Physics Letters A 378 (2014) 30073011

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Physics Letters A
www.elsevier.com/locate/pla

The yby anomaly and the effect of a topological torsion current

Mario J. Pinheiro
Department of Physics, Instituto Superior Tcnico IST, Universidade de Lisboa UL, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 26 April 2014
Received in revised form 27 August 2014
Accepted 1 September 2014
Available online 6 September 2014
Communicated by C.R. Doering
Keywords:
Variational methods in classical mechanics
Statistical physics, thermodynamics, and
nonlinear dynamical systems
Celestial mechanics (including n-body
problems)
Relativity and gravitation

a b s t r a c t
A new variational technique determines the general condition of equilibrium of a rotating gravitational
or electromagnetic system (or both) and provides a modied dynamical equation of motion from where
it emerges a so-far unforseen topological torsion current (TTC) (Pinheiro, 2013) [63]. We suggest that the
TTC may explain, in a simple and direct way, the anomalous acceleration detected in spacecrafts during
close planetary ybys. In addition, we theorize that TTC may represent a novel relationship between
linear momentum and angular motion through the agency of a vector potential.
2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Flyby (or swing-by, gravitational slingshot, or gravity assist maneuver) is a well-known method in interplanetary spaceight to
alter the path and the speed of a spacecraft using the gravity of
a planet or other astronomical object (see, e.g., Ref. [1]). The rescue of the Apollo crew in 1970 was the rst yby maneuver ever
done, using the Lunar yby [2].
But the yby anomaly is one among other, possibly related,
several astrometric anomalies that are referred to in the technical literature, such as the change of the solar mass over time
 (changes that result from a balance between the mass loss
M
due to radiation and solar wind compensated by falling materials contained in comets, rocks and asteroids) leading to the observation of a decrease of the heliocentric gravitation constant
 /G M  = (5.0 4.1) 1014 per year and a variation of the
GM
astronomical unit by approximately 10 m per century [3]. Quite
surprisingly, dark matter does not have a gravitational inuence
to the Solar System because its density is very low [4]. The angular momentum of the Sun seems to be smaller than expected
(S  0.95 1041 kg m2 s1 ), unless the Suns gravitomagnetic
force is included [5,6]. The anomalous behavior of the Saturnian
perihelion cannot be explained in the framework of the standard
Newtonian and Einsteinian General Theory of Relativity [7], also
suggesting the need of new physics or the effect of an external

E-mail address: mpinheiro@tecnico.ulisboa.pt.

URL: http://mjpinheiro.weebly.com/.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2014.09.003
0375-9601/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

tidal potential acting on the Solar System possibly due to a new

hypothetical huge body, Tyche [8,9]. The phenomenological modication of Newtonian dynamics proposed by MOND doesnt offer a
satisfying explanation for Cassini spacecraft anomaly [8]. The Faint
Young Sun Paradox [1012] can possibly be accommodated within
a certain general class of gravitational theories with nonminimal
coupling between metric and matter predicting a secular variation
of the Earth heliocentric distance [13,14].
Recent analysis of a Lunar Laser Ranging data record revealed
an anomalous increase of the eccentricity rate of the lunar orbit [15,16,14,17]. This effect is not related to a possible change of
the speed of light [16] or some dissipation at the lunar core and
mantle [15], but possibly non-tidal explanations can be viable [17].
Astrometric data points to the existence of at least four unexplained anomalies, from the small and constant Doppler frequency drift shown by the radio-metric data from Pioneer 10
and 11, which can be interpreted as a uniform acceleration of
a P = (8.74 1.33) 108 cm/s2 towards the Sun found in the
data of both spacecraft when they were at a distance of 20 au
from the Sun [1823] to the disturbing observation that a number of satellites in Earth yby have undergone mysterious energy
changes [22]. This effect is essentially a slight departure from Newtonian acceleration (see also Ref. [24] for an overview of unexplained phenomena within our Solar System and in the Universe).
As already shown in several ways [18,20], the effect is not a real
gravitational phenomenon that certainly would have affected other
major bodies of the Solar System. The possibility that this uniform Sunward acceleration, such as the one experienced by the
Pioneer spacecraft, might have a gravitational nature was shown

