Mars: Hard to hit, or are Probes hitting too hard?

[Paul Mitchell]

This is a contradiction—orbits are the result of gravitational force, so any “unexpected tug” would be clearly visible in the ephemeris data for every object in the solar system. If we’re underestimating the mass of Mars (etc) and there is some compensating effect (variable G or “different path lengths”), the net result must be indistinguishable from conventional physics, because we have seen no anomalies in ephemeris data. For the probes to behave differently near the planet/moon, there would have to be a fairly major deviation from the inverse square law—and I’m pretty sure nobody has evidence of that.

I made the same point in the Huygens thread http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...hlight=#458997 and Jerry didn't get it then either.

The Huygens thread was locked before I got to everything – some good questions were not answered.

First, there ARE measurable known observations that challenge the inverse square law, and this is very obvious in very large systems. I am talking about the MOND or Dark Matter effect: We use the absolute magnitude of stars to predict their mass, Stars of the same absolute magnitude rotate faster than predicted. The rate of rotation is decidedly non-Newtonian - unless Dark Matter that hangs only in the outer edges is evoked, matter that has defied more than fifty years of attempts to quantify any property other than that galaxies appear to misbehave.

The second obvious exception is in the orbit of Mercury. Einstein managed to patch a fix for this with GR, but he didn't fix the Dark Matter problem, and it has not gone away.

I don't see an answer to either Demigrog's or my questions there.

I am arguing that there is another factor, not a force factor, but 'texture' in space that increases the pathlength by a 1/r amplitude factor with increasing proximity to the sun. This gradient is very small - 1x10^-9m/s^2 near Saturn, maybe a factor of a thousand greater than than near Mars.

Any object in orbit about Mars is going to follow the r^2d rule, but since the path through space near Mars is 'smoother' than near the earth, each orbit will take less time to complete. When we plug this into the Earth-based equation, we underestimate the mass of Mars by 15%.

So how come this "texture" of space only affects orbiting physical bodies and not the light/radar etc that we use to observe them apparently behaving in a completely conventional way?

I think it does – I think it has to, to explain several things, not the least of which is the acceleration of the Pioneer probes. We use two-way ranging data to determine exactly where the probes are, then use the speed of light to calculate position. I think light increases in speed very slightly with increasing distance from the sun, at a nearly constant rate of ~8x10^-10m/s^2. This two-way path that light travels in less time than expected is interpreted as an acceleration of the probes towards the sun, when exactly the opposite is happening: Both light and the probes are ‘accelerating’ away from the sun because the path through space is becoming shorter.

Some maths would be nice here...

I still cannot square how a reduced G and increased mass don't produce the observed Newtonian orbit around Mars without also reproducing exactly the same local value of g as predicted by Newton.

You talk about path lengths becoming shorter, but what does this mean? Is the orbit shorter because we certainly don't observe things orbiting Mars faster than expected? If not, why is a greater mass required.

And what about the distance between Mars and the orbit, should that now be smaller too? Wouldn't that require a lower mass to produce the Newtonian orbits?

[Jerry]

This is a contradiction—orbits are the result of gravitational force, so any “unexpected tug” would be clearly visible in the ephemeris data for every object in the solar system. If we’re underestimating the mass of Mars (etc) and there is some compensating effect (variable G or “different path lengths”), the net result must be indistinguishable from conventional physics, because we have seen no anomalies in ephemeris data. For the probes to behave differently near the planet/moon, there would have to be a fairly major deviation from the inverse square law—and I’m pretty sure nobody has evidence of that.

I made the same point in the Huygens thread http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...hlight=#458997 and Jerry didn't get it then either.

The Huygens thread was locked before I got to everything – some good questions were not answered.

First, there ARE measurable known observations that challenge the inverse square law, and this is very obvious in very large systems. I am talking about the MOND or Dark Matter effect: We use the absolute magnitude of stars to predict their mass, Stars of the same absolute magnitude rotate faster than predicted. The rate of rotation is decidedly non-Newtonian - unless Dark Matter that hangs only in the outer edges is evoked, matter that has defied more than fifty years of attempts to quantify any property other than that galaxies appear to misbehave.

The second obvious exception is in the orbit of Mercury. Einstein managed to patch a fix for this with GR, but he didn't fix the Dark Matter problem, and it has not gone away.

I don't see an answer to either Demigrog's or my questions there.

Then I don't fully understand the question. There is a fairly major deviation in the orbit of Mercury - resolved within ~ 1% by using Einstein's slower crock, and there are deviations in the Mars orbiters that produce greater anomalies at 300 km than at 1500 km - These are interpreted as greater accuracy, but the range of the anomalies has also shifted from ~2000 in the Geoid to ~2800. Finally, galactic orbits are not even close to Newtonian predictions.

snip

I still cannot square how a reduced G and increased mass don't produce the observed Newtonian orbit around Mars without also reproducing exactly the same local value of g as predicted by Newton.

You talk about path lengths becoming shorter, but what does this mean? Is the orbit shorter because we certainly don't observe things orbiting Mars faster than expected? If not, why is a greater mass required.

Think of it, not as a change in the value of G, but in the value of Pi (!!!).

If you drive the coastline of California, you will come up with a mileage figure, but if you walk the same coast off-highway, the number will more than double.

I am arguing that all matter passing through space must negotiate the local electromagnetic field profile - which is disrupted by proximity to masses. Since the earth is much closer to the sun, a circular orbit about the Earth at a given radius is effectively longer than an orbit at the same radial distance from the center of the Mars. The mass of Mars, and the earth are very small relative to the sun, so the variance in the path through space caused by these small planets is very small. This leads to very nearly the same miscalculation of the mass and density of Mars at any orbital distance from Mars so the inverse square law does not appear to be violated.

It is only when probes are very close to the surface, and the effective time is increased or decreased near surface features by the geometric angles involved that anomalies begin to appear. On Mars, the peaks should appear to be more dense than the estimated surface density, on Venus, they should appear to be lighter than the average skin density. The opposite effect should be observed for depressions. All of these observational 'predictions' are true.

And what about the distance between Mars and the orbit, should that now be smaller too? Wouldn't that require a lower mass to produce the Newtonian orbits?

Do you mean from this - are we underestimating the mass of the Sun? Or why is there a straight line extrapolation of the inverse square law through all of the planets?

The mass of the sun is based primarily on the ratio of the sun's mass to the Earths orbit - so I don't see why this number would changed.

Should the other planets show discrepancies from the 1/r^2 rule? Absolutely. Mercury does, Venus is pretty close to the Earth so the discrepancy should be small but measurable. (I'm going to have to look for discrepancies in the orbital constants of Venus - I think they should exist.)

