The Demise of ATM Discussions

[Tensor]

I think that's right, that theory actually works. The difference between MS and ATM is that MS is satisfied with theory as it is, while ATM claims there may be more at work here than what appears to be true.

This is so far off the mark that it is almost laughable. If this is the case, then why are so many mainstreamers working on physics that is beyond the current models? String Theory, LQG, TeVeS, etc are all attemps at finding and extending (or replacing) current theories.

Does it matter if flybys show anomalies, or Pioneer et al show anomalous accelerations, or spin up and spin downs of onboard gyroscopes do weird things, or planet probes come in hard or soft into atmospheres, etc.? Does it matter? For some of us, the answer is most definitely "yes!"

For the mainstreamers it matters also, the big difference that I can see is that the mainstreamers actually try to work out models using the math and the ATM types here go round and round using words that don't seem to add up to much of anything.

Jerry's been asked what, seven or eight times to provide the calculations for his 14% claim? I've yet to see his equations. All he does is take off on another tanget. Why won't he present them? Is it because he can't, because there really isn't any equations, just his word salad with his guesses inserted?

That's what 'open-minds' want to know, objectively,and the call for testing inertial mass away from Earth-Moon orbital region is the 'effort' I call for. Sorry if my earlier comments offended.

So how exactly are the springs on the Cassini spacecraft that launched Huygens not a test of inertial mass? Those springs were calibrated here on earth to give Huygens a specified push. Too much or too little and the craft would have missed Titan or landed completly out of the projected landing area. None of which happened.

I think a quote is the best example I can give to offset your misguided picture of mainstreamers. Although he's a particle physicist, his attitude permeates much of science. From John Ellis, who is working on the Large Hardron Collider at CERN searching for the Higg's particle "Many of us theorists would find failure much more interesting than if we just find another boring old particle that some theorists predicted 45 years ago." Sure sounds like a close-minded mainstreamer, doesn't it?

[nutant gene 71]

So how exactly are the springs on the Cassini spacecraft that launched Huygens not a test of inertial mass? Those springs were calibrated here on earth to give Huygens a specified push. Too much or too little and the craft would have missed Titan or landed completly out of the projected landing area. None of which happened.

Tensor, I suppose you mentioned this in passing to illustrate a non-ATM point, and not to open a new OT discussion on this?

If these springs were a dedicated test for inertial mass in the outer solar system, would you know who the authors were, and perhaps where I can find their discussion paper on this, and their test results? Much appreciated. Thanks.

This is so far off the mark that it is almost laughable. If this is the case, then why are so many mainstreamers working on physics that is beyond the current models? String Theory, LQG, TeVeS, etc are all attemps at finding and extending (or replacing) current theories.

Would you have any examples, not to go OT here, that show how Strings are falsifiable theory? Does 'theory' mean the same as 'science' in your book? You could push theory all you want, but until it is verifiably falsifiable it merely proves my earlier point, that it is mere 'theory' or modeling, a very nice picture and math story, but not necessarily good science. Verify it with empirical facts, and then theory can be science, if it passes all the tests.

[nutant gene 71]

The New York Times. Some random person's blog. The news section of a free downloads web site. You're quoting pop-science news stories written by non-scientists as evidence that science "proves" its theories. Why not show a paper published in PRL claiming to prove Einstein right?

Is it really necessary to argue facts with you? Can you just do the slightest amount of research into the scientific method and how science actually works? Maybe looking up the definition of "theory" on Wikipedia would be a good first step:

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Here's what Wiki says on Physics Theory, as it applies to theory modeling:

Theories are constructed in order to explain, predict and master phenomena (e.g. inanimate things, events, or the behaviour of animals). In many instances we are constructing models of reality. A theory makes generalizations about observations and consists of an interrelated, coherent set of ideas and models.

Isn't that what I said earlier, that theory is only modeling? So I must turn this around on you, since you are being so bold in yours above to criticize my research integrity: "Is it really necessary to argue facts with you? Can you just do the slightest amount of research into the scientific method and how science actually works? Maybe looking up the definition of "theory" on Wikipedia would be a good first step?" Would that work for you?

[Jerry]

It was thrown out because it was discovered to be unnecessary. Had you and Jerry been around at the time of Einstein's 1905 paper I'm sure the two of you would have declared Maxwell's equations "falsified", electromagnetism must be abandoned and a new theory of electromagnetism must be found.

I would say that a theory whose defects are only revealed after a thorough, diligent use of its formalism is in need of no more than amendment. For example, Newtonian celestial mechanics predicts a certain value for the precession of Mecury's perihelion. Observation showed a discrepancy. The issue was resolved with general relativity, which although it does have a rather different paradigm than Newtonian gravity, is still only an amendment to and extension of the latter.

