), and the flux-linkage Φ (or momen-143
tum p = mv). Under the logical point of view, from six possible combinations144
among these four variables, five are already well-known. However, the TTC145
points to the existence of a so-far unforeseen relationship between momentum146
and angular motion through the agency of a vector potential (see Refs. [75, 76]).147
2.1. Application to the Flyby Anomaly148
It is implicit into Eq. 4 the action of the vector potential over a given body,149
besides the E and B-fields, a term analogue to a rotational electric field. Fig. 2150
illustrates the typical planetary flyby by a spacecraft in the geocentric equatorial151
frame and the orbital elements, where h is the angular momentum normal to152
the plane of the orbit and e is the eccentricity vector pointing along the apse153
line of the arrival hyperbola.154
Let us apply the new governing equation to the planetary flyby of a given
spacecraft of mass m nearby a planet of mass M , as illustrated in Fig. 2 (see,
e.g., Ref. [77, 78]). Hence, in cylindrical geometry, and taking into account the
TTC effect alone, Eq. 4 becomes (Fig. 2 shows the Earth flyby geometry):
mdvθdt
= mωzAr sin I. (5)
The above Eq. 5 is written in the geocentric system since it is where the radio
8
V F
I v
Q (x,q)
F=LI p=mv
dQ=idt dx=vdt
dF=Vdt dp=Fdt
dV RdI=
dF Rdv=
1dV dQ
C=
dF kdx=
d LdIF =
dp mdv= d MdQF =
dp Ad=
Figure 1: The missing fourth element of force: following an analogy with the electromagneticfield, it is expected a new element of force, the topological torsion current. It is shown thestandard symbols used for resistors, capacitors, solenoids and memristors.
9
tracking data is obtained. Notice that the velocity of the spacecraft relative
to the Sun is given by vsS = vsP + VPS , where vsP is its velocity relative to
the planet and VPS is the velocity of the planet relative to the Sun. But if we
consider the term VPS time-independent, Eq. 5 gives at the end the azimuthal
velocity component of the spacecraft relative to Earth. Then, if we take due
care of the retardation of the gravitational field, it is appropriate to use the
gravitational vector potential under the (Lienard-Wiechert) form
A(r, t) =G
c2MvsP
| r− r′ |(1− vsP ·n′
c
) . (6)
Here, r is the vector position of the planet (e.g., Earth) and r′ is the vector
position of the spacecraft, both in the heliocentric system; n′ is the unit vector
(r−r′)/R, with R =| r−r′ |, see Fig. 2. We assume that VPS = VPSJ and that
the planet moves perpendicularly to the vernal line (the Sun is located on the
side of the axis −I), along the J axis (see Fig. 2), and therefore (A · n′) = Ar
is the radial component, since what counts in Eq. 6 is the relative velocity
between spacecraft and planet. The approach velocity vector vap is expressed
in the approach plane (i, j,h) as follows (the unit vector i points along the planet
direction of motion):
vap = vapxi + vapyj + vapzh, (7)
and the general representation of the spacecraft velocity vector relative to Earth
in the direct orthonormal frame is given by
vapx = VP + v∞ cos(ω ∓ θ)
vapy = v∞ sin(ω ∓ θ)
vapz = 0.
