The Demise of ATM Discussions

[djellison]

I second CM's motion.

Thirded - and given that this is ATM, Jerry is obliged to respond.

If our knowledge of the Mass of Mars is wrong to the tune of 14%, then the successful operation of spacecraft at and around Mars for decades is unarguably the greatest miracle of all time.

[Gillianren]

Yeah, I'd like to see some numbers, too. I probably won't understand them, but they need to be there. There need to be measurements, calculations, a reason to believe there's actually a theory, instead of a bunch of words that don't seem to me to mean anything. I don't understand why direct answers seem to be so hard to produce. Even some questions that should be yes or no take three paragraphs. Something that's answerable by equations is instead answered by a stream of words. All I see is words, and none of them seem to be evidence of anything other than that Jerry doesn't agree with the mainstream, and I think we all knew that going in.

[Tensor]

Wrong. There is only one constant in standard Einsteinian General Relativity and that is 8*pi*G/c⁴, chosen in order to have Newtonian gravity as the weak field/small velocity limit. Any good GR textbook could have told you this. It does not bode (or even Titius-Bode!) well for your conjectures that you have something as simple as this wrong.

As for the alleged "failure" of GR in the other planet's perihelion precessions, I'm looking for the current best estimates, but the fact remains that because of the smaller effects and smaller eccentricities it is very difficult (especially with Venus) to verify this. But I'm sure it has been done. Hint: Do not cite the "works" of Santagata in this context; they are absolute rubbish.

Here ya go CM. As usual, Jerry is making objections to GR without knowing whereof he speaks.

[nutant gene 71]

Here ya go CM. As usual, Jerry is making objections to GR without knowing whereof he speaks.

Sometime ago I did work out the math on an alternative 43” per century, follow link: Mercury’s precession as a function of Sun’s equatorial angular momentum transfer at perihelion. But that got no response then, nor do I expect any now. I’m surprised the Brans-Dicke idea was never followed up by MS, not as a function of Sun’s oblateness but as angular momentum transfer, where equatorial spin at perihelion is sufficient to ‘propel’ Mercury just a tad, like 43” per century. The GR explanation is grand, of course, but there is no causality to explain it.

Tassel, I'll have to go and find the originals on 'variables inertial mass' tests outside Earth-Moon orbital region, which is where those tight parameters were measured before, in Earth orbit. I don't believe I ever saw the same scientific test, as a dedicated test (the kind proposed by ESA), for inertial mass in other orbital regions, especially for the outer planets. But I could be wrong. If you come across them in your travels, let me know. Test test test... out there... same as before, good science. Could Cassini be adapted to do this at Saturn, for example?

[Jerry]

Here ya go CM. As usual, Jerry is making objections to GR without knowing whereof he speaks.

Put your thinking caps on: GR provides a geometric solution to the Mercury Procession problem. Four dimensional; but it is not that different from Keplar trying to use perfect shapes to plot the orbits of all of the planets. GR is so widely accepted because it resolved the one outstanding issue with solar Newtonian mechanics. Hell, I'm arguing Newton is off on outer planet masses by factors of more than two. Where GR fits in all of this is absurdly academic.

Meanwhile, from the Planetary Society's Emily:

To make a long story short, the actual gravity data differed from the model by quite a lot, which had Smith and his coworkers scratching their heads for a while: "Initially, we thought there was something wrong with the data, something wrong with the position of Mercury, or something wrong with the model of the spacecraft, but none of those seemed to explain this. It was after about two weeks of trying to find some physical explanation that we thought, 'this must be gravity,' so we tried solving for a gravity anomaly under the spacecraft at the point of closest approach." That is, they inferred there was some excess mass buried invisibly under Mercury's crust near MESSENGER's path. Smith showed that they were able to account for about 95% of the problem deviation using a single mass anomaly positioned about 10 degrees south of the equator at about 60 degrees longitude. There's no real conclusions about the interior structure of Mercury that you can draw from this one flyby -- much more data is needed.

Just as it was necessary to use a major gravity anomaly to explain the close flyby of Galileo of Ganymede, the very first pass of Mercury is about three sigma out of wack.

