Page 1 of 66 1231151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 1953

Thread: Potential Threat to the Huygen Mission

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,271

    Potential Threat to the Huygen Mission

    Normally, I post a topic like this on the “Against the Mainstream” thread. This is because virtually everything I do is highly speculative. This time, I believe there is a serious threat to the Huygen mission, and I am looking for as much feedback as possible from scientists with more knowledge than myself of solar mechanics.

    I have concluded the same failure mode that lead to the demise of Beagle, and indirectly two other Mars probes is inherent in the orbital mechanics of the Huygens probe scheduled to separate from Cassini December 26, 2004. There may be a work-around for this probable failure, but if and only if mission scientists are appraised of the potential problem in a timely and convincing manner as soon as possible.

    This past Summer, the Beagle expedition ended as another of a long line of Mars failures when the probe failed to respond after entering the Martian atmosphere. In the final report the investigators were unable to identify a root cause for the mission failure, but what they could identify was an anomalous atmospheric condition that created an extremely low pressure in the atmosphere of Mars during Beagles decent. The evidence of this is a measured depression 200 miles above the Martian surface.

    What is most curious about this finding is that the successful landings of both Spirit and Opportunity still experienced flight anomalies that are consistent with the Beagle scenario: In both missions the parachutes deployed late, indicating either a calibration error in the sensors on both missions, or that the density of the atmosphere of Mars at the deployment altitude was less than predicted. Both of the Viking probes, which successfully landed in the 1970’s also experienced late deployment of braking parachute deployment, and they both used much more hydrazine fuel than anticipated. These failures are not coincidental, nor are they systemic: pressure actuated event technology has been highly developed and very reliable since World War II.

    I believe these anomalies occurred because of an intrinsic pressure differential in the Martian atmosphere, not an anomalous event. I will further demonstrate the root cause of the failure of Polar Orbiter, the Global Surveyor and at least four other Martian missions is the same, and that Huygens will almost certainly fail unless new physical considerations are included in the descent profile.

    I will present evidence of a need to modify our theory of gravity adding a second term or derivative that weakens the inertial potential with increasing distance. This creates no observable traits in nearly circular orbits, such as our own. At the same time, it explains how orbits become so nearly circular. I will show an amazing trait discovered when this modification is applied across the solar system when this hypothesis is applied to solar mechanics. I will also present ancillary evidence that demonstrate this relationship is not purely coincidental. Finally, I will indicate how this thesis can be collaborated in the current data stream from the Cassini mission, in a timely manner so the necessary corrections, if possible, can be made in the Huygens probe before it is launched.

    Background:
    Cassini-Huygen is a joint NASA-European Space Agency mission to study Saturn and the moons of Saturn. In July of this year, Cassini was successfully placed in orbit about Saturn’s moon Titan. On December 26th, the Huygen probe is scheduled to be jettisoned from Cassini and make a soft landing on Titan. Other than a design deficiency that slows communication between Cassini and Huygen, this mission has been highly successful to date, revealing two previously unknown moons and unprecedented images of Saturn’s rings. The Titan probe is intended to reveal the secrets of a curious world that appears strikingly similar to our own, but that is made primarily from the lightest materials in our crust: Water, methane, sulfur, silica, with a combined density of only 1.88 g/cc, one third of that of our iron-cored planet (5.51g/cc)

    Pioneer 10 and 11 anomaly
    Quote Originally Posted by ”Number 391 (Story #1), September 15, 1998 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein”
    ANOMALOUS ACCELERATION. Data from several spacecraft, including Pioneer 10 and 11, Galileo, and Ulysses, provide evidence for an unexplained, weak, long-range acceleration, a new report shows. Position and velocity information is derived from radio signals sent from the craft to the Deep Space Network back on Earth. Any change in velocity over time can be ascribed to a variety of known sources: the sun and planets, the solar wind, the Milky Way, the Kuiper belt, etc. But even after taking this all into account, as well as other possibilities such as the presence of dark matter in the solar system (only a millionth of a solar mass of dark matter could reside within the orbit of Uranus, it is estimated) or gas leakage from the vehicles themselves, a small acceleration in the direction of the Sun---8 x 10-8 cm/sec2 for Pioneer 10---remains unaccounted for.
    An obvious if unlikely candidate the Pioneer 10 and 11 acceleration anomaly is a second order derivative of the ‘G constant’. To investigate this possibility, I made some assumptions about the moons and planets in the solar system: I assumed the densest of the moons in the gas-giant systems, and all of the non-gas giant planets actually all have near the same density.

    Then I fit a log/log curve to this equation, and calculated what the density of each system would be if they were in the Earth's orbit. This is assuming “G” is indeed variable, diminishing with increasing distance from the Sun. When I plug in the estimated density of each orb, look what happens:

    Effect of a G force that varies as kln(k2d’)/ln(r^2)
    k=10.159, k2=-1.3532

    Orb / Current Density / Density (in Earth frame of reference)

    Mercury / 5.4 / 4.49
    Venus / 5.24 / 4.47
    Earth / 5.5 / 5.5 ( Earth Moon Ave=4.47)
    Mars / 3.933 / 4.47
    Jupiter / 1.326 / 2.11
    Metis / 2.8 / 4.47
    Thebe / 3.55 / 5.67
    Europa / 3.02 / 4.81
    Ganymede / 1.94 / 3.91
    Callisto / 1.86 / 2.97
    Leda / 2.7 / 4.31
    Himilia / 2.8 / 4.47
    Lysithia / 3.1 / 4.49
    Elara / 3.3 / 5.27
    Anaka / 2.7 / 4.31
    Carme / 2.8 / 4.47
    Sinope / 3.1 / 4.95
    P2x / 3.3 / 5.27
    P3x / 2.7 / 4.31
    P4x / 2.8 / 4.47
    Pasipha / 2.9 / 4.63
    P5x / 3.1 / 4.95
    Amalthea / 1.8 / 2.87
    P6x / 2.1 / 3.35
    Io / 3.55 / 5.67
    Andrastea / 4.5 / 10.59
    P7x / 3.7 / 8.7
    Saturn / 0.568 / 1.34
    Prometheus / 0.70 / 1.65
    Pandora / 0.70 / 1.65
    Epimetheus / 0.70 / 1.65
    Janus / 0.67 / 1.58
    Mimas / 1.17 / 2.75
    Phoebe / 1.60 / 3.76
    Hyperion / 1.40 / 3.29
    Encleladus / 1.24 / 2.92
    Tethys / 1.21 / 2.85
    Dione / 1.43 / 3.36
    Rhea / 1.33 / 3.13
    Titan / 1.88 / 4.42
    Uranus / 1.27 / 3.78
    Miranda / 1.20 / 3.58
    Ariel / 1.56 / 4.65
    Umbriel / 1.52 / 4.53
    Titania / 1.70 / 5.07
    Oberon / 1.64 / 4.89
    Neptune / 1.638 / 5.76
    Naiad / 1.2 / 4.22
    Thalasse / 1.3 / 4.57
    Despina / 1.2 / 4.47
    Galatea / 1.3 / 4.47
    Larissa / 1.3 / 4.84
    Proteus / 1.3 / 4.47
    Pluto / 1.75 / 4.47

    Look how often the value 4.47 is repeated: Ten times, and twenty-seven orbs, fifty percent of the solar moons and planets have a density within 10% of 4.47 gm/cm^2. Mercury, Venus, Mars, 14 of Jupiter’s moons, eight of Uranus’s moons, five of Neptune’s moons and Pluto,

    If gravity has a second order function, if I exclude the gas giants, 70% of the solar system has the same density.

    Just as surprising is that when this equation is used, the difference in the G acceleration value (~-1.6 * 10^-8 cm/s^2) is very close to the acceleration observed in the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes (-0.84 * 10^8 cm/s^2).

    Is this possible? I developed the theoretical roots for making these assumptions through cosmological observations, but it is much easier to look closely at more local events: We have based our estimates of the density of the planets upon observed accelerations of the Pioneer, Viking, and other probes near these planets. If 'G' varies in the second order, the apparent mass of an object decreases with increasing distance from the Sun.

    If these approximations are close to the real values, the correct density of Mars is ~14% greater than our current estimate, based upon a constant 'G' value. Now look at the history:

    Mars navigators have been consistently plagued with late flight corrections due to slight accelerations toward the sun. We have measured the thickness and total density of the Martian atmosphere, but if the planet is more dense that we have calculated using a constant 'G', the distribution of the gas in the Martin atmosphere is skewed towards the planet and therefore, the gas is thinner at high altitude than predicted by a Gaussian distribution based upon a lighter planet.

    In Missions to Mars where accelerometers have been used to time the parachute release, including Viking I & 2, Endeavor and Spirit, the parachutes have released at much lower altitudes than expected. Flight engineers, observing the decent of Spirit, forced an earlier deployment of the parachutes on Opportunity.

    The Missions to Mars that have relied upon air braking have required many more maneuvers than planned to dissipate energy. Seven attempts to land on Mars have failed.

    Martian soil and Martian magma, from every site and known Martian meteorites, contain more than twice the iron content normally found in earth soil and magna. The predicted value for the 'Moment of inertia' for Mars, based upon geological features and planetary wobble are at odds with each other.

