Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tusenfem
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.
|
As a general rule, our earth-based measurements should be the most accurate. There are clearly TWO good data point supporting relativistic interpretations, and I appreciate Tensor revisiting the Icarus data; the significance of which I have overlooked. mmmm... |
squze me??, but what does that answer have to do with what I commented on?
I said I did not like the big error bar on the Earth's value, but the circularity of the Earth's orbit is to blame. And the theory says so too.
And I said that if an ATM theory describes an effect and has similar errors, but can explain through the ATM theory why there should be such large error bars in some cases, then the ATM theory/explanation will be accecpted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry
They didn't say whether the gross gravity anomaly they used to recalculated the flyby path enhanced or diminished the gravitational braking. Since Mercury was rotating, the exact position of this calculated anomally relative to Messenger's flyby path is crucial. Remember that a featureless positive anomally that exactly coincident with Galileo's closest flyby of Ganymede was necessary to explain Galileo's doppler. That is two conicidents too many!
|
I seem to remember that they needed a small region with more mass, located somewhere along the orbit. But I would need to find the quote again in this tread. okay I found it in YOUR message (#155) quoting Ladawalla
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jerry & Ladawalla
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.
|
seems to me that there is MORE mass, exactly opposite to your needing LESS mass.
But there is nothing wrong with irregular distributions of mass in a planetary body. Look at the GRACE satellite mapping Earth's gravity field and see what mountains etc. have as an effect. The fact that on Ganymede there is no feature on the surface to show where and what the gravity anomaly is is hardly surprising, As has been shown by Galileo the whole surface of Ganymede is ice, and as I have shown in a paper, there is an ocean under the icy surface, similar like Europa. So, and ice - water - ice coverager of the rocky innards does not really call for any visible counterpart for a gravity anomaly. (Unless you would carry a deep penetrating radar ofcourse, then you could find out more).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry
Maxwell's equations have everything to do with the path of light through space.
We know gravity 'bends' light. Newton taught us actions lead to reactions. Have you ever considered light might effect gravity?
|
Light is described with Maxwell's equations and well, there are books enough ...
Light is influenced by gravity because of curvature of space time.
If you want Newton (then there would be no bending of light by gravity because light has no mass) then action = - reaction would not have effect on gravity but on the mass that generates the gravity, i.e. the sun pulls on the photon to bend it around in its orbit and as a reaction the photon pulls on the sun. Gravity is not affected, the interacting masses are.
Then a lot of blah blah about gravitational waves, which are totally beside the point of my mail. I was asking about the "second order terms" that you were invoking, I guess you yourself have no idea about what you meant there and decided to write about something else, like below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry
I was watching Bill Nye the planetary guy's presentation on the moons of Saturn and you know what he did? He showed an real image of Pheobe that was colored as white as Enceladus. We know that is not right - Phoebe is quite dark, and Cassini found a lot of iron on the surface. If iron is turning Pheobe red, red silicate sand is a good fit for Titan - but only if Newtonian physics grossly understates the masses of the outer planets and their moons.
|
Well, a real picture, sure, there are lots of them, but did he also say how the picture was composed, from what filters on the cameras etc. etc. A real picture does not immediately mean that it is in real colours (otherwise you would have to write that).
And I failt to see where you are going here, Cassini found iron on Phoebe, then why should there be red silicate sand on Titan? Where does that follow? Because Titan looks so red?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry
Messenger will be gravity mapping Mercury. After the first pass we know there are tremendous variations in the terrain. If I am correct, the gravity maps will produce stunning over-densities in the rifts and valleys of Mercury, and uplifted regions must appear curiously underdense - an extreme exaggeration of what we have observed on Venus.
Testable prediction - the Messenger Team has been very quick in publishing their findings -
let's hope this holds true once we are in orbit - and enjoy!
|
And all these stunning over densities will be a conformation for your theory that Mercury would have less mass? If it were not so serious I would ask what you were smoking.