3008

M.J. Pinheiro / Physics Letters A 378 (2014) 30073011

to be erroneous [2528], and could not even affect the motion of

the outer planets of the Solar System [29,30]. Rindler-type extraacceleration on test particles was ruled out altogether because it
would affect the main features of the Oort cloud [31]. Furthermore,
exotic physics is probably not affecting Pioneer spacecraft trajectories [32].
Also proposed was the possibility the Pioneer anomaly might
have a different non-gravitational origin, such as a recoil force associated with an anisotropic emission of thermal radiation off the
spacecraft [3339].
As discussed earlier, a secular change in the astronomical unit
(au) d(au)dt = 7 2 m cy1 [40] was reported [41,40,42] and several explanations were proposed, among them, the change in the
moment of inertia of the Sun due to radiative mass loss [43]
but the possible variation of the dark matter density was ruled
out [44]. The huge importance of the problem and the uncertainties related to the causes of its variation lead to the proposal of
xing the value of au [4547]. Other proposed explanations for
this effect include an adiabatic acceleration of light due to an adiabatic decreasing of the permeability and permittivity of empty
space [48]; the dilaton-like JordanBransDicke scalar eld as the
source of dark energy, which introduces a new term of force with
magnitude a P = F r /m = c 2 / R H (R H is the Hubble scale) (see
Ref. [49]); light speed anisotropy [50] based on Lorentz space-time
interpretation and resorting from the earlier measurement of D.C.
Miller (see also Ref. [51] which gives an interesting reformulation
of the special theory of relativity); and a computer modeling technique called the Phong reection model [52], which explains the
effect as due to the heat reected from the main compartment,
though this explanation still needs conrmation.
The yby anomaly appears as a shift in the Doppler data of
Earth-ybys of several spacecrafts and it is currently interpreted as
anomalous velocity jumps, positive and negative, of the order of a
few mm s1 observed near the closest approach during the Earth
ybys [53,54]. Several attempts to explain the yby anomaly have
been put forth so far. For example, as far as standard physics is
concerned, it was shown that the Rosetta yby is unlikely due to
thermal recoil pressure [55] or to Lorentz forces [56], but might be
due to gravitoelectric (contributing up to 102 mm s1 )and gravitomagnetic forces (up to 105 mm s1 ) [57]. Moreover, it was
shown that neither the general relativistic LenseThirring effect
nor a Rindler-type radial uniform acceleration were the cause of
the yby anomaly [23]. Unusual explanations were advanced based
on a possible modication of inertia at very low acceleration when
Unruh wavelengths exceed the Hubble distance [58]; the elastic
and inelastic scattering of ordinary matter with dark matter, although submitted to highly constraints [59,60]; how Conformal
Gravity affects the trajectories of geodesic motion around a rotating spherical object, but are not expected to cause the yby
anomaly [61].
In this paper, we suggest a possible theoretical explanation
of the physical process underlying the unexpected orbital-energy
change observed during close planetary ybys [22,62] based on the
topological torsion current (TTC) found in a previous work [63].
Anderson et al. [64] proposed a helicityrotation coupling that is
akin to our proposal. However, the anomalous acceleration cannot
be explained by means of the helicityrotation mechanism due to
its small magnitude. The TTC was obtained in the framework of
a new variational principle based on the fundamental equation of
thermodynamics treated as a differential form. That formulation
gives a set of two rst order differential equations that have the
same symplectic structure as classical mechanics, uid dynamics,
and thermodynamics. The procedure can be applied to investigate
out-of-equilibrium dynamic systems. From that approach emerges
a TTC of the form i jk A j k , where A j and k denote the compo-

nents of the vector potential (here, the gravitational) and where

denotes the angular velocity of the accelerated frame.

2. Outlines of the method

A standard technique for treating thermodynamical systems
on the basis of information-theoretic framework has been developed previously [6567,63]. We can nd in technical literature several textbooks that give an overview over the subject, see
e.g., Refs. [6873]. This work may be applied to a self-gravitating
plasma system. The extended mathematical formalism developed
to investigate out-of-equilibrium systems in the framework of information theory can be applied to the analysis of the equilibrium
and stability of a gravitational and electromagnetic system (e.g.,
rotating plasma, or spacecraft in a gravitationally-assisted maneuver).
Our method is based on applying Lagrange multipliers to the
total entropy of an ensemble of particles. However, weuse the
fundamental equation of thermodynamics dU = T dS k F k dxk
on differential forms, considering U and S as 0-forms. As we have
shown in a previous work [67] we obtain a set of two rst order differential equations that reveal the same formal symplectic
structure shared by classical mechanics, uid mechanics, and thermodynamics.
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 the
following equation:
N


S=


S

( )

E ( )

=1

( ) ( )

( p ( ) )2
2m( )

(r) m

( )

N




q( ) V ( ) + q( ) A( ) v( )


( ,)

=1

( )

+ap


 ( )
( )
+b r p
.