What the hell? If you remember my predictions about Mercury, I expected something quite opposite: Mercury should be lighter than Newtonian estimates, so I'm 180 degrees wrong, right? Maybe. Once again, not enough information: I figured Mercury would provide less gravitational braking than expected. This article does not say whether the assist was more or less than expected. To achieve gravitational braking, you cross in front of the planet's orbit and let gravity reign in some momentum.

mmm...Ok, I can see a couple of solutions, but more information is needed. If this was our closest pass to Mercury, and closest by a fairly long shot, previous passes may have under estimate the Newtonian mass/density of Mercury that we will measure once in orbit. The other solution would require an inside to outside pass - I just don't know enough about Messengers path. What is clear, is that the earlier-than-planned orbital correction last year was indeed due to an unexpected gravity-related event...because, like Ganymede and Europa, it can't be written of as atmospheric.

[Jerry]

Yeah, I'd like to see some numbers, too. I probably won't understand them, but they need to be there. There need to be measurements, calculations, a reason to believe there's actually a theory, instead of a bunch of words that don't seem to me to mean anything. I don't understand why direct answers seem to be so hard to produce. Even some questions that should be yes or no take three paragraphs. Something that's answerable by equations is instead answered by a stream of words. All I see is words, and none of them seem to be evidence of anything other than that Jerry doesn't agree with the mainstream, and I think we all knew that going in.

READ THE LAST POST: Tell me again I am not providing evidence; and you will have to define for me what you consider evidence, because I don't know.

Math is an abstraction, not reasoning. Every mathematical problem you can model of can be computed in binary logic: Ones and Naughts. Most of the physics that is taught, up to a graduate level is simplifications - we all know a ball does not follow a truly hyperbolic path because of air resistance and such. ANY mathematical solution to these complex issues must be simplified.

Words convey logic, reasoning, draw analogies that don't suffer the same ambiguities of simplified mathematical solutions. Feynman said if you can't explain it at a freshman level, you really don't understand it. The Origin of Species draws on many examples that today can be completely characterized in statisticaleze. But if Darwin would have chosen to outline his theory mathematically, he would have had to formally declare definitions in a field that did not exist in his day, and try to do so without losing most of his audience.

Tests of theories usually require mathematical reductions, and here I am handicapped as well: I could go into a very detailed mathematical explanation of as to why the Huygens science team totally whiffed in their scientific evaluation of Huygens descent. I have studied the results, in excruciating mathematical detail, but so what? Who in their right mind would accept my evaluation, my assumptions that are so different from a team of mission scientists? Given the response of audiences when I have thrown simplified formulas on a white board, or offered analysis of data the differs widely from mission scientists; I have chosen other lines of logic, such as pointing out mainstream scientists are really stretching the data to get the answers they need, and occasionally publish what they do not understand.

Besides, does the mailman go for a walk on his day off?

[Tensor]

The GR explanation is grand, of course, but there is no causality to explain it.

I suggest you go back and study GR some more then. Your statement here is flat out wrong. The GR equations can be expanded as a power series (something that can't be done to the Newtonian equations). The 43 minutes of an arc per century (in the case of Mercury) is due to the addition of the second order term in the equations.
If you want the simplified physics behind the second order term, then you can think of it this way. That second order term is the additional gravity that has to be added, due to the energy of the sun's gravitational field. This isn't considered under Newtonian gravity, because only mass is the cause of gravity under Newtonian gravity. Under GR, all energy causes gravity, so the energy of the gravitational field has to be included.

[Tensor]

Put your thinking caps on: GR provides a geometric solution to the Mercury Procession problem. Four dimensional; but it is not that different from Keplar trying to use perfect shapes to plot the orbits of all of the planets. GR is so widely accepted because it resolved the one outstanding issue with solar Newtonian mechanics.

Which has nothing to do with my statement. Let's go back to post 145 shall we:

I pointed out the the accurate prediction of Mercurys procession made by General Relativity is artificial: There are GR constants that are based upon Mercurys procession, and GR does not provide equally accurate predictions of the processions of other planets.

Note my bold. I'll ignore your constants claim, since CM covered it. You claimed that the prediction by GR of Mercury's precession (not procession) was artificial and wasn't equally accurate for the other planets. My link shows that for Venus, Earth, and Icarus that the prediction matches observations within errors. Which you have to agree, pretty much show you don't know what you are talking about in your claim.

Meanwhile, from the Planetary Society's Emily:
Just as it was necessary to use a major gravity anomaly to explain the close flyby of Galileo of Ganymede, the very first pass of Mercury is about three sigma out of wack.

