Jerry Jensen's ATM idea

[nutant gene 71]

That said, your interpretation may be right, but remember it is the heated, not the dark side of the earth, that expanse outward, then collapses at night.

My 2 cents worth. I think that since Venus has virtually no magnetic field, the day side of atmosphere is pushed "down" by solar wind, at night it "bounces" back to its normal height.

By my reckoning, with Venus at about 0.72 AU from the Sun, its G is about 3/4 that of Newton's Earth G, so atmospheric molecules (already heavier than Earth's atmospheric composition with CO2 gas) are drawn less "heavy" to Venus's planet mass (than it would be on Earth), which lets this gaseous mass drift higher from the planet's surface, all things being equal. If as I suspect is true, then it would be normal for a higher (and 3/4 more rarified) atmosphere on Venus than Earth, for nearly comparable planet mass, but different gaseous mass. Conversely, on more distant planets where G is higher, gaseous molecules may be of lighter gas composition but "denser" due to greater G, so host body's planet mass will gather more of it, e.g., the gaseous giants. Well, that more than 2 cents, maybe 4 cents worth, so will leave off here.

Atmospheric density was discussed at some length on this (now closed) thread on Titan's atmosphere.

[Jerry]

How far off were the predictions of the scientists using known physics?

Good Question there is an ongoing discussion here:

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...pic=2822&st=30

As near as I can tell, the Venus' Atmosphere is 100 x more massive than the Earths, and the Newtonian density is 81.5% of the earth's. The mean surface temperature is `737degK. These three factors should inflate the atmosphere by a factor of almost three, so the 60Km ceiling is not unexpected. But as the article states, the atmospher at 90km is a surprise, especially since this was not picked up as a drag coefficient by earlier Venus orbiters.

I don't have a supercomputer at my disposal, or the resources to run complex atmospheric simulations, so I am stuck evaluating trends and working with mostly qualitative comparisions. The fact that Mars probe entry analysis has always required a thinner-than-expected upper atmosphere fits the trend, and the fact that there is an observable atmosphere on Pluto at all, means the planet is either outgassing, or the planet is more dense than Newtonian predictions.

[Jerry]

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/pres...cfm?newsID=675

"We could only speculate about the nature of this mysterious bright country, too far from us for details to be revealed by Earth-based and space-based telescopes. Now, under Cassini's powerful radar eyes, facts are replacing speculation," said Dr. Jonathan Lunine, Cassini interdisciplinary scientist at the University of Arizona, Tucson. "Surprisingly, this cold, faraway region has geological features remarkably like Earth."

Surprising, if you were expecting a world of water, methane and ammonia. Less so, if your theory of gravity predicts that the density of Titan is close to the density of Mars.

Observations by the European Space Agency's Huygens probe, which Cassini carried to Titan, and by NASA's Voyager spacecraft strongly hint that both methane rain and dark orange hydrocarbon solids fall like soot from the moon's dark skies.

Layers of hydrocarbons are typically black. Not dark orange. Dark orange colors are found in sand rich in iron. Dunes form, when rock is eroded into lakebeds, and then the lakebeds dry up. The absense of liquid on the surface of Titan, but clear evidence of liquid flowing in the past does not tell us the active liquid was methane, because it does not tell us how warm Titan was when the liquid was acting on the surface.

If the physics were right, interpreting the surface of Titan would be a no brainer, and a very exciting one at that, because some time in the past Titan was very much like the Earth.

[captain swoop]

So all the data from Cassini Huygens is wrong? or is it just the Engineers and Scientists who built and on operate it that dont know how to use their own equipment?

[P.Asmah]

So all the data from Cassini Huygens is wrong? or is it just the Engineers and Scientists who built and on operate it that dont know how to use their own equipment?

Aren't we talking about interpretations of the data, and not necessarily the data itself?

[Jerry]

So all the data from Cassini Huygens is wrong? or is it just the Engineers and Scientists who built and on operate it that dont know how to use their own equipment?

Cassini and Huygens both tell us that the surface is dark orange and not made out of water and there are only traces of ammonia. Huygen's scientists concluded the surface of Titan is 'not like any known body', but they have been unable to determine what the surface is. Cassini scientists have issued statements that the surface is covered with sand, nos (not otherwise specifide). There is a thin mixture of yellow and black organics in the atmosphere (tholins), but when they have tried (here) to simulate a process that would deposit them on the surface, the residuals end up black and tar-ish. Titan's atmosphere is actually cleaner and more transparent than the Earths - it is much thicker, and that is why it is difficult to see through it.

Cassini/Huygens scientist did not expect to find heavy elements in the outer solar system, so they didn't equip the probes with a Mossbaur, Raman or X-ray flourencence probes - all of which would have been diffficult to build within 1986 weight constraints. Reflective radar and other checks have demonstrated that "Whatever the surface is, it is not water-ice", according to Larry Soderblom.

There is still a lot of data to be collected and analysed: Radar altimeter data has not been release, or radar backscatter; but all of the physical data I am aware of to date, is inconsistent with the prior expections of an icy world and consistent with a world covered with red, windblown sand, drainages and rounded pebbles.

[mugaliens]

Hey, Jerry - I read through all five pages, and although I'm just an engineer, not an astrophysicist, it appears to me the logic behind your arguements is on target (sound reasoning, etc.). Nice work!

[Jerry]

Hey, Jerry - I read through all five pages, and although I'm just an engineer, not an astrophysicist, it appears to me the logic behind your arguements is on target (sound reasoning, etc.). Nice work!

Just an engineer?

All that means is that you spent less time trying to unravel the GR paradox than some of us.

Check out this latest addition to storm alley:
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedi...m?imageID=2047

Turbulent eddies to the west (left) of the storm indicate that it is moving eastward relative to the westward-flowing winds at this latitude on Saturn.

If Saturn is just so much gas, why would this turbulent eddy consistantly form in the same place? Any engineer will tell you eddy currents in fixed locations indicate a disruption in the flow pattern, usually - (though not always), caused by something solid.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/St...Cloudtops.html

[Nereid]

Hey Jerry, just as mugaliens did, I have read all five pages of this thread (in one sitting).

Unlike mugaliens, I found myself shaking my head, and writing down some questions, about your idea, as expressed in this thread, that I'd like you to address please.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My first question is similar to what Celestial Mechanic has already asked, at least twice (in different forms), but there is no Jerry Jensen answer (as far as I could see). It comes in two parts.

1a) Using the Jerry Jensen idea of gravity, mass, density (etc - i.e. the topic of this thread), have you calculated any (solar system) ephemerides? If not, how did you convince yourself that if you had done the calculations, using your idea, to produce ephemerides, you would get results that are consistent with the data that NASA and the ESA use (for spacecraft navigation)*?

1b) The solar system has a quite modest range of 'gravity environments' (including "the 1/r field attenuation"), when compared with easily observed binaries. We have good observational data on binaries with nearly equal masses (and which masses may be much more than the Sun's, or much less, or anything in between); of somewhat unequal masses, and of very unequal masses. We have good observational data on binaries with degenerate stars (both white dwarfs and neutron stars), mainstream stars, and giants, and just about every mix. We have good observational data on binaries that are widely separated, not so widely separated, and so close they are in contact.

Given the size of the effects that you, Jerry Jensen, have claimed, using your idea, for solar system objects, I'm somewhat surprised that you seem to have neglected to study the likely effects of your ideas (gravity, density, mass, etc) on binaries.

Could you please say a few words about what you expect those effects to be? (In your answer I hope that you will use numbers consistent with those in this earlier post of yours).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My second question concerns standard astrophysics; specifically, the physics of (normal) stars. It also comes in two parts.

2a) What does the HR diagram look like, in a universe that runs according to the Jerry Jensen idea (of mass, gravity, density, etc)?