    All of these observations are consistent with Mars having a greater density than predicted by Newtonian orbital mechanics.

    There is also an indication Saturn may be heavier than Newtonian predictions. Cassini has measured the Saturn rotational period (day), and found it to be six minutes longer than the Saturn orbital period length measured by Voyagers I & II. This would be consistent with a greater acceleration of the Voyager’s during their closest approach, underestimating the orbital enhancement to the velocity of the craft relative to the period of rotation.

    If these predictions are correct, the actual density of Titan is ~ 4.42g/cc, more than twice the current theoretical value (1.88g/cc)

    The radar and ranging data we are receiving at this very moment should be yielding curious variance from predictions. If this hypothesis is true, mission planners may be miss-interpreting this data. They may be questioning the calibration of the radar systems or data reduction software. A miss-reading of this data will lead to a fatal episode for the Huygen Titan lander.

    I know these predictions, and theoretical reasoning behind them are obscure. But take a few steps backwards and ask yourself: How could the moons and the outer planets be so light, and contain the molecular bonding necessary to hold them together? How can they have features that appear to be volcanoes, and lava flows, and not be volcanic? How can the planet Neptune, and the moons of Neptune, look so much like inner planets and have an average density of much less than the Earth's crust?

    The radar and orbital data of Cassini should reveal evidence of the type of variations I have described. As I said, I have developed this concept as an explanation for cosmic events: The patterned rings and the cosmic ray power functions of supernova, the orbits of stars near the edges of galaxies and the Tully-Fisher relationship. I have only recently turned my attention to the solar system, and there may be factual evidence that gravity cannot vary in a second order.

    Any posts that shed light on this, pro or con, are cordially solicited.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    4,115
    There were no problems with Cassini's trajectory during the Titan fly-by. If Titan would have been much denser than assumed, there would have been serious alterations to it's trajectory. But none were measured, Cassini is still on the predicted trajectory.
    And due to the high density of Titan's atmosphere, the parachutes performance is much less critical than on Mars.

    All I can see in your writing is some numerology, but no evidence of any substance.

    Harald

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,416
    Jerry,
    you did post this in the ATM forum: here.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,271
    Since to Titan the apparent density of Cassini is proportionately less than its true density, the orbital insertion phase should appear quite normal. The differences would only be appartent in the flight to Saturn and again during the landing.

    Yes, these are only numerics, but they are derived from a complex string of hypotheses.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,550
    One small problem in your conjecture:

    An obvious if unlikely candidate the Pioneer 10 and 11 acceleration anomaly is a second order derivative of the ‘G constant’. ...

    ...Then I fit a log/log curve to this equation, and calculated what the density of each system would be if they were in the Earth's orbit. This is assuming “G” is indeed variable, diminishing with increasing distance from the Sun.
    (my empahsis)

    The anomaly is opposite what you presume. If Gee was decreasing with distance the spacecraft would be further than expected. They aren't. The anomaly places the spacecraft closer than expected.

    Indeed, the spacecraft move as if they were subject to a new, unknown force pointing towards the Sun.
    From here.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    505
    Not only that, but excluding the four giant planets isn't exactly helping your cause. Over 99% of the planetary mass in the Solar System is tied up in Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, it looks an awful lot like you're cherry picking data here. If your theory is true, it should hold for every body in the Solar System, regardless of size.

    The six minute discrepency between the two sets of measurements of Saturn's rotation isn't anything to get too worked up about. It's only a discrepency of 1% and well within acceptible errors, particularly when you consider that the instruments on Cassini are some 20+ years more advanced than the Voyagers'.

    Molecular bonding has little to do with how a planet holds together.

    Neptune doesn't look anything like the inner planets. It's a honkin' big ball of hydrogen and ammonia. The inner planets are, essentially, rocks and iron. Its density is much less than the Earth because it's a ball of gas instead of a ball of rock with a creamy iron center.

    Neptune's satellites also look nothing like the inner planets. Amongst other things, you don't find volcanoes that produce liquid nitrogen in this part of the Solar System. Their density is much less than the Earth's simply because they have different compositions - most notably, they don't have a large iron core like the Earth does.

    You're right that volcanic activity is taking place in the outer Solar System, or at very least has taken place in the recent past, but I don't see what this has to do with your theory. Tidal interactions between moon and planet provides a perfectly good explanation as to how this occurs.

    Edited to add a missing word.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,686

    Re: Potential Threat to the Huygen Mission

    Darn shame the Galileo VEEGA (Venus-Earth-Earth Gravity Assist) didn't work. In addition once Galileo somehow got to Jupiter, it a crying shame that its descent probe had so many problems with its path for entry into the Jovian atmosphere. Once again, pure luck must have had a role, since the descent probe actually did what it was supposed to do.

    Yup, that bodes ill for Huygens.

    More errata:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    This past Summer, the Beagle expedition ended as another of a long line of Mars failures when the probe failed to respond after entering the Martian atmosphere.
    The Beagle 2 landing attempt was December 25, 2003. That's hardly "last summer" unless perhaps you're in the southern hemisphere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    On December 26th, the Huygen probe is scheduled to be jettisoned from Cassini and make a soft landing on Titan.
    That's December 25th for Huygens release ("jettison" has negative connotations, BTW).

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    I will further demonstrate the root cause of the failure of Polar Orbiter, the Global Surveyor and at least four other Martian missions is the same, and that Huygens will almost certainly fail unless new physical considerations are included in the descent profile.
    The Mars Global Surveyor recently completed its 25,000th orbit of Mars. Here's a link. How many orbits would it have to complete and then stop functioning for you to consider it a failure?

    By "Polar Orbiter" I surmise you actually mean the "Mars Polar Lander"? That mission failed due to internal signal problems during the landing.

    The final NASA report concluded the most probable cause of the failure was the generation of spurious signals when the lander legs were deployed during descent. The spurious signals gave a false indication that the spacecraft had landed, resulting in a premature shutdown of the engines and the destruction of the lander when it crashed on Mars.

    This link has more data.

    Then again "Polar Orbiter" might mean the "Mars Climate Orbiter".

    The Mars Climate Orbiter failed due to the use of improper units. The MCO MIB determined that the root cause for the loss of the MCO spacecraft was the failure to use metric units in the coding of a ground software file, “Small Forces,” used in trajectory models. Specifically, thruster performance data in English units instead of metric units was used in the software application code titled SM_FORCES (small forces). The output from the SM_FORCES application code as required by a Mars Surveyor Operations Project Software Interface Specification (SIS) was to be in metric units of Newton-seconds (N-s). Instead, the data was reported in English units of pound-seconds (lbf-s).

    The Angular Momentum Desaturation (AMD) file contained the output data from the SM_FORCES software. The SIS, which was not followed, defines both the format and units of the AMD file generated by ground-based computers. Subsequent processing of the data from AMD file by the navigation software algorithm therefore underestimated the effect on the spacecraft trajectory by a factor of 4.45, which is the required conversion factor from force in pounds to Newtons. An erroneous trajectory was computed using this incorrect data.

    In short, Lockheed Martin Astronautics used English units in its data which, when sent to JPL, was interpreted as metric. The spacecraft went too low in the Martian atmosphere and either burned up or kicked out into solar orbit.

    Here's a link with more information.

    The failures of these two missions were due to engineering errors, and were ultimately assignable to NASA's "Faster, Better, Cheaper" operating philosophy.

    Concerning your foray into number tweaking and numerology, the coincidences remind me of Bode's "Law".

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,271

    Re: Potential Threat to the Huygen Mission

    Quote Originally Posted by papageno
    Jerry,
    you did post this in the ATM forum: here.
    Yes, In Against the Mainstream we are discussing theory, and that is good, in this thread I am soliciting evidence, pro and con, As detailed as possible. So far, the comments are helpful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan
    One small problem in your conjecture:…

    The anomaly is opposite what you presume. If Gee was decreasing with distance the spacecraft would be further than expected. They aren't. The anomaly places the spacecraft closer than expected.
    A decrease in the ‘inertial capacity’ of the system leads to an underestimate of mass. Let me use electronics to illustrate the concept: I can hang my Christmas lights up on any house in the valley and get a good estimate of the distance from the luminosity. But if I plugged them into my house and ran a long extension cord, my estimate would be way off if I did not include the line loss in the calculation. When we launch a probe away from the Sun, As the mass of the system decreases, so does the apparent mass of the rocket. No, this is not Newton and Einstein, and we know it.