(1)

Although it has been argued that S was dened for equilibrium

states and had no time dependence of any kind, it might still be
possible to describe entropy by some means during the evolution of a physical system. However, if the time evolution of others
physical quantities can be made, such as energy E, pressure P
and number of particles N, then why not S. As in our previous
work [63], regardless of these uncertainties, the explanation proposed here provides a different input to move further toward a
better understanding of the role of entropy.
The conditional extremum points provide the canonical momentum and the dynamical equations of motion of a general physical system in out-of-equilibrium conditions. The two rst order
differential equations can then be represented in the following
form (see Ref. [67]):

p() S 0

(2)

r() S = r() U ( ) m( ) t v( ) 0.

(3)

Here, 1/ T is the inverse of the temperature (not being

used so far), and we use condensed notation: p() /p() . Then
we obtain a general equation of dynamics for electromagneticgravitational systems:

dv
dt

= E + [J B] p + [A ].

(4)

The last term of Eq. (4) represents the TTC [67]. We stress how
A may be considered physically real, even in a gravitational eld,

M.J. Pinheiro / Physics Letters A 378 (2014) 30073011

Fig. 1. The missing fourth element of force: following an analogy with the electromagnetic eld, a new element of force is expected, the topological torsion current
(TTC). The gure uses the standard symbols used for resistors, capacitors, solenoids
and memristors.

despite the arbitrariness in its divergence. This force increases the

rotational energy of the system, producing a rocket-like rotation
effect on a plasma, or the orbital-energy change observed during the close planetary ybys, an issue thoroughly discussed in
Ref. [74]. Moreover, the TTC emerges from the universal competition between entropy and energy, each one seeking a different equilibrium condition. (This happens in the case of planetary atmospheres, when energy tends to assemble all atmospheric
molecules on the surface of the planet, but entropy seeks to spread
them evenly in all available space.) The TTC may be envisaged
as the missing force term in the traditional hierarchy of agencies responsible for the motion of matter, as depicted in Fig. 1,
and following along the same electromagnetic analogy proposed by
Chua [75]. The basic four physical quantities are the electric current i (or speed v), the voltage V (or the force F ), the charge q (or
the position x), and the ux-linkage (or momentum p = mv).
From a logical point of view, of six possible combinations among
these four variables, ve are already well known. However, the TTC
points to the existence of an as yet undiscovered relationship between momentum and angular motion through the agency of a
vector potential (see Refs. [75,76]).

3009

Fig. 2. Planetary yby by a spacecraft in the geocentric equatorial frame and the
orbital elements. h is the angular momentum normal to the plane of the orbit and e
is the eccentricity vector. I denotes the osculating orbital inclination to the equator
of date, and is the osculating argument of the periapsis along the orbit from the
equator of date.

the spacecraft relative to Earth. If we take due care of the retardation of the gravitational eld, it is appropriate to use the following
gravitational vector potential under the (LinardWiechert) form

A(r, t ) =

MvsP

c2

|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 = V PS J 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 ) = A r 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 = v apx i + v apy j + v apz h.

2.1. Application to the yby anomaly
Implicit in Eq. (4) is the action of the vector potential over a
given body, besides the E and B-elds, a term analogue to a rotational electric eld. Fig. 2 illustrates the typical planetary yby
a spacecraft makes in the geocentric equatorial frame and the orbital elements, where h is the angular momentum normal to the
plane of the orbit and e is the eccentricity vector pointing along
the apse line of the arrival hyperbola.
Let us apply the new governing equation to the planetary yby
of a given spacecraft of mass m nearby a planet of mass M, as
illustrated in Fig. 2 (see, e.g., Refs. [77,78]). Hence, in cylindrical
geometry, and taking into account the TTC effect alone, Eq. (4)
becomes the following equation (Fig. 2 shows the Earth yby geometry):

dv
dt

= mz A r sin I .