What the hell? If you remember my predictions about Mercury, I expected something quite opposite: Mercury should be lighter than Newtonian estimates, so I'm 180 degrees wrong, right? Maybe. Once again, not enough information:

LOL Jerry, why is it that as soon as something disagrees with your ideas, it's "not enough information" (even when that something is completly opposite of what you predicted) but when there is the slightest difference in a mainstream theory, your all over it wanting it overturned and replaced?

[Jerry]

Thirded - and given that this is ATM, Jerry is obliged to respond.

The original prediction is here:
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mai...n-mission.html

I revised the masses of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn for Neried somewhere later, but for the rest of it, I stand by the original 'formula' prediction...at least the first two digits.

If our knowledge of the Mass of Mars is wrong to the tune of 14%, then the successful operation of spacecraft at and around Mars for decades is unarguably the greatest miracle of all time.

I would reserve that title for Huygens. Incredible feat, that.

Mars landings - Mars could not possibly be 14% more massive, unless the Newtonian equivalence principle is the root of the problem: It takes less energy to reduce momentum if you are further from objects like the sun. We can land on Mars dissipating less energy than we would have to, if Mars were at the same orbital distance from the Sun than the Earth. Even so, fighting against gravity over-time takes more energy as the rate of descent slows. It is a fact that it took both Viking probes ~5% more fuel to decelerate the last few seconds than Newtonian mechanics predicts. Mission scientists never resolved the discrepancy.

See this thread for LOTS OF evidence on how hard it has proven to land on Mars:

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mai...-too-hard.html

It remains to be seen what will happen with the Phoenix. As always for more distant planets, the probe will fall harder and faster than Newton says it should. The nice thing is we will have both precision Doppler and radar telemetry all the way down.

[nutant gene 71]

I suggest you go back and study GR some more then. Your statement here is flat out wrong. The GR equations can be expanded as a power series (something that can't be done to the Newtonian equations). The 43 minutes of an arc per century (in the case of Mercury) is due to the addition of the second order term in the equations.

You got me Tensor, I don't even know where to start to look for "second order term of the equations" in GR! However, if you or someone have references where I can start, I'd love to follow up on this, especially if it shows "causality" for GR equations for Mercury's precession. Nothing ATM here, just curious about how Einstein's 4 dimensional geometry causes "causality". Thanks.

[Gillianren]

Words dance better than numbers, and every measurement is a number. No measurements, no science.

[Jerry]

Note my bold. I'll ignore your constants claim, since CM covered it. You claimed that the prediction by GR of Mercury's precession (not procession) was artificial and wasn't equally accurate for the other planets. My link shows that for Venus, Earth, and Icarus that the prediction matches observations within errors. Which you have to agree, pretty much show you don't know what you are talking about in your claim.

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

Please apply the 'Jerry Test': If I offered this data and error bars this wide as proof of an ATM theory, it would draw a wild chorus of Naays. As I said the last time we churned this: There is more going on the Either Newton or Einstein allowed and we are finally seeing evidence of it.

That said, you can't even whisper the equations of Maxwell in complex setting without worrying about second order effects: Whether or not you have a good handle on the causality. GR is just one of many possible explanations, not the right one. I am also curious as to why the error bars are tighter for Icarus than for the Earth or Venus. Has somebody got a bead on Icarus?

LOL Jerry, why is it that as soon as something disagrees with your ideas, it's "not enough information" (even when that something is completly opposite of what you predicted) but when there is the slightest difference in a mainstream theory, your all over it wanting it overturned and replaced?

What makes you assume the data is inconsistent with my theory? I pointed out there is not an obvious connection, because the data is not well enough defined, but it is another gravity anomaly in a place that if I am correct there must be gravity anomalies

Did you even read the article? It says right in the article they need more observations of this important clue to constrain the possible explanation. And if all goes well, we will get it!

Another post with A LOT of Evidence:

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mai...tml#post705232

[Jerry]

Words dance better than numbers, and every measurement is a number. No measurements, no science.

Here are some numbers:

212.3 53.32 1.7^e9

8.82

5

[Celestial Mechanic]

Here are some numbers:

212.3 53.32 1.7^e9

8.82

5

This is really not an answer at all, it borders on insulting. In fact, it is almost worthy of a complaint, but I shall not be making one in this case.