    I am hypothesizing the equivalence principle is wrong: Inertia is not intrinsic in matter but a function of the total electromagnetic mass. Energy is conserved because the momentum lost is literally radiated. All of the space probes arriving at destinations further from the sun contain less kinetic energy, and this 'line loss' is proportional, as a log function of the distance traveled. The only time this effect is obvious is in carefully monitored probes like the pioneer 10 and 11.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    ... but excluding the four giant planets isn't exactly helping your cause... This looks like cherry picking .
    Yes it does, and in a Mendellian way it certainly is. Let me fix that. I have only demonstrated the principle with the variation due to increasing distance from the Sun. Let’s look more closely at how the masses of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus were determined:

    They flew the Pioneer & Voyager missions very close to the moons of these planets, then they used the acceleration of these moons to estimate the masses of the rest of the Saturn system. The same error that causes the masses to be underestimated relative to the sun, is multiplied when this solar density is used to calculated densities within the Uranus, Neptune, Saturn and Jupiter systems:

    If I assume they used the perpetuations of Titan and Phoebe to determine the masses of the outer moons of Saturn, and the perpetuations of Titan to calculate the masses of the inner moons and of Saturn itself, and correct for a ‘G’ factor that is proportional to the orbital distances,
    look what happens to the densities:

    ...................................Distance......S olar........Saturn......"Titan"...
    .................."Official"....From.......Distanc e......Orbit........Distance....
    Spheroid.....Density......Titan........Density.... Distance......Density.....


    Saturn............0.64.........-5.15..........2.75...........0.00...........3.54.. .....

    Dione.............1.43.........-4.03..........3.36...........1.12...........4.79.. .....
    Rhea..............1.33.........-3.62..........3.13...........1.53...........3.48.. .....
    Titan..............1.88..........0.00...........4. 42...........5.15...........4.42......

    ....................................Distance...... Solar........Saturn......"Pheobe"....
    .................."Official"....From.......Distanc e......Orbit.........Distance....
    Spheroid.....Density......Pheobe........Density... .Distance......Density.....


    Promtheus......0.70........12804........1.65...... ....139.40.........3.16.....
    Pandora..........0.70........12802........1.65.... ......141.70 .........3.15.....
    Epimetheus.....0.70........12792........1.65...... ....151.40.........3.11.....
    Janus..............0.67........12792........1.58.. ........151.50.........2.98.....
    Mimas.............1.17........12758........2.75... .......185.60.........4.98.....
    Encleladus.......1.24........12706........2.92.... ......238.10.........5.04.....
    Tethys.............1.21........12649........2.85.. ........294.70.........4.73.....
    Hyperion..........1.40........11480........3.29... .....1464.10.........4.22.....
    Phoebe............1.60...........0.0........3.76.. ....12944.30.........3.76.....

    I caution these are only gross approximations, they certainly used all the ‘good’ ranging data from several missions to calculate the masses, not just these two moons, but it illustrates the point. Someone who knows exactly how the masses of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Pluto were determined should know in a heartbeat whether or not the composite data will support this hypothesis. These numbers are too close to laugh off without a serious comparison with hard data.

    Just as important, look at what happens with Saturn: Without these corrections, the density of the outer moons is somewhat directly proportional to the distance from the planet, just opposite the solar system. Why would this be? Any argument used to justify the fact that the density distribution of the solar system decreases with increasing distance from the Sun, is contraindicated in this oddness in Saturn system. On the other hand, if we are systemically omitting a needed term in our gravimetric determinations, a near constant density for the solar system emerges.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    If your theory is true, it should hold for every body in the Solar System, regardless of size.
    I agree, there are too may exceptions in the original post, but once I realized how the mass of Saturn was determined (I think) the entire Saturn sub-planet system falls into line reasonably well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    The six minute discrepancy between the two sets of measurements of Saturn's rotation isn't anything to get too worked up about. It's only a discrepancy of 1% and well within acceptable errors, particularly when you consider that the instruments on Cassini are some 20+ years more advanced than the Voyagers'.
    Sure it is. Yes, radar imaging has improved, but you can’t tell me we couldn’t nail an orbital period any better than 1% with Voyager or Pioneer data, and in the same breath tell me the same data can be accurately used to calculate the masses of the moons and planets! This is exactly the scale of error we are looking at in the Pioneer anomally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Molecular bonding has little to do with how a planet holds together.
    True for big planets, not for little ones. Phoebe and many of the other moons of Saturn are not round. There is not enough gravitational energy to shape them. Phoebe is pockmarked with craters, indicating, unless you are a NWC, a great deal of age. If Phoebe were made out of Ice, one high velocity zap from anything bigger than a bagel would pulverize it. Molecular bonding as we know it? Or some unknown icey Saturn glue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Neptune doesn't look anything like the inner planets. It's a honkin' big ball of hydrogen and ammonia. The inner planets are, essentially, rocks and iron. Its density is much less than the Earth because it's a ball of gas instead of a ball of rock with a creamy iron center.
    Much of this is speculation, based upon the data from the inner stellar probes: before the fly byes, we had every reason to believe Neptune was not very different from inner planets. The moons of Neptune don’t look like hydrogen and ammonia, and they hardly could be, but they have nearly the same density as Neptune. Geophysicists are at a complete loss to explain Europia. A better interpretation of what we see is that 1% error in the orbital rotation of Saturn is real and we don’t know the true accelerations of the probes near the great planets. I really think Cassini will help straighten this all out, but only if we look at the data with fewer preconceptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Neptune's satellites also look nothing like the inner planets. Amongst other things, you don't find volcanoes that produce liquid nitrogen in this part of the Solar System. Their density is much less than the Earth's simply because they have different compositions - most notably, they don't have a large iron core like the Earth does.
    Again, this interpretation is based upon the mass calculations. The theory that there is no iron core is based upon the assumption an iron core always creates a linear magnetic field – there currently no consensus model that assigns causality to this prediction. Mars definitely has an Iron core, but an extremely weak magnetic field.

    This is one case where the chemists should be shaking the astro-geophysicists by the collar and running some sanity checks! Liquid nitrogen does not erupt and solidify into visible flows. Water would not flow from a liquid nitrogen volcano either. These scenarios are like climbing up a glacier and expecting to find a volcano cone.


    Quote Originally Posted by Maksutov
    The Beagle 2 landing attempt was December 25, 2003. That's hardly "last summer" unless perhaps you're in the southern hemisphere.
    No, but the last website I visited on the subject was 8) .

    Quote Originally Posted by Maksutov
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    On December 26th, the Huygen probe is scheduled to be jettisoned from Cassini and make a soft landing on Titan.
    That's December 25th for Huygens release ("jettison" has negative connotations, BTW).
    Not in Hawaii… ops: (sunburn)

    Quote Originally Posted by Maksutov
    The Mars Global Surveyor recently completed its 25,000th orbit of Mars. Here's a link. How many orbits would it have to complete and then stop functioning for you to consider it a failure?
    This is a subtle effect – once orbit is achieved, there should be no problems. It took them more than 300 maneuvers to get surveyor into position...or was that

    Quote Originally Posted by Maksutov
    By "Polar Orbiter" I surmise you actually mean the "Mars Polar Lander"? That mission failed due to internal signal problems during the landing.
    Gad! I posted draft 2!, draft three was much less dyslexic – my secretary said I could blame her, but the handywork was my own. I’ll post an edit. Sarcasm aside, the comments are useful. Thanks for the links.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maksutov
    The final NASA report concluded the most probable cause of the failure was the generation of spurious signals when the lander legs were deployed during descent. The spurious signals gave a false indication that the spacecraft had landed, resulting in a premature shutdown of the engines and the destruction of the lander when it crashed on Mars.
    Dysfunctional landing pads is just the kind of thing I am looking for! Do they know the rockets shut down before it hit, or is this just a guess because they know it hit too hard? How do we know the craft was not accelerating much faster than planned, and this created enough resistive air flow to trip the pad sensors?

    There was a Russian Mars lander forty years ago that transmitted about twenty seconds worth of data after landing. All they know is it landed, and landed hard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maksutov
    Concerning your foray into number tweaking and numerology, the coincidences remind me of Bode's "Law".
    Me too. The jury is still out on Bode's law and frankly, I do think it is a function of resonant effects not so different from the weaving in the rings of saturn.

    Edit: replaced meaningless distance row with 'distance from Pheobe' used in the calculations.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222

    Re: Potential Threat to the Huygen Mission

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    The jury is still out on Bode's law...
    Say WHAT?????

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,550
    A decrease in the ‘inertial capacity’ of the system leads to an underestimate of mass. Let me use electronics to illustrate the concept: I can hang my Christmas lights up on any house in the valley and get a good estimate of the distance from the luminosity. But if I plugged them into my house and ran a long extension cord, my estimate would be way off if I did not include the line loss in the calculation. When we launch a probe away from the Sun, As the mass of the system decreases, so does the apparent mass of the rocket. No, this is not Newton and Einstein, and we know it.

    I am hypothesizing the equivalence principle is wrong: Inertia is not intrinsic in matter but a function of the total electromagnetic mass. Energy is conserved because the momentum lost is literally radiated. All of the space probes arriving at destinations further from the sun contain less kinetic energy, and this 'line loss' is proportional, as a log function of the distance traveled. The only time this effect is obvious is in carefully monitored probes like the pioneer 10 and 11.
    I do hope that makes some sort of sense to you because it certainly doesn't to me.

    Inertia is not intrinsic in matter but a function of the total electromagnetic mass.
    Oh? And the difference would be?


    Energy is conserved because the momentum lost is literally radiated.
    By what means?

    A decrease in the ‘inertial capacity’ of the system leads to an underestimate of mass....