For all of the outer planets, the discrepancies are hidden by the change in the velocity of light. We should be able to detect these anomalies when viewing ellipsing ephemeris's from Cassini while looking through the center of the solar system. I think some of these anomalies have should have been observed in the past, but may have been written off as solar corona or magnetosphere effects - just like the Pioneer 6 anomaly.

Newton...powerful is he with the force, minds, bend them can he.

Meanwhile:

[quote="Cylinder"]The following contains excerpts from the NASA's Mars Exploration Analysis Group white paper titled Precursor Measurements of Mars Needed to Reduce the Risk of the First Human Mission to Mars [1.66MB PDF]. The report has been approved for public release by JPL Document Review Services (CL#05- 0381), and may be freely circulated.

During the MER/Spirit EDL, lower-than-modeled middle atmosphere densities and unexpected oscillations near parachute deployment occurred that nearly exceeded safe ranges.

8)

[PatKelley]

For all of the outer planets, the discrepancies are hidden by the change in the velocity of light. We should be able to detect these anomalies when viewing ellipsing ephemeris's from Cassini while looking through the center of the solar system. I think some of these anomalies have should have been observed in the past, but may have been written off as solar corona or magnetosphere effects - just like the Pioneer 6 anomaly.

Newton...powerful is he with the force, minds, bend them can he.

Meanwhile:

The following contains excerpts from the NASA's Mars Exploration Analysis Group white paper titled Precursor Measurements of Mars Needed to Reduce the Risk of the First Human Mission to Mars [1.66MB PDF]. The report has been approved for public release by JPL Document Review Services (CL#05- 0381), and may be freely circulated.

During the MER/Spirit EDL, lower-than-modeled middle atmosphere densities and unexpected oscillations near parachute deployment occurred that nearly exceeded safe ranges.

8)

Uh, Jerry... first off, no.
This?

For all of the outer planets, the discrepancies are hidden by the change in the velocity of light

No. Changing the rules so that we can't detect your supposed effect is one thing, and all too often seen in this and the former Huygens thread. But stating that your position is a certainty ("are hidden" rather than "might be") is a bit presumptuous.

Second, if your theory was correct, density of the atmosphere should have exceeded rather than fallen below expected density. Your higher gravity doesn't work here, as it would have the additional effect of increasing atmospheric density, not reducing it. Please don't tell us that scientists are too dim to figure out atmospheric profiles from re-entry data. We've been doing it for decades on earth.

[Baloo]

Sorry, the sentence structure is ambiguous: The probes orbit Mars at altitudes that, using Newtonian mechanics, predict than Mars is a lower mass planet than it really is.

So the probes aren't where NASA and ESA think they are? Mars Global Surveyor has taken pictures of Mars Express ( link ) and this wouldn't be possible if the positions of both orbiters are not known with maximum precision.
Also Mars Global Surveyor has a radar onboard ( link ) used precisesly to measure the altitude. Why nobody noticed the deviation from computed trajectory? (and don't say "variable lightspeed" if you don't provide at least an estimation for lightspeed value on Mars ).

But no one has put forward an explanation for why the optical density data is a factor of ten less than expected for the predicted atmospheric density...

The optical density is measuring atmospheric absorption; this is far more dependent on the impurities which also strongly affect light scattering (as dust, particles, condensed water or methane on Titan) than the density variations of the atmosphere. Take a volume of pure air and compress it to 10 times the atmospheric pressure: you'll see little change in it's optical density. But add some dust particles or vapour water and you'll see a tremendous change. :wink:
So for Titan's optical density on surface don't blame the atmospheric density, but atmospheric impurities.

Why a low orbital pass is an extreme case, comparable with galactic orbits?

Good question. Low passes change the observational angle relative to geological features. The time spent in close proximity to peaks and valleys is greater, so if these features are more or less dense than the average terrain the orbiting objects become more sensitive to these features

Irrelevant answer. Mercury is an extreme case because Sun's huge mass proximity. A galaxy is an extreme case because it's size. Why is a small (compared with Mars medium gravitational field) gravitational anomaly a special case? What is the parameter that makes it extreme?

What is the meaning of "spreading" an acceleration over a distance? Do the same thing for Pioneers and you'll see that they also are in you tolerance limit of 1/10000: this mean that actually they could be in the right place but we have not enough precision to say it for sure?

a constant change in acceleration of 1*10^-9m/s^2 would not be observable in a flight from NY to LA, but a constant acceleration of this amount between Mars and the Earth would result in a significant change
velocity.

First the distance between Earth and Mars is far to be constant.
Second: about what acceleration between Earth and Mars you're talking? I tought we're discussing about a change in the centripetal acceleration of Mars at another speed on it's orbit than Newton predicted (I can't believe what I'm saying here... #-o ) !

We expect to measure anomalies, we should not expect most (if not all) of the mountains of Mars to appear to be more dense than the surrounding terrain, and the mountains of Venus to appear less dense. Likewise, we should not expect to measure just the opposite when measuring valleys, with Mars valleys less dense than the mean, and all of Venus's chasms and valleys more dense.

The sources you've quoted about Mars gravitational anomalies are not saying anything about Mons Olympus being more or less dense! Did I need to mention to you that a mountain will always appear as a positive gravitational anomaly even if is less denser simply because it is a mass added on a relatively uniform sphere? Again, a gravitational anomaly doesn't necessarly imply a change in density, it could be just a nonuniformly distributed omogen mass.
In the case of volcanos I think that they're denser simply because they're composition is originating deeper inside the planet.

In the northern polar regions, several anomalies of -200 to +200 mGals appear between 70 deg N and 90 deg N, however none seem to correlate directly with visible topography

What about those anomalies not correlated with surface features? How do you explain them?

Otherwise, why would Venus volcanoes appear as negative anomalies and Mars volcanoes as positive ones: we're not talking about nipples and belly buttons.

First, your links don't mention anything about gravitational anomalies for Venus volcanos:

The global spherical harmonic model of Venus' gravity field MGNP60FSAAP, with horizontal resolution of about 600 km, shows that most coronae have little or no signature in the gravity field. Nevertheless, some coronae and some segments of chasmata are associated with distinct positive gravity anomalies.

A coronae is not a volcano, just " seem to be collapsed domes over large magma chambers."

Second, also from your link, it seems that few chasmata and coronae have gravitational anomaly associated with them. Why the rest don't exhibit such a behaviour?

Good point - they certainly know how much energy it takes to lift the arms - but is it more than expected? Is this one of those 'surprising, puzzling or amazing things NASA keeps eluding to without telling us what is surprising or why?