But we need the hard science first. We need accurate values of any modifications to the values of constants. It is wise not to speculate on uses for science that might not be confirmed. Find it and then call in the engineers!

80 years ago this was correct; GR provided a relatively simple fix to Newtonian mechanics; a brilliant if curious dimensional solution. Even the inclusion of dark matter (when galaxies failed to rotate properly), was a modest adjustment. Then the universe became to big, and GR fell out of the saddle of Occum's razor. It is no longer simplifies - the physics surrounding 'inflation' are an unrelativistic mess. Hard science tells us the universe is too big to fit into a simple expansion box. If mainstream theory is correct, we are stuck trying to characterize weird happenings at the fringes of our observational limit. I reject that philosophy because there is enough strangeness in our own neighborhood.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!] I reject that philosophy because there is enough strangeness in our own neighborhood.

Such as the alleged 14% discrepancy in the mass of Mars? How about your calculation of same?

[Jerry]

And it does matter to us in the mainstream as well, because these are precisely the situations where new physics first appears. The main mistake that ATMers make is that they believe one small anomaly, detectable only by full and diligent application of proven theory, is sufficient to throw out the entire edifice of theory thus far developed and start anew. You, and Jerry, and others like you believe in "Efface and Replace", whereas history of science shows that "Amend and Extend" is the manner in which progress is made.

The last time I went up on the hill, there were no ten commandments. Not one word from a creator about how much of what is considered scientific fact is fact, nor how far we are allowed to extend ourselves in a blind tunnel without realizing there is no light.

There are no rules about how science progresses -where new ideas have to originate or why, no limits upon how foolish we can be or how seguine the reasoning may be off a fool.

[folkhemmet]

Jerry,

Bashing astrophysics and the epistemological shortcomings of science in general is not going to convince anyone that your alternative to the mainstream theory of how our Universe works/has evolved is better than the rest. And if you are not on a quest to convince people on this forum of various things, then what are you doing? By the way, what is your alternative, as you have not, at least to my knowledge, rigorously developed it mathematically and defended it in a manner not unlike a PHD thesis? Indeed, this is exactly what you would need to do before anyone begins to take you seriously outside of this forum. Alternative gravity models such as Berkenstein's relativistic MOND are getting more and more attention lately largely because Berkenstein did exactly what I said above. And don't play it like you don't have a vested interest in the promotion of your own astronomy ideas and you are just a modern day Socrates-- I am pretty sure you know as well as I do that such a position would be quite disingenuous.

In accordance with thermodynamics, it is easier to criticize others in life than it is to do the hard work developing something that is truly unique and potentially far-reaching yourself; it is easier to break eggs on "mischief night" than it is to take the time to provide sustenance and care for some chickens so they can continue to lay eggs. It is also commonly known that people who are unsatisfied with the state of their fields/occupations and the lack of progress in their lines of work to launch attacks on others' fields which at least appear to be progressing. As you said yourself, science is not an exclusively rational enterprise, we can only pretend to sever science from the humanities. Our life experiences, successes and failures, and even personalities, figure into the equation (no pun intended). Your field is rocket science; unfortunately, rocket science is a stagnant field-- we are still using the same basic chemical rocket technology that we used at the beginning of the space age. So, while those "bandwagon-jumping sheep-like" astronomers have been innovating, developing new detectors and telescopes, making significant progress ruling out many ideas about how our Universe works, rocket scientists have been utterly unsuccessful in applying ideas based on well-established physics, let alone ATM ideas to help transport some of us off this planet before an extinction event(s)! At least the astronomers have been hard at work innovating/creating (rather than spending huge chunks of their time criticizing rocket scientists) thereby enabling a search for new homes, as the discovery of extrasolar planets is about as clear-cut a case of how science has progressed as you can get.

[Tensor]

Tensor, I suppose you mentioned this in passing to illustrate a non-ATM point, and not to open a new OT discussion on this?

If these springs were a dedicated test for inertial mass in the outer solar system, would you know who the authors were, and perhaps where I can find their discussion paper on this, and their test results? Much appreciated. Thanks.

The test is a dedicated test, although a by product of the method used to release the Huygens. Let's go through this shall we?

1 Fact: the inertal mass of the Huygens, on Earth, was known (equal to the gravitational mass on Earth).
2 Fact: the amount of force the springs gave was known
3 Fact: the Huygens landed within it's assigned landing zone
4 Fact: if the inertial mass, at Titan, was different from the inertial mass on Earth, the Huygens would not have received the proper push away from Cassini and would not have landed in it's assigned landing zone.

