<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: An interesting test case</title>
	<atom:link href="http://chrislintott.net/2008/09/19/an-interesting-test-case/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://chrislintott.net/2008/09/19/an-interesting-test-case/</link>
	<description>The Universe as seen from the perspective of an astronomical researcher, presenter and writer.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:28:22 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mike McCulloch</title>
		<link>http://chrislintott.net/2008/09/19/an-interesting-test-case/comment-page-1/#comment-95294</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike McCulloch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:54:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chrislintott.net/2008/09/19/an-interesting-test-case/#comment-95294</guid>
		<description>I do not think the flyby anomalies can be any sort of Doppler effect, because, although the anomaly is seen in the Doppler data, as mentioned, it is also seen in the ranging data, this is not mentioned, so it is more than just a frequency shift - it is a real anomaly in position and velocity. The otherwise interesting New Scientist article quotes several papers from the arxiv that have not been through peer review, and failed to mention the only peer-reviewed attempted explanation I am aware of (ie, mine: MNRAS, 389(1),L57-60, arxiv:0806.4159). This makes a mockery of the painful, but useful, peer-review process that I had to go through to publish in a prestigious journal (MNRAS). I have emailed Marcus Chown about this, and to his credit he has forwarded it as a letter to the editor of NewSci. Whether it gets published or not is another matter.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I do not think the flyby anomalies can be any sort of Doppler effect, because, although the anomaly is seen in the Doppler data, as mentioned, it is also seen in the ranging data, this is not mentioned, so it is more than just a frequency shift &#8211; it is a real anomaly in position and velocity. The otherwise interesting New Scientist article quotes several papers from the arxiv that have not been through peer review, and failed to mention the only peer-reviewed attempted explanation I am aware of (ie, mine: MNRAS, 389(1),L57-60, arxiv:0806.4159). This makes a mockery of the painful, but useful, peer-review process that I had to go through to publish in a prestigious journal (MNRAS). I have emailed Marcus Chown about this, and to his credit he has forwarded it as a letter to the editor of NewSci. Whether it gets published or not is another matter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