2b) How does the rate at which a star evolves vary - by mass, density, composition, gravitational environment, etc - in a universe that runs according to the Jerry Jensen idea (of mass, gravity, density, etc)?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Third, some specific questions about specific claims, made earlier in this thread.

3a) (source):

Gravitimetric lensing and gravitational redshifting should be much greater than predicted by GR. This is just an extrapolation of the 1/r field attenuation, rather 1/r^2 (and in some cases, 1/r^4 found in relativistic scenarios.) This means, for example, if quasars are accretion disks near 'black holes', they MUST have gravitational redshifts that are 2-20 times greater than GR predictions. Since all quasars are redshifted, this prediction holds.

What are the expected gravitational redshifts, observed here on Earth, of white dwarfs? neutron stars? What is the expected 'gravitational redshift' of a quasar accretion disk, in the Jerry Jensen idea?

3b) (source)

There are no "fudge factors" in the original general relativity of Einstein. The cosmological constant came later and it had to be chosen so as not to disturb Solar System mechanics, which was already predicted with fantastic accuracy. Newton is quite close, thank you, and Einstein closer still.

Only if you accept the Newtonian densities of the planets and moons as being accurate AND accept the dark matter explanation for where current theories fail so miserably. I don't - that is a philosophical choice - there is no scientific (that is measurable) justification for dark stuff.

I wasn't aware that solar system ephemerides required the inclusion of dark matter, either inside or outside the solar system, in order for them to match observational data; please provide a (good) reference which shows this need.

3c) (source):

1) ANY place Einstein predicts gravity waves, we should see gamma rays - Binary pulsars are a good place to start - and they do produce Gamma rays!

At the qualitative level, can this be anything but correct? I mean, without some quantification ("gravity waves" of what strength? what gamma ray flux? what gamma SED?), this statement can't be (experimentally, observationally) tested, can it? Also, please provide references, showing that EVERY binary pulsar is an established source of gamma rays.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now for a repeat of a question, asked earlier in this thread, which doesn't seem to have been answered (my bold):

To what extent does your idea address these other [Dark Matter] footprints?

* DM in (spiral) galaxy halos (per lensing studies)
* DM in rich clusters (per X-ray, lensing, SZE, and galaxy motion studies)
* DM in the universe (per large-scale structure and CMB studies)

It is absolutely essential to my thesis that these effects occur - that Newtonian gravity as model from the earth doesn't work anywhere else - (Except in the rare case were the mass proportions are the same as between the Earth and the sun.)

The question ("to what extent") hasn't been answered; please answer it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Finally, perhaps not directly relevant to this thread, I had to smile when I read post #64 (my bold):

In any case, this explains how cosmic rays enter our solar system at velocities that are 99+% of the speed of light. Using general relativistic equations, these particles (and gamma rays) should have been slowed in collisions with the cosmic microwave background photons. Increasing the maximum speed of light allows for these collisions without reducing the energy to currently understood limits.

So, you're quite happy with a 'non-local' CMB, despite claiming otherwise? Curious; in the space of less than two months (18-April-2006, 04:33 PM to 05-June-2006, 10:21 PM), what happened?

*these are just two examples; at least two other groups have done spacecraft navigation beyond the Earth-Moon system (the Japanese and the Russians), and lots of other folk have tracked solar system objects, from Earth or near Earth locations.

[Jerry]

Hey Jerry, just as mugaliens did, I have read all five pages of this thread (in one sitting).

Unlike mugaliens, I found myself shaking my head, and writing down some questions, about your idea, as expressed in this thread, that I'd like you to address please.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My first question is similar to what Celestial Mechanic has already asked, at least twice (in different forms), but there is no Jerry Jensen answer (as far as I could see). It comes in two parts.

1a) Using the Jerry Jensen idea of gravity, mass, density (etc - i.e. the topic of this thread), have you calculated any (solar system) ephemerides? If not, how did you convince yourself that if you had done the calculations, using your idea, to produce ephemerides, you would get results that are consistent with the data that NASA and the ESA use (for spacecraft navigation)*?

Good question. The calculated ephemerides' are correct, or very close to correct, because it is the ephemerides that were used to determine the densities of the planets and moons in the first place. It is the densities that are wrong - Using orbits to determine the mass of planets underestimates the masses at greater distances, relative to the Earth, and over estimates the masses of planets close to the sun.

Discrepancies arise, when a probe passes close to a feature on a moon or planet, and also when a probe passes very close to a moon while in orbit about a planet. One piece of data I cannot completely reconcile, it the gravity measured on the surface of Mars by the Viking probes is only about 1.7% greater-than-expected. It should be a lot more that that, if I am correct - at least 7%. Some of this difference is due to the fact that orbital determinations of the mass distribution on Mars place a great deal of mass near the surface. My mass estimate for Mars may be high.

The other three obvious discrepancies between the observe and the expected results on Mars are the harmonic degeneracies in Martian gravity maps, grossly exaggerated Beugoer anomalies, and the unreconciliated Martian moment-of-inertia. Oh, and all of the probes fall too fast.

1b) The solar system has a quite modest range of 'gravity environments' (including "the 1/r field attenuation"), when compared with easily observed binaries. We have good observational data on binaries with nearly equal masses (and which masses may be much more than the Sun's, or much less, or anything in between); of somewhat unequal masses, and of very unequal masses. We have good observational data on binaries with degenerate stars (both white dwarfs and neutron stars), mainstream stars, and giants, and just about every mix. We have good observational data on binaries that are widely separated, not so widely separated, and so close they are in contact.

Given the size of the effects that you, Jerry Jensen, have claimed, using your idea, for solar system objects, I'm somewhat surprised that you seem to have neglected to study the likely effects of your ideas (gravity, density, mass, etc) on binaries. Could you please say a few words about what you expect those effects to be?

I don't have enough constraints - We use the orbiting bodies to predict the masses, and then draw all of the Newtonian conclusions. Remember that in the Earth-moon system, the strong equivalence principle has been constrained to 1 part in 50,000. That means the '1/r path factor' must been many times smaller than the 1/r^2 gravitational force.

That said, you are aware of the dark matter problem, and this solution completely does away with the need for dark matter - we under-predict the amount of mass there is in galactic orbits just as we under-predict the mass of the planets furthest from the sun.

Also, you have given me another piece of turf to study, because there should be a degeneracy in the mass/luminosity relationship of binary star systems. As soon as I figure out, how, I will go look for it.

My second question concerns standard astrophysics; specifically, the physics of (normal) stars. It also comes in two parts.

2a) What does the HR diagram look like, in a universe that runs according to the Jerry Jensen idea (of mass, gravity, density, etc)?

I think the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram is brilliant work, and I don't have any reason at this time to doubt the sequence.

2b) How does the rate at which a star evolves vary - by mass, density, composition, gravitational environment, etc - in a universe that runs according to the Jerry Jensen idea (of mass, gravity, density, etc)?

There is a very intreguing thing that has happened in the largest-of-the megaton thermal nuclear tests: The blast radius has been much greater than predicted, and there has been spotty distruction at great distances from the blast centers. It has been theorized that these were caused by atmospheric lensing and unexpected reactions in the neuclear casings, but I am not so sure.

If matter gives up kinetic energy to the gravitational field as it moves toward the center, a fusion reaction on the sun involves more potential energy than one on the earth. Likewise, whenever there is a nuclear event of somekind, a corresponding quanta of energy is released from the gravitation field - this is how I have theorized cosmic rays are accelerated to such great energies.

So the best answer I have is than nuclear fires burn hotter and longer than our experiments suggest: E=MC^2+(kMt) Where Mt is the total mass of the system surrounding the event. Systems age slower than Earth-based predictions.

Third, some specific questions about specific claims, made earlier in this thread.

3a) (source):What are the expected gravitational redshifts, observed here on Earth, of white dwarfs? neutron stars? What is the expected 'gravitational redshift' of a quasar accretion disk, in the Jerry Jensen idea?