Since 4 did not happen, the inertial mass could not have changed. Oh, I suppose you could say the the mass of the springs changed, in that case, I would expect you to provide the equations showing the amound of mass change would produce an increase in force, enough to account for the proper delta v for Huygens. One other thought strikes me, there is a dedicated test every time Cassini fires it's thrusters. After all, those firings are based on the mass of Cassini, as it was assembled here on earth. Since it's where it's supposed to be, the mass can't have changed. I would expect a rebuttal to this would have the calculations showing exactly how the propellant's mass increase would produce an increase in thrust to exactly balance the Cassini's increase in mass.

Your the one who mentioned that there hasn't been a dedicated test of inertial mass. There has. All the above fit in quite nicely with Newton's F = ma. Which is a measure of inertial mass. I think what you mean and what you want is an Eotvos type test, right?

Would you have any examples, not to go OT here, that show how Strings are falsifiable theory? Does 'theory' mean the same as 'science' in your book?

No, theory means an explanation of a group of observations. I would put String Theory and the rest in the Hypothesis stage, right now. As far as strings being falsifiable, it's quite simple. So far, String Theory (I hate calling it that, as it really isn't) can be falsified quite simply by not matching current theories. So far, it has. Both String Theory and LQG can match GR when it comes to Black Hole theory. One of the interesting thing about String Theory (and one of the reasons people continue to work on it) is that it is not internally consistent unless the equations of GR are satisfied. This is a huge point. GR can be derived from the equations of String Theory. If String Theory wasn't internally consistent, nobody would be working on it.

You could push theory all you want, but until it is verifiably falsifiable it merely proves my earlier point, that it is mere 'theory' or modeling, a very nice picture and math story, but not necessarily good science.

You are obviously not very cognizant of how theoretical physics works. Mathematical models can be falsified way before they even get to the actual experiments. Early attempts at String Theory (say the early 1970s) were thrown out, not because of the extra dimensions, but because they couldn't be made inernally consistent mathematically. Working on a hypothesis, and showing your work, is good science. Bad science is making it up while you go along and not provinding any kind of equations to support your hypothesis. And it doesn't even make a good story.

Verify it with empirical facts, and then theory can be science, if it passes all the tests.

This from someone who wants us to throw out current theories on the flimsiest excuses that could simply be measurement errors. The big differece is that those in String Theory, LQG, TeVeS etc, are honest enough to publish their work for all to see and criticize. Something I haven't see from either you or Jerry. Now, which would you call good science?

[tusenfem]

I think that's right, that theory actually works. The difference between MS and ATM is that MS is satisfied with theory as it is, while ATM claims there may be more at work here than what appears to be true.

hahahahahahahahaha, ROTFLOL!
So, that is why there is so much mainstream research going on, because we are satisfied with how everything is already.

[captain swoop]

A single flyby doesn't cut it: It gives you a calculation of the mass of the body at that distance from the sun. If you fly by the same body at two different distances from the sun, you will come up with two different masses. (There were at least two flyby's of Halley planned, but one didn't make it.)

So we shouls be able to measure a difference right here on earth as we move away from the sun in our own orbit?

Why can't we?

[Acolyte]

Disclaimer: This poster is rank amateur.

Withdrawn after Nereid pointed out the rules for this forum, which I, as rank amateur here *grins* had, in ignorance, ignored. Thanks for your tolerance.

Acolyte

[captain swoop]

Michelson-Morley DID find evidence of the Aether. It somehow became a 'null' result & so now, nobody can talk of an (a)ether - yet a number of researchers have found anomalous results using their theory.

So what evidence did they find? how did it become 'null' or are you just making this up?

[Tassel]

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Here's what Wiki says on Physics Theory, as it applies to theory modeling: Isn't that what I said earlier, that theory is only modeling?

That's one thing you said. But you also said this:

Proving a theory with pre-existing conditions is all fine and good, but if the pre-existing is found faulty, what happens to the proof? At what point is the old 'proof' found null and void, like those old epicycles? Are we so sure of our proofs that finding new evidence, and testing for new evidence of perhaps non-constant 'constants', that we should not do the tests if they threaten the existing theoretical proofs?

I simply pointed out that science does not ever declare a theory proven. You responded by giving me links to pop-science articles presumably intended to show how science does seek to "prove" theories ("but it seems science likes to PROVE its theories right too"). This all happened pretty recently so I'm not sure why I have to recap this. I'll just assume you now understand that science doesn't seek to prove its theories.