Nobody is elluding you, Jerry. Simply the non events are not mentioned... do you really think that NASA will do a report like :
"17:52:43 - moved robotic arm 3 inches on the left. All normal
17:56:23 - moved robotic arm 2 inches forward. All normal
....
...
19:22:34 - begun spinning the arm's drill at 20 rpm in order to dig a hole. All normal"
....
20:35:03 - moved the rover 2.65 inches forward by using 12.9 watts to power aft wheels in order to optimize the arm's position" ?

No way; they'll just say: "we've succesfully dig a 10 inches deep hole". If you want details is up to you to email them asking for specific ones as abnormal power consumption on certain subsystems. Why don't you do it?

Are the compositional profiles different in ways that would make Mars surface features more dense and Venus surface features less dense? Shouldn't Venus have a profile more similar to the Earth, with both positive and negative anomalies found in surface depressions?

That's exactly why we've send probes there: to find out. Do you expect to reveal Mars and Venus misteries with just a few orbiters and probes? We are 6 billions here on Earth with basically all our machines and equipements and we are still far to understand our own planet geology and meteorology. :wink:

...and there are deviations in the Mars orbiters that produce greater anomalies at 300 km than at 1500 km

Source please? Mars Express orbit varies between 260 and 11,000 kilometers in altitude. ... it should have plenty of anomalies each time it's changing the altitude. :wink:

During the MER/Spirit EDL, lower-than-modeled middle atmosphere densities and unexpected oscillations near parachute deployment occurred that nearly exceeded safe ranges.

And that's proving what? It's up to you to prove that:
1. It wasn't a variation in the local atmospheric conditions.
2. The middle athmospheric density is better fited by your variable G model

Good luck!

[Jerry]

For all of the outer planets, the discrepancies are hidden by the change in the velocity of light. We should be able to detect these anomalies when viewing ellipsing ephemeris's from Cassini while looking through the center of the solar system. I think some of these anomalies have should have been observed in the past, but may have been written off as solar corona or magnetosphere effects - just like the Pioneer 6 anomaly.

Newton...powerful is he with the force, minds, bend them can he.

Meanwhile:

The following contains excerpts from the NASA's Mars Exploration Analysis Group white paper titled Precursor Measurements of Mars Needed to Reduce the Risk of the First Human Mission to Mars [1.66MB PDF]. The report has been approved for public release by JPL Document Review Services (CL#05- 0381), and may be freely circulated.

During the MER/Spirit EDL, lower-than-modeled middle atmosphere densities and unexpected oscillations near parachute deployment occurred that nearly exceeded safe ranges.

8)

Uh, Jerry... first off, no.
This?

For all of the outer planets, the discrepancies are hidden by the change in the velocity of light

No. Changing the rules so that we can't detect your supposed effect is one thing, and all too often seen in this and the former Huygens thread.

I have been talking about the variable speed of light since long before the Huygens thread - this is not new, it is one of the keystones.

But stating that your position is a certainty ("are hidden" rather than "might be") is a bit presumptuous.

Correct, I should have said 'may be masked", this is the ATM thread: so everything is taken with a grain of salt.

Second, if your theory was correct, density of the atmosphere should have exceeded rather than fallen below expected density. Your higher gravity doesn't work here, as it would have the additional effect of increasing atmospheric density, not reducing it. Please don't tell us that scientists are too dim to figure out atmospheric profiles from re-entry data. We've been doing it for decades on earth.

To the best of my knowledge, a completed descent profile has never been released for the Pathfinder Probe - and we are still waiting for something from both Spirit and Opportunity. Viking profilers concluded that they could not physically explain the 'higher than expected' drag coefficient of the Viking parachutes.

…

P37 Because flight trim angles were higher, a slight reduction in Ca would be expected. However, the figure shows that flight axial force coefficients were significantly higher . This was particularly true early in the entry when the Mach number was greater than 10. Very early in the entry near the 0.05-g point, accelerations are very small and the accuracy of the force coefficient calculation is poor. No obvious explanation is available for the high Ca values later in the entry between Mach 2 and 5.

Expected drag: 0.68
Observed drag 0.74

P 69 One phenomenon, common to both landers, was that the constant velocity descent phase was approximately 1 sec longer than anticipated, which converts into about
2.4 lbs of terminal descent fuel. Because we had about 30 lbs of fuel left over in both missions, this was of no consequence.

Flight reconstruction of the entry using MPF flight accelerometer data revealed that Pathfinder decelerated faster than predicted based on the estimated value of the MPF parachute CD of 0.50; a value which was determined from low altitude Earth flight tests and wind tunnel data during the development of the MPF parachute (see Ref. 3). An explanation of this underperformance of the MPF parachute system from that which was predicted is still not known.

Scientists have determined the approximate total thicknesses of atmospheres by using radar and occult data. What is not known with precision is the atmospheric distribution. If the gravity is as Newton predicts, the upper atmosphere of Mars should be thicker than if the planet is more dense as I claim. Likewise, if I am correct, the lower atmosphere should be thicker than Newtonian predictions.

In the case of Mars, I think we had empirical measurements from the surface (Viking data), before we knew the total atmospheric density, and this would lead to overestimating the upper atmosphere thickness. I know measurements taken just before the Beagles descent indicated the upper atmosphere was much thinner than expected.

All of the landing probes seem to indicate the upper and/or middle atmosphere of Mars have been thinner than expected - and yes, this could be due to seasonal effects, winds, down drafts, but I have not been able to find a single reference that says "on such and such a decent, the upper atmosphere thickness was as predicted." And yes, I agree with you, scientists should be reasonably good at making these atmospheric predictions, if existing physical laws are correct.

[Paul Mitchell]

snip...
I don't see an answer to either Demigrog's or my questions there.

Then I don't fully understand the question. There is a fairly major deviation in the orbit of Mercury - resolved within ~ 1% by using Einstein's slower crock, and there are deviations in the Mars orbiters that produce greater anomalies at 300 km than at 1500 km - These are interpreted as greater accuracy, but the range of the anomalies has also shifted from ~2000 in the Geoid to ~2800. Finally, galactic orbits are not even close to Newtonian predictions.

OK, one last time. You have said that G is variable, reducing as you move away from the sun. Therefore the masses calculated for Mars etc by using Newtonian physics are too low. You say that this means that the gravitational force exerted by Mars is greater than we expect. We say go look at your basic gravitational equations, the decrease in G exactly cancels out the increase in mass. Remember this?

F = (G*m1*m2)/(r*r)

Indeed, this is how you came up with the increased mass figure in the first place! Are the anomalies you refer too so big as to invalidate this equation? I think not.

Therefore the (local) gravitational attraction remains the same whether using Newtonian or Jerry's physics.

Also, as papageno pointed out, the observed orbits are conic sections. This is only possible with a constant value of G. So even if you deduce new mass values by varying G, the local g remains the same and you'd not fit the observed orbits.

