# Thread: Potential Threat to the Huygen Mission

1. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2004
Posts
1,550
Hey, I didn't propose any alternate solution to the neutrino problem. I only passed comment on the quality and nature of the paper that Jerry (indirectly, probably without reading) brought up in the first place.

As for "QED", it is probably even more unassailable in it's ability to describe the nature of How Things Work than Relativity. Read it, I have. By Richard Feynman. You don't even need real math skills.

2. Originally Posted by Taibak
Originally Posted by Jerry
QE works well within the sphere of knowledge we have been able to test, but we have to make some reasonable assumptions that may or may not be true...
What assumptions are these?
It seems reasonable to assume the effective speed of light is the same in a solar environment as it is on the earth, it also seems reasonable to assume masses radiate in the same way when they are accelerated near the sun as they do near the edges of galaxies.

But if gravity and inertia are very different animals from the way Newton and Einstein have described them, a completely new rule book is needed.

My prediction is based upon the hypothesis the ‘inertial capacity’ of a system is limited by the total mass of the system, which in turn was driven by the observed supernova gamma ray energy curve.

A logical (although completely unproven) extension of this concept is that in the inner core of the sun, the greater mass fraction reduces the radiation rate of an accelerated particle, increasing its total energy capacity.

Another way to look at this is from the prospective of the mass fraction of an atom that is not involved in a nuclear detonation on earth: Each atom has to contribute in some way to the gravitational function of the system: When we burn nuclear energy on the earth, it involves such small mass fractions the gravitational changes are trivial.

But the sun is converting a huge mass, and this means the gravitational shell is getting smaller: So what happens to the energy suspended in the gravitational shell? I think what we have conceptualized as neutrinos is actually these gravitational waveforms, this is the energy function of a nuclear explosion we do not see on a small scale, and it could explain why the solar neutrino count is less than expected.

Originally Posted by Taibak
As for quantum electrodynamics, the theory is accurate to one part in a hundred trillion. It works EXTREMELY well. If this can be demonstrated at significantly varying…More importantly, if you want to replace QED, you'll have to come up with something that's AT LEAST as successful.
I can’t see anything in quantum electrodynamics that on the surface, would impinge upon an electrodynamic solution for gravity – it could work better, it could simplify the renormalization procedures and remove some of the Voodoo from the Feyman diagrams.

Originally Posted by Taibak
Can't help you there. All I know is that neutrinos can oscillate.
As I posted, this seems to be in direct conflict with basic theory because it assigns mass to a neutrino. (Since I am applying a completely different interpretation to mass and GR, this argument is purely academic.)

3. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2004
Posts
1,550
It seems reasonable to assume the effective speed of light is the same in a solar environment as it is on the earth, it also seems reasonable to assume masses radiate in the same way when they are accelerated near the sun as they do near the edges of galaxies.
[my emphasis]

WHAT is that supposed to mean???? "Effective speed of light"??? "Solar environment"???? "Masses radiate"? Radiate what? By what means?

Time to put up or shut up. If you are going to throw out the current theories that describe very accurately how things work then you better be able to propose a complete internally and externally consistent hypothesis that can both predict and explain consistently, forwards and backward, all that has been observed, before now and in the future.

Explain the preccesion irregularity of Mercury without invoking Relativity. Do you actually presume to invalidate Einstein's work? Let us see the math. I don't mean simple sums, I mean mathematical explanations that resolve the infinities inherent in relativistic astrophysics. Go for it.

( Hint, use Wolfram Mathematica and post the conjectures as a gif image)

4. Newbie
Join Date
Jan 2005
Posts
2
Originally Posted by Jerry
If Jupiter and the Sun were formed at about the same time, as current theory ascribes, and the Sun has been cooking for ions, why isn’t this reflected in the hydrogen/helium ratio? How can the sun burn without creating byproducts? We were hoping that, by comparing the H/He ratio on Jupiter with that of the Sun, we could confirm both the model for the creation of the solar system, and get a firmer estimate on the age of the system. We cannot do either because the model does not fit.
This is a tad concerning actually. I'm of the notion that our sun is diligently producing heavier elements and will eventually pump out some chromium, manganese and at the dreaded atomic 26, give up some Fe. Collapsing under its own gravity we get a super nova via which heavier elements are produced (though I'm not positive as to contemporary solar life span theory).I've also been subscribing to the belief that as our sun runs low on lighter elements it will increase in volume and engulf planets out to Mars. As this happens over several thousand million years the subsequent thermal changes in our solar system may allow for conditions suitable for life to evolve on Titan, Europa, or one of the satellites of Uranus.
How does the failure of the model in your instance impact on contemporary theories?
PS- I don't really expect you to write a detailed answer but a link would be cool.