If these springs were a dedicated test for inertial mass in the outer solar system

You keep using the phrase "dedicated test". Can you please explain to the group exactly what you mean by this?

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!] 1. Michelson-Morley actually DID get results for their ether (aether?) experiments. MIT of the time was rather significantly involved in convincing the field that they didn't.

[Snip!]

3. Pons & Fleischman are currently working in Japan on what may have been erroneously called by the Press, 'Cold Fusion' & so are dozens of other sites around the world... except for USA, the home of MIT who, once again, were significantly involved in casting the subject into the 'crackpot' realm.

[Snip!]

Based on MIT's 'work' both Michelson-Morley & Pons-Fleischman were wrong, yet in both cases MIT has been shown to be, at least, incorrect & at worst, culpable.

Wow, sure glad I'm not part of the vast MIT conspiracy!

Disclaimer: This poster is rank amateur.

Ipse dixit.

[nutant gene 71]

You keep using the phrase "dedicated test". Can you please explain to the group exactly what you mean by this?

The test is a dedicated test, although a by product of the method used to release the Huygens. Let's go through this shall we?

1 Fact: the inertal mass of the Huygens, on Earth, was known (equal to the gravitational mass on Earth).
2 Fact: the amount of force the springs gave was known
3 Fact: the Huygens landed within it's assigned landing zone
4 Fact: if the inertial mass, at Titan, was different from the inertial mass on Earth, the Huygens would not have received the proper push away from Cassini and would not have landed in it's assigned landing zone.

Since 4 did not happen, the inertial mass could not have changed.

These two statements are complementary. Tensor's list shows why he thinks the conditions for a 'dedicated test' were met in the Huygens spring release mechanism, though no such test was designed, nor scientific papers written on this. Perhaps Tensor should write a scientific paper on this test for inertial mass at Saturn's orbit, to show conclusively that ESA, Anderson, Turyshev, Nieto et al, that they do not need to test for any variables in the Equivalence principles or Newton's G in the outer solar system? Or should such a 'dedicated test' be carried out to test for why certain phenomena in our solar system seem to point to something not being totally consistently right with gravity as a 'universal constant', along with all the other deep space problems, like flat galaxy rotation curves, etc.? Tensor, you want to write a dedicated paper to why a 'dedicated test' should not be done?

The point is that if (per Tensor) "One of the interesting thing about String Theory (and one of the reasons people continue to work on it) is that it is not internally consistent unless the equations of GR are satisfied" is to hold true, but if inertial mass (and comensurate G per equivalence) were proven false, then Strings or Branes theory becomes a construct that may be internally consistent, even elegant and beautiful, but it may not connect to reality of how works the cosmos. Just a possibility, why ATM exists in principle, that MS may have built a fabulous theory, but only a model consistent with itself, and not necessarily one that is real to explain reality itself. It's like a beautiful game of chess, which is elegant and fascinating (why people keep playing it) but it does not explain anything of the real world, except its own internal structures of the game. A real 'dedicated test' is one way to see if it connects to reality or not.

So yes, mathematical models can be falsified way before they even get to the actual experiment, but this does not supersede a dedicated test of the model itself. Once the model is proven internally consistent, then it needs to connect to reality, or else it remains merely a theoretical model. Or, it remains philosophy.

I hope this answers Tassel's question.

[djellison]

Answer the question Nutant Gene 71. You were asked exactly what YOU meant by dedicated test. You've then highlighted something that you dismiss off hand as not being an appropriate test.

What WOULD be an appripriate test.

Please re-visit the ATM rules before replying.

[Nereid]

Disclaimer: This poster is rank amateur.

First some interesting bits I've picked up along the way...

1. Michelson-Morley actually DID get results for their ether (aether?) experiments. MIT of the time was rather significantly involved in convincing the field that they didn't

2. The presence of an ether would invalidate the Relativity concept but not the Quantum one?

3. Pons & Fleischman are currently working in Japan on what may have been erroneously called by the Press, 'Cold Fusion' & so are dozens of other sites around the world... except for USA, the home of MIT who, once again, were significantly involved in casting the subject into the 'crackpot' realm.

4. It has (is?) being shown that the observer is not only dependent on the Frame but is actually able to influence the results of the experiment. ie. if you test for photons as particles, that's what you prove; if you go for waves, that's what you get.

5. Particles & what they 'know' violate relativity on a regular basis by 'knowing' things faster than light

6. Bose Condensates violate most of the things we thought we knew about mass.

7. Dark Matter doesn't really explain the galactic orbital data as observed, even though it does provide 'an' explanation for galactic formation.But so far it is a label for an effect, not a proven, or even testable phenomenon.