I still cannot square how a reduced G and increased mass don't produce the observed Newtonian orbit around Mars without also reproducing exactly the same local value of g as predicted by Newton.

You talk about path lengths becoming shorter, but what does this mean? Is the orbit shorter because we certainly don't observe things orbiting Mars faster than expected? If not, why is a greater mass required.

Think of it, not as a change in the value of G, but in the value of Pi (!!!).

If you drive the coastline of California, you will come up with a mileage figure, but if you walk the same coast off-highway, the number will more than double.

Well I suppose kudos is due for your not using the word fractal 8)

However you have invoked variable G, variable c, variable path lengths, and now variable Pi! I'll assume that that was just bad wording as Pi is more fundamental that just the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference.

As I said in the text you snipped, we could do with some maths about now.

You have been asked to provide the equations you think are governing this behaviour, and you haven't done so. I don't see how we can continue this debate in any meaningful fashion until you do...

[Elias]

Some useful links:

DWE:

http://www.mrc.uidaho.edu/~atkinson/...ster_Final.pdf

http://www.mrc.uidaho.edu/~atkinson/...GU.23may05.pdf

http://www.mrc.uidaho.edu/~atkinson/...April_2005.ppt

http://www.mrc.uidaho.edu/~atkinson/...ntations/Bird/

http://www.mrc.uidaho.edu/~atkinson/...s/LPSC%202005/ (11 MB!)

http://www.mrc.uidaho.edu/~atkinson/...2005.06.01.ppt
(23 MB!)

http://www.mrc.uidaho.edu/~atkinson/...ons/Soderblom/

Trajectory modelling:

http://www.mrc.uidaho.edu/~atkinson/...ts/Kaz2004.pdf

[Fortis]

I have been talking about the variable speed of light since long before the Huygens thread - this is not new, it is one of the keystones.
.
.
.
Scientists have determined the approximate total thicknesses of atmospheres by using radar and occult data. What is not known with precision is the atmospheric distribution. If the gravity is as Newton predicts, the upper atmosphere of Mars should be thicker than if the planet is more dense as I claim. Likewise, if I am correct, the lower atmosphere should be thicker than Newtonian predictions.

We've talked about problems with any significant variation in c within the solar system. On the other hand, don't you think that if there was a variable c, then the the radar data would be wrong?

[nutant gene 71]

I have been talking about the variable speed of light since long before the Huygens thread - this is not new, it is one of the keystones.
.
.
.
Scientists have determined the approximate total thicknesses of atmospheres by using radar and occult data. What is not known with precision is the atmospheric distribution. If the gravity is as Newton predicts, the upper atmosphere of Mars should be thicker than if the planet is more dense as I claim. Likewise, if I am correct, the lower atmosphere should be thicker than Newtonian predictions.

We've talked about problems with any significant variation in c within the solar system. On the other hand, don't you think that if there was a variable c, then the the radar data would be wrong?

Fortis, you may be refering to this split off thread on Redshift? Radar signals may give us neutralized readings if they are redshifted going away from the sun, but blue shifted when received back, though not same thing as light slowing or speeding up. Light velocity remains constant, only wavelength is affected. Whether or not this proves or disproves a variable gravity is difficult to say. It would appear that if the atmosphere is indeed taller, or denser at the surface, than known mass should allow, allowing for chemical composition of said gravity, then Newton's gravity (per G*M) might have to be questioned. This G anomaly would indicate that if greater than predicted, M would be smaller, but act as if it were more "massive" gravity wise? I believe Paul Mitchell addressed this issue in an earlier post (above), where he said:

You said that G is variable, reducing as you move away from the Sun...

He maybe meant not "reducing" (except per inverse square law) but "increasing" as a value of G, for Mars, etc.?

I understand the Messenger just made a bypass of Earth on its way to Mercury (arrival 2008), so maybe this probe may give us more of an idea of gravity anomalies, unless Mercury really has no atmosphere (it has a magnetic field), then we again won't have any contrary Newton gravity evidence. But if we did, it would become even more interesting than just mapping this enigmatic planet hugging the sun. What would truly betray a gravity anomaly? I could think of this example: Jupiter or Saturn have tiny rocky cores (the M in G*M), but their atmospheres.... you get the idea.

[Fortis]

We've talked about problems with any significant variation in c within the solar system. On the other hand, don't you think that if there was a variable c, then the the radar data would be wrong?

Fortis, you may be refering to this split off thread on Redshift? Radar signals may give us neutralized readings if they are redshifted going away from the sun, but blue shifted when received back, though not same thing as light slowing or speeding up. Light velocity remains constant, only wavelength is affected.

No. Jerry believes that c is a function of location, and you would expect this to give ranging errors in the radar returns, even taking into account the forward and return paths. This error would not only be in the absolute ranging between the radar and the target, but would also introduce errors in the relative ranging, e.g. if you were trying to measure the height of some feature on the target. As I explained to Jerry on a different thread, the evidence for a variable c within the solar system (at least of the order of magnitude that he is claiming) just isn't there. In fact, the evidence seems to rule out Jerry's variable c hypothesis.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Jerry believes that the speed of light is 20 percent greater at Saturn than on Earth and 40 percent greater in interstellar space than on Earth. If there was such a great radial gradient in the speed of light, then any light coming from a planet not in opposition or conjunction with the Sun would be refracted by several degrees. Never mind radar, the ancients would not have been able to make any sense of this and we never would have had Ptolemaic theory!!

That's why I refer to his theory as "The Funhouse Solar System"!

[Jerry]

No. Jerry believes that c is a function of location, and you would expect this to give ranging errors in the radar returns, even taking into account the forward and return paths. This error would not only be in the absolute ranging between the radar and the target, but would also introduce errors in the relative ranging, e.g. if you were trying to measure the height of some feature on the target. As I explained to Jerry on a different thread, the evidence for a variable c within the solar system (at least of the order of magnitude that he is claiming) just isn't there. In fact, the evidence seems to rule out Jerry's variable c hypothesis.

...Or not. There was an altitude ranging error of about 15% in both Viking landings that has never been resolved - likewise ranging errors may be part of the explanation for the anomalous talus slopes on Mars, and the discrepancies between the geoids measured at different wavelengths. As mentioned in this thread, there is a still unaccounted for error in the projected trajectory of the failed Mars orbiter. The number of star tracker problems is high, so I don't think you can rule out an unexpected distortion problem with using light as a ruler.

Of course there is a known gravimetric error in light speed, which is addressed by using time dilation. Interpreting this gap as a change in the speed of light, rather than time helps close this loop.