    As the mass of the system decreases, so does the apparent mass of the rocket
    So, are you saying that different masses fall at different rates in an equal Gee field? If not, then that statement makes no sense. If so, then it makes no sense. A decrease in mass (if that were true) still does not lead to a decrease in velocity or the action of gravity. If a screw rattled loose from one of the pioneers and through thermal effects drifted a few microns away from the craft it would still accompany it even though it's mass is considerably less.

    A decrease in the Gee constant would fit your conjecture. But, that is not the case.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,271

    Re: Potential Threat to the Huygen Mission

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    The jury is still out on Bode's law...
    Say WHAT?????
    Not surprising. The underlying theme of this thread is not a trivial - even the small variance suggested requires a major rewrite of cosmology. An acceleration, however small, toward the Sun would speed the demise of the solar system. Resonant states would not only mitigate this, it would explain why orbits are both planar an non-elliptical.

    Bode's law is certainly not absolute, but it does suggest mildly resonant states, if not an underlying principle. We will soon have a good catalog of planatery systems, and a definite answer to this one.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,550
    it would explain why orbits are both planar an non-elliptical.
    What??? All orbits are elliptical. There are no circular orbits. And, there are no planar orbits either (although I'm not quite sure what you intend). Look up "evection".

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,416

    Re: Potential Threat to the Huygen Mission

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    I am hypothesizing the equivalence principle is wrong: Inertia is not intrinsic in matter but a function of the total electromagnetic mass.
    You are hypothesizing against all the experimental evidence (as I already pointed out in the ATM thread).
    And, they already tried to blame electromagnetism for inertia: it does not work (have a look at Feynman's Lectures).

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    505

    Re: Potential Threat to the Huygen Mission

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    A decrease in the ‘inertial capacity’ of the system leads to an underestimate of mass. Let me use electronics to illustrate the concept: I can hang my Christmas lights up on any house in the valley and get a good estimate of the distance from the luminosity. But if I plugged them into my house and ran a long extension cord, my estimate would be way off if I did not include the line loss in the calculation. When we launch a probe away from the Sun, As the mass of the system decreases, so does the apparent mass of the rocket. No, this is not Newton and Einstein, and we know it.
    Where does the mass go? If I'm following you right, a spacecraft travelling in a straight line between the Sun and Neptune should see the Sun's mass decrease and Neptune's mass increase. What happens to the Sun's mass? Where does Neptune's increased mass come from?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    The six minute discrepancy between the two sets of measurements of Saturn's rotation isn't anything to get too worked up about. It's only a discrepancy of 1% and well within acceptable errors, particularly when you consider that the instruments on Cassini are some 20+ years more advanced than the Voyagers'.
    Sure it is. Yes, radar imaging has improved, but you can’t tell me we couldn’t nail an orbital period any better than 1% with Voyager or Pioneer data, and in the same breath tell me the same data can be accurately used to calculate the masses of the moons and planets! This is exactly the scale of error we are looking at in the Pioneer anomally.
    I still don't see the problem there. Saturn's rotational period is very difficult to measure since it doesn't have any reference points on it surface (or even a solid surface for that matter). With that in mind, I'd consider a 1% error pretty good. I'd also consider 1% to be an acceptible error in measurements of the planet's mass.

    Also, different data was used to measure the two properties. Like you said, the orbital speeds of Saturn's moons and the deflections of various probes were used to measure it's mass. You can't use those to measure its rotation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Molecular bonding has little to do with how a planet holds together.
    True for big planets, not for little ones. Phoebe and many of the other moons of Saturn are not round. There is not enough gravitational energy to shape them. Phoebe is pockmarked with craters, indicating, unless you are a NWC, a great deal of age. If Phoebe were made out of Ice, one high velocity zap from anything bigger than a bagel would pulverize it. Molecular bonding as we know it? Or some unknown icey Saturn glue?
    No, it's still gravitation holding them together. They just don't have enough gravity to pull themselves round. Eros, for example, is a bundle of rocks held together by their collective gravity.

    As for Phoebe, it's not as unstable as you think. It's big enough that it would take a massive impact to shatter it. A smaller object would gouge out a crater, but you'd need a LOT of energy to break it apart completely.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Neptune doesn't look anything like the inner planets. It's a honkin' big ball of hydrogen and ammonia. The inner planets are, essentially, rocks and iron. Its density is much less than the Earth because it's a ball of gas instead of a ball of rock with a creamy iron center.
    Much of this is speculation, based upon the data from the inner stellar probes: before the fly byes, we had every reason to believe Neptune was not very different from inner planets.
    Irrelevant. Now that we've sent probes by, we know that it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    The moons of Neptune don’t look like hydrogen and ammonia, and they hardly could be, but they have nearly the same density as Neptune.
    Different materials can have similar densities. Moreover, we think Neptune has a solid core under all that gas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Geophysicists are at a complete loss to explain Europia.
    What are they at a loss to explain?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    A better interpretation of what we see is that 1% error in the orbital rotation of Saturn is real and we don’t know the true accelerations of the probes near the great planets. I really think Cassini will help straighten this all out, but only if we look at the data with fewer preconceptions.
    Nah. The simplest and best interpretation is that Voyager's measurements were only accurate to within 1%. That's still perfectly good data.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Neptune's satellites also look nothing like the inner planets. Amongst other things, you don't find volcanoes that produce liquid nitrogen in this part of the Solar System. Their density is much less than the Earth's simply because they have different compositions - most notably, they don't have a large iron core like the Earth does.
    Again, this interpretation is based upon the mass calculations.
    It's also based on photos and spectral data. We know that Triton, for instance, is covered in frozen methane.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    The theory that there is no iron core is based upon the assumption an iron core always creates a linear magnetic field – there currently no consensus model that assigns causality to this prediction. Mars definitely has an Iron core, but an extremely weak magnetic field.
    Actually, you need a spinning, liquid iron core to produce the magnetic field. For whatever reason, this dynamo effect is no longer operating on Mars. The core may very well have cooled. The same is probably true for Mercury and Venus, implying that their cores are smaller than the Earth's.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    This is one case where the chemists should be shaking the astro-geophysicists by the collar and running some sanity checks! Liquid nitrogen does not erupt and solidify into visible flows. Water would not flow from a liquid nitrogen volcano either. These scenarios are like climbing up a glacier and expecting to find a volcano cone.
    Except Voyager II observed these volcanoes directly during its Triton flyby.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Quote Originally Posted by Maksutov
    The final NASA report concluded the most probable cause of the failure was the generation of spurious signals when the lander legs were deployed during descent. The spurious signals gave a false indication that the spacecraft had landed, resulting in a premature shutdown of the engines and the destruction of the lander when it crashed on Mars.
    Dysfunctional landing pads is just the kind of thing I am looking for! Do they know the rockets shut down before it hit, or is this just a guess because they know it hit too hard? How do we know the craft was not accelerating much faster than planned, and this created enough resistive air flow to trip the pad sensors?
    How does a systems failure support your theory? All NASA seems to be saying is that something went wrong on the spacecraft.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Quote Originally Posted by Maksutov
    Concerning your foray into number tweaking and numerology, the coincidences remind me of Bode's "Law".
    Me too. The jury is still out on Bode's law and frankly, I do think it is a function of resonant effects not so different from the weaving in the rings of saturn.
    Well, no. If Bode's law had any validity, it would predict the orbit of Neptune.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,575
    Having just finished reading this thread for the first time, I am lead to believe that Jerry is using an argument tactic know as:

    If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B---S---.

    Your thoughts?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,212
    Quote Originally Posted by Russ
    Having just finished reading this thread for the first time, I am lead to believe that Jerry is using an argument tactic know as:

    If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B---S---.

    Your thoughts?
    Not sure what you're saying; Jerry isn't trying to confuse us, he's looking for constructive criticism. Other than Occam's razor, nobody has poked any real holes--a specific counter example or calculation error--in his basic idea yet.

    I’d like someone intimately familiar with navigation of interplanetary probes to comment on the subject—exactly how would a variable G affect the course, can we detect the effect, and if we can why have we not (course corrections?).

    One report I’ve read on the Pathfinder landing may be relevant. I was unable to find any anomaly that would seem to result from an underestimate of Mars’ density. However, I’d like to read reference #2 from that paper, as it discusses changes to the landing program accounting for cumulative navigation error. My local research resources are not extensive enough for old AIAA conference papers, unfortunately.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,550
    Not sure what you're saying; Jerry isn't trying to confuse us, he's looking for constructive criticism. Other than Occam's razor, nobody has poked any real holes--a specific counter example or calculation error--in his basic idea yet.
    Huh? He has the supposed Gee constant backward. Pretty big hole. He also claims in effect that the force of gravity varies dependent on the amount of mass it acts on, not just the distance. Since this is completely at odds with solid experimental evidence that qualifies as rather large hole.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    99
    I am not really sure about what Jerry is talking about, but it seems that we are forgetting a very important detail: that Huygens is not a lander.