(8)
Here, v∞ is the excess hyperbolic speed of the spacecraft with respect to the
planet. We denote by ω⊕ the Earth’s angular velocity of rotation, R⊕ the
Earth’s mean radius, G the gravitational constant. The transit time dt of the
10
spacecraft at the average distance R⊕ (assumed here the radius of the sphere of
influence) from the center of the planet (we assume this approximation, since
in general the spacecraft altitude is rather smaller than R⊕, see also Ref. [22]),
and we put dt = dθR⊕/vθ, where vθ is the azimuthal component of the space-
craft velocity, and dθ denotes the angular deflexion undergone by the spacecraft
during the transit time nearby the planet. Expanding Eq. 6 to first order in
(vsP · n′)/c, we may write Eq. 5 under the form:
dvθ = ω⊕ sin IGM
c2VrR⊕
dt+ ω⊕ sin IGM
c2VrR⊕
(vsP · n′)dt, (9)
or,
dv∞ = 2ω⊕R⊕ sin IGM
2R⊕c2dθ +
2ω⊕r⊕c
GM
2R⊕c2v∞ sin(ω ∓ θ) sin Idθ (10)
since (vsP ·n′) = v∞ sin(ω∓θ) and the radial component of the (relative) velocity
is Vr =√v2x + (vy − VP )2 = v∞. In order to simplify further Eq. 10 we may use
now the principle of the energy of inertia, which states that the gravitational
energy of the spacecraft on the surroundings of the planet must be equal to its
energy content according to Einstein formula, e.g., the field itself carries mass,
and hence GMm/2R⊕ = mc2. As a result from this equivalence, the velocity
variation is independent of the mass of the planet, remaining dependent of its
radius, angular velocity and the orbital inclination. Instead to integrate in θ we
may consider the connection between θ with the declination angle δ using the
trigonometric relationship (see Fig. 2):
sin(ω ∓ θ) sin I = sin δ, (11)
where I denotes the osculating orbital inclination to the equator of date, ω
is the osculating argument of the perigee along the orbit from the equator of
date. This change allows to rewrite Eq. 10 in the form of a first-order non-linear
11
differential equation
dv∞dθ
= 2ω⊕R⊕ sin I +Kv∞ sin δ(θ), (12)
where we have now put vθ = v∞ and noting that δ = δ(θ). It is worth mentioning
that the first constant term of Eq. 12 cancels out when calculating the velocity
change ∆v∞. Therefore, we obtain:
∫dv∞v∞
= lnv∞,fv∞,i
≈ ∆v∞v∞
= K(cos δi − cos δf ). (13)
Here, v∞ denotes the azimuthal speed of the spacecraft in a position far-155
away from the planetary influence (R → ∞), K ≡ 2R⊕ω⊕/c is the distance-156
independent factor, δi and δf denote the initial and final declination angles on157
the celestial sphere. Eq. 13 coincides with the heuristic formula proposed by158
Anderson [64], fitting well for spacecrafts below 2000 km of altitude and has159
been so far adjusted to high altitudes flyby [79].160
According to the present analysis the flyby anomaly may have the following161
causes: i) a drag effect from the planet by means of a Coriolis-like force that push162
or pull the spacecraft (different from frame dragging, which is debatable [80]);163
ii) a retarded effect from the gravitational field due to rotation of the planet.164
The known result, obtained by fitting with experimental data is ∆v∞/v∞ =165
K(cos δi − cos δf ), where K = 2ω⊕R⊕/c = 3.099× 10−6 [79, 81, 22].166
The dependency on the term sin I indicates that there is no anomalous ac-167
celeration when the inclination angle I is equal to zero. This result is consistent168
with the data of Table 1 collecting the orbital and anomalous dynamical pa-169
rameters of five Earth flybys as presented in Ref. [74]. For example, Cassini170
Earth flyby has no registered data for it just because there is no anomaly; by171
the contrary, when I ∼ 90 ◦, as is the case of NEAR, the variation boost to a172
higher value ∆v∞ = 13.46 ± 0.13 mm/s. Moreover, from the results obtained173
we see why, due to the vectorial nature of the topological torsion current (and174
its dependency on the inclination angle), the anomaly can either increase or175
12
X
g
Y
N
Earth’s equatorial
plane
Node line
Vernal equinox line
R
vh
Z e
Spacecraft
Perigee
d
a - Right ascension
- Declination
I
J
K
- Argument of
perigee
I - Osculating orbital
inclination
Figure 2: Planetary flyby by a spacecraft in the geocentric equatorial frame and the orbitalelements. h is the angular momentum normal to the plane of the orbit and e is the eccentricityvector. I denotes the osculating orbital inclination to the equator of date, ω is the osculatingargument of the periapsis along the orbit from the equator of date.
13
Table 1: Orbital and anomalous dynamical parameters of five Earth flybys. b is the impactparameter, A is the altitude of the flyby, I is the inclination, α is the right ascension, δ is thedeclination of the incoming (i) and outgoing (f) osculating asymptotic velocity vectors. m isthe best estimate of the total mass of the spacecraft during the flyby. v∞ is the asymptoticvelocity; ∆v∞ is the increase in the asymptotic velocity of the hyperbolic trajectory. Source:Ref. [22, 74].