(5)

Eq. (5) is written in the geocentric system because that is where

the radio 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 as timeindependent, Eq. (5) provides the azimuthal velocity component of

(7)

The general representation of the spacecraft velocity vector relative

to Earth in the direct orthonormal frame is given by the following
equation:

v apx = V P + v cos( )
v apy = v sin( )
v apz = 0.

(8)

Here, v is the excess hyperbolic speed of the spacecraft with respect to the planet. We denote by the Earths angular velocity
of rotation, by R the Earths mean radius, and by G the gravitational constant.
The transit time dt of the spacecraft at the average distance
R (assumed here as the radius of the sphere of inuence) from
the center of the planet (this approximation is assumed because
in general the spacecraft altitude is smaller than R , see also
Ref. [22]), and we state that dt = d R / v , where v is the azimuthal component of the spacecraft velocity and d denotes the
angular deection undergone by the spacecraft during the transit time near the planet. Expanding Eq. (6) to the rst order in
(vsP n )/c, we may write Eq. (5) in the following form:

dv = sin I

GM Vr
c2 R

dt + sin I

GM Vr 
c2 R

vsP n dt ,

(9)

3010

M.J. Pinheiro / Physics Letters A 378 (2014) 30073011

Table 1
Orbital and anomalous dynamical parameters of ve Earth ybys. b is the impact
parameter, A is the altitude of the yby, I is the inclination, is the right ascension,
and is the declination of the incoming (i) and outgoing (f) osculating asymptotic
velocity vectors. m is the best estimate of the total mass of the spacecraft during
the yby. v is the asymptotic velocity; v is the increase in the asymptotic
velocity of the hyperbolic trajectory. Source: Refs. [22,74].
Quantity

Galileo (GEGA1)

NEAR

Cassini

Rosetta

b (km/s)
A (km)
I ( )
m (kg)
( )
( )
v (mm/s)

11 261
956.063
142.9
2497.1
163.7
2.975
3.92 0.08

12 850
532.485
108.0
730.4
240.0
15.37
13.46 0.13

8973
1171.505
25.4
4612.1
223.7
11.16
...

22 680.49
1954.303
144.9
2895.2
269.894
28.185
1.82 0.05

3. Conclusion

or in the following form:

dv = 2 R sin I

GM

d
2R c 2
2 r G M
v sin( ) sin Id
+
c
2R c 2

(10)

We can write the equation in these forms because (vsP n ) =

v sin( 
) and the radial component of the (relative) veloc-

ity is V r =

v 2x + ( v y V P )2 = v . To simplify Eq. (10) further,

we may use the principle of the energy of inertia, which states

that the gravitational energy of a spacecraft on the surroundings of the planet must be equal to its energy content according
to Einsteins formula, i.e., the eld itself carries mass. Therefore,
G Mm/2R = mc 2 . As a result of this equivalence, the velocity
variation is independent of the mass of the planet, remaining dependent on its radius, angular velocity, and the orbital inclination.
To integrate instead, we may consider the connection between
with the declination angle using the following trigonometric
relationship (see Fig. 2):

sin( ) sin I = sin

(11)

In this equation, I denotes the osculating orbital inclination to the

equator of date and is the osculating argument of the perigee
along the orbit from the equator of date. This change allows us to
rewrite Eq. (10) in the form of a rst-order non-linear differential
equation, as follows:

dv
d

= 2 R sin I + K v sin ()

(12)

Now, v = v and = (). It is worth mentioning that the rst

constant term of Eq. (12) cancels out when calculating the velocity
change v . Therefore, we obtain the following equation:

dv
v

= ln

The dependency on the term sin I indicates that there is no

anomalous acceleration when the inclination angle I is equal to
zero. This result is consistent with the data of Table 1, which collects the orbital and anomalous dynamical parameters of ve Earth
ybys as presented in Ref. [74]. For example, the Cassini Earth
yby has no registered data because there is no anomaly; in contrast, when I 90 , as is the case of NEAR, the variation is boosted
to a higher value v = 13.46 0.13 mm/s. Moreover, the results
show that, due to the vectorial nature of the TTC (and its dependence on the inclination angle), the anomaly can either increase
or decrease depending on whether the spacecraft encounters Earth
on the leading or trailing side of its orbital path.

v , f
v ,i

v
v

= K (cos i cos f ).

