Quote:
Originally Posted by korjik
es close to a moon and dosent go splat?
Anderson et al have shown anomalies at the scale of part per million. That dosent sound 'way off'
|
These are measurements near the earth; and just like all measurements on the earth, they do not test the equivalence principle everywhere else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by korjik
Do you know that inertal mass was tested when Huygens launched from Cassini and every time either Voyager reports home? Do you know that Cassini test inertal mass every time it pass
|
All relative tests, based upon the initial assumption that Newtonian mechanics properly predict the mass of every moon of Saturn.
If one hypothesized that contrary to Newtonian equivalence principle - the mass/velocity relationship is a function of the total mass of the system; the Newtonian masses of the planets are wrong; but this would not be evidenced in the first order: we would just pencil in the wrong masses, making Mercury much to dense, and Saturn much too light.
No matter how many times we circle these planets, you will always get the same results. But second order effects: Experienced during landings, elliptical passes and flybys should generate measureable anomalies So should passes over surface features.
To test whether or not this assumption is valid, you have to go to these second order effects. Bouguer anomalies are a special class: Mountains that are over-dense relative to the surrounding terrain demonstrate positive Bouguer anomalies. Underdense mountains would run-out as negative Bouguer anomalies.
In these second order effects - flyby's, insertions and fly-overs, is where we have isolated strange anomalies. All of the mountains of Mars are overdense, all of the chasims of Mars are under-dense on Bouguer anomally tables. In our orbital assessments of the densities of surface features of Venus, it is just the opposite; all of the mountains are over-dense, and Venus chasma are under dense. Planetary geophysicists have known this for decades, but without questioning the strong equivalence principle these anomalies are, as you said, not anomalies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by korjik
Of the 5 supposed anomalies, only two are actual anomalies. Comet outgassing is not an anomaly, it is just us not knowing what comets are well enough (namely comet internal structure and composition and how that reacts to solar heating). Bouguer anomalies arent anomalies in the sence you are using it either, but simply density differences from an ideal sphere. Huygens is probably that little thing we call weather. Only the pioneer anomaly and the flyby anomalies are really complete unknowns. Even then, the fact that they are unknown dosent mean that current theory is incorrect.
|
Quite the opposite, the little thing called weather masks these rather subtle second order effects. Galileo's flybys of the weatherless moons Ganymede and Europa lead to very strange gravity maps of these moons.
The evidence is there - if you look for it.