Quote:
Originally Posted by Eta C
BTW, I love this because it puts the spoke in Jerry's usual contention that mainstream science somehow "suppresses" this sort of thing. PRL is as mainstream as it gets, arguably the premier physics journal in the world. Just goes to show that when results seem to disagree with theory, even at a tiny level, scientists show interest.
|
Suppresses? We don't tend to publish things we do not understand - nobody wants to admit that they are stumped.
Listen to what Anderson wrote in 2006:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-p.../0608087v2.pdf
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by anderson et al page 21
We first emphasize that the flyby anomalies discussed here have long been a concern at JPL, and that we have benefited from the unpublished work of others. In particular, the authors gratefully acknowledge engineers and scientists in the Guidance, Navigation, and Control Section of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory who have contributed to the analyses of the Earth flyby tracking data and its interpretation.
|
If it has long been a concern at JPL, why wasn't it published until November of 2006? Not suppression: Years of hesitation - decades of mulling over the data in-house, looking for Mainstream acceptable answers. There are none.
But when anomalies can be written off as atmospheric effects, they are: The rapid decent of the Jupiter probe was modeled by using an outlandish down draft. When exceptional conditions are assumed in order to get the data to agree with established theory, you are violating Jerry's first rule: You are slanting the playing field away from possible alternatives.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by captain swoop
Still with the Huygens? after all this time!
|
After all this time, Huygens principle investigators finally acknowledged that they ignored Huygens' radar, assumed a 'G' value for Titan, and used a suddenly reversing wind to remove anomalies from the data. This is where the 'Jerry rule' comes into play: If the assumptions necessary to get results consist with a mainstream theory would be laughed at if they were made to support an alternative theory, these mainstream assumptions must be treated with severe skepticism.
If I said Huygens didn't behave because of a peculiar force, but to model this peculiar force I had to assume a suddenly reversing wind, and also assume that the probe rotated backwards, opposite the aerodynamic design, I would be laughed off of the internet. But it is not me, it is the mainstream scientists, who are resorting to bazarre interpretations: A sudden reversal of wind direction in high altitudes is not consistent with our limb studies, or thermodynamic models of this moon. Huygens' decent cannot be modeled with reasonable interpretationa of known physical laws.
Titan covered with meters of hydrocarbons? In the form of what? Skin? Hydrocarbons are black - especially black when there is limited oxygen. Titan is rusty red, Zion's National Park red. Red sand dunes. Red alluvial deposits. Without a red model for hydrocarbons, mainstream planetary scientists are driving a Model T.
The latitude given to MS scientists in making these assertions is incredible...when they are accepted without question; there is no latitude left for alternative theoriest to stake out a claim.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anderson et al
During the flyby the total energy and angular momentum of the solar system
are conserved. Further, independent of the heliocentric energy change of the
craft itself, the spacecraft’s total geocentric orbital energy per unit mass should be the same before and after the flyby. The data indicates this is not always true.
|
The data tells us our understanding is infantile.