(13)

Here, v denotes the azimuthal speed of the spacecraft in a position faraway from the planetary inuence (R ), K 2R /c
is the distance-independent factor, i , and f denote the initial
and nal declination angles on the celestial sphere. Eq. (13) coincides with the heuristic formula proposed by Anderson [64], which
is appropriate for spacecrafts below 2000 km of altitude and has
been adjusted to high-altitude ybys [79].
According to the present analysis the yby anomaly may have
the following causes: (i) a drag effect from the planet by means of
a Coriolis-like force that pushes or pulls the spacecraft (different
from frame dragging, which is debatable [80]); or (ii) a retarded
effect from the gravitational eld due to rotation of the planet. The
known result, obtained by using experimental data is v / v =
K (cos i cos f ), where K = 2 R /c = 3.099 106 [79,81,22].

We may conclude that the variational method proposed in

Ref. [63] constitutes a powerful alternative approach to tackle
problems in the frame of gravitational and/or electromagnetic rotating systems. The emergence of a new force term the TTC
offers a simple explanation for the yby anomaly; namely, that it
results from a combined slingshot effect (which is not identiable
to frame-dragging) with retardation effects due to the noninstantaneous character of the gravitational force. In principle, the physical
mechanism proposed in this Letter should be applicable to other
systems as well, such as closed orbits and the other anomalies referred in the Introduction, tasks to be undertaken in future work.
In addition, the TTC may be the missing fourth element of force
if we consider the traditional hierarchy of agencies responsible for
the motion of matter (see Fig. 1) and the electromagnetic analogy
proposed by Chua [75]. Based upon the same logical and axiomatic
point of view, we may establish an operational relationship between linear and angular motion. Achieving a deeper comprehension of the trajectory of the Near-Earth Objects, such as asteroids
and comets, requires a change in the standard assumptions. Understanding the TTC contribution to the gravitational force will be
instrumental when accessing their trajectories.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks the three anonymous referees for their useful comments that greatly improved the quality of the manuscript
and gratefully acknowledges partial nancial support by the International Space Science Institute (ISSI-Bern) as a visiting scientist,
expressing special thanks to Professor Roger-Maurice Bonnet and
Dr. Maurizio Falanga.
References
[1] G.A. Flandro, Acta Astronaut. 12 (1966) 329337.
[2] Apollo 13 technical crew debrieng, NASA, April 24, 1970. Retrieved from
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a13/a13-techdebrief.pdf.
[3] E.V. Pitjeva, N.P. Pitjev, Sol. Syst. Res. 46 (1) (2012) 7887.
[4] N.P. Pitjev, E.V. Pitjeva, Astron. Lett. 39 (3) (2013) 141149.
[5] L. Iorio, Space Sci. Rev. 148 (14) (2009) 363381.
[6] L. Iorio, Sol. Phys. 281 (2) (2012) 815826.
[7] Lorenzo Iorio, Astron. J. 137 (2009) 36153618.
[8] A. Hees, W.M. Folkner, R.A. Jacobson, R.S. Park, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 102002.
[9] John J. Matese, Daniel P. Whitmire, Icarus 211 (2001) 926938.
[10] Carl Sagan, George Mullen, Science, New Ser. 177 (4043) (1972) 5256.
[11] Georg Feulner, Rev. Geophys. 50 (2012) RG2006.
[12] Colin Goldblatt, Kevin J. Zahnle, Nature 474 (2011) E1.
[13] L. Iorio, Class. Quantum Gravity 31 (2014) 085003.
[14] L. Iorio, Galaxies 1 (3) (2013) 192209.
[15] Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Laser Ranging, Poznan,
Poland, 1317 October 2008.
[16] J.G. Williams, S.G. Turyshev, D.H. Boggs, Planet. Sci. 3 (2) (2014) 19.
[17] L. Iorio, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 415 (2011) 12661275.
[18] John D. Anderson, Philip A. Laing, Eunice L. Lau, Anthony S. Liu, Michael Martin
Nieto, Slava G. Turyshev, Phys. Rev. D 65 (8) (2002) 082004.