5. Originally Posted by Gagss
Originally Posted by Jerry
If Jupiter and the Sun were formed at about the same time, as current theory ascribes, and the Sun has been cooking for ions, why isn’t this reflected in the hydrogen/helium ratio? How can the sun burn without creating byproducts? We were hoping that, by comparing the H/He ratio on Jupiter with that of the Sun, we could confirm both the model for the creation of the solar system, and get a firmer estimate on the age of the system. We cannot do either because the model does not fit.
This is a tad concerning actually. I'm of the notion that our sun is diligently producing heavier elements and will eventually pump out some chromium, manganese and at the dreaded atomic 26, give up some Fe. Collapsing under its own gravity we get a super nova via which heavier elements are produced (though I'm not positive as to contemporary solar life span theory).I've also been subscribing to the belief that as our sun runs low on lighter elements it will increase in volume and engulf planets out to Mars. As this happens over several thousand million years the subsequent thermal changes in our solar system may allow for conditions suitable for life to evolve on Titan, Europa, or one of the satellites of Uranus.
How does the failure of the model in your instance impact on contemporary theories?
PS- I don't really expect you to write a detailed answer but a link would be cool.
Welcome to the BABB!

Our sun isn't massive enough to form a supernova. It will create elements up through Carbon and Oxygen. During the later stages of its life , the Sun will become a Red Giant that will consume Mercury and Venus and perhaps the Earth itself. In the final stages the Sun will throw off its outer layers in a planetary nebula with the core forming a White Dwarf.

Here is a good link that describes the major stages of evolution of the Sun.

Have fun!

6. Member
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
99
Jerry worte:
Elias and Evan have very different prospects of the neutrino flipping solution, as we discussed above.
I never wrote anything about neutrinos. My comments only have to do with the Huygens mission, which you try to prove that is going to fail... Don't forget that this is the topic and your purpose and not nuclear and solar physics...

7. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2004
Posts
1,550
The Einstein Field Equations

8. Established Member
Join Date
Feb 2004
Posts
555
Originally Posted by Evan
The Einstein Field Equations

Coooool !!! ... and the answer is?... :-?

9. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2004
Posts
1,550
I'm not that that good with math. For that matter neither are most mathematicians and those are the simplified 2D version of the Field Equations.

10. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
312
That appears to be an equation.

11. Originally Posted by Evan
Do you actually presume to invalidate Einstein's work?
Absolutely – the size of the universe alone invalidates the Einstein-deSitter theory. Correct interpretations of the supernova data don’t support the Walker/Robertson expanding universe, either.

Do you realize what Goldhaber &amp; Company had to do to get the light curves of supernova to appear to support an expanding universe? First, they limited the critical observations to the blue light bands, then they assumed there is no (galactic) dust correction requirement for distant supernova Ia, and all reddening is due to general relativistic effects. When they correct for general relativity without first correcting for dust, they artificially broaden the light curves, and make it appear that more distant supernova are burning longer.

I don’t think time dilation and variable space are the correct interpretation of the Michelson Morley experiment, and this has ramifications for all of Einstein’s physics. There is a reason a grand unified theory has never surfaced: The basic premise is wrong.

Originally Posted by Evan
Explain the precession irregularity of Mercury without invoking Relativity.
Morris Andersonhas already demonstrated that wave mechanics can be used to predict the orbit of Mercury by varying the permeability and permittivity of space near very dense objects. This implies the speed of light is only a constant in a true vacuum as per Maxwell’s equations, a vacuum that does not contain any electromagnetic field strength of any kind. (Morris and I presented at the same Four Corners Session, and ended up dumbfounded to find we were almost on the same page.)

The wave mechanical solutions and the ‘bowling ball on a sheet of rubber’ works equally well, but instead of bending space and time like Einstein does, using Maxwell's equations the speed and direction of light is varied. This is Tesla’s solution, and I think it works.

But let’s get there one step at a time: First demonstrating that General Relativity is not giving us the right answers, then identifying which of the Maxwell equations best fit the data, and then remaining highly skeptical of the result, because the last thing physics needs is another deified model that does not work quite right.