Quantity Galileo (GEGA1) NEAR Cassini Rosettab (km/s) 11,261 12,850 8,973 22,680.49A (km) 956.063 532.485 1171.505 1954.303I ( ◦) 142.9 108.0 25.4 144.9m (kg) 2497.1 730.4 4612.1 2895.2α ( ◦) 163.7 240.0 223.7 269.894δ ( ◦) 2.975 -15.37 -11.16 -28.185∆v∞ (mm/s) 3.92 ± 0.08 13.46 ±0.13 ... 1.82 ± 0.05
decrease depending if the spacecraft encounters Earth on the leading or trailing176
side of its orbital path.177
3. Conclusion178
We may conclude from the above that the variational method proposed in179
Ref. [63] constitutes a powerful alternative approach to tackle problems in the180
frame of gravitational and/or electromagnetic rotating systems. The emergence181
of a new force term - the topological torsion current - offers a simple explanation182
for the flyby anomaly, in fact resulting from a combined slingshot effect (which183
is not identifiable to frame-dragging) with retardation effects due to the non-184
instantaneous character of the gravitational force. In principle, the physical185
mechanism proposed in this Letter should be applicable to other systems as186
well, like closed orbits and the other anomalies referred in the Introduction, a187
task to be undertaken in future work.188
In addition, the TTC may be well the missing fourth element of force if we189
consider the traditional hierarchy of agencies responsible for the motion of mat-190
ter (see Fig. 1) and the electromagnetic analogy proposed by Chua [75]. Based191
upon the same logical and axiomatic point of view we may establish an opera-192
tional relationship between linear and angular motion. A deeper understanding193
of the trajectory of the Near-Earth Objects, like asteroids and comets, raising194
14
significant concerns, needs a change in the standard assumptions and certainly195
a deeper understanding of the TTC contribution to the gravitational force will196
be instrumental when accessing their trajectories.197
The author thanks the three anonymous referees for their useful comments198
that greatly improved the quality of the manuscript and gratefully acknowl-199
edges partial financial support by the International Space Science Institute200
(ISSI-Bern) as a visiting scientist, expressing special thanks to Professor Roger201
Maurice-Bonnet and Dr. Maurizio Falanga.202
References203
[1] G. A. Flandro, Astronaut. Acta 12 329-337 (1966)204
[2] Apollo 13 Technical Crew Debriefing, NASA (1970, April 24). Retrieved from205
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a13/a13-techdebrief.pdf206
[3] E. V. Pitjeva, N. P. Pitjev, Solar System Research 46 (1) pp. 78-87 (2012)207
[4] N. P. Pitjev and E. V. Pitjeva, Astronomy Letters 39 (3) pp. 141-149 (2013)208
[5] L. Iorio, Space Sci. Rev. 148 (1-4), pp. 363-381 (2009)209
[6] L. Iorio, Solar Phys. 281(2) pp. 815-826 (2012)210
[7] Lorenzo Iorio, Astron. J. 137 pp. 3615-3618 (2009)211
[8] A. Hees, W. M. Folkner, R. A. Jacobson and R. S. Park, Phys. Rev. D 89, 102002212
(2014)213
[9] John J. Matese, Daniel P. Whitmire, Icarus 211 pp. 926-938 (2001)214
[10] Carl Sagan, George Mullen, Science, New Series 177 (4043) pp. 52-56 (1972)215
[11] Georg Feulner, Rev. Geophys. 50 RG2006 (2012)216
[12] Colin Goldblatt and Kevin J. Zahnle, Nature 474 E1 (2011)217
[13] L. Iorio, Class. quantum Grav. 31 085003 (2014)218
15
[14] L. Iorio, Galaxies 1(3) pp. 192-209 (2013)219
[15] Proceedings of the 16th International workshop on Laser Ranging, Poznan,220
Poland, 13-17 October 2008221
[16] J. G. Williams, S. G. Turyshev, D. H. Boggs, Planet. Sci. 3(2) pp.1-9 (2014)222
[17] L. Iorio, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 415 pp.1266-1275 (2011)223
[18] John D. Anderson, Philip A. Laing, Eunice L. Lau, Snthony S. Liu, Michael224
Martin Nieto, slava G. Turyshev, Phys. Rev. D 65(8) 082004 (2002)225