8. The Universal expansion scenarios aren't really satisfactory to explain what we see out there. ie. a scalar field that appears to give Inflation then disappears, then another that comes in a while back to boost expansion & yet another that accelerates it? None of which actually have any reasonable explanation except they are needed to explain what we see?

9. The apparent limits to density are 2-dimensional (event horizon) which parallels the math from Information Theory, not 3D at all.

10. While we're about it, Hubble suggested Red Shift as 'an' explanation for the data, but somehow it became 'the' explanation.

11. Science runs on the basis of... someone comes up with an hypothesis, verifies it by experiment, publishes a theory, & a whole swag of people set out to falsify it - ie. prove it wrong.

Now, if someone comes up with an idea about how things are, & it runs contrary to how the established field thinks things are, the established people all rush to disprove it. Nobody likes to be wrong in anything, particularly if someone is attacking the foundations of the idea they used to achieve a pre-eminent position. This is straight-forward human nature.
Add in the possibility that the human belongs to an organisation that has a substantial investment in a particular position & there is an inbuilt imperative to prove the theory wrong.

Michelson-Morley DID find evidence of the Aether. It somehow became a 'null' result & so now, nobody can talk of an (a)ether - yet a number of researchers have found anomalous results using their theory.

Pons & Fleischman DID get anomalous results & based on their work, numerous laboratories are finding a number of ways to get anomalous energy from non-hot fusion & maybe non-nuclear processes. But SOMETHING is producing the energy they are spending money on.

Based on MIT's 'work' both Michelson-Morley & Pons-Fleischman were wrong, yet in both cases MIT has been shown to be, at least, incorrect & at worst, culpable.

If the observer has an effect at all, most of those who 'test' the theory will disprove it. That doesn't make the theory wrong, it just proves the observer can affect the results.

So mainstream science can & does affect what gets funds & what is accepted. Whether it is defending the bastions against new theory, (Einstein with his "God does not play dice") or defending massive appropriations against the newcomer, scientists are human & as such, as vulnerable to human influences as anybody else.

Another example is the psychic testing done. There may be no 'atom bomb' of psi so far, but almost anyone you speak with will tell you of their experiences that seem to defy normal physics. From 'knowing' who is on the phone, to mentioning something that suddenly comes into an unrelated conversation, everyone has had the experience. Those testing keep looking for the atom bomb, forgetting that 10 million hand-grenades also make one hell of a bang.

Science is probably our most valuable tool in nailing down the cosmos, but the number of 'corrections' even in mainstream, should caution us against being definitive in our statements & views.

Just my thoughts...

(emphasis added).

Welcome to BAUT, Acolyte!

This ATM section of BAUT in which you have posted is a little different from the other sections (the CT section though is similar), in that it has its own, special, rule:

13. Alternative Concepts and Conspiracy Theories

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, or think UFOs are among us, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.

Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream or Conspiracy Theory threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.

If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.

As with the other sections of the forum, we ask you to keep your topics about space and astronomy. We will close down any thread which doesn't have anything to do with space and astronomy immediately.

You may not have been aware of that before, so you may not have intended to defend any of the ATM ideas you presented in your post, nor intend to answer direct questions on them, in a timely fashion.

Would you mind clarifying please?

Specifically, which of the ATM ideas presented in your post do you intend to defend, and answer direct questions on?

[Tensor]

These two statements are complementary. Tensor's list shows why he thinks the conditions for a 'dedicated test' were met in the Huygens spring release mechanism, though no such test was designed, nor scientific papers written on this.

I notice that you have no refutations for this. Does this mean you accept that this is a valid test of inertial mass?

Perhaps Tensor should write a scientific paper on this test for inertial mass at Saturn's orbit, to show conclusively that ESA, Anderson, Turyshev, Nieto et al, that they do not need to test for any variables in the Equivalence principles or Newton's G in the outer solar system? Or should such a 'dedicated test' be carried out to test for why certain phenomena in our solar system seem to point to something not being totally consistently right with gravity as a 'universal constant', along with all the other deep space problems, like flat galaxy rotation curves, etc.? Tensor, you want to write a dedicated paper to why a 'dedicated test' should not be done?