[Jerry]

The problem, Jerry, is you have never provided the math to back up your assertions. You've pulled a lot of ideas out of thin air, but never explained any of them with math that we can reproduce. And without that, you have no backing to your claims.

Given that Jerry has been quoting numbers, such as

I think light increases in speed very slightly with increasing distance from the sun, at a nearly constant rate of ~8x10^-10m/s^2.

then it would be nice to see how these figures have been arrived at. (Even though I'm a bit confused about the units in the example that I quoted.) There is clearly the impression that there is a theoretical strcuture behind it, so it would be good if there was some way for Jerry to make this explicit.

The theory behind it is as simple as it is complex. Atoms, and subatomic particles within atoms vibrate at deBroglie wavelengths. This creates a standing extremely high frequency wave function that is chaotic.

(In classical 20th century physics, frequencies of the necessary wavelengths are not permitted, because 'internal friction' would dampen them. I argue that the frequencies are so high, they they pass right through ALL matter, interacting only in hetrodyning processes aliased at lower frequencies. Since there is very limited interaction with matter, there is little dampening.)

Do you know how a electrostatic participator works? A high frequency emf is imposed upon a wire mesh. The polarity of the mesh is rapidly changing and this strong emf force is attractive to positive, negative, and neutrally charged particles. This 'universal attraction' is the same principle as placing a very powerful magnet's North pole towards the north pole of a much weaker magnet: The weaker magnet will ALWAYS be attracted towards the much more powerful magnet because the weak magnets own field are completely overwhelmed.

This is EXACTLY what I think gravimetric attraction is: The sun creates an extremely high frequency electromagnetic field that can be modeled as a magnetic monopole(!). It therefore has all the attributes of an electronic point charge: a field that decreases in energy as the inverse square of the distance (gravity), but the amplitude of the waves decrease as a 1/r function. This field is at too high of frequency (neutrino-like) to interact with baryonic matter EXCEPT in the synthesis of random, lower frequency nodes. These weak interations are 'gravity'.

Matter in space moves in paths in which the individual atoms follow these chaotic wave forms. Near the sun, where the wavefield is high, both baryons and leptons move more slowly than they would with the same inertial moment further from a large center-of-mass, but with increasing distance from the sun the wave amplitude decreases as a 1/r function - this is the 'nearly' linear function I am describing at greater than ~6 AU's from the sun. (At great distances, 1/r reduces to a nearly constant value.)

The acceleration I am quoting (8x10^-10m/s^2) is the observed acceleration of the two-way ranging data of the Pioneer probes. Since, if the speed of light is warped, the true acceleration of the probes and light cannot be ascertained without constraining the velocity of one or the other, this only means the acceleration of light between 10 and 40 AUs is in this ballpark.

Tensor(?) pointed out that I have speculated that the speed of light is as much as 20% greater at Saturn than near the Earth. I don't think that is correct (that number fails even my limited-sanity check). I have an explaination now, for why baryonic pathlengths would be greater than lepton pathlenths near the sun - the random nodes, so the speed of light doesn't have to have a "Fun House" function to put all the pieces together. I like the name, though - and the concept is still the same.

The change in the velocity of light between here and Saturn could be as little as 0.01 m/s and it still works, except that it no longer provides an explanations for the sun's missing neutrinos.

If I allow for less variation in the speed of light, the 'pathlength' for baryons MUST vary enough to be easily detectable dispite the relatively minor optical distortions. I think I have found these dectections in the opposing polarizations of the gravitational anomalies of Mars and Venus.

Incredible!

[papageno]

The theory behind it is as simple as it is complex. Atoms, and subatomic particles within atoms vibrate at deBroglie wavelengths. This creates a standing extremely high frequency wave function that is chaotic.

The deBroglie wavelength dependes on the momentum of the particle.
Why would the wavefunction be chaotic?

(In classical 20th century physics, frequencies of the necessary wavelengths are not permitted, because 'internal friction' would dampen them. I argue that the frequencies are so high, they they pass right through ALL matter, interacting only in hetrodyning processes aliased at lower frequencies. Since there is very limited interaction with matter, there is little dampening.)

It looks like you are confusing wavefunctions with EM waves.
Do yo actually understand what a wavefunction is?

Do you know how a electrostatic participator works? A high frequency emf is imposed upon a wire mesh.

Are you sure you do not mean this:
Wikipedian link?
Otherwise could you provide a reference.

The polarity of the mesh is rapidly changing and this strong emf force is attractive to positive, negative, and neutrally charged particles.

Since I am not sure what this "participator" is, are you sure that it is not just ionizing the particles, like a precipitator does?

This 'universal attraction' is the same principle as placing a very powerful magnet's North pole towards the north pole of a much weaker magnet: The weaker magnet will ALWAYS be attracted towards the much more powerful magnet because the weak magnets own field are completely overwhelmed.

Wrong.
Which one of the two magnets move, depends on which one has a larger mass. If I nail the weaker magnet to the ground, it will not move.

(Anecdote time!
A former boos of mine told us how they broke a cryostat.
They were moving it around after getting a current into the superconducting coil. Passing next to a steel door, the magnet magnetized the steel, and the cryostat rolled towards the steel door.
The steel door had a weaker magnetic field than the superconducting coil.)

This is EXACTLY what I think gravimetric attraction is: The sun creates an extremely high frequency electromagnetic field that can be modeled as a magnetic monopole(!).

How?

It therefore has all the attributes of an electronic point charge:..

Except for an electric charge.

...a field that decreases in energy as the inverse square of the distance (gravity),...

You mean, "in strength".
The potential energy decreases with the inverse of the distance, if it is interacting wwith another monopole.

...but the amplitude of the waves decrease as a 1/r function.

What waves?
You were talking about a monopole.
If you have waves, the field is oscillating, hence you would not have a field resembling an electrostatic field.

This field is at too high of frequency (neutrino-like) to interact with baryonic matter EXCEPT in the synthesis of random, lower frequency nodes. These weak interations are 'gravity'.

Random?

Matter in space moves in paths in which the individual atoms follow these chaotic wave forms.

Chaotic?
They mustquite coherent, otherwise you would not have macroscopic objects, would you?

Near the sun, where the wavefield is high, both baryons and leptons move more slowly than they would with the same inertial moment further from a large center-of-mass, but with increasing distance from the sun the wave amplitude decreases as a 1/r function - this is the 'nearly' linear function I am describing at greater than ~6 AU's from the sun. (At great distances, 1/r reduces to a nearly constant value.)

Which is not observed.

The acceleration I am quoting (8x10^-10m/s^2) is the observed acceleration of the two-way ranging data of the Pioneer probes.
Since, if the speed of light is warped,...

Warped?
How does a number get "warped"?

... the true acceleration of the probes and light...