[19] Slava G. Turyshev, Michael Martin Nieto, John D. Anderson, Advances in Space226
Research 39 291-296 (2007)227
[20] Slava G. Turyshev, Viktor T. Toth, The Living Reviews in Relativity 13 (4)228
(2010)229
[21] Michael Martin Nieto, Phys. Lett. B 659 483-485 (2008)230
[22] John D. Anderson, James K. Campbell, John E. Ekelund, Jordan Ellis, and James231
F. Jordan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 091102 (2008)232
[23] L. Iorio, ”A flyby anomaly for Juno? Not from standard physics”,233
arXiv:1311.4218 [gr-qc]234
[24] Claus Lammerzahl, Oliver Preuss, Hansjorg Dittus, Astrophysics and Space Sci-235
ence Library 349 75-101 (2008)236
[25] Lorenzo Iorio, Giuseppe Giudice, New Astron. 11(8) pp. 600-607 (2006)237
[26] A. Fienga, J. Laskar, P. Kuchynka, C. Leponcin-Lafitte, H. Manche, and M.238
Gastineau, in Relativity in Fundamental Astronomy, S. A. Klioner, P. K. Sei-239
delman, and M. H. Soffel (eds), Proc. of International Astronomical Union, IAU240
Symposium 261 pp. 179-182 (2010)241
[27] E. M. Standish, in Relativity in Fundamental Astronomy, Proc. IAU Symposium242
261 pp. 179-182 (2010)243
16
[28] L. Iorio. (2006). The Lense-Thirring effect and the Pioneer anomaly: solar system244
tests. In H. Kleinert, R. T. Jantzen and R, Ruffini. Paper presented at The245
Eleventh Marcel Grossmann Meeting, 23-29 July (Ch. 458, pp. 2558-2560). Berlin,246
Germany: World Scientific.247
[29] Lorenzo Iorio, Found. Phys. 37 (6) pp. 897-918 (2007)248
[30] Gary L. Page, John F. Wallin, and David S. Dixon, Astrophys. J. 697(2) pp.249
1261-1241 (2009)250
[31] Lorenzo Iorio, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 419(3) pp. 2226-2232 (2012)251
[32] John F. Wallin, David S. Dixon, and Gary L. Page, Astrophys. J. 666(2) pp.252
1296-1302 (2007)253
[33] Slava G. Turyshev, Viktor T. Toth, Gary Kinsella, Siu-Chun Lee, Shing M. Lok,254
and Jordan Ellis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 241101 (2012)255
[34] Benny Rievers, Stefanie Bremer, Meike List, Claus Lammerzahl, Hansjorg Dittus,256
Acta Astronaut. 66 pp. 467-476 (2009)257
[35] Benny Rievers, Claus Lammerzahl, Meike List, Stefanie Bremer and Hansjorg258
Dittus New J. Phys. 11 pp. 1-24 (2009)259
[36] Benny Rievers, Claus Lammerzahl, Hansjorg Dittus, Space Sci. Rev. 151 pp.260
123-133 (2010)261
[37] O. Bertolami, F. Francisco, P. J. S. Gil, J. Paramos, Space Sci. Rev. 151 pp.262
75-91 (2010)263
[38] O. Bertolami, F. Francisco, P. J. S. Gil and J. Paramos, Phys. Rev. D 78, 103001264
(2008)265
[39] F. Francisco, O. Bertolami, P. J. S. Gil, J. Paramos, Phys. Lett. B 711 pp.266
337-346 (2012)267
[40] E. M. Standish (2005). Transits of Venus: New Views of the Solar System and268
Galaxy. In D. W. Kurtz (Ed.), The Astronomical Unit now. Paper presented at269
the Proc. IAU Colloquium 196 (pp. 163-179)270
17
[41] G. A. Krasinsky and V. A. Brumberg, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 90 pp. 267-288271
(2004)272
[42] John D. Anderson and Michael Martin Nieto (2009). Relativity in fundamental273
Astronomy. In S. A. Klioner, P. K. Seidelman and M. H. Soffel (Eds.), Astrometric274
solar-system anomalies. Paper presented at the Proc. IAU Symposium N. 261 (pp.275
189-197)276
[43] T. Miura, H. Arakida, M. Kasai and S. Kuramata, Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan 61277
pp. 1247-1250 (2009)278
[44] Hideyoshi Arakida, Adv. Space Res. 45 pp. 1007-1014 (2010)279
[45] N. Capitaine, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 12, 8 pp. 1162-1184 (2012)280
[46] S. A. Klioner, Astronomy and Astrophysics 478, 3 pp. 951-958 (2008)281
[47] Resolution B2,on the re-definition of the Astronomical Unit of Length, 2012.282
Available online at283