M.J. Pinheiro / Physics Letters A 378 (2014) 30073011

[19] Slava G. Turyshev, Michael Martin Nieto, John D. Anderson, Adv. Space Res. 39
(2007) 291296.
[20] Slava G. Turyshev, Viktor T. Toth, Living Rev. Relativ. 13 (4) (2010).
[21] Michael Martin Nieto, Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 483485.
[22] John D. Anderson, James K. Campbell, John E. Ekelund, Jordan Ellis, James F.
Jordan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 091102.
[23] L. Iorio, A yby anomaly for Juno? Not from standard physics, arXiv:1311.4218
[gr-qc].
[24] Claus Lammerzahl, Oliver Preuss, Hansjorg Dittus, Astrophys. Space Sci. Libr.
349 (2008) 75101.
[25] Lorenzo Iorio, Giuseppe Giudice, New Astron. 11 (8) (2006) 600607.
[26] A. Fienga, J. Laskar, P. Kuchynka, C. Leponcin-Latte, H. Manche, M. Gastineau,
in: S.A. Klioner, P.K. Seidelman, M.H. Soffel (Eds.), Relativity in Fundamental
Astronomy, in: Proc. IAU Symposium, vol. 261, 2010, pp. 179182.
[27] E.M. Standish, in: Relativity in Fundamental Astronomy, in: Proc. IAU Symposium, vol. 261, 2010, pp. 179182.
[28] L. Iorio, The LenseThirring effect and the Pioneer anomaly: Solar System
tests, in: H. Kleinert, R.T. Jantzen, R. Runi (Eds.), Eleventh Marcel Grossmann
Meeting, 2329 July, Berlin, Germany, World Scientic, 2006, pp. 25582560,
Ch. 458.
[29] Lorenzo Iorio, Found. Phys. 37 (6) (2007) 897918.
[30] Gary L. Page, John F. Wallin, David S. Dixon, Astrophys. J. 697 (2) (2009)
12411261.
[31] Lorenzo Iorio, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 419 (3) (2012) 22262232.
[32] John F. Wallin, David S. Dixon, Gary L. Page, Astrophys. J. 666 (2) (2007)
12961302.
[33] Slava G. Turyshev, Viktor T. Toth, Gary Kinsella, Siu-Chun Lee, Shing M. Lok,
Jordan Ellis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 241101.
[34] Benny Rievers, Stefanie Bremer, Meike List, Claus Lmmerzahl, Hansjrg Dittus,
Acta Astronaut. 66 (2009) 467476.
[35] Benny Rievers, Claus Lmmerzahl, Meike List, Stefanie Bremer, Hansjrg Dittus,
New J. Phys. 11 (2009) 124.
[36] Benny Rievers, Claus Lmmerzahl, Hansjrg Dittus, Space Sci. Rev. 151 (2010)
123133.
[37] O. Bertolami, F. Francisco, P.J.S. Gil, J. Pramos, Space Sci. Rev. 151 (2010) 7591.
[38] O. Bertolami, F. Francisco, P.J.S. Gil, J. Pramos, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 103001.
[39] F. Francisco, O. Bertolami, P.J.S. Gil, J. Pramos, Phys. Lett. B 711 (2012)
337346.
[40] E.M. Standish, Transits of Venus: new views of the Solar System and galaxy,
in: D.W. Kurtz (Ed.), The Astronomical Unit Now, in: Proc. IAU Colloquium,
vol. 196, 2005, pp. 163179.
[41] G.A. Krasinsky, V.A. Brumberg, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 90 (2004) 267288.
[42] John D. Anderson, Michael Martin Nieto, Relativity in fundamental astronomy,
in: S.A. Klioner, P.K. Seidelman, M.H. Soffel (Eds.), Astrometric Solar-System
Anomalies, in: Proc. IAU Symposium, vol. 261, 2009, pp. 189197.
[43] T. Miura, H. Arakida, M. Kasai, S. Kuramata, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn. 61 (2009)
12471250.
[44] Hideyoshi Arakida, Adv. Space Res. 45 (2010) 10071014.
[45] N. Capitaine, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 12 (8) (2012) 11621184.
[46] S.A. Klioner, Astron. Astrophys. 478 (3) (2008) 951958.
[47] Resolution B2, on the re-denition of the astronomical unit of length, 2012.
Available online at https://www.iau.org/static/resolutions/IAU2012_English.pdf.
[48] A.F. Raada, Europhys. Lett. 63 (5) (2003) 653659.
[49] Carlos Castro, Phys. Lett. B 675 (2009) 226230.