Light is accelerated?

... cannot be ascertained without constraining the velocity of one or the other, this only means the acceleration of light between 10 and 40 AUs is in this ballpark.

So for distances below 10 AU light has constant speed?

Tensor(?) pointed out that I have speculated that the speed of light is as much as 20% greater at Saturn than near the Earth. I don't think that is correct (that number fails even my limited-sanity check). I have an explaination now, for why baryonic pathlengths would be greater than lepton pathlenths near the sun - the random nodes, so the speed of light doesn't have to have a "Fun House" function to put all the pieces together. I like the name, though - and the concept is still the same.

The change in the velocity of light between here and Saturn could be as little as 0.01 m/s and it still works, except that it no longer provides an explanations for the sun's missing neutrinos.

They are not missing anymore.

If I allow for less variation in the speed of light, the 'pathlength' for baryons MUST vary enough to be easily detectable dispite the relatively minor optical distortions. I think I have found these dectections in the opposing polarizations of the gravitational anomalies of Mars and Venus.

Which gravitational anomalies?

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!]Tensor(?) pointed out that I have speculated that the speed of light is as much as 20% greater at Saturn than near the Earth. I don't think that is correct (that number fails even my limited-sanity check).[Snip!]

No, I'm the one who pointed it out and here is where you said it. The relevant excerpt follows.

An Air/water, any sudden change in density is easy to to detect. Much less obvious are the subtle changes in density in the atmosphere that effect the seeing of a telescope. We are talking about spreading a change of - my best guess - is 20% over nine AUs, and the speed of light in true absolute vacuum is 1.4c. This means that in tracking a mission to Mars or Venus there should be noticeable discrepancies between the expected position of probes sent to these planets, and the actual path - but less than 1%, because both the probe and the speed of light are effected by the increase in path length.

[Tensor]

[Snip!]Tensor(?) pointed out that I have Snip

Snip!
No, I'm the one who pointed it out and here is where you said it. The relevant excerpt follows.

Glad you remembered. I didn't remember saying anything of the kind.

[Fortis]

No. Jerry believes that c is a function of location, and you would expect this to give ranging errors in the radar returns, even taking into account the forward and return paths. This error would not only be in the absolute ranging between the radar and the target, but would also introduce errors in the relative ranging, e.g. if you were trying to measure the height of some feature on the target. As I explained to Jerry on a different thread, the evidence for a variable c within the solar system (at least of the order of magnitude that he is claiming) just isn't there. In fact, the evidence seems to rule out Jerry's variable c hypothesis.

...Or not. There was an altitude ranging error of about 15% in both Viking landings that has never been resolved - likewise ranging errors may be part of the explanation for the anomalous talus slopes on Mars, and the discrepancies between the geoids measured at different wavelengths. As mentioned in this thread, there is a still unaccounted for error in the projected trajectory of the failed Mars orbiter. The number of star tracker problems is high, so I don't think you can rule out an unexpected distortion problem with using light as a ruler.

Of course there is a known gravimetric error in light speed, which is addressed by using time dilation. Interpreting this gap as a change in the speed of light, rather than time helps close this loop.

A variable c means a variable alpha (i.e. the fine structure constant) and that would do considerably more than just affect timings.

[Jerry]

The deBroglie wavelength dependes on the momentum of the particle.

Welcome back, Pap!

True, but it is also a function of the mass.

There are STILL a lot of good, unanswered questions here - I have some answers for Baloo on my thumb drive...where ever it is, but I wanted to address Papageno's response because he cuts right to the chase.

Why would the wavefunction be chaotic?

More than one atom, and they are not singing in harmony.

(In classical 20th century physics, frequencies of the necessary wavelengths are not permitted, because 'internal friction' would dampen them. I argue that the frequencies are so high, they they pass right through ALL matter, interacting only in hetrodyning processes aliased at lower frequencies. Since there is very limited interaction with matter, there is little dampening.)

It looks like you are confusing wavefunctions with EM waves.

I am simply stating the wave functions of matter interact with electromagnetic waves that are harmonics of the wave functions. Fluorecent lighting comes to mind.

Do you actually understand what a wavefunction is?

Does anybody?

Do you know how a electrostatic participator works? A high frequency emf is imposed upon a wire mesh.

Are you sure you do not mean this:
Wikipedian link?
Otherwise could you provide a reference.

The Wik article describes a DC system - same general principle applies to an RF system – but I think they can do the job at lower voltages. Rob a particle of it's dignity and it will cling to anything

The polarity of the mesh is rapidly changing and this strong emf force is attractive to positive, negative, and neutrally charged particles.

Since I am not sure what this "participator" is, are you sure that it is not just ionizing the particles, like a precipitator does?

It is not necessary to ionize a particle to take advantage of it's dipole and redirect its path.

This 'universal attraction' is the same principle as placing a very powerful magnet's North pole towards the north pole of a much weaker magnet: The weaker magnet will ALWAYS be attracted towards the much more powerful magnet because the weak magnets own field are completely overwhelmed.

Wrong.
Which one of the two magnets move, depends on which one has a larger mass. If I nail the weaker magnet to the ground, it will not move.

Right - you're right - but the Much stronger magnet is not going to run around a fixed object and and grab the south pole, it will crash right into the north pole and overwhelm it.

This is EXACTLY what I think gravimetric attraction is: The sun creates an extremely high frequency electromagnetic field that can be modeled as a magnetic monopole(!).

How?

By assiging each atom the equivalent of a minute fractional positive/negative charge. This is no different from dividing electrons to explain the Hall effect, or inventing neutrinos to resolve a momentum deficiency, (both are patches to 20th century physics that resulted in Nobel prizes.)

It therefore has all the attributes of an electronic point charge:..

Except for an electric charge.

Yes, the charge is different: universal, and much much smaller per atomic unit. I think the common term for it is gravity, but it is really an alternating electrical potential.

...a field that decreases in energy as the inverse square of the distance (gravity),...

You mean, "in strength".
The potential energy decreases with the inverse of the distance, if it is interacting wwith another monopole.

Correct again.

...but the amplitude of the waves decrease as a 1/r function.

What waves?
You were talking about a monopole.
If you have waves, the field is oscillating, hence you would not have a field resembling an electrostatic field.

Exactly!

HOWWEVER, what would an electric field be like that doesn't interact with baryonic matter? We are used to seeing high frequency energy bleed off and/or captured by anything willing to act like an antenna, but the frequency distribution I am describing only extremely weakly with neutrons and protons. Such a high frequency field would have a monopole-like 1/r^2 function, because it is oblivious to intervening matter.

This field is at too high of frequency (neutrino-like) to interact with baryonic matter EXCEPT in the synthesis of random, lower frequency nodes. These weak interations are 'gravity'.

