Quote:
Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
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.
|
Wrong. Check out Tensors numbers for Icarus:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tensor
Object------------GR prediction-------------Observed
Mercury______________43.0_______________43.1 +/- .05
Venus________________8.6________________8.4 +/-4.8
Earth________________3.8________________5.0 +/- 1.2
Icarus_______________10.3_______________9.8 +/- 0.8
|
That's impressive enough to have me believing in relativity! If only every relativity-base prediction worked this well! But then we would have dark matter particles identified, we would be observing gravitational waves; and we could even have seen the edge of the universe with the last generation of telescopes, not the next one.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CM
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?
|
Yes, there are many mathematical equations that can be matched quite well with our observations - I rest my case on that issue! Mathematically, you can model anything! What I continue to argue is that our observations don't agree with what our theories predicted, and adhering to wrong basic premises has lead to extremely convoluted mathematical models, full of all kinds of darkness... In empty space (dark energy); In galaxies (dark matter) and on Titan (dark stuff).
If you want to see some light, start with some new basic assumptions. Uniform density within the solar system is just one of many possible new basic assumptions. Try some others, and see if you can find one that might work better.
Quote:
|
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.
|
If the moment of inertia of Mars was the same as the Earths, and if the deep ravines of Mars were full of ice, or if they had measurable densities from altitude that is consistent with the crustal density; we would not be having this discussion, because I would be throwing this hypthesis as far as I could chuck it. I have stayed with this concept because I can't null it. I can use it explain why mountains on Mars appear to be much heavier than the Martian crust, even though they really are not.
Quote:
|
Given your faulty argument starting with albedo, I must find your reasoning about the flyby data equally suspect.
|
Given Newton's argument for spontanious generation or Darwin's arguments about use and dissuse, you could use the same grounds for - you get the point: I get to be wrong, at least I am trying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djellison
Further utterly foundation-less assumptions. Even if it were proven that the planets are all captured ( which it isn't ), then why would the density be the same for all of them? That's just so hideously wrong it's not even funny Jerry.
|
We have good reasons to believe our planets were once part of a supernova. Is it such a big stretch to assume that they have similar evolutionary histories? Similar compositions> Similar densities? That said, It is possible that the masses very a lot, and that the densities of the outer planets are generally lower than the inner ones. The model I have in my hands says Titan has a mass more than twice that allowed by Newtonian physics, and as long as the surface of Titan looks like sand and is described as 'dark stuff', my answer is as good as anybodies.
Quote:
|
You're making utterly unjustifiable assumptions simply to fit your model. What you should be doing is looking at the DATA and then working from there, not cooking up a model, and making up the data to fit it.
|
Supernova researchers are assuming there is no Malmquist bias in observed supernova, even though we know supernova Ia type events vary as much as 2.5 magnitudes fairly locally. I find that utterly unjustifiable; and grounds for completely new models.
New basic assumptions are a painful, but necessary choice when we don't have a working model of the universe. Make an assumption, prove that it is wrong, make another new assumption.
Quote:
|
And again - please explain why you believe the 'average' density of the Earth and the Moon is an accurate figure in any way whatsoever? Why should the moon, a tiny body in mass terms compared to the Earth contribute half the density figure for the Earth Moon system. It shouldnt. You've just made a figure up so it fits your graph. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE. STOP PRETENDING IT IS.
|
Assume we drilled cores to the center of the earth and moon from enough locations to conclude that the average density of all the materials found in both the moon and the Earth is 4.47g/cc.
We would need a new theory for gravity that doesn't include the Newtonian Equivalence Principle; and a new set of love numbers, a revised distribution of mass within both the earth and the moon. Possible? Maybe. Likely? NO!
My 'All bodies have the same density' assumption does not work well for the Earth and the moon. I concede that. But if we keep finding iron and pyrenes on bodies in the outer solar system, and if Iapitus turns out to be white-on-black rather than 'dark stuff' on white; and the best physical match for the sands of Titan turns out to be silicate sand and other refractory materials (as grainy particulate usually is); new basic assumptions will be needed; and Dark Energy will not cut it.