    When you have to land (e.g. with Pathfinder, Polar Lander, Beagle 2 etc.) you have a very difficult mission since you have to approach the ground within very low velocity limits (a small range of a few m/sec). In addition, after you land you would have to retract airbags, deploy mechanisms (panels, antennas etc.), you need to be in a good orientation and not blocked by a crater wall (this is just luck - cant predict it). In case you don't use airbags, you will have to use a propulsion system which has to work perfectly in technical terms, plus under questionable atmospheric conditions that could affect the stability and the position of the lander. So, you see, a lot of tricky and risky things have to happen. Some might say: Well, is the deployment of a solar panel so tricky? My nephew can built a mechanism like this with his toys!. Actually, most things on a space mission are tricky, so don't underestimate anything. A thousand things could go wrong

    On the contrary, Huygens is a very unique, but in the same time very easy mission compared to the mission of a lander. Huygens is an atmospheric probe. Which means that all it has to do is deploy parachutes, release the heat shield, turn-on the scientific instruments to gather data and the antenna to transmit them to Cassini.

    The deployment of the probe's instruments will occur at 170-190 km, after the heat shield is released (actually, one instrument - HASI - will gather data from 1270 km altitude). After the initiation of the instruments, Huygens will descent for ~1.5 hours and collect data. That is the mission of Huygens.

    So if the parachute deployment takes place a few seconds later, no problem. The data collection will last ... 1 hour 29 minutes and 56 seconds...The mission will be succesfull again.

    Huygens is supposed to reach the surface with a maximum velocity of 5-6 m/sec. It is designed to survive such an impact, although the landing is not a goal of this mission. If it continues to work, this would just be a bonus that everyone would welcome.

    The tricky part of Huygens is that it has three parachute deployments, and the entry and decelaration (since we don't ave a detailed structure of the Titan's atmosphere). However, due to the two flybys of Cassini from Titan, the understanding of the atmosphere is now sufficient and probably verifies the existing models, since there are no major changes in the mission. So, mainly, its up to the parachutes...

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Evan
    Not sure what you're saying; Jerry isn't trying to confuse us, he's looking for constructive criticism. Other than Occam's razor, nobody has poked any real holes--a specific counter example or calculation error--in his basic idea yet.
    Huh? He has the supposed Gee constant backward. .
    No, I placed a negative coefficent in the second derivative. This is completely consistent with the acceleration of the Pioneer probes towards the sun.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan
    What??? All orbits are elliptical. There are no circular orbits. And, there are no planar orbits either (although I'm not quite sure what you intend). Look up "evection".
    Come on! We all know the orbits of the planets are too circular to explain with simple capture scenarios and there is too much evection to explain orbital mechanics with simple condensation models. The mechanics of the solar system are up in the air.
    Thanks Demigog, Tailiak and Elias. Kurcharek’s comments are very useful:
    Quote Originally Posted by Kucharek
    There were no problems with Cassini's trajectory during the Titan fly-by. If Titan would have been much denser than assumed, there would have been serious alterations to it's trajectory. But none were measured, Cassini is still on the predicted trajectory.
    If what you say is true, this is a major/minor hole in my theory. Do you know what navigational parameters they used to calculate the trajectory? Ammunition makers have equations that model ballistic properties - these models are not based upon theory, but mostly upon empirical results. I have data that suggests that Voyager II had to conduct an automated unplanned burn to keep from falling into Saturn. Are we throwing in correction factors that are based upon prior missions? Is the correction for the solar wind over or understated?

    What about the pass near Jupiter, and other encounters? I am looking very, very subtle but consistant variations.
    I found this about Pheobe:
    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.stanford.edu/group/radar/sandy_reu.pdf
    Conclusion
    ... The measured spectral width, 3646.8515 Hz, of the inbound results is fairly close to the outbound spectral width, 3784.1806 Hz.
    Other than a slight difference between the measured Doppler spread of the inbound and outbound spectra, there is also some deviation between the measured and estimated rotation rate. There are several explanations for these inconsistencies.
    One explanation is that the nadir latitude is not included in the model curve, but is used in calculating the rotation rate. A more accurate model curve would involve varying both x and y according to Phoebe surface properties. Another source of error would be assuming a spherical model for Phoebe. All of the equations used assume Phoebe to be a perfect sphere, which it isnot. Utilizing the correct target- body model in the formula would give a more accurate estimation for the Doppler spread and would likely correct most of the differences between the measured rotation rate and the rate estimated.
    I don't know who the “Stanford.edu” group is, but they seem to be saying Doppler shifts during the Pheobe fly-by were too great, and the rotation of Pheobe was off as well. This is exactly what I hypothesized caused the 1% discrepancy in Saturn’s rotation during Voyager II’s fly-by.
    Notice that the possible causes for the Pheobe anomally are completely different form the possible causes cited for the Voyager Saturn anomally. They can both be explained as unexpected variations in acceleration.

    Can anyone shed any light on this? Is this Stanford of California, Connecticut, or Kansas?
    Quote Originally Posted by Kurcharek
    And due to the high density of Titan's atmosphere, the parachutes performance is much less critical than on Mars.
    I hope so - I hope a 300% greater g force than anticipated is ok.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    A decrease in the ‘inertial capacity’ of the system leads to an underestimate of mass. …As the mass of the system decreases, so does the apparent mass of the rocket. No, this is not Newton and Einstein, and we know it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Where does the mass go? If I'm following you right, a spacecraft travelling in a straight line between the Sun and Neptune should see the Sun's mass decrease and Neptune's mass increase. What happens to the Sun's mass? Where does Neptune's increased mass come from?
    Not a change in mass, a change in the ‘momental capacity’ of the spacecraft. We are used to Newton’s idea that momentum is inherent in the mass of an object and independent of the mass of nearby objects. I am hypothesizing that a quantity of electro-gravitational) field strength is necessary to sustain momentum. If the field strength is not strong enough to support the object in motion, the path the object follows changes coarse, and energy is conserved by either rotating or by radiating the excess kinetic energy - the greater the momentum, the higher the frequency of the radiation.

    I think all momentum in a gravitational system is governed by the total mass, not just the mass of the object in motion. Look what is happening at the edges of galaxies: The stars have too much momentum, they should be flying farther out from the gravitational center. There are two well known theories that explain this, MOND and Dark Matter. Neither of them work all the time. I am hypothesizing that stars near the edges of galaxies do not follow the path that their inertial energy dictates because there is not a ‘strong’ enough 'electro-gravitational' path near the edges of galaxies to follow. So they stay in lower orbits, radiating the difference in energy between the orbital velocity as predicted by Newton and the observed angular momentum. This is why galaxies are radio loud. This is also why jets emitted from galactic cores stay collimated for such great lengths.

    For a more local example: assume Neptune was captured by the Sun into what started as a highly elliptical orbit elliptical orbit. But when Neptune tried to use the momentum it picked up accelerating toward the sun to return to in a highly eliptical orbit like a comet, it was only able to 'climb' into the orbit it is now in. This is where it ran out of the supportive 'electro-gravitational' field strength necessary to sustain momentum away from the solar system. The slight differential in the field effects converted some of the inertia energy of Neptune into rotational momentum, settling the planet into a nearly round orbit.

    The remaining rotational energy is slowly being radiated away as thermal energy. This would explain why Neptune radiates 2.7 times more radiant energy than it receives, and why my prediction for Neptune’s density (5.765g/cc) is so much higher than the other planets (4.47g/cc). It also explains the quirky observation that the rotational velocity of planets is proportional to the amount of excess radiation they give off, as Lunatik has pointed out. (It could even explain why Neptune is an exception to Bodes’ law: Neptune could be a recent acquisition.) Spooky, huh?

    Papageno says I don’t have any evidence, when in fact I have supplied him with many observations that are consistent with this concept, such and the examples above, but also including:

    The Tully-Fisher relationship: There is a relationship between the rotational velocity and the luminosity of Galaxies of similar types over a range of ~7 magnitudes - that is a factor of 600! Tully-Fisher can be explained a predictable relationship between the mass distribution and kinetic energy of each morphological type of galaxy. The kinetics at the edges of the galaxy are completely dictated by the total mass of the system.

    The same thing happens with supernova: In the plane of the galaxy they can expand very rapidly, but they cannot expand nearly so quickly perpendicular to the plane of the host galaxy. The parts of the star accellerated in these directions are stopped in their tracks and emit an extremely powerful cosmic ray that last for a few minutes to hours after the explosion. This is why there is a "knee" in the cosmic ray light curve, and this explains why elliptica rings form in supernova debris that emit gamma rays whenever new matter from the core explosion reaches the ring. It explains why the Crab nebula quit expanding so soon, and why it still emits x-ray flashes.