Random?

Yes - well, chaotic is a better term - think of the major swells that rarely and unpredicably occur on the ocean - rogue waves that topple ships, while normal waves just nudge them around a little. Since the mass of the sun is changing very slowly, the wave function is fairly calm, and the mean attraction highly predictable.

Matter in space moves in paths in which the individual atoms follow these chaotic wave forms.

Chaotic?
They must quite coherent, otherwise you would not have macroscopic objects, would you?

There is some coherency, in fact I think the coherency increases with increasing distance from the object (because coherent waves do not have the lower frequency nodes that interact with matter) but for the most part the individual wave patterns are chaotic. There is an analogy in thermal-kinetic energy – this is random, but macroscopic objects still exist, as long as the temperature is not too high.

At the frequencies I am describing, the interaction with matter is so small – most of the time – this is not an issue. (When a gang of raindrops gets together and attacks, all bets are off: Very destructive energy is released – even gamma rays.)

Near the sun, where the wavefield is high, both baryons and leptons move more slowly than they would with the same inertial moment further from a large center-of-mass, but with increasing distance from the sun the wave amplitude decreases as a 1/r function - this is the 'nearly' linear function I am describing at greater than ~6 AU's from the sun. (At great distances, 1/r reduces to a nearly constant value.)

Which is not observed.

Of Course it is! We call this ‘time dilation’, which it is not.

The acceleration I am quoting (8x10^-10m/s^2) is the observed acceleration of the two-way ranging data of the Pioneer probes.
Since, if the speed of light is warped,...

Warped?
How does a number get "warped"?

Einstein’s big boner: Warping time instead of realizing there is no absolute vacuum: Matter effects the space around it and limits the speed of light. This is no different from the slowing of the speed of light by nuclei within transparent materials, as Maxwell described it. Feynman perpetuated the error when he allowed quantum solutions that included travel ‘backward in time’ to force observed behaviors into a time dilated mold – he should have realized this means the time dilation parameters are wrong, and the speed of light should have been varied in the dynamic solution set.

... the true acceleration of the probes and light...

Light is accelerated?

A better descriptor would be "finds a shorter path through less-textured space".

... cannot be ascertained without constraining the velocity of one or the other, this only means the acceleration of light between 10 and 40 AUs is in this ballpark.

So for distances below 10 AU light has constant speed?

No. Remember, time dilation – varying time, and varying the speed of light are interchangeable solutions to the observed results of the Mickelson Morely experiment and Mercury’s perturbations. Inside 10 AU, the ‘chaotic standing wave’ amplitudes are much higher, the lower frequency nodes interact with baryons more frequently than the do with leptons: Light is slowed, and we write this off as a relativistic effect.

This is why lightening is so common in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth, and rare in the atmospheres of Titan and Mars. (It is also why descents into the atmospheres of Venus and earth generate ionized gases, but the descents to Mars and Titan do not.)

…The change in the velocity of light between here and Saturn could be as little as 0.01 m/s and it still works, except that it no longer provides an explanations for the sun's missing neutrinos.

They are not missing anymore.

Adding a mass parameter un-resolves the energy budget problem neutrinos were invented to solve in the first place – a patch on a patch. Neutrinos are not even needed if there is a weakly interacting field that absorbs the energy. Likewise, neutrino detectors are simply siphoning ‘gravitational’ energy, just like lightening.

If I allow for less variation in the speed of light, the 'pathlength' for baryons MUST vary enough to be easily detectable despite the relatively minor optical distortions. I think I have found these detections in the opposing polarizations of the gravitational anomalies of Mars and Venus

Which gravitational anomalies?

We have been discussing them for the last two pages: The volcanoes of Mars appear to be denser than than the volcanoes on Earth, and the depressions appear less dense than the mean surface, when measured from space. The closer to Mars the measurements, the greater the anomalies! The opposite is true for Venus. I am arguing that this is a virtual smoking gun of non-Newtonian forces at work.

Speaking of smoking guns. Take a look at the graphs of Huygens Descent posted by Elias, and try to figure out what the graphs would look like if the probe landed ~28 minutes into the descent 8)

More later

[papageno]

The deBroglie wavelength dependes on the momentum of the particle.

True, but it is also a function of the mass.

Momentum: p = m v
where m is the mass, and v the velocity.

Why would the wavefunction be chaotic?

More than one atom, and they are not singing in harmony.

Oh look, superconductors! Bose-Einstein condensate! Molecules! Crystal lattices!
All with more than one atom, and coherent wavefucntions.
So, why would the wavefunctions be chaotic?

(In classical 20th century physics, frequencies of the necessary wavelengths are not permitted, because 'internal friction' would dampen them. I argue that the frequencies are so high, they they pass right through ALL matter, interacting only in hetrodyning processes aliased at lower frequencies. Since there is very limited interaction with matter, there is little dampening.)

It looks like you are confusing wavefunctions with EM waves.

I am simply stating the wave functions of matter interact with electromagnetic waves that are harmonics of the wave functions. Fluorecent lighting comes to mind.

That kind of emission is due to electron changing states, which have different wavefunctions.

Do you actually understand what a wavefunction is?

Does anybody?

I take it as a no.
So, what makes you think that what you say about wavefunctions is anywhere near being correct?

Do you know how a electrostatic participator works? A high frequency emf is imposed upon a wire mesh.

Are you sure you do not mean this:
Wikipedian link?
Otherwise could you provide a reference.

The Wik article describes a DC system - same general principle applies to an RF system – but I think they can do the job at lower voltages. Rob a particle of it's dignity and it will cling to anything

So, you do not have a reference.

The polarity of the mesh is rapidly changing and this strong emf force is attractive to positive, negative, and neutrally charged particles.

Since I am not sure what this "participator" is, are you sure that it is not just ionizing the particles, like a precipitator does?

It is not necessary to ionize a particle to take advantage of it's dipole and redirect its path.

So, the AM voltage polarizes it temporarily.

Since you did not provide a reference, any analogy involving this "participator" is pointless.

This 'universal attraction' is the same principle as placing a very powerful magnet's North pole towards the north pole of a much weaker magnet: The weaker magnet will ALWAYS be attracted towards the much more powerful magnet because the weak magnets own field are completely overwhelmed.

Wrong.
Which one of the two magnets move, depends on which one has a larger mass. If I nail the weaker magnet to the ground, it will not move.

Right - you're right - but the Much stronger magnet is not going to run around a fixed object and and grab the south pole, it will crash right into the north pole and overwhelm it.

It depends on its velocity.
It could orbit, or have enough kinetic energy to escape.

This is EXACTLY what I think gravimetric attraction is: The sun creates an extremely high frequency electromagnetic field that can be modeled as a magnetic monopole(!).