Originally Posted by Evan
It seems reasonable to assume the effective speed of light is the same in a solar environment as it is on the earth, it also seems reasonable to assume masses radiate in the same way when they are accelerated near the sun as they do near the edges of galaxies.
[my emphasis]

WHAT is that supposed to mean???? "Effective speed of light"??? "Solar environment"???? "Masses radiate"? Radiate what? By what means?
Einstein taught us to think in terms of a time dilated universe, but mathematically, it is just as sound to assume that the speed of light is slowed when it enters a dense or encroaching electromagnetic environment. This implies gravity is electromagnetic, and my working hypothesis interprets this as a standing electromagnetic wave. When this “inertial field” weakens, the motion of mass (relative to the center of mass) cannot be sustain motion and the kinetic energy is radiated.

By what means? Quite literally an impedance miss-match: as the ability of a gravitational field to sustain motion decreases, the star, or probe, or planet literally becomes an antenna, broadcasting at a frequency that is proportional to velocity of the mass relative to the mass of the system. This is why galaxies are radio loud, and jets are collimated. In the case of an exploding supernovae, the particles moving at relativistic speeds are stopped almost dead in their tracks and radiate cosmic rays.

How could this be? What defines absolute motion if the speed of light is not fixed? The speed of light is fixed, in a theoretical perfect vacuum, void of all electromagnetic field strength. (A rocket in a perfect vacuum would only be able to move in the slightest displacements), because there would be no tensor field to move within. This is why galaxies usually remain separated, and why we usually find gaseous trails stringing clusters of galaxies together.

You were also correct, a few pages ago, when you assailed my cosmology as a potential house-of-cards, but so is the Einstein-deSitter solution. I think it fails to describe the mechanics of the universe, starting with our own solar system. I think the data is already in on this, look what happened with the Jupiter Probe:

Originally Posted by http://www.planetary.org/html/news/Galileo/hot-top-galileo-jup33.html
The approach and entry were not without some surprises..
Probe deceleration in the upper atmosphere as measured by Al Seiff's atmospheric structure instrument was greater than expected, indicating a much denser (100 times) and hotter (227 degrees C) atmosphere 340 km above the 1-bar level. Unexpected, too, was a parachute deployment 53 seconds late and 26 km below the planned 0.1-bar level.
In spite of decelerating more quickly in a denser environment, it took longer than planned to decelerate to a speed within the atmosphere at which the parachutes were triggered to deploy! Aerodynamically, how could that possibly happen? We see no evidence of 150m/s down drafts in the outer fringes of Jupiter’s atmosphere, and there are no realistic models that could create them. The gravimetric force of the planet was much greater than expected

Sorry for the slow post...funeral of a good friend.

12. Originally Posted by Elias
I never wrote anything about neutrinos. My comments only have to do with the Huygens mission, which you try to prove that is going to fail... Don't forget that this is the topic and your purpose and not nuclear and solar physics...
Sorry, It was Kaptain K and Travis who wrote that the solar neutrino problem had been solved. I referenced a paper, and highlighted the fact that the only solution I am aware creates as big of a problem for particle physics as it solves - the papers go back and forth on this almost daily.

13. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,235
Originally Posted by Lunatik
Originally Posted by Evan
The Einstein Field Equations

Coooool !!! ... and the answer is?... :-?
Depends on what you put into the variables. That eqaution is one of the reasons I keep asking for someone to show where Einstein's math is wrong. With all of those people on the internet claiming Einstein is wrong, very, very, very, very few of those detractors (I can think of only 2) would even recognize that equation as the component form of the (as Evan points out) simplified version of the field equation. Now be honest Lunatik, if they can't recognize, much less understand it, how can they legitimately claim there is something wrong with Relativity? Because the explanation doesn't make sense? A word description of the equations may fall short of actually explaining what is going on. The math is specific, the word description may not be.

14. Originally Posted by Tensor

Depends on what you put into the variables. That eqaution is one of the reasons I keep asking for someone to show where Einstein's math is wrong. With all of those people on the internet claiming Einstein is wrong, very, very, very, very few of those detractors (I can think of only 2) would even recognize that equation as the component form of the (as Evan points out) simplified version of the field equation. Now be honest Lunatik, if they can't recognize, much less understand it, how can they legitimately claim there is something wrong with Relativity? Because the explanation doesn't make sense? A word description of the equations may fall short of actually explaining what is going on. The math is specific, the word description may not be.
The math is not right or wrong. It is a set of tensor mechanics that might correctly predict what we observe. Even if Einstein's reasoning is wrong, the equations might still work.