There's no need to write a scientific paper on the release of Huygens. Anybody who has any kind of understanding of gravitational physics understands that the Huygens release was a test of inertial mass. AAMOF, the release more properly was more a practical engineering matter that indicated a deep understanding of the underlying physical theory. That doesn't mean that the ESA et al should not test perform another test in the outer solar system. I'm all for that. I'm just pointing out that you're under a huge misconception by continually pointing out that there haven't been tests of inertial mass in the outer solar system, there have. The release of Huygens and every time Cassini alters it's orbit by firing its thrusters is a test of inertial mass. You have yet to refute any of those tests by producing any kind of hard physical evidence that either Cassini or Huygens have not been where they were predicted to be.

The point is that if (per Tensor) "One of the interesting thing about String Theory (and one of the reasons people continue to work on it) is that it is not internally consistent unless the equations of GR are satisfied" is to hold true, but if inertial mass (and comensurate G per equivalence) were proven false, then Strings or Branes theory becomes a construct that may be internally consistent, even elegant and beautiful, but it may not connect to reality of how works the cosmos.

That's fine, if equivalence is ever shown to be wrong, string theory is then falsified. And, yours and Jerry's insinuations aside, that hasn't happended yet, and so String Theory is viable. I haven't seen anything from either you or Jerry that is even close to being viable.

So yes, mathematical models can be falsified way before they even get to the actual experiment, but this does not supersede a dedicated test of the model itself. Once the model is proven internally consistent, then it needs to connect to reality, or else it remains merely a theoretical model. Or, it remains philosophy.

And where exactly has anyone here claimed otherwise?

I hope this answers Tassel's question.

I can't answer for Tassel, but you haven't answered my question:

"I think what you mean and what you want is an Eotvos type test, right?"

[nutant gene 71]

Answer the question Nutant Gene 71. You were asked exactly what YOU meant by dedicated test. You've then highlighted something that you dismiss off hand as not being an appropriate test.

What WOULD be an appripriate test.

Please re-visit the ATM rules before replying.

A test had been proposed by ESA, as per this PhysicsWorld article: Pioneer anomaly put to the test.

Another proposal is mentioned in this paper by Turysheve, Nieto, and Anderson (9 pp, PDF): A Route to Understanding of the Pioneer Anomaly, where a 'test mass' would be monitored at a distance from the main probe.

A viable concept would utilize a spacecraft pair capable
of flying in a flexible formation. The main craft
would have a precision star-tracker and an accelerometer
and would be capable of precise navigation, with
disturbances, to a level less than _ 10−9 cm/s2 in the
low-frequency acceleration regime. Mounted on the
front would be a disk-shaped probe with laser cornercubes
embedded. Once the configuration is on its
solar system escape trajectory, will undergo no further
navigation maneuvers, and is at a heliocentric
distance of _ 5−20 AU, the co-rotating disk would be
released from the primary craft. (This concept is essentially
a version of a disturbance-compensation system
with a test mass being outside of the spacecraft.)
The probe will be passively laser-ranged from the primary
craft with the latter having enough delta-V to
maneuver with respect to the probe, if needed. The
distance from the Earth to the primary would be determined
with either standard radio-metric methods
operating at Ka-band or with optical communication.
Note that any dynamical noise at the primary would
be a common mode contribution to the Earth-primary
and primary-probe distances. This design satisfies the
primary objective, which would be accomplished by
the two-staged accurate navigation of the probe with
sensitivity down to the 10−10 cm/s2 level.

Other proposals are listed here: http://www.space-time.info/pioneer/pioanomlit.html

I do not intent to defend this idea vigorously, however, since to do so would be OT, so list this here only in response to the questions posed by djellison and Tensor, Tassel et al. To further defend this call for a ‘dedicated test’ of inertial mass in the outer solar system beyond what I had already said, would be in violation of Rule 13, where to defend this would constitute “hijacking a thread”. Sorry, but no further comment on this until such time tests results are in, either falsifying the idea of a variable G, or null results. This could take years... The Eotvos experiment test is appropriate if conducted in the outer solar system rather than on Earth, to see if Equivalence works the same as here.

[korjik]

A test had been proposed by ESA, as per this PhysicsWorld article: Pioneer anomaly put to the test.

Another proposal is mentioned in this paper by Turysheve, Nieto, and Anderson (9 pp, PDF): A Route to Understanding of the Pioneer Anomaly, where a 'test mass' would be monitored at a distance from the main probe.

Other proposals are listed here: http://www.space-time.info/pioneer/pioanomlit.html

I do not intent to defend this idea vigorously, however, since to do so would be OT, so list this here only in response to the questions posed by djellison and Tensor, Tassel et al. To further defend this call for a ‘dedicated test’ of inertial mass in the outer solar system beyond what I had already said, would be in violation of Rule 13, where to defend this would constitute “hijacking a thread”. Sorry, but no further comment on this until such time tests results are in, either falsifying the idea of a variable G, or null results. This could take years... The Eotvos experiment test is appropriate if conducted in the outer solar system rather than on Earth, to see if Equivalence works the same as here.