Once again, we have determined the mass and densities of these systems by applying Newtonian rules. There are some degeneracies, such a neutron star that is rotating too slowly. If I am correct, all of these relationships will have to be reworked, but I don't think the differences will be too drastic.

Quasar accretion disks are quite a different matter. Without a BB, I need a synthesis, and I think there is a great deal of evidence now that galaxies are gathering mass of all kinds in the rotational plane and blowing it back out as big hydrogen bubbles. How this happens, is tied directly to the concept of both leptons and baryons negotiating 'ripples in space' that are a function of mass. (I haven't developed this concept very far, because I don't know how to test it.)

3b) (source)I wasn't aware that solar system ephemerides required the inclusion of dark matter, either inside or outside the solar system, in order for them to match observational data; please provide a (good) reference which shows this need.

I think you are referring to this statement:

Only if you accept the Newtonian densities of the planets and moons as being accurate AND accept the dark matter explanation for where current theories fail so miserably. I don't - that is a philosophical choice - there is no scientific (that is measurable) justification for dark stuff.

It wasn't clear, but I was referring to the need for dark matter to explain galactic rotations - nothing in the Solar System. FWIW, I haven't figured out how the Pioneer accelerations fit into anything - the acceleration is of the same magnitude that I calculated for the additional acceleration I think anything moving away from the center of the solar system at over 20 AU should feel...But the sign of the acceleration of the pioneer probes is in the wrong direction! (I tried to fix this, by greatly increasing the fundamental speed of light, but that created all kinds of problems.) I don't have something quite right, here.

3c) (source):At the qualitative level, can this be anything but correct? I mean, without some quantification ("gravity waves" of what strength? what gamma ray flux? what gamma SED?), this statement can't be (experimentally, observationally) tested, can it? Also, please provide references, showing that EVERY binary pulsar is an established source of gamma rays.[/quote]
Minor qualification here: Gravity waves are a prediction of GR, so it is a little silly to say that a theory that rejects almost every GR concept should predict gravity waves, period. Gravity is an electromagnetic phenomenon. But a system that is in binary contraction should have a rapidly changing gravitational field that unleashes energy at frequencies lower than the field's frequency domain. Rough waves.

Gravity waves should be directional - we wouldn't see them looking at a system egg-on. The gamma rays we observe in neutron star systems are also directional.

(last question - later - sorry!)

Edit: Typo - Replacing "Dark Energy" with 'dark matter'

[Jerry]

The first set of raw images of Cassini's July 22 pass are available:

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedi...toredQ=1294648

Most of these images were taken as Cassini left proximity of Titan (Cassini approached from the dark side), and they have not been calibrated yet. They do show that the pass was successful, there was not a major safing event, and we should expect good radar data from this pass

[Jerry]

A pair of twins boards a rocket, that is launched to, and stabilized in an Earth-Sun Lagrange orbit. One twin boards a second rocket, and returns to the earth at a carefully controlled acceleration of 2.0 g. The second twin stays aboard the first rocket, which is also accelerated at 2.0g while the first twin returns to the Earth. Then the first rocket is fixed at a total acceleration of 1g, in a very wide elliptic that will pass within a Legrange distance of the earth , but at a velocity of over 99% the speed of light. When the rocket passes the earth, which twin will be aging the fastest?

According to the strong equivalence principle, both twins have experienced exactly the same acceleration, so they have aged the same. According to special relativity, the clock speed on the rocket is moving slower, relative to the speed of clocks on the earth, so the twin on the rocket should be aging more slowly.

This paradox is real, it cannot be rectified without conceding that ‘relative time’ is just a transform function that allows us to mathematically resolve the combined velocities of objects in motion with the constant speed of light in a vacuum. The function works, but the interpretation is incorrect.

There is an explanation, that does not create the Twin Paradox: Leptons are not allowed a total exception to the Pauli exclusion principle, and when they approach a massive object, they are slowed by the ‘gravitational’ field of the object, and if that object is moving towards the light, the Doppler compression of the ‘gravitational’ field slows the light as a function of the Lorenze transform.

Given this set of rules, the Doppler shifting of light from a rocket ship passing the earth at near the speed of light is a function of the ‘gravitational’ field of the Earth, not relativistic time – there is no aging paradox.

An obvious prediction that falls out from this interpretation, is that not only leptons, but all particles interact with the ‘gravity’ field in a way that the motion of the particles with a given amount of kinetic energy is a function of the total gravitation field strength of the system. Planets in orbits close to the sun move more slowly with a given amount of kinetic energy than planets orbiting further from the sun. This also causes Newtonian mechanics to incorrectly predict the masses of governing bodies: The masses of planets closer to the sun are overstated, and the orbits of moons under-predict the masses planets more distant from the sun.

What about the decay rate of a muon? It is a well known fact that a muon decays more slowly when it is moving at close to the speed of light. These measurements are taking on the Earth, so it also means that the muons are moving at a high rate of speed relative to the ‘gravimetric’ field of the earth. In this theory, the decay rate of muons, like the absolute speed of light, is a function of total system mass, so muons moving fast relative to the velocity of the earths gravitational system travel in a Doppler-shifted field that reduces the net decay rate. This implies that atomic decay rates are slightly greater in our probes moving away from the sun, and that the atomic decay rate on the sun is slower than it is on the earth. It would seem simple to test this prediction, by carefully monitoring the power output of nuclear probes, such as Cassini and New Horizons – the observed half life of the plutonium in Cassini should be slightly less-than expected – more power at first, and less power with increasing mission time. (In practice, this is difficult to test, because the power converters age at a less predictable rate, and become less efficient.)

Meanwhile, there appear to be light saturation/focus and/or motion problems in the current download of raw images of the July 22 encounter of Cassini with Titan - That is according to one of the imaging team members, not me. We wait with baited breath...

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedi...red Q=1294648

[Nereid]

Hey Jerry, just as mugaliens did, I have read all five pages of this thread (in one sitting).

Unlike mugaliens, I found myself shaking my head, and writing down some questions, about your idea, as expressed in this thread, that I'd like you to address please.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My first question is similar to what Celestial Mechanic has already asked, at least twice (in different forms), but there is no Jerry Jensen answer (as far as I could see). It comes in two parts.

1a) Using the Jerry Jensen idea of gravity, mass, density (etc - i.e. the topic of this thread), have you calculated any (solar system) ephemerides? If not, how did you convince yourself that if you had done the calculations, using your idea, to produce ephemerides, you would get results that are consistent with the data that NASA and the ESA use (for spacecraft navigation)*?

Good question. The calculated ephemerides' are correct, or very close to correct, because it is the ephemerides that were used to determine the densities of the planets and moons in the first place. It is the densities that are wrong - Using orbits to determine the mass of planets underestimates the masses at greater distances, relative to the Earth, and over estimates the masses of planets close to the sun.

Discrepancies arise, when a probe passes close to a feature on a moon or planet, and also when a probe passes very close to a moon while in orbit about a planet. One piece of data I cannot completely reconcile, it the gravity measured on the surface of Mars by the Viking probes is only about 1.7% greater-than-expected. It should be a lot more that that, if I am correct - at least 7%. Some of this difference is due to the fact that orbital determinations of the mass distribution on Mars place a great deal of mass near the surface. My mass estimate for Mars may be high.

The other three obvious discrepancies between the observe and the expected results on Mars are the harmonic degeneracies in Martian gravity maps, grossly exaggerated Beugoer anomalies, and the unreconciliated Martian moment-of-inertia. Oh, and all of the probes fall too fast.

(my bold) Presumably, as you say, your idea only relates to the masses of (compact) objects, not the densities - after all, the observed radii are OK (in your view), to the errors in the measurement, right? So if the volumes are OK, then it can be only the masses which are wrong.