Please give your real calculation, using real physics and real numbers for the discrepancy in the mass/density/whatever of Mars. I'm sure it's a good deal simpler than calculating the Earth's precession of equinoxes. Give it a try.

[captain swoop]

What makes you assume the data is inconsistent with my theory? I pointed out there is not an obvious connection, because the data is not well enough defined, but it is another gravity anomaly in a place that if I am correct there must be gravity anomalies

Doesn't your theory say that gravity increases as we move away from the sun?

[tusenfem]

Please apply the 'Jerry Test': If I offered this data and error bars this wide as proof of an ATM theory, it would draw a wild chorus of Naays. As I said the last time we churned this: There is more going on the Either Newton or Einstein allowed and we are finally seeing evidence of it.

Only, maybe for the Earth, would such a ATM result get a nay. And only would these error bars be accepted when there is a plausible explanation in the ATM theory for the size of the error bars.

[/quote]
That said, you can't even whisper the equations of Maxwell in complex setting without worrying about second order effects: Whether or not you have a good handle on the causality.
[/quote]

Maxwell's equations? What have they to do with GR? And what do you mean by "complex setting?" And what "second order effects?"

div(B) = 0
curl(B) = J + dE/dt
curl(E) = - dB/dt
div(E) = rho

do you mean with second order that you get a 2nd order derivative if you want to get a wave equation for E or B?

the second order term that Tensor was talking about was in the Taylor series approximation of the GR equations, which are the terms that go with v²/c².

GR is just one of many possible explanations, not the right one. I am also curious as to why the error bars are tighter for Icarus than for the Earth or Venus. Has somebody got a bead on Icarus?

if you would read, you would have seen that it has to do with the eccentricity of the planet, that is important for the effect.

What makes you assume the data is inconsistent with my theory? I pointed out there is not an obvious connection, because the data is not well enough defined, but it is another gravity anomaly in a place that if I am correct there must be gravity anomalies

Did you even read the article? It says right in the article they need more observations of this important clue to constrain the possible explanation. And if all goes well, we will get it!

Okay, so they need MORE density in a certain location (which is, by the way, not so much of a problem, there are enough density anomalies. I will need to search for the correct reference here) to get the orbit right, which will be added to the generally accepted average density.
However, YOU need a lower density that then generally accepted average. How on Earth (or Mercury) can the two be compatible?

[captain swoop]

Okay, so they need MORE density in a certain location (which is, by the way, not so much of a problem, there are enough density anomalies. I will need to search for the correct reference here) to get the orbit right, which will be added to the generally accepted average density.
However, YOU need a lower density that then generally accepted average. How on Earth (or Mercury) can the two be compatible?

Because any difference seems to support the theory

[nutant gene 71]

Doesn't your theory say that gravity increases as we move away from the sun?

I don't think Jerry ever made a complete statement to that effect, though it may be within realm of possibilities. But I did, using de Broglie-Einstein equations to show how (at a quantum level) the proton-proton gravitational 'constant' changes with distance from the Sun, as a function of solar energy and orbital energy, where Newton's G is shown to grow at about 1G per 1AU, which approximates what is happening to the Pioneers: as per Variable G, a short paper with the math written April 2, 2006. My fault.

The full development of this variable gravity, though crude, is here (scroll down for "In Principia Gravitas"), along with many postings on BAUT to that effect. For now this is totally ATM without empirical evidence from direct tests for Newton's G away from Earth-Moon orbits where it is constant, except as anecdotal evidence discussed by Jerry, grav, and others, that perhaps gravity G is not a universal constant. This idea is not entirely new, such as Brans-Dicke and Jaakkola, and now Anderson et al are also looking into it. MOND may also be a factor, as discussed here (where a 'gentler' MOND applies inside our solar system); and perhaps using Earth based kilograms is also masking the real effects of a variable G (though it all works pretty well) as discussed here, where Equivalence principle must apply in a variable G universe. But it's all ATM conversation for now until ESA et al test for inertial mass away from Earth-Moon orbital region. Planetary flyby anomalies is merely another clue that something is not right with Newton's G, and might also need adjustments for the very elegant GR math.

[korjik]

I don't think Jerry ever made a complete statement to that effect, though it may be within realm of possibilities. But I did, using de Broglie-Einstein equations to show how (at a quantum level) the proton-proton gravitational 'constant' changes with distance from the Sun, as a function of solar energy and orbital energy, where Newton's G is shown to grow at about 1G per 1AU, which approximates what is happening to the Pioneers: as per Variable G, a short paper with the math written April 2, 2006. My fault.