The Eotovos experiment has been done with varying distances from the sun. The 3% difference in the Earth's orbital radius. With a part per billion sensitivity, the Etovos should have easily detected the change in gravitational mass over the Earth's orbit.

[Nereid]

The Eotovos experiment has been done with varying distances from the sun. The 3% difference in the Earth's orbital radius. With a part per billion sensitivity, the Etovos should have easily detected the change in gravitational mass over the Earth's orbit.

Not to mention the daily tides (and, no doubt, many other 'gravitational' effects at the ppb level).

[Tensor]

I do not intent to defend this idea vigorously, however, since to do so would be OT, so list this here only in response to the questions posed by djellison and Tensor, Tassel et al. To further defend this call for a ‘dedicated test’ of inertial mass in the outer solar system beyond what I had already said, would be in violation of Rule 13, where to defend this would constitute “hijacking a thread”. Sorry, but no further comment on this until such time tests results are in, either falsifying the idea of a variable G, or null results. This could take years... The Eotvos experiment test is appropriate if conducted in the outer solar system rather than on Earth, to see if Equivalence works the same as here.

I'd like a moderator ruling on this. If he's going to claim that defending this is is off topic or in violation of rule 13 for hijacking the thread, wouldn't bringing the topic up be a violation in the first place? After all, dropping a claim into the discussion and then claiming he doesn't have to defend because it's off topic, would make the claim off topic in the first place, wouldn't it?

[Jerry]

This was not an ATM topic in the first place: It was started as a discussion as to whether ATM and Mainstream theories are playing on the same field; whether the standards used in data reduction and parametric assumptions are the same.

When the thread was moved to ATM, I went ahead and started posting new observational evidence that is consistent with (currently) ATM ideas. The thread has pretty much been a free-for-all; and if you are not enjoying it, lighten up!

[Jerry]

So what evidence did they find? how did it become 'null' or are you just making this up?

The Michelson-Morley experiement is intrinsically relative, and it is traditional to report the error in terms of a zero baseline. Hense the results, the error margin is always positive. This is sometimes mistaken for a non-null result.

However, when the MM experiment is conducted in a field-of-view where there is a bias in the gravitational field (in other words, if you conduct the test with the interferometer pointing up and down) you will always get a true non-null result, if your sensitivity is great enough. GR interpretes this as evidence of gravimetric relativistic redshifting - a distortion of space-time. I have worked with the assumption only the path through space is altered, not time, and it is not relativistic, but a true change in light speed in space as a function of mass. The metric that falls out when this assumption is made, is that the Newtonian masses of the planets is wrong - very wrong. It should be easy to see this in the chemical composition of the outer planets and their moons; especially New Horizon's visit to Pluto - are Pluto and her moons made out of rocks and sand as this theory requires, or water ice?

[Jerry]

Jerry,

Bashing astrophysics and the epistemological shortcomings of science in general is not going to convince anyone that your alternative to the mainstream theory of how our Universe works/has evolved is better than the rest. And if you are not on a quest to convince people on this forum of various things, then what are you doing?

Mostly in this thread I have tried to restate predictions.

I have three main objectives:

1) Bring attention to observations that I think indicate our physical laws and theories are completely off-base.

2) Gather observational evidence that either supports or rejects this thesis. This is much more difficult than you may realize, because so many reported observational results include corrections for gravitational results that might otherwise be consistent with this hypothesis - the sudden wind direction change on Titan is a perfect example. I don't think the wind direction changed, I don't think the probe rotated backward, I think the best and most straightforward interpretation of the data is found in the Doppler and Radar signals: The probe fell very fast.

3) Get help. No, not psychiatric help, help solving the bigger puzzle.

By the way, what is your alternative, as you have not, at least to my knowledge, rigorously developed it mathematically and defended it in a manner not unlike a PHD thesis? Indeed, this is exactly what you would need to do before anyone begins to take you seriously outside of this forum. Alternative gravity models such as Berkenstein's relativistic MOND are getting more and more attention lately largely because Berkenstein did exactly what I said above. And don't play it like you don't have a vested interest in the promotion of your own astronomy ideas and you are just a modern day Socrates-- I am pretty sure you know as well as I do that such a position would be quite disingenuous.

The models are simple, and so are the predictions: What is Titan made off? What is the 'dark stuff' everyone keeps mentioning?