So then comes another question (as my Finnish friends say), or three:
i) in this Jerry idea, at what distances (from compact objects) must a probe 'fly', for its path to deviate significantly from that predicted by applying Newtonian (or GR) equations?
ii) in the Jerry idea, what is the 'true' density of the Sun?
iii) how does this Jerry idea apply to asteroids, meteors, the IPM and ISM (i.e. things other than large, compact bodies)?

1b) The solar system has a quite modest range of 'gravity environments' (including "the 1/r field attenuation"), when compared with easily observed binaries. We have good observational data on binaries with nearly equal masses (and which masses may be much more than the Sun's, or much less, or anything in between); of somewhat unequal masses, and of very unequal masses. We have good observational data on binaries with degenerate stars (both white dwarfs and neutron stars), mainstream stars, and giants, and just about every mix. We have good observational data on binaries that are widely separated, not so widely separated, and so close they are in contact.

Given the size of the effects that you, Jerry Jensen, have claimed, using your idea, for solar system objects, I'm somewhat surprised that you seem to have neglected to study the likely effects of your ideas (gravity, density, mass, etc) on binaries. Could you please say a few words about what you expect those effects to be?

I don't have enough constraints - We use the orbiting bodies to predict the masses, and then draw all of the Newtonian conclusions. Remember that in the Earth-moon system, the strong equivalence principle has been constrained to 1 part in 50,000. That means the '1/r path factor' must been many times smaller than the 1/r^2 gravitational force.

That said, you are aware of the dark matter problem, and this solution completely does away with the need for dark matter - we under-predict the amount of mass there is in galactic orbits just as we under-predict the mass of the planets furthest from the sun.

Also, you have given me another piece of turf to study, because there should be a degeneracy in the mass/luminosity relationship of binary star systems. As soon as I figure out, how, I will go look for it.

Your answer gave me a headache, Jerry; I mean, binaries include eclipsing binaries (analyses of data can thus yield radii), and there are now quite a few observations of the (angular) size of stars (not just in binaries), so if 'density' (or 'mass') is the heart of your idea, I fail to see how the extensive datasets on binaries provides insufficient constraints (and, as you know, some binaries are both contact and eclipsing, so they can - in principle - probe regions of parameter space far, far from the Jerry 1/r regime near the Earth).

Also, do you have any references to DM being a detectable (or, better, significant) component of any binary?

Finally, binary pulsars surely are to-die-for opportunities to test your ideas, aren't they? For example, "the '1/r path factor'" is surely so dramatically different from anything that you could ever hope for (in the solar system), that the 'Jerry effects' must be obvious, n'est pas?

My second question concerns standard astrophysics; specifically, the physics of (normal) stars. It also comes in two parts.

2a) What does the HR diagram look like, in a universe that runs according to the Jerry Jensen idea (of mass, gravity, density, etc)?

I think the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram is brilliant work, and I don't have any reason at this time to doubt the sequence.

OK, so, as you know, modern astrophysics does a sterling job of accounting for the HR diagram, in terms of the properties of atoms and nuclei ('lab physics'). Further, as you know, at least some parts of the HR diagram are extraordinarily finely balanced, in terms of the density (and mass) of the stars.

So, if I understand correctly, in the Jerry idea, the densities and/or masses of stars - obtained by a variety of means - are wrong (stars are actually either less dense, or more dense, than the application of standard astrophysics to the HR diagram would suggest).

Is there a contradiction in here somewhere?

2b) How does the rate at which a star evolves vary - by mass, density, composition, gravitational environment, etc - in a universe that runs according to the Jerry Jensen idea (of mass, gravity, density, etc)?

There is a very intreguing thing that has happened in the largest-of-the megaton thermal nuclear tests: The blast radius has been much greater than predicted, and there has been spotty distruction at great distances from the blast centers. It has been theorized that these were caused by atmospheric lensing and unexpected reactions in the neuclear casings, but I am not so sure.

If matter gives up kinetic energy to the gravitational field as it moves toward the center, a fusion reaction on the sun involves more potential energy than one on the earth. Likewise, whenever there is a nuclear event of somekind, a corresponding quanta of energy is released from the gravitation field - this is how I have theorized cosmic rays are accelerated to such great energies.

So the best answer I have is than nuclear fires burn hotter and longer than our experiments suggest: E=MC^2+(kMt) Where Mt is the total mass of the system surrounding the event. Systems age slower than Earth-based predictions.

Hmm. So, from analyses of stars, just how much room is there, for a consistently applied Jerry idea, within the error bars of all the observations?

Third, some specific questions about specific claims, made earlier in this thread.
3a) (source):What are the expected gravitational redshifts, observed here on Earth, of white dwarfs? neutron stars? What is the expected 'gravitational redshift' of a quasar accretion disk, in the Jerry Jensen idea?

Once again, we have determined the mass and densities of these systems by applying Newtonian rules. There are some degeneracies, such a neutron star that is rotating too slowly. If I am correct, all of these relationships will have to be reworked, but I don't think the differences will be too drastic.

Let's see now ... the densities (etc) are determined, from 'lab physics' theories, and leave little wiggle room. The observed densities, from multiple sets of independent observations, are consistent with what is expected (from 'lab physics').

However, the "the '1/r path factor'" is dramatically different (from here on Earth, where we did our 'lab physics').

Have you developed your idea sufficiently to show that a few percent near Mars is quite consistent with a few percent for white dwarfs, neutron stars, etc?

Quasar accretion disks are quite a different matter. Without a BB, I need a synthesis, and I think there is a great deal of evidence now that galaxies are gathering mass of all kinds in the rotational plane and blowing it back out as big hydrogen bubbles. How this happens, is tied directly to the concept of both leptons and baryons negotiating 'ripples in space' that are a function of mass. (I haven't developed this concept very far, because I don't know how to test it.)

Leave aside possible tests; would you please provide references to "there is a great deal of evidence now that galaxies are gathering mass of all kinds in the rotational plane and blowing it back out as big hydrogen bubbles"?

[snip]

(to be continued)

(last question - later - sorry!)

Looking forward to your answer!

[Jerry]

[quote=Neried]Finally, perhaps not directly relevant to this thread, I had to smile when I read post #64 (my bold):

In any case, this explains how cosmic rays enter our solar system at velocities that are 99+% of the speed of light. Using general relativistic equations, these particles (and gamma rays) should have been slowed in collisions with the cosmic microwave background photons. Increasing the maximum speed of light allows for these collisions without reducing the energy to currently understood limits.

So, you're quite happy with a 'non-local' CMB, despite claiming otherwise?

You can laugh at this, and so can I. I don't know if I cut-paste it in, or was typing away in oblivion, because this is what I was saying before you challanged me to defend a local CMB. For the longest time, I was stuck in my head with the notion that the CMB had to be cosmic - if you have read Ned Wrights obliteration of local arguments, it is difficult to disagree.

But then the 'axis of evil' emerged, and the north/south asymmetry - Red Flags Ned Wright insisted did not exist, based upon COBE data - do exist.

FWIW, 'Jerry physic' require that the true speed of light is faster in a true vacuum, but the difference doesn't have to be much - as little as a tenth of a percent.

(my bold) Presumably, as you say, your idea only relates to the masses of (compact) objects, not the densities - after all, the observed radii are OK (in your view), to the errors in the measurement, right? So if the volumes are OK, then it can be only the masses which are wrong.

The radii are ok, so the masses and the densities have to be wrong.

So then comes another question (as my Finnish friends say), or three:
i) in this Jerry idea, at what distances (from compact objects) must a probe 'fly', for its path to deviate significantly from that predicted by applying Newtonian (or GR) equations?

Good question. As you know, an 1/r^2 orbit relationship is the only one that 'fits' for all of the planets except Mercury - and all galaxies. But the Newtonian relationship assumes the kinetic energy relationship is constant everywhere in space, and that you can determine the mass of a governing body (mass>>) by curve-fitting the orbits. That isn't true.

ii) in the Jerry idea, what is the 'true' density of the Sun?