But when the equations fail us, we should certainly look seriously at the root assumptions. Without the introduction of inflation, or one of the competing concepts, the Einstein deSitter universe failed decades ago, and without reintroducing dark energ, they do not work. If there is no evidence of expansion in supernova every big bang model has failed, and if this chain of evidence percolates back to our own galaxy, and explains the oddities experienced in our interplanetary probes, we need to recognize that.

15. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2004
Posts
1,550
The math is not right or wrong. It is a set of tensor mechanics that might correctly predict what we observe. Even if Einstein's reasoning is wrong, the equations might still work.
That is an absurd statement. The math is either right or wrong. If it is right then so was Einstein. No one has yet been able to show it wrong, including you.

16. They've already seen the Tau neutrino Jerry. So, I don't know what the big problem is. 3 Families of particles, each family has a higher mass. This is a symmetry of the universe, one that gives evidence and hints at supersymmetry. Yay string theory!
So, the neutrino problem is as good as solved.

17. Established Member
Join Date
Feb 2004
Posts
555
Originally Posted by Tensor
Originally Posted by Lunatik
Originally Posted by Evan
The Einstein Field Equations

Coooool !!! ... and the answer is?... :-?
Depends on what you put into the variables. That eqaution is one of the reasons I keep asking for someone to show where Einstein's math is wrong. With all of those people on the internet claiming Einstein is wrong, very, very, very, very few of those detractors (I can think of only 2) would even recognize that equation as the component form of the (as Evan points out) simplified version of the field equation. Now be honest Lunatik, if they can't recognize, much less understand it, how can they legitimately claim there is something wrong with Relativity? Because the explanation doesn't make sense? A word description of the equations may fall short of actually explaining what is going on. The math is specific, the word description may not be.
Thanks Tensor, glad to see how Evan's post on Einstein Field Equation works, though I am not mathematically equipped to prove it wrong, nor confirm it right, so will accept judgement by others who are. Aesthetically, I like it though.

The complaint from Einstein critics is that this Field Equation may not be the whole story, and only another representation of what the universe does with its gravity. My complaint, uninformed opinion perhaps, is that Einstein's "first postulate", that "there are no preferred reference frames", is only a postulate. The fact that it had proven usable by four generations of mathematicians and physicists is tough to stand up to, but questioning this postulate's validity is not beyond the pale of what reasonable minds may do. The reason this came up on this Huygens thread is that if we had erred on gravity's universal constant, per both Newton and Einstein, then we might be surprised by how the probe enters Titan's atmosphere, in the way Galileo's entry surprised us on Jupiter. So we should not ignore these surprises, since they may relate back to Einstein's first postulate, which after all is only a postulate. If we postulate instead that "not all reference frames are equal", everything changes, including our understanding of gravity. A postulate is only a postulate, so what evolves as an equation from such a postulate will then color how we perceive the results calculated from such equation, where the variables will perhaps yield a usable outcome, though this may be for the wrong reasons.

How can we get good results from faulty equations? Theoretically, that can be achieved if the equation fails to capture an inherent error in its postulate. For example, using Kepler's orbital equations combined with Newton's GM=Rv^2, we can calculate what M is given a constant G value. However, think about it, if "postulate" universal Newton's G is wrong for some reason, the GM function is still right, except the M is then wrong, though together they work fine (right side =Rv^2 does not change) and we cannot spot it. The end result is that the equation is usuable, as assumed, so though everything looks normal according to predictions, the values may not be true. To check for whether or not they are true would then require an "on location" check, something difficult to do. The fact that ESA is planning a probe to test exactly that, the value of G in the outer solar system, is at least a clue that somebody out there thinks Einstein's Field Equation may not be giving us the full story, and ditto for Newton's orbital equation.