The full development of this variable gravity, though crude, is here (scroll down for "In Principia Gravitas"), along with many postings on BAUT to that effect. For now this is totally ATM without empirical evidence from direct tests for Newton's G away from Earth-Moon orbits where it is constant, except as anecdotal evidence discussed by Jerry, grav, and others, that perhaps gravity G is not a universal constant. This idea is not entirely new, such as Brans-Dicke and Jaakkola, and now Anderson et al are also looking into it. MOND may also be a factor, as discussed here (where a 'gentler' MOND applies inside our solar system); and perhaps using Earth based kilograms is also masking the real effects of a variable G (though it all works pretty well) as discussed here, where Equivalence principle must apply in a variable G universe. But it's all ATM conversation for now until ESA et al test for inertial mass away from Earth-Moon orbital region. Planetary flyby anomalies is merely another clue that something is not right with Newton's G, and might also need adjustments for the very elegant GR math.

Since the Earth's orbital distance from the sun changes by 5 million km (about 3%) over the course of the year, and G changes by one factor per AU, why is the error in our measured value of G only .067%?

With your reasoning here, there should be a clear 3% yearly oscillation caused by the Earth's eccentric orbit.

[nutant gene 71]

Since the Earth's orbital distance from the sun changes by 5 million km (about 3%) over the course of the year, and G changes by one factor per AU, why is the error in our measured value of G only .067%?

With your reasoning here, there should be a clear 3% yearly oscillation caused by the Earth's eccentric orbit.

Good question, though I never worked out the math on this. My ‘hunch’ goes with the variance in Earth’s orbital velocity, which is part of the equation in figuring total Energy for the planet within its eccentric orbit (I only worked it out with mean numbers), so that as Earth speeds up at perihelion and slows at aphelion, the total values should stay within range. Implied here is that acceleration into the Sun takes up the difference, so total Energy remains more constant. However, that said, there is the small nagging problem of Earth's spin slowing slightly during (northern) winter, when it is closest to the Sun, and faster when farther away during summer. It's only a millisecond, but don't believe monsoonal seasonal shifts would be enough to account for it, but solar activity implies 'energy' effect... perhaps. Then, of course, there are the Pioneer, Voyager, Galileo, etc. anomalies, MOND and Dark Matter, etc etc.

The secondary effect as to why Newton’s G is so solid here (though it has slight variations) may be from the ‘whole planet’ effect, whereby some internal planetary mechanism keeps it stable. But I don’t know at this point, though I agree with yours, that a 3% orbital distance variation should show up in a more variable G in our measurements, though this does not happen. Could it show up more if 'inertial mass' were measured farther away in space, say as a Trojan probe following the Earth, so still in Earth-Moon orbit but not on the planet? I don’t know, but perhaps that may show up with a greater variance. For now... "not enough information"... Or else... just don't know? But something is happening, I think.

In Jerry’s post above, I was curious about these numbers:

Originally Posted by Tensor

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

It may be a typo, but I didn’t see these numbers mentioned earlier by Tensor. Any reference where such ‘GR prediction vs. Observed’ can be found? Thanks.

I'm also surprised to find that 43" per century Mercury precession was figured in Einstein's GR using the Schwarzchild radius within the Sun, where a mini-black hole may exist, about 1.47 km radius. This was new to me, certanly not Newtonian physics. Did Einstein, or MS, deduce that the Sun must have a 'mini black hole'?

[Tensor]

In Jerry’s post above, I was curious about these numbers:
It may be a typo, but I didn’t see these numbers mentioned earlier by Tensor. Any reference where such ‘GR prediction vs. Observed’ can be found? Thanks.

It was in my link.

I'm also surprised to find that 43" per century Mercury precession was figured in Einstein's GR using the Schwarzchild radius within the Sun, where a mini-black hole may exist, about 1.47 km radius. This was new to me, certanly not Newtonian physics. Did Einstein, or MS, deduce that the Sun must have a 'mini black hole'?

The Schwartzchild solution is a solution to the Einstein field equations for a static, non-spinning star. Most stars approximate this condition near enough to use the Schwartzchild geometry rather than the much more difficult Kerr-Nueman geometry. Sorta like we use Newtonian gravity calculations, even though we know that GR is more precise. Black holes were first studied using this solution, which is why you may associate it with black holes.

[korjik]

Good question, though I never worked out the math on this. My ‘hunch’ goes with the variance in Earth’s orbital velocity, which is part of the equation in figuring total Energy for the planet within its eccentric orbit (I only worked it out with mean numbers), so that as Earth speeds up at perihelion and slows at aphelion, the total values should stay within range. Implied here is that acceleration into the Sun takes up the difference, so total Energy remains more constant.

Energy is constant alont the entire path of the Earth's orbit. Dosent matter where in the orbit the Earth is. The thing is that a direct measurement of G is going to be mostly independent of the Earth's velocity. It isnt an energy measurement.

However, that said, there is the small nagging problem of Earth's spin slowing slightly during (northern) winter, when it is closest to the Sun, and faster when farther away during summer. It's only a millisecond, but don't believe monsoonal seasonal shifts would be enough to account for it, but solar activity implies 'energy' effect... perhaps. Then, of course, there are the Pioneer, Voyager, Galileo, etc. anomalies, MOND and Dark Matter, etc etc.

The secondary effect as to why Newton’s G is so solid here (though it has slight variations) may be from the ‘whole planet’ effect, whereby some internal planetary mechanism keeps it stable. But I don’t know at this point, though I agree with yours, that a 3% orbital distance variation should show up in a more variable G in our measurements, though this does not happen. Could it show up more if 'inertial mass' were measured farther away in space, say as a Trojan probe following the Earth, so still in Earth-Moon orbit but not on the planet? I don’t know, but perhaps that may show up with a greater variance. For now... "not enough information"... Or else... just don't know? But something is happening, I think.

Rest snipped by me

Gravity fields are assumed to be linear. The total field felt at any point is the sum of all the fields at that point. Basically at the surface of the Earth the field should be the sum of the field of the Earth, the field of the Sun, the field of the Moon, plus the fields of everthing else. The last term is generally pretty small.

What you are implying is that the change in the field on the Earth due to outside influences is changed in some manner to hide the change in G due to the change in the solar field. This sort of non-linear behavoir would probably be even easier to detect that the 3% change in G due to the orbit eccentricity. Probes should fail nearly always if as basic an assumption as linearity is wrong.

[Jerry]

Here are some numbers:

212.3 53.32 1.7^e9

8.82

5

This is really not an answer at all, it borders on insulting. In fact, it is almost worthy of a complaint, but I shall not be making one in this case.

Sorry; unwarrented. I should never post after taking Code Meddadaduns.

Please give your real calculation, using real physics and real numbers for the discrepancy in the mass/density/whatever of Mars. I'm sure it's a good deal simpler than calculating the Earth's precession of equinoxes. Give it a try.

I don't think that the causality of precession is linear - predictable by a derivable linear equation. That is not a dodge, that is a position. I'm very hesitant to state my reasoning on this; in part because we are still on step 1: Realizing that the universe is poorly described by current theories. It is only when a sizable portion of the scientific community accepts this fact that real progress can be made nullifying possible replacement theories.

The prediction that the masses of the planets are completely out-of-whack is highly testable with the data streaming in from current space probes. This is the best place to focus.

More later.

[nutant gene 71]

What you are implying is that the change in the field on the Earth due to outside influences is changed in some manner to hide the change in G due to the change in the solar field. This sort of non-linear behavoir would probably be even easier to detect that the 3% change in G due to the orbit eccentricity. Probes should fail nearly always if as basic an assumption as linearity is wrong.

Probes may have slight anomalies in their flybys, but they generally do not fail, so we must be doing something right. On the other hand, Newton's G may be affected by our position relative to the Sun, so in the eccentricity of our orbit there might be slight variations in how this 'constant' G might change. One example would be if it were found, however slight, that G measurements change cyclically, where it might be slightly less at perihelion but more at aphelion, for example. But I'm not aware of any such studies, or historical data, is to be found. So any talk of a 'variable G' for now is strictly ATM, and speculative at best, unless such data were found.

[Tassel]

Good question, though I never worked out the math on this.

Now that's funny. I got the same answer from you (and the same side of word salad) when I made the very same observation korjik did almost a year and a half ago. It appears you haven't made very much progress in that time on this rather large anomaly with your idea, yet you've continued to advertise it on these forums as if nothing at all is wrong.