    But even if the hypothesis is wrong, when I find that a simple log/log plot reveals that Venus, Mars and Pluto, and more than a half dozen moons of the gas giants have the same density within 1% - Something systemic is involved. I would not make the numbers that close if I were making up the data, and what theory I have is based upon supernova and cosmic observations, not sitting around rolling the planetary dice until something odd popped out. This was my first roll.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    The six minute discrepancy between the two sets of measurements of Saturn's rotation isn't anything to get too worked up about. ...
    Sure it is...
    I still don't see the problem there. Saturn's rotational period is very difficult to measure since it doesn't have any reference points on it surface (or even a solid surface for that matter). With that in mind, I'd consider a 1% error pretty good. I'd also consider 1% to be an acceptible error in measurements of the planet's mass.
    The ESA (European Space Agency) seems to be very puzzled by it:

    Quote Originally Posted by ESA
    Gurnett said, "Although Saturn's radio rotation period has clearly shifted substantially since the Voyager measurements, I don't think any of us could conceive of any process that would cause the rotation of the entire planet to actually slow down. So it appears that there is some kind of slippage between the deep interior of the planet and the magnetic field, which controls the charged particles responsible for the radio emission." He suggests the solution may be tied to the fact that Saturn's rotational axis is nearly identical to its magnetic axis. Jupiter, with a more substantial difference between its magnetic axis and its rotational axis, shows no comparable irregularities in its radio rotation period.
    "This finding is very significant. It demonstrates that the idea of a rigidly rotating magnetic field is wrong," said Dr. Alex Dessler, a senior research scientist at the University of Arizona, Tucson. In that way, the magnetic fields of gas giant planets may resemble that of the Sun. The Sun's magnetic field does not rotate uniformly. Instead, its rotation period varies with latitude. "Saturn's magnetic field has more in common with the Sun than the Earth. The measurement can be interpreted as showing that the part of Saturn's magnetic field that controls the radio emissions has moved to a higher latitude during the last two decades," said Dressler.

    "I think we will be able to unravel the puzzle, but it's going to take some time," said Gurnett.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Also, different data was used to measure the two properties. Like you said, the orbital speeds of Saturn's moons and the deflections of various probes were used to measure it's mass. You can't use those to measure its rotation.
    I am hypothesizing that since they underestimated the gravitational pull on Voyager during its closest pass, they miss-judged the amount of space Voyager traveled during one orbit of Saturn. If the magnetic forces are playing havoc with the radio waves from the surface, we should have the same problem using radar to fix the rotations of Jupiter, Uranus and the Sun.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Geophysicists are at a complete loss to explain Europia.
    What are they at a loss to explain?
    How an object so light can withstand the crushing forces encountered in its elliptical orbit. The shear rate upon the inner moon is enormous, especially since the rotation is slightly out of sinc with the orbit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    ...Except Voyager II observed these volcanoes directly during its Triton flyby.
    What evidence is there that is was a nitrogen volcano, and not just a normal molten lave type?
    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Dysfunctional landing pads is just the kind of thing I am looking for! Do they know the rockets shut down before it hit, or is this just a guess because they know it hit too hard? How do we know the craft was not accelerating much faster than planned, and this created enough resistive air flow to trip the pad sensors?
    How does a systems failure support your theory? All NASA seems to be saying is that something went wrong on the spacecraft.
    [/quote]

    Every single time NASA uses a systemic explanation for what I think should be a gravitational failure, I must have a reasonable argument against NASA’s determination. Has NASA seen pictures that show a crash landing? What else do we know?

    In the Global Surveyor mission, that we are told failed because of a metric/Texan unit conversion error, when you read the details that is not precisely what happened, the radar imaging data told the navigators the Surveyor was coming in hot, so hot they assumed that there must be an error in the radar data, so they ignored it and went instead with the estimates from acceleration calculations – estimates that we now know were off by a conversion error. But the reason the probe accelerated toward Mars at a higher than expected acceleration was explained as a “difference in the orientation of the solar panels”.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    If Bode's law had any validity, it would predict the orbit of Neptune.
    Current theory says Neptune is made up of mostly water, while the Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Pluto systems are made up mostly of lighter gases. In a condensation scenario for the solar system, the inner planets consist of higher density material and the outer planets of material of decreasing density. Water is more dense than the hydrogen and helium saturn and jupiter are suppose to be made out of. Why isn't the orbit of Neptune inside the orbit of jupiter? Until we can explain this, and why Neptune emits 2.7 x as much radiation as it receives, until we can explain how a planet made out of water generates a relatively strong magnetic field, we don’t have a workable model of the solar system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    As for Phoebe, it's not as unstable as you think. It's big enough that it would take a massive impact to shatter it. A smaller object would gouge out a crater, but you'd need a LOT of energy to break it apart completely.
    You are probably correct, but I can’t buy into the densities measured for the moons of Uranus and Neptune.

    Huygen may have enough parachute braking to survive. If there is a big discrepancy between the predicted acceleration and the observed acceleration, don’t automatically chalk it up to instrumental error or partial deployment of the parachute.

    Pioneer 10 & 11 gave us a definitive test of Newtonian gravity, and Newtonian gravity failed the test. It is that simple.

    And we all wonder what happens next.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,550
    No, I placed a negative coefficent in the second derivative. This is completely consistent with the acceleration of the Pioneer probes towards the sun
    No, you didn't, unless you are changing your story.

    ...Then I fit a log/log curve to this equation, and calculated what the density of each system would be if they were in the Earth's orbit. This is assuming “G” is indeed variable, diminishing with increasing distance from the Sun.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Evan
    Not sure what you're saying; Jerry isn't trying to confuse us, he's looking for constructive criticism. Other than Occam's razor, nobody has poked any real holes--a specific counter example or calculation error--in his basic idea yet.
    Huh? He has the supposed Gee constant backward. Pretty big hole. He also claims in effect that the force of gravity varies dependent on the amount of mass it acts on, not just the distance. Since this is completely at odds with solid experimental evidence that qualifies as rather large hole.
    Evan: Thanks for stepping up to the plate for me. There is more that I consider...questionable...but am to lazy to doccument it all. Titians mass & density being different than NASA thinks is just one. :roll:

    Thanks again my good friend.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Where does the mass go? If I'm following you right, a spacecraft travelling in a straight line between the Sun and Neptune should see the Sun's mass decrease and Neptune's mass increase. What happens to the Sun's mass? Where does Neptune's increased mass come from?
    Not a change in mass, a change in the ‘momental capacity’ of the spacecraft. We are used to Newton’s idea that momentum is inherent in the mass of an object and independent of the mass of nearby objects. I am hypothesizing that a quantity of electro-gravitational) field strength is necessary to sustain momentum. If the field strength is not strong enough to support the object in motion, the path the object follows changes coarse, and energy is conserved by either rotating or by radiating the excess kinetic energy - the greater the momentum, the higher the frequency of the radiation.
    The problem with that line of argument is that Newton's concept of momentum has an amazingly successful track record in classical and quantum physics and, with some modifications, in relativity. Anything you posit here has to be consistent with quantum mechanical effects.

    Also, if I understand you right, you're theory says that the Pioneer probes should have either started to rotate faster or become brighter (in terms of absolute magnitude) as they've moved away from the Sun. Have either of those been observed?


    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    I think all momentum in a gravitational system is governed by the total mass, not just the mass of the object in motion. Look what is happening at the edges of galaxies: The stars have too much momentum, they should be flying farther out from the gravitational center. There are two well known theories that explain this, MOND and Dark Matter. Neither of them work all the time. I am hypothesizing that stars near the edges of galaxies do not follow the path that their inertial energy dictates because there is not a ‘strong’ enough 'electro-gravitational' path near the edges of galaxies to follow. So they stay in lower orbits, radiating the difference in energy between the orbital velocity as predicted by Newton and the observed angular momentum. This is why galaxies are radio loud. This is also why jets emitted from galactic cores stay collimated for such great lengths.
    That's a problematic explanation. We know that stars are intrinsically bright in radio and we know that interstellar dust emits radio. We also know that galaxies contain lots of dust and lots of stars. We have the photos to prove that. The relationship between the radio noise, the stars, and the dust is explained very well by black body radiation. If your theories are correct, galaxies should be *brighter* in radio than expected by a simple black body curve. Is there any evidence for this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    For a more local example: assume Neptune was captured by the Sun into what started as a highly elliptical orbit elliptical orbit.
    Why make that assumption? Is there any evidence that this happened?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    But when Neptune tried to use the momentum it picked up accelerating toward the sun to return to in a highly eliptical orbit like a comet, it was only able to 'climb' into the orbit it is now in. This is where it ran out of the supportive 'electro-gravitational' field strength necessary to sustain momentum away from the solar system. The slight differential in the field effects converted some of the inertia energy of Neptune into rotational momentum, settling the planet into a nearly round orbit.
    Where did the extra angular momentum go?

    Also, what about the inner planets? If there is an electromagnetic component to gravity, the inner planets should be a better test. Compare the Earth and Venus. Their masses are very similar, so their 'gravitational charge,' if you will, should be very similar. However, Earth has a strong magnetic field and Venus does not. How does your theory relate that to those orbits?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    The remaining rotational energy is slowly being radiated away as thermal energy.
    That doesn't make a lot of sense. How does rotational energy get converted into heat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    This would explain why Neptune radiates 2.7 times more radiant energy than it receives,
    True, but that's also explicable by current models of planetary formation. Basically, Neptune, like all the gas giants, is still forming. It started off hot and unlike, say, Mercury or Mars, hasn't completely cooled yet because it's so honkin' big.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    It also explains the quirky observation that the rotational velocity of planets is proportional to the amount of excess radiation they give off, as Lunatik has pointed out. (It could even explain why Neptune is an exception to Bodes’ law: Neptune could be a recent acquisition.) Spooky, huh?
    I wouldn't put much stock in either of those. There's no evidence that Neptune was captured (it's in a conventional orbit and it's composition is very similar to Uranus) and there's still no good explanation for why Bode's law is anything more than a coincidence. Besides, if Bode's Law does work, everything in the Solar System should follow it. It can't explain comets. They're some of the oldest objects in the Solar System and don't even come close to fitting into Bode's law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    The same thing happens with supernova: In the plane of the galaxy they can expand very rapidly, but they cannot expand nearly so quickly perpendicular to the plane of the host galaxy.
    Isn't that just conservation of angular momentum?