This had been my point, and Jerrys (and perhaps a "silent minority" as well), that we need to watch what happens to Huygens because it may offer us a clue as to whether or not we have the whole story right. I find this prospect rather exciting, that perhaps we were wrong, though it is not my purpose to knock Einstein's, nor Newton's, but only the prospect that they may be improved upon. I'm not one to deify any scientific achievements, since in my view science is always subject to change; actually good science should always challenge its sacred cows, if it is to remain good science. But think of what it would mean if the Huygens betrays an anomaly, in the way of Pioneers, for not only our understanding of gravity, but also for Einstein's first postulate. Of course, these are only words, only theoretical hypotheticals, but if there should show up anomalies, we can work out the math later. I expect the math would be worked out by better minds than mine, but would not stop asking questions because I am not well enough equipped to give the final answer. Can Einstein's first postulate be wrong? Philosophically, why not? It's only a postulate, one which has stood up well to the tests given over the past century, but not a conclusive proof that it is right for all regions in space, nor for all conditions of electromagnetic energy vis a vis gravity. That is what we need to find out. What's wrong with that? Is it not good science? Let's see what happens January 14th!

Here's an update page for Huygens. Go Titan's!

18. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,235
Originally Posted by Jerry

Originally Posted by Evan
Explain the precession irregularity of Mercury without invoking Relativity.
Morris Andersonhas already demonstrated that wave mechanics can be used to predict the orbit of Mercury by varying the permeability and permittivity of space near very dense objects.
Jerry, you're kidding by posting this site, right? 17 postulates? (and you call GR a house of cards). I especially like this one:

Originally Posted by Morris Anderson
However, the structure of a proton may be more complex than a single standing wave. A particle consisting of two standing waves would be in closer agreement with the data.

Postulate 13 All fundamental particles are formed out of electromagnetic waves.
The proton, a fundemental particle? You want to run this past the particle physics people? (ETA C where are you?). I would especially like to see his explanation for quark jets, not to mention all the other particles that are found in particle accelerator collisions.

Originally Posted by Jerry
Sorry for the slow post...funeral of a good friend.
I understand. My condolences. I recently lost a good friend earlier this year in a auto accident.

19. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2004
Posts
1,550
Morris Anderson has already demonstrated that wave mechanics can be used to predict the orbit of Mercury by varying the permeability and permittivity of space near very dense objects.
I have a funny feeling that if you can describe something with rigorous math that produces the same end result as the Einstein Field Equation it will be found to be equivalent and actually falls out of the Field Equation with suitable examination. I can't prove it as my math skills aren't good enough but I bet it happens. In other words, it is the same math.

20. Originally Posted by TravisM
They've already seen the Tau neutrino Jerry. So, I don't know what the big problem is. 3 Families of particles, each family has a higher mass. This is a symmetry of the universe, one that gives evidence and hints at supersymmetry. Yay string theory!
So, the neutrino problem is as good as solved.
There is a very good NEUTRINO PHENOMENOLOGY
ROULET posted last week. In the introduction, they sumarieses:

Originally Posted by Roulet
Going through the history of the neutrinos we have seen that they have been extremely useful to understand the standard model. On the contrary, the standard model is of little help to understand the neutrinos. Since in the standard model there is no need for νR, neutrinos are massless in this theory.
There are at least three experiments that indirectly indicate neutrinos may have mass, that is, it can be inferred by the changing ratios of solar neutrinos observed, as they travel the earth distance between two sets of detectors, but there has been no direct confirmation of this, although not for lack of trying:

,,,A reanalysis of the results of this experiment even suggest a mass in the range 0.2–0.6 eV, but this controversial claim is expected to be reexplored by the next generation of double beta decay experiments (such as CUORE). There are even projects to improve the sensitivity of
2β0ν down to mνe ∼ 10−2 eV, and we note that this is quite relevant since as we have seen, if neutrinos are indeed massive, it is somehow theoretically favored (e.g. in the see saw models) that they are Majorana particles.

It is remarkable that the mixing angle involved seems to be maximal, and this, together with the large mixing angle required in the solar sector, is giving fundamental information about the new physics underlying the origin of the neutrino masses, which seem to be quite different from what
is observed in the quark sector.
Assigning flip states to neutrinos does require a major modification of particle theory, as the mass-less form was required to limit the number of neutrino types. Revisiting that Pandora’s box puts the field of neutrino physics back to square one.

In any case, getting three flavors of neutrinos from the sun does not produce a hard confirmation of the solar burning process, as the ‘flipping’ between earth detectors may be caused by some as yet unquantified interactive process. I think this is yet another good example of the observation that the data does not support the theory driving an ad hoc modification, and there is no end to this road once you start down it.

Any destination can be reached by any road if the road defines the destination.

21. Originally Posted by Tensor
Jerry, you're kidding by posting this site, right? 17 postulates? (and you call GR a house of cards). I especially like this one:

Originally Posted by Morris Anderson
However, the structure of a proton may be more complex than a single standing wave. A particle consisting of two standing waves would be in closer agreement with the data.