And now you're here in this thread talking about "good science", stating mainstream science is biased and closed minded, and comparing real science to a religion. Those must be the reasons why your idea isn't being accepted. Not because one can easily see it doesn't work on Earth let alone anywhere else.

You and Jerry really need to stop pointing fingers at mainstream science or the moderators or the rules of the forum for your failures. If your idea doesn't work (nutant) or has zero substance (Jerry) it's not anyone else's fault but yours that no one is paying attention to you. Try instead to hold yourself to the same high standards you hold mainstream science to, stop wasting time making excuses and go fix your ideas, or toss them out and start again.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!] I don't think that the causality of precession is linear -- predictable by a derivable linear equation. That is not a dodge, that is a position.

The "causality of precession" (as in the precession of the equinoxes to which I was referring) most definitely is predictable and I have performed the calculations, right here, in the Precession Dialogues. When the dust finally settles in the 7th part I get to within 0.13 percent of the accepted result. That is not a dodge (or even a chevy) that is a position. Get thee to these dialogues and read.

I'm very hesitant to state my reasoning on this; in part because we are still on step 1: Realizing that the universe is poorly described by current theories. It is only when a sizable portion of the scientific community accepts this fact that real progress can be made nullifying possible replacement theories.

So if you're only at "step 1" how much confidence can we have in your claim of a 14% discrepancy? Show us your calculations! Don't worry, we'll tell you where you went wrong.

The prediction that the masses of the planets are completely out-of-whack is highly testable with the data streaming in from current space probes. This is the best place to focus.

But if the masses are so out-of-whack, how is it that we have succeeded with ever-increasing accuracy in predicting locations of said planets for four centuries now? How have we been able to send probes from planet to planet to planet to satellite to satellite to satellite, etc., with all of these masses so far out-of-whack? With the only anomalies being these tiny flyby anomalies and the Pioneer anomalies? The only reason that you have anomalies to speculate on is because the existing theories are accurate enough for these anomalies to be measured in the first place. Without the theories that you think are horribly wrong and must be replaced you would have nothing.

[nutant gene 71]

Now that's funny. I got the same answer from you (and the same side of word salad) when I made the very same observation korjik did almost a year and a half ago. It appears you haven't made very much progress in that time on this rather large anomaly with your idea, yet you've continued to advertise it on these forums as if nothing at all is wrong.

And now you're here in this thread talking about "good science", stating mainstream science is biased and closed minded, and comparing real science to a religion. Those must be the reasons why your idea isn't being accepted. Not because one can easily see it doesn't work on Earth let alone anywhere else.

You and Jerry really need to stop pointing fingers at mainstream science or the moderators or the rules of the forum for your failures. If your idea doesn't work (nutant) or has zero substance (Jerry) it's not anyone else's fault but yours that no one is paying attention to you. Try instead to hold yourself to the same high standards you hold mainstream science to, stop wasting time making excuses and go fix your ideas, or toss them out and start again.

Actually, nothing wrong with pointing out faults, and thinking about them. I have not solved this problem yet, and keep stressing that good science means testing the hypothesis. This had not been done to date, so why the 'word salad' about my ideas not being accepted? I don't expect any hypothesis to be accepted! Who had done the testing for inertial mass away from Earth-Moon orbit? Theory does not rule science, science is ruled by empirical evidence. No fancy theories, just give me the facts. What empirical evidence can you bring to this discussion? References?

Here is a link to Earth spin seasonal anomaly: Atmospheric angular momentum - main article linked. (BTW, their explanation of 'stronger' West to East winds during northern winters should make the Earth spin faster, not slower as the article states, so their reasoning appears backwards, if Earth slows in winter.)

As far as your "And now you're here in this thread talking about "good science", stating mainstream science is biased and closed minded, and comparing real science to a religion." Please do not put your 'word salad' in my mouth. I did not say this.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!] I'm also surprised to find that 43" per century Mercury precession was figured in Einstein's GR using the Schwarzchild radius within the Sun, where a mini-black hole may exist, about 1.47 km radius. This was new to me, certanly not Newtonian physics. Did Einstein, or MS, deduce that the Sun must have a 'mini black hole'?

There is a misunderstanding here; there is no "Schwarzschild radius within the Sun", there is just a Schwarzschild radius. The Schwarzschild radius of any body is found by multiplying the mass by 2*G/c². For the Sun this value is 2*1.47 km. If we could somehow scrunch the Sun into a ball less than 3 km in radius then it would turn into a black hole. Similarly the Earth has a Schwarzschild radius of about 1 cm. Again, scrunch the Earth into a ball that small and you've got yourself a black hole.

The factor of G/c² may be thought of as a convenience factor for converting mass into distance, just as the speed of light enables conversions between distance and time. Because the mass of the Sun is equivalent to 1.47 km and the distance to Earth about 149 million km, I know that the potential of the Solar gravity field at the Earth has a dimensionless value of 10^-8, which is real handy for those back-of-the-envelope computations.

[Tassel]

Actually, nothing wrong with pointing out faults, and thinking about them. I have not solved this problem yet, and keep stressing that good science means testing the hypothesis. This had not been done to date

I don't know what this means. What has not been done to date?

so why the 'word salad' about my ideas not being accepted? I don't expect any hypothesis to be accepted!

Then why do you continue to advertise your idea here?

Who had done the testing for inertial mass away from Earth-Moon orbit?

It's done every time we send a spacecraft away from Earth. The behavior of those spacecraft constrains variations in inertial mass. So like I said before, whether the existing data is good enough depends on how large a variation you're proposing.

Theory does not rule science, science is ruled by empirical evidence. No fancy theories, just give me the facts.

Exactly. The empirical evidence we have indicates your idea doesn't work. You've indicated for several years that you intend to go fix it but it has not happened. Yet you continue to present your idea here, often skirting the forum rules to do so, without any footnote that it has fundamental problems that you have not been able to resolve.

What empirical evidence can you bring to this discussion?

For starters, that G doesn't vary on Earth seasonally between 6.5E-11 and 6.8E-11. If you don't believe the results of others, and you're truly interested, you could do a Cavendish-type experiment yourself. I believe the accuracy would be good enough to make this determination. Examining your own ideas with a proper experiment you can perform yourself would be one of the best possible examples of doing "good science" I can think of.

As far as your "And now you're here in this thread talking about "good science", stating mainstream science is biased and closed minded, and comparing real science to a religion." Please do not put your 'word salad' in my mouth. I did not say this.

Examples from this thread follow.

Science is closed minded:

...the almost immediate dismissal of any new idea that challenges accepted orthodoxy in cosmology, unlike in any time in science history except during the days of the Inquisition.

Science is biased:

if there is a built-in bias towards a firming orthodox view of the universe, such as you described so well, then it warrants an awareness that what had become acceptable is what is acceptable by the community, and that alternate ideas are viewed with a 'built-in' suspicion. This is not a statement of condemnation but one of fact

And finally, the comparison of science to religion which is not only 180 degrees out of phase with reality, but a comparison I personally find mildly offensive:

This is especially true if those results are so fantastic that it would take a truly imaginative mind to accept them at face value. In fact, some are so fantastic as to be acceptable only on faith.

You have the right to question, and doubt, what in Modern Physics had become ‘articles of faith’.

we are left with fantastic ‘theories’ of the universe that no sane mind can accept rationally, except as nearly an article of faith.

The original point of this thread was essentially to make the argument that the rules of this forum, in particular the 30-day rule, unfairly restrict ATM discussion. But the "regular" ATMers have to take responsibility not only for the failings, but for the fact that the moderators felt the need to implement the rules they're complaining about. I think if you guys had just followed the guidelines laid out in Advice for ATM theory supporters the 30-day rule would never have been implemented. And maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect if we ever did have a well formed ATM idea presented here and there was a good, healthy discussion going on that the moderators would gleefully waive the 30 day rule for that thread.

[Hornblower]

Here is a link to Earth spin seasonal anomaly: Atmospheric angular momentum - main article linked. (BTW, their explanation of 'stronger' West to East winds during northern winters should make the Earth spin faster, not slower as the article states, so their reasoning appears backwards, if Earth slows in winter.)

I don't know what they said, because the main article link is not working for me.

I do not see an anomaly here. Stronger prograde wind means more atmospheric angular momentum. Slower rotation of the solid Earth at the same time means less angular momentum in that component. If these are the only variables it looks consistent with conservation of angular momentum, and makes sense in action/reaction terms. There would have to be some sort of ground/air coupling to change the net amount of atmospheric motion, since it is a closed system.