How?

By assiging each atom the equivalent of a minute fractional positive/negative charge.

How does it assign a fraction of charge?

This is no different from dividing electrons to explain the Hall effect, or inventing neutrinos to resolve a momentum deficiency, (both are patches to 20th century physics that resulted in Nobel prizes.)

The fractional quantum hall effect is complicated effect, where one electron is "entangled" with more than one magnetic flux quantum, or, from another point of view, each flux quantum is "entangled" with a fraction of an electron.

This effect, and neutrino, have nothing with your "mechanism" for gravity.

It therefore has all the attributes of an electronic point charge:..

Except for an electric charge.

Yes, the charge is different: universal, and much much smaller per atomic unit. I think the common term for it is gravity, but it is really an alternating electrical potential.

And this idea is based on something more substantial than misguided analogies?

...a field that decreases in energy as the inverse square of the distance (gravity),...

You mean, "in strength".
The potential energy decreases with the inverse of the distance, if it is interacting wwith another monopole.

Correct again.

It seems that you did not put too much effort in being correct.

...but the amplitude of the waves decrease as a 1/r function.

What waves?
You were talking about a monopole.
If you have waves, the field is oscillating, hence you would not have a field resembling an electrostatic field.

Exactly!

HOWWEVER, what would an electric field be like that doesn't interact with baryonic matter? We are used to seeing high frequency energy bleed off and/or captured by anything willing to act like an antenna, but the frequency distribution I am describing only extremely weakly with neutrons and protons. Such a high frequency field would have a monopole-like 1/r^2 function, because it is oblivious to intervening matter.

If the field is oscillating (high frequency), why should it go like a 1/r^2 function.

This field is at too high of frequency (neutrino-like) to interact with baryonic matter EXCEPT in the synthesis of random, lower frequency nodes. These weak interations are 'gravity'.

Random?

Yes - well, chaotic is a better term - think of the major swells that rarely and unpredicably occur on the ocean - rogue waves that topple ships, while normal waves just nudge them around a little. Since the mass of the sun is changing very slowly, the wave function is fairly calm, and the mean attraction highly predictable.

If the interaction occurs at chaotic points, why should there be a "mean attraction"?

Matter in space moves in paths in which the individual atoms follow these chaotic wave forms.

Chaotic?
They must quite coherent, otherwise you would not have macroscopic objects, would you?

There is some coherency, in fact I think the coherency increases with increasing distance from the object (because coherent waves do not have the lower frequency nodes that interact with matter) but for the most part the individual wave patterns are chaotic.

Some coherency?
Are you going to back up any of this?

There is an analogy in thermal-kinetic energy – this is random, but macroscopic objects still exist, as long as the temperature is not too high.

where is the chaos in this analogy?

At the frequencies I am describing, the interaction with matter is so small – most of the time – this is not an issue. (When a gang of raindrops gets together and attacks, all bets are off: Very destructive energy is released – even gamma rays.)

Come on. Start backnig up something.
So far I have seen only misguided analogies.

Near the sun, where the wavefield is high, both baryons and leptons move more slowly than they would with the same inertial moment further from a large center-of-mass, but with increasing distance from the sun the wave amplitude decreases as a 1/r function - this is the 'nearly' linear function I am describing at greater than ~6 AU's from the sun. (At great distances, 1/r reduces to a nearly constant value.)

Which is not observed.

Of Course it is! We call this ‘time dilation’, which it is not.

Provide the ful reasoning, with references.

The acceleration I am quoting (8x10^-10m/s^2) is the observed acceleration of the two-way ranging data of the Pioneer probes.
Since, if the speed of light is warped,...

Warped?
How does a number get "warped"?

Einstein’s big boner: Warping time instead of realizing there is no absolute vacuum: Matter effects the space around it and limits the speed of light.

How does a number get "warped"?

This is no different from the slowing of the speed of light by nuclei within transparent materials, as Maxwell described it.

It is not the nuclei alone. It is the atoms, which are temporarily polarized.

Feynman perpetuated the error when he allowed quantum solutions that included travel ‘backward in time’ to force observed behaviors into a time dilated mold – he should have realized this means the time dilation parameters are wrong, and the speed of light should have been varied in the dynamic solution set.

Are confusing "time dilation" with "backwards in time"?
These are two different things.

... the true acceleration of the probes and light...

Light is accelerated?

A better descriptor would be "finds a shorter path through less-textured space".

"less-textured space"?
Why don't you define the terms you use?

... cannot be ascertained without constraining the velocity of one or the other, this only means the acceleration of light between 10 and 40 AUs is in this ballpark.

So for distances below 10 AU light has constant speed?

No. Remember, time dilation – varying time, and varying the speed of light are interchangeable solutions to the observed results of the Mickelson Morely experiment and Mercury’s perturbations. Inside 10 AU, the ‘chaotic standing wave’ amplitudes are much higher, the lower frequency nodes interact with baryons more frequently than the do with leptons: Light is slowed, and we write this off as a relativistic effect.

And you have actual evidence to support, have you?

This is why lightening is so common in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth, and rare in the atmospheres of Titan and Mars. (It is also why descents into the atmospheres of Venus and earth generate ionized gases, but the descents to Mars and Titan do not.)

The fact that enormous masses of gas are moving around, has nothing to do with lightning?

…The change in the velocity of light between here and Saturn could be as little as 0.01 m/s and it still works, except that it no longer provides an explanations for the sun's missing neutrinos.

They are not missing anymore.

Adding a mass parameter un-resolves the energy budget problem neutrinos were invented to solve in the first place – a patch on a patch. Neutrinos are not even needed if there is a weakly interacting field that absorbs the energy. Likewise, neutrino detectors are simply siphoning ‘gravitational’ energy, just like lightening.

Apparently you missed the part where the neutrino oscillation was measured.

If I allow for less variation in the speed of light, the 'pathlength' for baryons MUST vary enough to be easily detectable despite the relatively minor optical distortions. I think I have found these detections in the opposing polarizations of the gravitational anomalies of Mars and Venus

Which gravitational anomalies?

We have been discussing them for the last two pages: The volcanoes of Mars appear to be denser than than the volcanoes on Earth, and the depressions appear less dense than the mean surface, when measured from space. The closer to Mars the measurements, the greater the anomalies! The opposite is true for Venus. I am arguing that this is a virtual smoking gun of non-Newtonian forces at work.

Yet you don't seem to able to support this position.

Speaking of smoking guns. Take a look at the graphs of Huygens Descent posted by Elias, and try to figure out what the graphs would look like if the probe landed ~28 minutes into the descent 8)

Huygens did not crash! Your prediction was wrong! Get over it!