Postulate 13 All fundamental particles are formed out of electromagnetic waves.
The proton, a fundemental particle? You want to run this past the particle physics people? (ETA C where are you?). I would especially like to see his explanation for quark jets, not to mention all the other particles that are found in particle accelerator collisions.
Morris sets up his own definitions, and this constrains the scope of his work. Quarks were a completely unknown quantity when GR was developed, so were neutrons. This level of detail is not needed, until you start modeling things like neutron stars.

Originally Posted by Evan
I have a funny feeling that if you can describe something with rigorous math that produces the same end result as the Einstein Field Equation it will be found to be equivalent and actually falls out of the Field Equation with suitable examination. I can't prove it as my math skills aren't good enough but I bet it happens. In other words, it is the same math.
I do too. In this case, the relationship is quite simple, because he uses the Debroglie wavelength, which is an exact ratio of the Planck Mass, so using this rather strange number to calculate orbits is not a big brainer. Neither is finding an equivalence between varying space and time as Einstein did, and varying the speed of light in a Maxwell solution.

But once equvalence has been established, which interpretation assigns the best causality? Warping space and time, or slowing the speed of light via a Lorentz transform whenever it encounters a system of masses?

Morris's wave equations predict very different results for black holes, because in a wave mechanical world, more energy is radiated as the mass increases...so the massive jets and bubbles of hydrogen we now know are emitted from the centers of some galaxies pose much less of a problem for a wave mechanical than a black hole cosmology.

Originally Posted by Jerry
Sorry for the slow post...funeral of a good friend.
Originally Posted by Tensor
I understand. My condolences. I recently lost a good friend earlier this year in a auto accident.
Thanks, and the same to you. There are too many of those (autos and accidents).

All is tempered about the world,
One life stretched across the eon known as the 21st,
Quietly assailed by the sudden awakening of a
Faceless mass,

So calm,
This quite sentry absorbed the mountains in his wake,

Canvassed he tirelessly amongst the stars,
Leaving his warm breath in our windows

22. Banned
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
164
Originally Posted by Tensor
Originally Posted by Lunatik
Originally Posted by Evan
The Einstein Field Equations

Coooool !!! ... and the answer is?... :-?
Depends on what you put into the variables. That eqaution is one of the reasons I keep asking for someone to show where Einstein's math is wrong. With all of those people on the internet claiming Einstein is wrong, very, very, very, very few of those detractors (I can think of only 2) would even recognize that equation as the component form of the (as Evan points out) simplified version of the field equation.

Can you find an error in that equation? 8)
http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccX-3-a4.html

23. Check out this image of Opportunity’s heat shield: Notice how in places the ablative composite appears completely burned through. Although there is the possibility this was shaken loose when the shield hit the planet, it is highly probable the engineers are scratching their heads, wondering why the remaining composite is so thin. A fourteen percent error in calculating the mass of Mars would go a long why towards explaining why this mission had the engineers ‘biting their nails’ during descent, and why so many Mars landing attempts have failed.

In my English 101 class, we were docked for using words like 'Amazing', 'puzzling', and 'perfectly', because they are nondescriptive adjectives. You will find all three of these words in every TV product ad, and every NASA new release, along with anomally, unusually, and unpredictably.

NASA, you have a very good product, tell us what you observe, and let us decide for ourselves whether it is amazing and puzzling. And a heat shield that looks like it was burned down past the rivets is not the signature of a 'perfect' entry.

Originally Posted by http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2004/10.cfm
The flight team is also finding ways to prevent overheating of electronics inside Spirit. "Our robot geologist was dressed a little warm for the weather on Mars," Trosper said. The atmosphere and surface at the landing site this week are not as cold as anticipated. However, the rover's temperatures are expected to drop when it rolls off its lander platform and gets its wheels onto the ground.
was there more residual heat accumulated during atmospheric entry than expected? How many Watts was the heat shield designed to absorb or ablate, how many did NASA expect, and how much was experienced? How perfect was this perfect landing?

24. Originally Posted by Jerry
Check out this image of Opportunity’s heat shield: Notice how in places the ablative composite appears completely burned through. Although there is the possibility this was shaken loose when the shield hit the planet, it is highly probable the engineers are scratching their heads, wondering why the remaining composite is so thin. A fourteen percent error in calculating the mass of Mars would go a long why towards explaining why this mission had the engineers ‘biting their nails’ during descent, and why so many Mars landing attempts have failed.
Here is a list of all missions to Mars by both the United States and Russia. Very few of the failures came during the landing phase. The ones that were are fairly well understood. Your "fourteen percent error" hypothesis explains nothing.