The biggest difference between Newtonian predicts and jerry predicts are in the extremes - close to the sun, and much more distant. Near the sun, the asyntopes of 1/r and 1/r^2 curves are the most different. Careful study of this relationship, after throwing out GR, should reveal the true density of the sun. I think it is greater, but I don't know how much greater, but I can't say too much until I can explain the Pioneer accelerations.

iii) how does this Jerry idea apply to asteroids, meteors, the IPM and ISM (i.e. things other than large, compact bodies)?

It helps explain why their orbits become less elliptic over time: As I just posted on a Universe Today article, there should be resonant notched orbits - and bodies not in these configurations are subject to more breaking energy on closest approach.

Your answer gave me a headache, Jerry; I mean, binaries include eclipsing binaries (analyses of data can thus yield radii), and there are now quite a few observations of the (angular) size of stars (not just in binaries), so if 'density' (or 'mass') is the heart of your idea, I fail to see how the extensive datasets on binaries provides insufficient constraints (and, as you know, some binaries are both contact and eclipsing, so they can - in principle - probe regions of parameter space far, far from the Jerry 1/r regime near the Earth).

I wouldn't know where to start on this - once you can no longer use Newton's law to determine the mass of the object, how do you access a binary system?

Also, do you have any references to DM being a detectable (or, better, significant) component of any binary?

No. As far as I know, DM is not being thrown into these equations.

So, if I understand correctly, in the Jerry idea, the densities and/or masses of stars - obtained by a variety of means - are wrong (stars are actually either less dense, or more dense, than the application of standard astrophysics to the HR diagram would suggest).

The life-cycles appear to be correct - It may take longer than we think, but stars do burn out. There are stellar nurseries in our own very old galaxy, - primal hydrogen is cropping up from somewhere. Where?

Finally, binary pulsars surely are to-die-for opportunities to test your ideas, aren't they? For example, "the '1/r path factor'" is surely so dramatically different from anything that you could ever hope for (in the solar system), that the 'Jerry effects' must be obvious, n'est pas?OK, so, as you know, modern astrophysics does a sterling job of accounting for the HR diagram, in terms of the properties of atoms and nuclei ('lab physics'). Further, as you know, at least some parts of the HR diagram are extraordinarily finely balanced, in terms of the density (and mass) of the stars.

This is why you have to learn astrophysics backwards to see the flaws in it. The unlearning process is not unlike comparing Newton with Darwin - Newton explained in exquisite detail the delicate balance God built into nature, and it seemed totally unplausible that anything other than a God could have created such a beautiful natural order.

Darwin attacted the myth with his little finches - birds that were evolving into woodpeckers and vampire bats where there were no perfectly created creatures to fill the nich. Darwin didn't rely on dark energy to explain weird finches, and neither should we.

[Tensor]

Good question. As you know, an 1/r^2 orbit relationship is the only one that 'fits' for all of the planets except Mercury -

This isn't true Jerry. It doesn't "fit" for Venus or Earth either (I saw another table somewhere that show the discrepencay out to Jupiter, but can't find it now). The precession of other planet's perihelion has been measured. Here's the breakout for Mercury, Venus and the Earth, along with the asteroid Icarus. I've also included the GR prediction:


Object------------GR prediction-------------Observed

Mercury______________43.0_______________43.1 +/- .05
Venus________________8.6________________8.4 +/-4.8
Earth________________3.8________________5.0 +/- 1.2
Icarus_______________10.3_______________9.8 +/- 0.8

The above are all in arcsec per century. What's the value for these object's precession, as predicted by "Jerry's theory"?

[Jerry]

The above are all in arcsec per century. What's the value for these object's precession, as predicted by "Jerry's theory"?

Interesting.

If there are resonances, the eccentricity should be a function of both the seperation of the orbiting body from a resonance, and the axis major/minor ratio. For the Earth, the orbit may be dead center in the resonance, but the wobble introduced by the moon would contribute to the precession. I don't think these are simple or trivial problems, and there are many degrees of freedom.

[Tensor]

The above are all in arcsec per century. What's the value for these object's precession, as predicted by "Jerry's theory"?

Interesting.

If there are resonances, the eccentricity should be a function of both the seperation of the orbiting body from a resonance, and the axis major/minor ratio. For the Earth, the orbit may be dead center in the resonance, but the wobble introduced by the moon would contribute to the precession. I don't think these are simple or trivial problems, and there are many degrees of freedom.

If, if, if. No Jerry, there is no talk about resonance here. It's simply straight GR. If there are so many different degrees of freedom, then how does GR manage to get within the error bars, using only known inputs? . It a simple statement of fact that your claim that all the planets except Mercury only fit an 1/r² orbit relationship is just flatly incorrect. Do you do any kind of research before making these claims? Or, as I suspect, you just make it up as you go along.

Now: What's the value for these object's precession, as predicted by "Jerry's theory"? Feel free to either answer this or simply state "Jerry's theory" can't handle the calculations for this.

[captain swoop]

He makes it up.

[Jerry]

On July 21 Cassini flew past Tital for the 17th targeted encounter with the lowest altitude yet, at 950 km. This high-latitude flyby increases Cassini's Saturn-relative orbit inclination from near equatorial to 14.9 deg. Inclination will now continue to increase with Titan encounters through February 2006, reaching a maximum of 59.8 degrees. ACS performed nominally, but with a higher than predicted thruster duty cycle durint the +/- 15 minutes around closest approach. The higher duty cycle implies a greater
atmospheric density than expected. Discussions are underway between the
various teams to resolve whether the Titan 16 atmospheric results, if applied to Titan 17 on September 7, indicate that changes should be made to that flyby.

So in spite of passing the north pole in the middle of winter, Cassini experienced a greater 'drag' than expected. Was the atmosphere thicker than expected, or is this evidence of a true gravitational anomally? They were very careful and deliberate about this pass, the atmospheric effects should not be a surprise.

But the real answer should be found in Cassini's onboard moleculer head count: Did Cassini encounter enough molecules during closest approach to explain the need for additional thrust? Are Cassini's close passes of other moons, moons without atmospheres, experiencing greater tugs than expected?

Careful analysis of the radar ranging data is important: Will it be safe to pass within 37km of Enceladus? Cassini is rewriting the rules - how long will it take the world to accept this?

[Nereid]

From Jerry's post #130 and #134, in this thread, it seems that Jerry's idea can't be tested, quantitatively (at least, not yet) ... because he can't supply even OOM estimates*.

Well, maybe.

As we saw with turbo-1's ATM idea, OOM estimates may be possible, sufficient to show that the idea is (very likely) wildly inconsistent with plenty of good observations.

So, what do we have for the Jerry Jensen ATM idea?

Well, we have easily detectable effects, for close encounters of the Venusian, Martian, and Titanian kind.

Have there been close encounters with other solar system bodies? How about close flybys of Mercury (Mariner 10)? Ganymede, Callisto, Europa, and Io (Galileo)? Iapetus (Cassini)? Miranda, and Triton (Voyager 2)?

Given "The biggest difference between Newtonian predicts and jerry predicts are in the extremes - close to the sun, and much more distant. Near the sun, the asyntopes of 1/r and 1/r^2 curves are the most different", perhaps the Mariner 10 and Voyager 2 flybys would be most helpful?

To apply this technique to other objects in the galaxy (or universe), we need to get a handle on how the 'true' density of an object is supposed to vary, in the Jerry idea, from that derived by applying standard physics. For example, is it some function of "r", where r is the distance from the Sun? Or where r is the distance from the (primary) star? If the latter, is the constant the same, for all stars, or does it vary, with distance from SgrA* for example?

So far, all we have is "this solution completely does away with the need for dark matter - we under-predict the amount of mass there is in galactic orbits just as we under-predict the mass of the planets furthest from the sun" (more on this later).

Would you please answer these questions, Jerry?

Maybe we can observe the Jerry effect, in the Earth-Moon system?

If the Jerry effect has a dependence on the distance from the Sun, then it should show up, locally, as a clear ~6 month periodic signal in the relevant residuals (from values expected by applying non-Jerry theories) - in the distance to the Moon, for example, or data from GRACE, or GP-B.

Then there's variations in c ("the true speed of light is faster in a true vacuum, but the difference doesn't have to be much - as little as a tenth of a percent"). What sort of Cherenkov radiation (or similar) do you expect UHECRs will produce, Jerry, when they enter a region in which c is smaller?

Finally, for now, let's examine this: "This is why you have to learn astrophysics backwards to see the flaws in it."

Assuming that this statement is not significantly revised, by Jerry, to what extent is it legitimate to challenge every Jerry Jensen claim, here in the ATM section of BAUT, along the lines of "please show, from first principles, that {this claim} is consistent with a rigorous reconstruction of all of astrophysics, including independent (Jerry) validation of all experimental results necessary to demonstrate consistency"?

*Though, oddly, Jerry was able to make a very precise claim (my bold): "the gravity measured on the surface of Mars by the Viking probes is only about 1.7% greater-than-expected. It should be a lot more that that, if I am correct - at least 7%"

[Jerry]

From Jerry's post #130 and #134, in this thread, it seems that Jerry's idea can't be tested, quantitatively (at least, not yet) ... because he can't supply even OOM estimates*.

I make astronomical predictions that come true. I specifically predicted the forces Huygens and Cassini would experience, and that the surface of Titan would be very terrestrial in composition. That these 'gravitmetrics' continue to be interpreted as atmospheric effects is an indices of just how screwed up the existing model of the universe is. Over the long haul, the altimetry evidence will become overwhelming - especially data from passes near moons with no atmospheres.

The Cassini event log illustrates why it is impossible to calculate specifics:

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/sig-...cfm?newsID=680

What have I got? A guess from Cassini scientists that the atmosphere is 'thicker than expected", this in spite of two years of limb measurements, and orbital adjustments that were supposed to allow a closer pass without impinging upon Titan's atmosphere. It is like I said: Titan is much more massive than predictions based upon Newtonian physics: It is covered with sand, rocks, probably has an iron core, and pulls on things harder than predicted, if you get too close.

Likewise, all of the modeling of descents to Mars involve very thin estimates of the upper atmosphere: Every where I try to look for hard data, the numbers have been crunched to come as close to Newtonian/Einstein predictionss - I have to try to reverse extrapolate, and extract what the real constraints are.

One of the best hard numbers I have, is that Huygens was traveling 35m/s faster than expected upon entry, but according to the Huygens descent model, it was buffeted by extreme winds, UP TO 70 m/s in opposite directions, in the upper atmosphere, experienced zero acceleration for the last 90 minutes of descent, and landed 14 minutes late, but exactly in the center of the predicted descent corridor. When I back out all the absurd atmospheric curve fitting, the probe spent less than 30 minutes descending - that is why the accelerometer and permittivity data are both flat.

Well, we have easily detectable effects, for close encounters of the Venusian, Martian, and Titanian kind.

You completely ignore the inversions in the Boeguer anomally data for Venus and Mars, Pioneer 6 Doppler measurements near the sun, and the fact that at least two probes have soft landed on Venus without parachutes. Oh, and the degenerate harmonics in the Mars gravity data - Yes, there is all kinds of data, and it is consistent with non-Newtonian effects.

Have there been close encounters with other solar system bodies? How about close flybys of Mercury (Mariner 10)? Ganymede, Callisto, Europa, and Io (Galileo)? Iapetus (Cassini)? Miranda, and Triton (Voyager 2)?

Are you aware that every time Galileo got near a moon, she clammed up like a frightened turtle? You are aware of the strange under surface ocean that had to be used to interpret gravity effects near Europa (there is no such ocean.) And Galileo's closest pass of Ganymede required moding of an extreme positive gravity anomaly where there is no surface feature. Not to mention the 400m/s down draft used to explain the descent of the Jupiter probe.

Given "The biggest difference between Newtonian predicts and jerry predicts are in the extremes - close to the sun, and much more distant. Near the sun, the asyntopes of 1/r and 1/r^2 curves are the most different", perhaps the Mariner 10 and Voyager 2 flybys would be most helpful?

Well, Voyager I went into safe mode and did an emergency firing to get away from Saturn, no one know why - I do.

To apply this technique to other objects in the galaxy (or universe), we need to get a handle on how the 'true' density of an object is supposed to vary, in the Jerry idea, from that derived by applying standard physics. For example, is it some function of "r", where r is the distance from the Sun? Or where r is the distance from the (primary) star? If the latter, is the constant the same, for all stars, or does it vary, with distance from SgrA* for example?

So far, all we have is "this solution completely does away with the need for dark matter - we under-predict the amount of mass there is in galactic orbits just as we under-predict the mass of the planets furthest from the sun" (more on this later).

Would you please answer these questions, Jerry?

How much turf can one part-time researcher reasonable cover? There are two areas of research I have found very fertile: Supernova, and planetary space probes. The rest just has to wait. As for the basics of the theory - Very simple electromagnetics. It is the model Tesla proposed and Maxwell put into equations.

Maybe we can observe the Jerry effect, in the Earth-Moon system?

According to Anderson, the Apollo lazer experiments constrain the strong equivalence principle to one part in 50,000. They were expecting tighter constraints. This constraint was increased in a Cassini experiment, but the paper was later withdrawn. The gravity B probe could offer more insight, but the data is not due to be released until May of 2007!. (Computers were very slow when the B probe was first concieved.)

If the Jerry effect has a dependence on the distance from the Sun, then it should show up, locally, as a clear ~6 month periodic signal in the relevant residuals (from values expected by applying non-Jerry theories) - in the distance to the Moon, for example, or data from GRACE, or GP-B.

Thanks - good references. One of the places I looked was in the 'Hypocritus' parallax study - and guess what? A lot of this very careful astrometric data later proved to be quite wrong under certain conditions. I never found a way spacially quantify the descrepancies - Astrometrics is highly specialized, especially in space.

Then there's variations in c ("the true speed of light is faster in a true vacuum, but the difference doesn't have to be much - as little as a tenth of a percent"). What sort of Cherenkov radiation (or similar) do you expect UHECRs will produce, Jerry, when they enter a region in which c is smaller?

Actually more redshifted rays, but this shouldn't be a surprise - GR predicts the same, but interprets the difference as time distortion, not a change in the path through space. - c is smaller near massive objects, by the way, not in open space. Hey - it is called the kitchen sink model.

Finally, for now, let's examine this: "This is why you have to learn astrophysics backwards to see the flaws in it."

Simple deduction: Thousands have learned Astrophysics through a structured approach, and if it were easy to see the flaws, at least a few would have realized it by now. Nobody in the field seems the least bit bothered by the obtuse data massaging supernova researchers employ.

Assuming that this statement is not significantly revised, by Jerry, to what extent is it legitimate to challenge every Jerry Jensen claim, here in the ATM section of BAUT, along the lines of "please show, from first principles, that {this claim} is consistent with a rigorous reconstruction of all of astrophysics, including independent (Jerry) validation of all experimental results necessary to demonstrate consistency"?

Copernicus knew he had a better model for the solar system, but he could not come anywhere near the accuracy of the students of Ptolomey, with their epicycles. This is good company.

*Though, oddly, Jerry was able to make a very precise claim (my bold): "the gravity measured on the surface of Mars by the Viking probes is only about 1.7% greater-than-expected. It should be a lot more that that, if I am correct - at least 7%"

Yes, I actually calculated 14%, but I am making rash assumptions about the distribution of planetary masses. Without an absolute method for nailing down one of the variables, such as Newtons massive bodies trick, I can only approximate solutions. Both Viking landers used 8% more fuel than expected during the final two meters of descent. That would indicate the surface gravity is about 4% greater-than-expected.

By the way, the very sensitive impact accelerometer used by Huygens settled in on the surface at a value of 0.4g - right on my prediction, but double what was expected - I haven't heard or read any explanation pro or con on this, so I don't know how to weigh the data. Speaking of which, where is the Huygens Data? It was scheduled for public release in June of 2006. This was delayed until July, so we are down to the final two days. This data will (hopefully) include time-stamped altimeter data, and we may have a better look at what actually happened to Huygens.

Edit:Elaborations.

[Jerry]

When Cassini experienced "greater than expected atomspheric drag", last year and the year before, there was a discrepancy between the INMS measurements of the atmosphere thickness, and the drag force experienced: Cassini 'felt', but did not 'see' the molecules. The differences was stunning: a factor of 2-3. At 950km, this discrepancy should be even greater...assuming they have not recalibated the INMS to correct for the 'obvious' error in the INMS data in the earlier passes.

[Nereid]

(source):

i) in this Jerry idea, at what distances (from compact objects) must a probe 'fly', for its path to deviate significantly from that predicted by applying Newtonian (or GR) equations?

Good question. As you know, an 1/r^2 orbit relationship is the only one that 'fits' for all of the planets except Mercury - and all galaxies. But the Newtonian relationship assumes the kinetic energy relationship is constant everywhere in space, and that you can determine the mass of a governing body (mass>>) by curve-fitting the orbits. That isn't true.

Leaving aside, for now, the errors ("an 1/r^2 orbit relationship is the only one that 'fits' for all of the planets except Mercury"), I don't see an answer to my question.

Let me repeat it: what is the maximum distance, from the centre of mass of {X}, at which an object in unpowered flight (e.g. a spaceprobe) will have a trajectory which deviates - at this distance - from a mainstream ephemerides by 1%?

{X}: Separate answers for:
* the Sun
* Mercury
* Venus
* Earth
* Moon (Luna)
* Mars
* Jupiter
* Io
* Europa
* Ganymede
* Iapetus
* Titan
* Uranus
* Neptune
* Triton

What is the 'true' density (or, if you prefer, mass) of each of these objects (according the the Jerry ATM idea)?

(Note that there are quite a few direct, pertinent questions, on the Jerry ATM idea, as presented by Jerry Jensen in this thread, which have not yet been answered. In the next few days I intend to collect these into a single post).

[Hamlet]

I make astronomical predictions that come true.

Only in your dreams.

By the way, the very sensitive impact accelerometer used by Huygens settled in on the surface at a value of 0.4g - right on my prediction, but double what was expected - I haven't heard or read any explanation pro or con on this, so I don't know how to weigh the data.

Where did you predict this number and how do you think the Huygens impact accelerometers back you up? The impact deceleration profiles show peaks of between 141 m/s² and 178 m/s².

[Hamlet]

So in spite of passing the north pole in the middle of winter, Cassini experienced a greater 'drag' than expected.

What does it matter that Cassini passed over the north pole in winter?

Was the atmosphere thicker than expected, or is this evidence of a true gravitational anomally? They were very careful and deliberate about this pass, the atmospheric effects should not be a surprise.

This was the first time they had flown this low in the atmosphere. The density values of the upper atmosphere are not known to a high precision. The profile generated from the HASI instrument on Huygens had about a 10% uncertainty due to uncertainty in aerodynamic drag coefficient and the probe's velocity.

If this was a gravity anomaly it would have been seen during the entire pass not just at closest approach.

But the real answer should be found in Cassini's onboard moleculer head count: Did Cassini encounter enough molecules during closest approach to explain the need for additional thrust? Are Cassini's close passes of other moons, moons without atmospheres, experiencing greater tugs than expected?

Cassini wasn't thrusting against gravity. The ACS was compensating for the torque induced on the craft by the higher drag. The ACS is responsible for maintaining the correct orientation of the instruments during data collection.

If there were gravity anomalies they would show up in changes to Cassini's orbit that didn't match predictions. This isn't happening.

[Jerry]

What does it matter that Cassini passed over the north pole in winter?

Cold air - lower atmosphere. What matters is that the 'drag' was significantly greater than they expected, based upon all of the prior passes.

This was the first time they had flown this low in the atmosphere. The density values of the upper atmosphere are not known to a high precision. The profile generated from the HASI instrument on Huygens had about a 10% uncertainty due to uncertainty in aerodynamic drag coefficient and the probe's velocity.

Cassini carries her own Ion and neutral mass spectrometer. On the earlier pass at ~12-1400km, this instrument estimate that the atmosphere was thinner than the 'drag' force experienced by a factor of 2-3 - that is right out of the event logs too. It is also clear from articles written about this in the planetary society's website, that Cassini was fighting to keep from falling closer to Titan than expected. Since the gravimetric force is known and is an undisputable fact, the only thing they can contribute the force to is atmospheric drag, even though the on-board instrumentation indicates otherwise. Classic example of putting more faith in the theory than in the observational data.

If this was a gravity anomaly it would have been seen during the entire pass not just at closest approach.

Once all the dust has settled, Cassini's passes of all of Saturn's moons will contain evidence of degenercies that are a function of proximity.

If there were gravity anomalies they would show up in changes to Cassini's orbit that didn't match predictions. This isn't happening.

Actually, a drag force may create greater orbital changes than a doppler speed bump. I think the Cassini navigators are seeing these anomalies, and it is just a matter of time before the correlation is too strong to be overlooked. Watch and see.

(source):Leaving aside, for now, the errors ("an 1/r^2 orbit relationship is the only one that 'fits' for all of the planets except Mercury"), I don't see an answer to my question.

I don’t have a good answer to this question because I don’t know what the observe deviations with respect to Newtonian predictions are: I don’t know how much closer to Titan Cassini passed at each orbital distance, if I did, I could fit a curve, just like I have to estimate the masses of the planets and moons. The theory says the path through space is a function of mass, and the greater the mass, the longer the path. In each system, there is a different gradient because the total mass of the system is different. I don’t have an oracle that provides hard numbers.

Let me repeat it: what is the maximum distance, from the centre of mass of {X}, at which an object in unpowered flight (e.g. a spaceprobe) will have a trajectory which deviates - at this distance - from a mainstream ephemerides by 1%?

I am certain this could be worked out from the observed harmonic degenerancies in the orbital gravity maps of Mars – (mapping from higher altitudes indicate lower gravity anomalies for the martian volcanic peaks). I don’t have a research assistant I can ask to plow through the planetary data system, and pick out the data. The only trick here, is realizing that the degeneracies are caused by different path lengths in the first place. There might be enough data from Galileo to get good estimates for Ganymede and Europa.

What is the 'true' density (or, if you prefer, mass) of each of these objects (according the the Jerry ATM idea)?

As you know, except for Mercury, the ephemeredes are fairly close to 1/r^2 predictions.
{X}:
“Newtonian” and “Jerry” Densities of the planets – relative to the earth density of 5.5:
* the Sun
* Mercury 5.427/4.49
* Venus 5.243/4.47
* Earth 5.515
* Moon (Luna) 3.7
* Mars3.93/4.47
* Jupiter
* Io 3.55/5.67
* Europa 3.01/4.81
* Ganymede 1.94/3.10
* Iapetus 1.27/3.0
* Titan 1.88/4.42
* Uranus 1.5/3.78
* Neptune 1.27/5.76
* Triton 2.0/6.88

The numbers for Neptune and Triton seem a little high, in fact, the entire curve may be exaggerated – but it gives you a good idea of the general trend.

[Hamlet]

Cold air - lower atmosphere.

So we have a possible answer to higher density without resorting to any 'gravity anomalies'.

What matters is that the 'drag' was significantly greater than they expected, based upon all of the prior passes.

There were no prior passes at this altitude. This was the first time they had been so low.