[48] A. F. Ranada, Europhys. Lett. 63 (5), pp. 653-659 (2003)284
[49] Carlos Castro, Phys. Lett. B 675, pp. 226-230 (2009)285
[50] Reginald T. Cahill, Progress in Physics 3 pp. 9-15 (2008)286
[51] Rodrigo de Abreu and Vasco Guerra, Eur. J. Phys. 29 pp. 33-52 (2008)287
[52] F. Francisco, O. Bertolami, P. Gil, J. Paramos, Modelling the reflective288
thermal contribution to the acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft (2011)289
[arXiv:1103.5222v1]290
[53] J. D. Anderson and M. M. Nieto, ”Astrometric Solar-System Anomaly” in Rela-291
tivity in Fundamental Astronomy, Proc. IAU Symposium No. 261, 2009, eds. S.292
A. Klioner, P. K. Seidelman and M. H. Soffel293
[54] C. Lammerzahl and H. Dittus, ”The Flyby Anomaly,” in The Eleventh Marcel294
Grossmann Meeting On Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental295
General Relativity, Gravitation and Relativistic Field Theories, H. Kleinert, R.296
T. Jantzen, and R. Ruffini, eds., pp. 2564-2566. Sept., 2008297
18
[55] B. Rievers and C. L¨ammerzahl, ”High precision thermal modeling of complex298
systems with application to the Flyby and Pioneer anomaly,” Annalen der Physik299
523(6) pp. 439-449 (2011)300
[56] J. A. Atchison and M. A. Peck, ”Lorentz Accelerations in the Earth Flyby301
Anomaly,” J Guid. Control Dynam. 33(4) pp. 1115-1122 (2010)302
[57] L. Iorio, ”The Effect of General Relativity on Hyperbolic Orbits and Its Appli-303
cation to the Flyby Anomaly,” Scholarly Research Exchange 2009 (Jan., 2009)304
7695.305
[58] M. E. McCulloch, J. Br. Interplanet. Soc. 61 pp. 373-378 (2008)306
[59] S. L. Adler, Physical Review D 79(2) 023505 (2009)307
[60] S. L. Adler, Int. J. Mod Phys A 28(15) 1350074 (2013)308
[61] G.U. Varieschi (2014), arXiv:1401.6503 [gr-qc]309
[62] Slava G. Turyshev and Viktor T. Toth, The Puzzle of the Flyby Anomaly, Space310
Sci. Rev. 148 169-174 (2009)311
[63] Mario J. Pinheiro, Scientific Reports 3 3454 (2013)312
[64] John D. Anderson, Bahran Mashhoon, Phys. Lett. A 315 199-202 (2003)313
[65] E. T. Jaynes, Phys. Rev. 106 (4) 620 (1957);314
[66] Mario J. Pinheiro, Europhys. Lett. 57, 305 (2002)315
[67] Mario J. Pinheiro, Physica Scripta 70 (2-3) 86 (2004)316
[68] L. Landau and E. M. Lifschitz, Physique Statistique, p. 134, (Mir, Moscow, 1960)317
[69] S. Chandrasekhar, Selected Papers, Vol.4 - Plasma Physics, Hydrodynamic and318
Hydromagnetic stability, and Applications of the Tensor-Virial Theorem, (Uni-319
versity of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1989)320
[70] A. I. Khinchin, Mathematical Foundations of Statistical Mechanics (Dover Pub-321
lications, New York, 1949)322
19
[71] Richard L. Liboff, Kinetic Theory - Classical, Quantum, and Relativistic Descrip-323
tions (Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1990)324
[72] P. Glansdorff and I. Prigogine, Structure, Stabilite et Fluctuations (Masson325
Editeurs, Paris, 1971)326
[73] H. P. Greenspan, The Theory of Rotating Fluids, (Breukelen Press, Brookline-327
MA, 1990)328
[74] John D. Anderson, James K. Campbell, Michael Martin Nieto, New Astronomy329
12 383-397 (2007)330
[75] Leon O. Chua, IEEE Trans. Circuit Theory CT-18 (5) 507-519 (1971)331
[76] O. Kavehei, A. Iqbal, Y. S. Kim, K. Eshraghian, S. F. Al-Sarawi and D. Abbott,332
Proc. R. Soc. A 2010 466, 2175-2202333
[77] Howard Curtis, Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students (Elsevier, Amster-334
dam, 2010)335
[78] James A. Van Allen, Am. J. Phys. 71 (5) 448 (2003)336
[79] Michael Martin Nieto and John D. Anderson, Earth flyby anomalies, pp.76-77,337
Physics Today, October 2009338
[80] Allen D. Allen, Physics Today, p. 8, March 2010339
[81] Florin Diacu, Orbital Anomalies, The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol. 31 (2), pp.340
45-49 (2009)341
20