Quote:
Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
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.  |
No, most readers are at step one: coming to a realization that the consensus cosmology has fatal flaws. One cannot seriously evaluate alternatives if the mind is not fully open. (Present company generally excluded - most readers of the ATM board are looking for answers.).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cm
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.
|
Once again, planetary masses are determined by evaluating fly-bys, or orbiting moons or probes, not the other way around. If the equivalence principle is wrong, all the missions to all the worlds will not reveal this as a first order effect: It shows up in as subtle gravitational anomalies.
Landing on other moons and planets is another story, but as of now, most of the unusual physics observed during landings has been written off as atmospheric effects. When Rosetta attempts to move within a few dozen kilometers of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko in May of 2014, it will be very obvious the gravitational pull is much greater than expected, 15-30 % and there will be no atmosphere to blame it on this time.
THE DISK AROUND COKU TAU/4: CIRCUMBINARY, NOT TRANSITIONAL
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/p...803.2044v1.pdf
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ireland & Kraus
The spectral energy distribution of the disk is then naturally explained by inner truncation of the disk through gravitational interactions with the binary star system. We discuss the possibility that such “unseen” binary companions could cause other circumbinary disks to be labeled as transitional.
|
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/0803.2051
Structural and compositional properties of brown dwarf disks: the
case of 2MASS J04442713+2512164
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bouy et al
In order to improve our understanding of substellar formation, we have performed a compositional and structural study of a brown dwarf disk. ...
The target was known to have a disk. High resolution optical spectroscopy shows that it is intensely accreting, and powers a jet and an outflow. The disk structure is similar to that observed for more massive TTauri stars.
|
Are you
sure we don't need a new model for how the solar system formed?