It is also clear from articles written about this in the planetary society's website, that Cassini was fighting to keep from falling closer to Titan than expected.

They say no such thing! Your making stuff up. The ACS is used to control attitude against torques induced from the atmosphere. It isn't "fighting" anything but drag.

Since the gravimetric force is known and is an undisputable fact, the only thing they can contribute the force to is atmospheric drag, even though the on-board instrumentation indicates otherwise. Classic example of putting more faith in the theory than in the observational data.

No, this is a classic example of making your best prediction based on incomplete data and then learning new information as the observed data deviates from the prediction. No need for faith, this is just solid science and engineering.

Once all the dust has settled, Cassini's passes of all of Saturn's moons will contain evidence of degenercies that are a function of proximity.

The dust has been settled and buried. If the gravity values used to plan the flybys were off, there would be additional OTM's needed to correct for them. We don't see these in the logs, in fact, we often see OTM's being cancelled since the residuals after the flybys are within the predicted limits.

Actually, a drag force may create greater orbital changes than a doppler speed bump. I think the Cassini navigators are seeing these anomalies, and it is just a matter of time before the correlation is too strong to be overlooked.

The Cassini navigators are too dumb or incompetent to notice problems in their trajectories?

Watch and see.

Watch and see that you are wrong again?

Snipped the rest since it was just more excuses for why you can't produce any real data.

[Nereid]

[snip]

(source):Leaving aside, for now, the errors ("an 1/r^2 orbit relationship is the only one that 'fits' for all of the planets except Mercury"), I don't see an answer to my question.

I don’t have a good answer to this question because I don’t know what the observe deviations with respect to Newtonian predictions are: I don’t know how much closer to Titan Cassini passed at each orbital distance, if I did, I could fit a curve, just like I have to estimate the masses of the planets and moons. The theory says the path through space is a function of mass, and the greater the mass, the longer the path. In each system, there is a different gradient because the total mass of the system is different. I don’t have an oracle that provides hard numbers.

Let me repeat it: what is the maximum distance, from the centre of mass of {X}, at which an object in unpowered flight (e.g. a spaceprobe) will have a trajectory which deviates - at this distance - from a mainstream ephemerides by 1%?

I am certain this could be worked out from the observed harmonic degenerancies in the orbital gravity maps of Mars – (mapping from higher altitudes indicate lower gravity anomalies for the martian volcanic peaks). I don’t have a research assistant I can ask to plow through the planetary data system, and pick out the data. The only trick here, is realizing that the degeneracies are caused by different path lengths in the first place. There might be enough data from Galileo to get good estimates for Ganymede and Europa.

So, for the moment, it seems this path is a dead end (for now).

What is the 'true' density (or, if you prefer, mass) of each of these objects (according the the Jerry ATM idea)?

As you know, except for Mercury, the ephemeredes are fairly close to 1/r^2 predictions.

I don't want to go down a rabbit hole on this, so I will merely note it, for possible future reference: there seems to be a profound gulf lurking here - either the theory matches the observations within the experimental/observational errors, or it doesn't (that's the normal science test); in the Jerry Jensen version of science, it may be that a mismatch may be dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of sigma and still be OK, provided that the prediction is "fairly close".

{X}:
“Newtonian” and “Jerry” Densities of the planets – relative to the earth density of 5.5:
* the Sun
* Mercury 5.427/4.49
* Venus 5.243/4.47
* Earth 5.515
* Moon (Luna) 3.7
* Mars3.93/4.47
* Jupiter
* Io 3.55/5.67
* Europa 3.01/4.81
* Ganymede 1.94/3.10
* Iapetus 1.27/3.0
* Titan 1.88/4.42
* Uranus 1.5/3.78
* Neptune 1.27/5.76
* Triton 2.0/6.88

The numbers for Neptune and Triton seem a little high, in fact, the entire curve may be exaggerated – but it gives you a good idea of the general trend.

One thing to cross off, before starting to take a look at the Jerry ATM idea: to what extent does the density of an object depend upon its distance from the Sun?

For example, if an object (an asteroid perhaps) has a highly eccentric orbit, does its density vary, according to distance from the Sun? Or is its density the same, no matter where in the solar system it may find itself?

For completeness, I guess I should also ask about volume and mass - to what extent are either of these dependent upon the object's distance from the Sun?

(of course, getting closer to the Sun may cause an object to lose mass - through outgassing (and subsequent escape), through evaporation, through solar wind sputtering, and so on. My questions assume that all such effects are negligible).

[Jerry]

So, for the moment, it seems this path is a dead end (for now).I don't want to go down a rabbit hole on this, so I will merely note it, for possible future reference: there seems to be a profound gulf lurking here - either the theory matches the observations within the experimental/observational errors, or it doesn't (that's the normal science test); in the Jerry Jensen version of science, it may be that a mismatch may be dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of sigma and still be OK, provided that the prediction is "fairly close".

Recognize the trend, develop a hypotheses. Test the hypotheses against the known. Make predictions about the unknown, or that run counter to expectations. Cassini had to experience a greater-than-expected pull towards Titan on the 950km pass, or good by hypothesis. The planned 35km pass within the surface of Enceladus is very interesting – obviously this must produce a gross diversion of Cassini towards Enceladus.

One thing to cross off, before starting to take a look at the Jerry ATM idea: to what extent does the density of an object depend upon its distance from the Sun?

No direct correlation. This is completely different from solar theory, but I am assuming the planets were captured 'brown dwarf' like objects, and that they did not condense from a dust cloud.

For example, if an object (an asteroid perhaps) has a highly eccentric orbit, does its density vary, according to distance from the Sun? Or is its density the same, no matter where in the solar system it may find itself?

Any body in a highly elliptical orbit should deviate more from Newtonian prediction than a body in a more circular orbit. If we put transmitter/receivers on a asteroid, as the asteroid approached the sun, the increase in velocity due to the increasing effect of solar gravity, should be measurable less than Newtonian predictions. (This loss of momentum is conserved in the general 'gravimetric' field of the sun.)

As the asteroid leaves close proximity with the sun, most, but not quote all, of energy is returned to the asteroid. There is more energy lost when a orbiting body is close to the sun in an eccentric orbit. This helps explain why dark comets like Tempel 1, with precious little thermal capacity, are as likely to outgas from the side of the comet not facing the sun, as the sol-facing side. It also explains how planets that were captured in very eccentric orbits become more circular.

Why don’t we see this with probes? We did: Pioneer 6 Doppler shows a marked diversion in velocity as it neared the sun, slowing more than expected. As the probe passed the limb of the sun, the velocity increased again. The Pioneer 6 anomaly was pointed out to me by a Ari Jokimaki after I describe this attribute of the solar system in an earlier thread. (This Doppler oddity is attributed to coronal magnetic effects.)

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=13695

If this is correct, we should expect, to see just as much heavy metal in the outer solar system as in the inner solar system. There is one obvious exception: the Saturn system is loaded with water. Titan and Phoebe are much more dense than your run-of –the-mill Saturn moons and contain little water, relative to the rest of the Saturn moons. Phoebe appears to be a recent acquisition, I don’t know why there is so little water on Titan. The more distant planets and moons are at least as dense as those in the inner solar system.

For completeness, I guess I should also ask about volume and mass - to what extent are either of these dependent upon the object's distance from the Sun?

I don’t have an estimate for the sun.

[Hamlet]

Cassini had to experience a greater-than-expected pull towards Titan on the 950km pass, or good by hypothesis. The planned 35km pass within the surface of Enceladus is very interesting – obviously this must produce a gross diversion of Cassini towards Enceladus.

Then goodbye hypothesis. Cassini didn't experience a "greater-than-expected pull towards Titan". It experienced a denser atmosphere than had been predicted for that altitude. The ACS had to work a little harder at closest approach to keep the correct attitude for the instruments. This is not "fighting gravity".