3011

[50] Reginald T. Cahill, Prog. Phys. 3 (2008) 915.

[51] Rodrigo de Abreu, Vasco Guerra, Eur. J. Phys. 29 (2008) 3352.
[52] F. Francisco, O. Bertolami, P. Gil, J. Pramos, Modelling the reective thermal
contribution to the acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft, arXiv:1103.5222v1,
2011.
[53] J.D. Anderson, M.M. Nieto, Astrometric Solar-System anomaly, in: S.A. Klioner,
P.K. Seidelman, M.H. Soffel (Eds.), Relativity in Fundamental Astronomy, in:
Proc. IAU Symposium, vol. 261, 2009.
[54] C. Lmmerzahl, H. Dittus, The yby anomaly, in: H. Kleinert, R.T. Jantzen,
R. Runi (Eds.), The Eleventh Marcel Grossmann Meeting on Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Gravitation and
Relativistic Field Theories, 2008, pp. 25642566.
[55] B. Rievers, C. Lmmerzahl, High precision thermal modeling of complex systems with application to the Flyby and Pioneer anomaly, Ann. Phys. (Leipz.)
523 (6) (2011) 439449.
[56] J.A. Atchison, M.A. Peck, Lorentz accelerations in the earth yby anomaly,
J. Guid. Control Dyn. 33 (4) (2010) 11151122.
[57] L. Iorio, The effect of general relativity on hyperbolic orbits and its application
to the yby anomaly, Sch. Res. Exch. 2009 (2009) 807695.
[58] M.E. McCulloch, J. Br. Interplanet. Soc. 61 (2008) 373378.
[59] S.L. Adler, Phys. Rev. D, Part. Fields 79 (2) (2009) 023505.
[60] S.L. Adler, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28 (15) (2013) 1350074.
[61] G.U. Varieschi, arXiv:1401.6503 [gr-qc], 2014.
[62] Slava G. Turyshev, Viktor T. Toth, The puzzle of the yby anomaly, Space Sci.
Rev. 148 (2009) 169174.
[63] Mario J. Pinheiro, Sci. Rep. 3 (2013) 3454.
[64] John D. Anderson, Bahran Mashhoon, Phys. Lett. A 315 (2003) 199202.
[65] E.T. Jaynes, Phys. Rev. 106 (4) (1957) 620.
[66] Mario J. Pinheiro, Europhys. Lett. 57 (2002) 305.
[67] Mario J. Pinheiro, Phys. Scr. 70 (23) (2004) 86.
[68] L. Landau, E.M. Lifschitz, Physique Statistique, Mir, Moscow, 1960, p. 134.
[69] S. Chandrasekhar, Plasma Physics, Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability,
and Applications of the Tensor-Virial Theorem, Selected Papers, vol. 4, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1989.
[70] A.I. Khinchin, Mathematical Foundations of Statistical Mechanics, Dover Publications, New York, 1949.
[71] Richard L. Liboff, Kinetic Theory Classical, Quantum, and Relativistic Descriptions, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1990.
[72] P. Glansdorff, I. Prigogine, Structure, Stabilit et Fluctuations, Masson diteurs,
Paris, 1971.
[73] H.P. Greenspan, The Theory of Rotating Fluids, Breukelen Press, Brookline, MA,
1990.
[74] John D. Anderson, James K. Campbell, Michael Martin Nieto, New Astron. 12
(2007) 383397.
[75] Leon O. Chua, IEEE Trans. Circuit Theory CT-18 (5) (1971) 507519.
[76] O. Kavehei, A. Iqbal, Y.S. Kim, K. Eshraghian, S.F. Al-Sarawi, D. Abbott, Proc. R.
Soc. A 466 (2010) 21752202.
[77] Howard Curtis, Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2010.
[78] James A. Van Allen, Am. J. Phys. 71 (5) (2003) 448.
[79] Michael Martin Nieto, John D. Anderson, Earth yby anomalies, Phys. Today 62
(2009) 7677.
[80] Allen D. Allen, Phys. Today (2010) 8.
[81] Florin Diacu, Orbital anomalies, Math. Intell. 31 (2) (2009) 4549.