    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Also, different data was used to measure the two properties. Like you said, the orbital speeds of Saturn's moons and the deflections of various probes were used to measure it's mass. You can't use those to measure its rotation.
    I am hypothesizing that since they underestimated the gravitational pull on Voyager during its closest pass, they miss-judged the amount of space Voyager traveled during one orbit of Saturn. If the magnetic forces are playing havoc with the radio waves from the surface, we should have the same problem using radar to fix the rotations of Jupiter, Uranus and the Sun.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    ...Except Voyager II observed these volcanoes directly during its Triton flyby.
    What evidence is there that is was a nitrogen volcano, and not just a normal molten lave type?
    Spectra.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Dysfunctional landing pads is just the kind of thing I am looking for! Do they know the rockets shut down before it hit, or is this just a guess because they know it hit too hard? How do we know the craft was not accelerating much faster than planned, and this created enough resistive air flow to trip the pad sensors?
    How does a systems failure support your theory? All NASA seems to be saying is that something went wrong on the spacecraft.
    Every single time NASA uses a systemic explanation for what I think should be a gravitational failure, I must have a reasonable argument against NASA’s determination. Has NASA seen pictures that show a crash landing? What else do we know?
    That there are other ways to document a systems failure. Anomalous signals, failure of a key system to deploy, etc. Have you looked into whether or not NASA examined those possibilities and whether or not they were justified in doing so?

    Also, if your theory is right, than something is badly flawed in our understanding of gravitation and kinematics. How then do you explain the successful Apollo, Venera, Viking, and Pathfinder landings?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Current theory says Neptune is made up of mostly water, while the Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Pluto systems are made up mostly of lighter gases.
    Huh? Do you have any documentation for this? Every text I've ever read says that Neptune is mostly hydrogen with some ammonia and methane and that Pluto is mostly rocks and ices.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    In a condensation scenario for the solar system, the inner planets consist of higher density material and the outer planets of material of decreasing density. Water is more dense than the hydrogen and helium saturn and jupiter are suppose to be made out of. Why isn't the orbit of Neptune inside the orbit of jupiter?
    That's not that strong a consequence of the condensation hypothesis. Uranus, for instance, is denser than Saturn.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Until we can explain this, and why Neptune emits 2.7 x as much radiation as it receives, until we can explain how a planet made out of water generates a relatively strong magnetic field, we don’t have a workable model of the solar system.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Pioneer 10 & 11 gave us a definitive test of Newtonian gravity, and Newtonian gravity failed the test. It is that simple.

    And we all wonder what happens next.
    Why do you dismiss the theory that they're just slowing down thanks to relentless collisions with Kuiper Belt dust?


    Edited to fix some tags.Stupid tags.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    281
    In the Global Surveyor mission, that we are told failed because of a metric/Texan unit conversion error, when you read the details that is not precisely what happened, the radar imaging data told the navigators the Surveyor was coming in hot, so hot they assumed that there must be an error in the radar data, so they ignored it and went instead with the estimates from acceleration calculations – estimates that we now know were off by a conversion error. But the reason the probe accelerated toward Mars at a higher than expected acceleration was explained as a “difference in the orientation of the solar panels”.


    Hmmm...that's funny because Surveyor is still in orbit around Mars taking wonderful images and transmitting large amounts of data.

    I assume you mean the Mars Climate Orbiter.

    that is not precisely what happened

    Oh ok....how bout some links to back yourself up?

    http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/news/mco990930.html

    http://www.space.com/news/mco_report-b_991110.html

    http://www.exploringmars.com/missions/mco/

    http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9911/10/orbiter.03/

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    281
    What evidence is there that is was a nitrogen volcano, and not just a normal molten lave type?

    Spectra.


    Exactly!

    http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/...?Object=Triton

    Remote temperature readings place it as the coldest surface known anywhere in the Solar System.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,550
    What evidence is there that is was a nitrogen volcano, and not just a normal molten lave (sic) type?
    I considered replying to that too. It is prima facie evident that there isn't a lava volcano there. It would light up like a lighthouse in the short infrared.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Omicron Persei 8
    Hmmm...that's funny because Surveyor is still in orbit around Mars taking wonderful images and transmitting large amounts of data.

    I assume you mean the Mars Climate Orbiter.
    Yes terminal binary dyslexia The good news is, Huygen could be landing on a moon that is three times lighter rather than three times heavier. The bad news is, well, you don't want to run into me on a one way street ops:

    Oh ok....how bout some links to back yourself up?


    Quote Originally Posted by ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/reports/1999/MCO_report.pdf
    Throughout spring and summer of 1999, concerns existed at the working level regarding discrepancies observed between navigation solutions. Residuals between the expected and observed Doppler signature of the more frequent AMD events was noted but only informally reported. As MCO approached Mars, three orbit determination schemes were
    employed
    . Doppler and range solutions were compared to those computed using only Doppler or range data. The Doppler-only solutions consistently indicated a flight path insertion closer to the planet. These discrepancies were not resolved.
    On September 8,1999, the final planned interplanetary Trajectory Correction Maneuver-4 (TCM-4) was computed. This maneuver was expected to adjust the trajectory such that soon after the Mars orbital insertion (MOI) burn, the first periapse altitude (point of closest approach to the planet) would be at a distance of 226km. See figure 4. This
    would have also resulted in the second periapse altitude becoming 210km, which was desired for the subsequent MCO aerobraking phase. TCM-4 was executed as planned on September 15, 1999.
    Mars orbit insertion was planned on September 23, 1999. During the weeklong timeframe between TCM-4 and MOI, orbit determination processing by the operations navigation team indicated that the first periapse distance had decreased to the range of 150-170km
    During the 24 hours preceding MOI, MCO began to feel the strong effects of Mar’s gravitational field and tracking data was collected to measure this and incorporate it into the orbit determination process. Approximately one hour prior to MOI, processing of this more accurate tracking data was completed. Based on this data, the first periapse altitude was calculated to be as low as 110km. The minimum periapse altitude considered
    survivable by MCO is 80 km.
    If I am reading this correctly, the Navigating system with the Metric/Texas Unit error predicted a periapse of 220km, while the Doppler Data put it around 150-170km, a third system placed the Global Surveyor, I mean the Climate Orbiter, "as low as" 110km. That is still 120% of the lowest entry point considered survivable, so the Global Surveyor should still not have burned up. I mean the Climate Orbiter. Did NASA really address the problem?

    During the Air-Braking on the Global Surveyor mission, NASA consistently reported a slowing rate that was ~10% greater than planned. Is that because they were more efficient, was this a 10% error?



    Why did the Polar Orbiter, I mean Lander, crash?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,550
    The good news is, Huygen could be landing on a moon that is three times lighter rather than three times heavier
    What??? That statement is just plain ridiculous.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Evan
    The good news is, Huygen could be landing on a moon that is three times lighter rather than three times heavier
    What??? That statement is just plain ridiculous.
    Agreed. It also demonstrates a basic misunderstanding about how science "works". Planetary bodies are not lighter of heavier...that implies weight. Scientists do not "weigh" these objects...they determine their mass. Weight and mass are 2 different things. I'm surprised that Jerry didn't know that.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    99
    Plus, as I mentioned before, Huygens is not a lander...

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Russ

    Huh? He has the supposed Gee constant backward. Pretty big hole. He also claims in effect that the force of gravity varies dependent on the amount of mass it acts on, not just the distance. Since this is completely at odds with solid experimental evidence that qualifies as rather large hole.
    Most of this evidence is based upon experiments in our local framework, Where gravity for all intense and purposes is constant. It is only with increasing distance from the sun that the second derivative of the ‘g’ function comes into play, and therefore it must effects interplanetary missions, and comets.

    The sign is not wrong (and I was joking about Titan being three times lighter). The anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 & 11 is towards the Sun, and this is consistent with a decrease in the momentum of the probes moving away from the solar system.

    Remember, I am throwing out at least two of Newton’s laws: A body can only remain in motion if there is a sufficient ‘inertial field’ surrounding the body to maintain the motion. Likewise, there is no action at a distance: We are attracted to the sun because the inertial framework of the sun extends well beyond our planet. This force becomes so weak that distant galaxies are only attracted to each other if there is literally a connecting trail of matter between them. This is all EXTREMELY speculative, but I need it to explain why a universe that is not expanding is not contracting.