25. Originally Posted by Jerry
Originally Posted by http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2004/10.cfm
The flight team is also finding ways to prevent overheating of electronics inside Spirit. "Our robot geologist was dressed a little warm for the weather on Mars," Trosper said. The atmosphere and surface at the landing site this week are not as cold as anticipated. However, the rover's temperatures are expected to drop when it rolls off its lander platform and gets its wheels onto the ground.
was there more residual heat accumulated during atmospheric entry than expected? How many Watts was the heat shield designed to absorb or ablate, how many did NASA expect, and how much was experienced? How perfect was this perfect landing?
Are you serious? The above quote is in relation to the temperature of Mars being a bit higher that expected. There's nothing about "residual heat" from entry. You're inventing solutions to non-existent problems.

26. Senior Member
Join Date
Jun 2002
Posts
12,345
Originally Posted by Jerry
...it is highly probable the engineers are scratching their heads, wondering why the remaining composite is so thin.
Oh really? Have you become a mind reader, cause I don't see where in the world you got that from.

A fourteen percent error in calculating the mass of Mars would go a long why towards explaining why this mission had the engineers ‘biting their nails’ during descent...
Or perhaps they were just anxious during the landing phase...as they are during every landing phase.

...a heat shield that looks like it was burned down past the rivets is not the signature of a 'perfect' entry.
When did you become an authority on what heat shields should or should not look like? Do you know of a mission scientist actually stating that the heat shield was abrated more than they anticipated it would be?

27. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
183
Originally Posted by Star Pilot

Can you find an error in that equation? 8)
http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccX-3-a4.html
There's nothing wrong with the math, only there's no discussion of how one would go about observing "C". The problem is that the coupling between gravity and the nuclear forces takes place on scales that are very difficult to compare in our present labs.

28. Banned
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
164
Originally Posted by Astronomy
Originally Posted by Star Pilot

Can you find an error in that equation? 8)
http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccX-3-a4.html
There's nothing wrong with the math, only there's no discussion of how one would go about observing "C".
Can you be more precise about that?I don`t get your drift about "only there's no discussion of how one would go about observing "C".

"The basic relationship of General Relativity which they used as a basis for their system is:

Ruv - .5guvR = 8(Pi)kTuv
Ruv = Ricci's ten-component sub-Riemannian space, curvature tensor
guv = the metric tensor
R = the selected Ricci scalar components
k = a universal constant: proportional to Newton's gravitational constant
Pi = the usual constant: 3.14...
Tuv = the components (potentials) of the energy-stress tensor

Although Deser and Arnowitt's proposed equations were quite difficult to work with, it is assumed that subsequent linear variations - allowing major leaps in human science to develop.

When the Unified Field Theory is finally released to the public, it will be recognized quite easily; for it will have explained why the proton is exactly 1836 times the gravitational mass of an electron,... why there is no neutral mu-meson of mass 200,... why (h) is a constant... and why hc/e2 is always equal to (137)... "
Originally Posted by Astronomy
The problem is that the coupling between gravity and the nuclear forces takes place on scales that are very difficult to compare in our present labs.
So how they were able to develop this equation in the late 50?

Edited for spelling.

29. Originally Posted by Hamlet
Are you serious? The above quote is in relation to the temperature of Mars being a bit higher that expected. There's nothing about "residual heat" from entry. You're inventing solutions to non-existent problems.
You are right, there is no mention of residual heat, but that is the whole point of this thread. Every Martian landing parachute deployed late*, and every time it was because of "High down drafts" or "Martian wind storms", and so did the parachute of the Galileo Jupiter probe. Too much coincidence.

The report about Spirit being too hot was just a day or two after landing - I keep complaining about the lack of detail in the NASA press reports because it it so difficult to draw any conclusions other than the those hand-fed to us by those who are "amazed, by the unexpected perfectly puzzling", results.

If Spirit's heat shield looked anything like Opportunity's, there was much more residual heat than expected and it could have contributed to the heating problems for Spirit's electronics - Sorry, but it is a little hard for me to fathom that a 'warmer than expected' atmosphere alone could be the culprit. It's not like Spirit was stuck in the rear window of a hatchback.

In the thin air of Mars, conductive heat transfer is limited, the residual heat acquired during entry has to be radiatively dissipated and that takes time. I wish they would publicly report exactly when the electronics were overheating, and by how much. I would have found statements like "we put too warm of a winter coat on Spirit" patronizing when I was in grade school. NASA's Reader's Digest approach to science gags me. (It must be very difficult trying to coach everything in words that will be not offend the intellect of Washington.)

Both the Global Surveyor and the Mars 0rbiter spent months carefully air braking, trying not to generate too much heat. There are all kinds of indications (in the remarks of the principles), that they were 'puzzled and amazed" by the amount of heat they had to dissipate.

*After watch Spirit fall, they forced the deployment of Opportunity's parachute higher in the atmosphere. It still landed at about the same velocity - 20m/s, 12m/s of which they assigned to a horizonal vector.

Originally Posted by Hamlet
Here is a list of all missions to Mars by both the United States and Russia. Very few of the failures came during the landing phase. The ones that were are fairly well understood. Your "fourteen percent error" hypothesis explains nothing.
On your list I can count at least four landers where contact was lost for unknown reasons. They think the Air Bags exploded when Beagle hit, Mars 3 plowed into Mars at 61m/s and managed to send two minutes worth of garbled data. There is some evidence the Polar Lander also may have plowed into Mars, but a new crater spotted by intellegence imagers appeared to be ‘much to large’ to have been the Polar Lander at the expected velocity, even though it is in about the right place, if the Polar Lander failed due to a heat shield failure. (The most probably cause entertained by NASA was "generation of spurious signals when the lander legs were deployed during descent", causing the engine to shut down prematurely, but that does not explain why both of the independent probes also failed.

The one thing the Russian and American failures have in common is they were working with narrower engineering margins than the successful mission, so yes, 14 percent greater mass is a great big deal if your engineering margin is 15-20%. Spirit and Opportunity landed at ~20m/s when they were expecting 14. They were designed to survive at up to 24m/s, so they survived.

Originally Posted by jerry
...it is highly probable the engineers are scratching their heads, wondering why the remaining composite is so thin.
Originally Posted by RAF
Oh really? Have you become a mind reader, cause I don't see where in the world you got that from?
…When did you become an authority on what heat shields should or should not look like?
:wink:
Originally Posted by RAF
Do you know of a mission scientist actually stating that the heat shield was abrated more than they anticipated it would be?
If I were a mission scientist, I would be telling you that I am amazed and puzzled by the perfect performance of the heat shield :roll:

edit - Replacing Pathfinder with the global surveyor...gad!

30. Established Member
Join Date
Jul 2004
Posts
281
Both the Pathfinder and the Mars 0rbiter spent months carefully air braking, trying not to generate too much heat.

Try to keep your facts straight if you want folks to actually take you seriously. The pathfinder probe took the same approach as the current probes; no orbits, just a straight shot into a landing trajectory. They didn't spend months trying to look for a place to land like the both Viking probles.

On your list I can count at least four landers where contact was lost for unknown reasons. They think the Air Bags exploded when Beagle hit, Mars 3 plowed into Mars at 61m/s and managed to send two minutes worth of garbled data. There is some evidence the Polar Lander also may have plowed into Mars, but a new crater spotted by intellegence imagers appeared to be ‘much to large’ to have been the Polar Lander at the expected velocity, even though it is in about the right place, if the Polar Lander failed due to a heat shield failure. (The most probably cause entertained by NASA was "generation of spurious signals when the lander legs were deployed during descent", causing the engine to shut down prematurely, but that does not explain why both of the independent probes also failed.

You just love to hear yourself talk don't you. Too bad your info is off. First, the air bags exploding is only one of the hypotheses for the failure of the probe...not the targeted theory.

Second, Mars 3 lasted all but 20 seconds on Mars. It made a soft landing according to the engineers but only returned one image before ceasing communications.

http://www.mentallandscape.com/V_Cameras.htm (half way down the page)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M...tial_photo.jpg

It landed in the mists of a large dust storm where Mariner 9 had a second row seat to the storm so we know conditions weren't exactly fair on the planet.

If I were a mission scientist, I would be telling you that I am amazed and puzzled by the perfect performance of the heat shield

Well hell, given that they simulated it and predicted that well is a pretty good indication that they were doing something right. If you need a 30% margin of error in engineering then you shouldn't be an engineer.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•