Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry
Wrong assumption about the justification for my assumptions.
I threw out the small icy moons with high albedos because they are most likely very icy -- I didn't throw out Europa -- as I said, this was a curve fitting exercise based upon the assumptions 1) Newtonian mechanics don't work.
|
Wrong. Newtonian mechanics works quite well on Earth (done any experiments in a lab lately that show otherwise?) and in the Solar System. Only in the case of Mercury is the need for Einstein's amendment strongly needed; and the remaining flyby and Pioneer anomalies are both quite small.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry
2) If the solar system is a system of captured planets rather than an accretion ring, the average density of all of the planets should be about the same.
|
A
non sequitur if I ever saw one. Even granting the premise (which I do not) the consequent just does not follow from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry
I was shocked when the curve fit so well, I was even more shocked when I realized how many of the Mars probes appear to have fallen very fast.
|
How about trying some other curves? Exponentials, third-degree polynomials, etc. Bet some of them will fit as well. What justification do you have for the one that you actually chose?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry
[Snip!] I have stated that I think that the mass of Mars is ~14% greater than Newtonian estimates. The moment of inertia determined for Mars is 0.366 compared to that of the Earth: 0.3308 That's 111%;
|
Which sounds impressive (ooh! 111% ooh!) but really is not. A uniform sphere has a moment of inertia of 0.4; a real body will be less because more of the mass is concentrated in a core.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry
which basically assumes a lighter core and heavier crust. That is not unreasonable if you assume Mars cooled faster than the Earth, but it does not explain how or why the surface of Mars under rifts and such should be ultra light, as flyby data indicate. [Snip!]
|
Given your faulty argument starting with albedo, I must find your reasoning about the flyby data equally suspect.