I have to keep pointing at step two: Removing the bias from reported data and isolating 'real' data that has been compromised by over-confidence in a failed theory. As others have pointed out, the Eötvös experiments constrain my primary assumption out the window. But in the last few years, the Eötvös researchers at the University of Washington have said in several interviews that their results are puzzling. Why? As Ngene pointed out, this kind of work needs to be done in deep space, away from the tides, away from the earth - out there - with objective appraisals of the results.I can't sort it all out without knowing all of the assumptions. I can't conduct the necessary experiments.

In accordance with thermodynamics, it is easier to criticize others in life than it is to do the hard work... At least the astronomers have been hard at work innovating/creating (rather than spending huge chunks of their time criticizing rocket scientists) thereby enabling a search for new homes, as the discovery of extrasolar planets is about as clear-cut a case of how science has progressed as you can get.

You have no idea how many thousands of hours it took me to get where I am. The people who depend upon me need me to do more than pour over papers and build simplified computer models based upon my best assumptions that will not convince anyone of anything. In other words, I am exhausted, discouraged, and trying not to become too cynical. In a perfect world, I would have more to offer than a direction. Thanks for your very constuctive comments, I'll do more.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!] I have worked with the assumption only the path through space is altered, not time, and it is not relativistic, but a true change in light speed in space as a function of mass. The metric that falls out when this assumption is made, is that the Newtonian masses of the planets is wrong -- very wrong. [Snip!]

So show us this marvelous metric -- maybe it will even show the "correct" mass for Mars!

[Jerry]

Such as the alleged 14% discrepancy in the mass of Mars? How about your calculation of same?

1) Assume all of the non-gas giant planets and moons with low albetos have the same density.

2) Fit a curve to the difference between the Newtonian density, and the density based upon this assumption. 1/ln(r)^2 is a good fit, so is 1/(r)^2. Either curve bisects the density of the earth and moon at a density of ~4.47.

3) Calculate the difference between the Newtonian density and this estimate and express it as a percent.

That wasn't so hard, was it? If you calculate the natural acceleration needed to move from planet orbit to orbit (to get these numbers with a variable force/mass ratio), it works out to be of the same magnitude as the acceleration measured by Pioneer probe Doppler shifts. I'm not sure why.

[djellison]

1) Assume all of the non-gas giant planets and moons with low albetos have the same density.

On what basis?

Why would the 4 rocky planets be the same density? You must think there's a lot of idiots in this place for us to just drift past that assumption un-noticed. How, exactly, could the density (and thus, I presume you infer the bulk composition) of Mercury be the same as Mars when they formed in places two orders of magnitude different in solar radiation.

The Earths density is 5.52g/cm^3, the Moon is 3.34 g/cm^3. The combined mass and volume of the Earth and the Moon result in a density of 5.47g/cm^3 (figures below) Why do you cite a figure of 4.47, roughly, the average of the two? Why is that a valid number in this instance? It's not the density of the Earth Moon system as a whole.

Doug


kg's and m^3

Masses
Earth 5.97E+24
Moon 7.36E+22
Total 6.05E+24

Volume
Earth 1.08E+21
Moon 2.20E+19
Total 1.11E+21

Density
Earth 5.52E+03
Moon 3.35E+03
Total 5.47E+03

[Tassel]

1) Assume all of the non-gas giant planets and moons with low albetos have the same density.

2) Fit a curve to the difference between the Newtonian density, and the density based upon this assumption. 1/ln(r)^2 is a good fit, so is 1/(r)^2. Either curve bisects the density of the earth and moon at a density of ~4.47.

Or, you can simplify this:

1) Assume for no good reason that Mars' density is ~4.48.

2) Therefore, Mars is 14% more massive than we think.

3) Profit

That's where you're getting 14% from? I can't believe this took thousands of hours to produce.

[Celestial Mechanic]

1) Assume all of the non-gas giant planets and moons with low albedos have the same density.

On what grounds? Albedo is nothing more than a measure of how reflective a surface is. It says nothing about the composition and density beneath the surface. You criticize us for our inferences of composition for the outer satellites, yet you make a stunningly shortsighted assumption such as this?

2) Fit a curve to the difference between the Newtonian density, and the density based upon this assumption. 1/ln(r)^2 is a good fit, so is 1/(r)^2. Either curve bisects the density of the earth and moon at a density of ~4.47.

I'll bet a bunch of other curves can be made to fit just as well.

3) Calculate the difference between the Newtonian density and this estimate and express it as a percent.

That wasn't so hard, was it? [Snip!]

It wasn't hard, it wasn't right, and it wasn't even wrong! (Thank you Dr. Pauli!)