    I am more fatalistic about the health of the mission, the parachutes should be adequate, and I am not sure anything could be handled differently during the heat shield part of the descent. If it burns up, it burns up.

    http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operation...t-position.cfm
    [/quote]

    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    The problem with that line of argument is that Newton's concept of momentum has an amazingly successful track record in classical and quantum physics and, with some modifications, in relativity. Anything you posit here has to be consistent with quantum mechanical effects.
    Yes and no. Quantum mechanics have been pretty much tailored to match observations, and rarely is gravity a significant factor in the QM world, so the Tweak would be major/minor.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Also, if I understand you right, you're theory says that the Pioneer probes should have either started to rotate faster or become brighter (in terms of absolute magnitude) as they've moved away from the Sun. Have either of those been observed?
    Correct but no, but this is not anyone would have expected or observed, and in any case the energy radiated would be extremely small.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    We know that stars are intrinsically bright in radio and we know that interstellar dust emits radio. We also know that galaxies contain lots of dust and lots of stars. We have the photos to prove that. The relationship between the radio noise, the stars, and the dust is explained very well by black body radiation. If your theories are correct, galaxies should be *brighter* in radio than expected by a simple black body curve. Is there any evidence for this?
    Yes, but as you said, there are many reasons galaxies are radio loud. One intriguing observation along this line is that in X-ray emitting nebula near stars, the X-ray magnitude peaks early in the cloud, and the radio peak occurs at greater distance from the star. The X-ray pulses in the Crab Nebula are followed by a radio pulse, and there is an anti-correlation between sub-millimeter IR and Radio pulses in Radio galaxies. So the relationship is very complex.
    astro-ph/0403190 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
    Title: The Complex Neutral Gas Dynamics Of The Dwarf Starburst Galaxy NGC 625
    Authors: John M. Cannon, N.M. McClure-Griffiths, Evan D. Skillman, Stephanie Cote
    Aastro-ph/0112341Matt Jarvis et al., The mass of radio galaxies from low to high redshift Chris J. Willott, Steve Rawlings, Elese N. Archibald, James S. Dunlop
    . We find a significant anti-correlation between submillimetre/far-infrared luminosity L_FIR and radio source age in the sense that hyperluminous quasars tend to be associated with young (<10^7 yr) sources.
    astro-ph/0403187 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
    Title: Absolute Timing of the Crab Pulsar with RXTE
    Authors: Arnold H. Rots
    We detect strong radio continuum emission from the largest HII regions
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    For a more local example: assume Neptune was captured by the Sun into what started as a highly elliptical orbit elliptical orbit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Why make that assumption? Is there any evidence that this happened?
    No. This is purely an example of how such a mechanism could explain the observed curious correlation between temperature and rotation. If you are asking why I am making the assumption that Newton and Einstein have poorly interpreted the universe, chalk it up to a bitter distaste for dark matter, dark energy, inflation and a few dozen other cosmological observations that seem to make very little sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    But when Neptune tried to use the momentum it picked up accelerating toward the sun to return to in a highly eliptical orbit like a comet, it was only able to 'climb' into the orbit it is now in...
    Where did the extra angular momentum go?
    What was not converted to rotational and thermal energy was radiated. This is what I think happens to supernova when they explode: The shattered star flies off in every direction at near relativistic speeds, as it collides with the shrinking “inertial mass framework”, the velocity of this explosion is suddenly curtailed, and it emits the “gamma rays from hell”, and we can’t figure out what is causing them. This also would explain why these rays are beamed, but not normally as tightly beamed as is currently thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Also, what about the inner planets? If there is an electromagnetic component to gravity, the inner planets should be a better test. Compare the Earth and Venus. Their masses are very similar, so their 'gravitational charge,' if you will, should be very similar. However, Earth has a strong magnetic field and Venus does not. How does your theory relate that to those orbits?
    In this theory, the magnetic field orientation of the earth is dominated by tidal action associated with the moon. No moon, no strongly oriented magnetic field.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    The remaining rotational energy is slowly being radiated away as thermal energy.
    That doesn't make a lot of sense. How does rotational energy get converted into heat?
    There is a differential in the “inertial mass” between the side of the planet facing the sun, and the side facing away form it. With each rotation, a small amount of this inertial energy is converted to thermal radiation. Interesting thought – the rotational velocity of the planet would tend to stabilize when the solar energy absorbed, (in the emitted wavelengths), is equal to the emitted radiation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Besides, if Bode's Law does work, everything in the Solar System should follow it. It can't explain comets. They're some of the oldest objects in the Solar System and don't even come close to fitting into Bode's law.
    I never raised much of an eyebrow to Bode’s law, until I found this power-law relationship that predicts the densities of the planets are very close to each other. If they all have the same density, it would go a long way towards explaining why certain orbits are much more stable than others: An interloping mass will be captured and held in one of these orbits, but there are only a few resonant orbits – comets that do get sucked into these obits also get crushed by the planets already there. A Solar survival of the fittest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    The same thing happens with supernova: In the plane of the galaxy they can expand very rapidly, but they cannot expand nearly so quickly perpendicular to the plane of the host galaxy.
    Isn't that just conservation of angular momentum?
    No, well yes and no, they seem to quit expanding quite abruptly, in a rather non-Newtonian fashion – We don’t have a big data base on this yet, and I don’t think anyone is panicked enough about it to look for non-Newtonian solutions…yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    ...Except Voyager II observed these volcanoes directly during its Triton flyby.
    What evidence is there that is was a nitrogen volcano, and not just a normal molten lave type?
    Spectra.
    Good evidence, thanks, and something I should already know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    That there are other ways to document a systems failure. Anomalous signals, failure of a key system to deploy, etc. Have you looked into whether or not NASA examined those possibilities and whether or not they were justified in doing so?
    I cannot expect a theory to survive if it does not conform with the evidence, and that means all the evidence. If there is truly no evidence of small departures of Cassini from expected performance, I don’t have game. If the NASA explanation fits the failure modes exactly, I don’t have game either. My goal should never be to prove I am right, only that I am not wrong. The Doppler anomalies reported as Cassini neared Pheobe are the only supportive evidence I have found on this mission. That is not very encouraging. (There was one paper on Cassini radar ranging data that was submitted and withdrawn – Does anyone know why?)

    Edit: And to answer your question: As near as I can tell, it has never even occurred to NASA Newton could be wrong. If it did, they would have thrown in some instrumentation in of the next set of missions to test that. Every detailed piece of navigational data (to Mars) I have found shows some evidence of less-than-optimal performance - but I need more details.

    The Pioneer anomalies did not show up until ~Jupiter. Before that, the solar wind provides a pushing force that varies too much to pick up subtle changes in motion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taibak
    Also, if your theory is right, than something is badly flawed in our understanding of gravitation and kinematics. How then do you explain the successful Apollo, Venera, Viking, and Pathfinder landings?
    There is very little effect between here and the moon – less than 0.001%. Most missions are over-engineered with a 20 – 60% margin of error. The ‘leaner cheaper’ missions that failed were engineered with minimal safety margins, and this includes about 4 USSR attempts to land.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Current theory says Neptune is made up of mostly water, while the Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Pluto systems are made up mostly of lighter gases.
    I

    Huh? Do you have any documentation for this? [/quote]Ya, but they probably lifted it from some astrologist. Seriously:

    http://www.solarviews.com/eng/neptune.htm Neptune composed of an outer envelope of molecular hydrogen, helium and methane roughly the mass of one to two Earths. Below this region Neptune appears to be composed of a mantle rich in water, methane, ammonia, and other elements

    But a better answer is unknown. We just don’t know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    In a condensation scenario for the solar system, the inner planets consist of higher density material and the outer planets of material of decreasing density. Water is more dense than the hydrogen and helium saturn and jupiter are suppose to be made out of. Why isn't the orbit of Neptune inside the orbit of jupiter?
    That's not that strong a consequence of the condensation hypothesis. Uranus, for instance, is denser than Saturn.[/quote]You are correct, I was unaware of how much the theory had evolved…

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Until we can explain this, and why Neptune emits 2.7 x as much radiation as it receives, until we can explain how a planet made out of water generates a relatively strong magnetic field, we don’t have a workable model of the solar system.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Pioneer 10 & 11 gave us a definitive test of Newtonian gravity, and Newtonian gravity failed the test. It is that simple.
    Why do you dismiss the theory that they're just slowing down thanks to relentless collisions with Kuiper Belt dust?
    [/quote]Good question. If you look at Anderson’s papers, the force is relentlessly consistent, and was apparent long before the probes entered the Kuiper Belt. I am of the impression the Kuiper belt is not likely to be very dense, or we would experience more dust extinction in the general plane of the galaxy, but if you have read through this rather disastrous series of posts, you already know my knowledge of the solar system is pathetically dated.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2010-Sep-16, 12:14 AM
  2. What is the potential gravity ( gravitational potential ) at the center of the earth?
    By tommac in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 2008-Nov-22, 02:26 AM
  3. Christian Huygen's 375th Birthday
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-11, 05:04 AM
  4. Huygen's probe
    By banquo's_bumble_puppy in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 2005-Feb-06, 06:04 PM
  5. Will the Huygen's probe take pictures of Titan's surface?
    By Zero Signal in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2003-Jul-21, 05:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: