Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Most of this evidence is based upon experiments in our local framework,
|
Since we are observing the probes from Earth, what would that change?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Where gravity for all intense and purposes is constant.
|
Are you talking about Newton's constant
G, or the graviational acceleration
g?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
It is only with increasing distance from the sun that the second derivative of the ‘g’ function comes into play, and therefore it must effects interplanetary missions, and comets.
|
What is this "g function"?
The force of gravity between two objects (which obviously depends on the distance), or the acceleration of gravity
g on a planet, or the product
GM(sun)?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
The sign is not wrong (and I was joking about Titan being three times lighter). The anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 & 11 is towards the Sun, and this is consistent with a decrease in the momentum of the probes moving away from the solar system.
|
And on what basis do you exclude a force that has not been accounted for?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Remember, I am throwing out at least two of Newton’s laws: A body can only remain in motion if there is a sufficient ‘inertial field’ surrounding the body to maintain the motion. Likewise, there is no action at a distance: We are attracted to the sun because the inertial framework of the sun extends well beyond our planet.
|
This clearly shows that you do not actually know Newton's laws.
If there is some net force acting on the probes, the principle of inertia does not apply.
On what basis do you exclude some unknown force?
"No action at a distance": this concept was left behind when gravity started being intrepreted as a field acting locally on a mass (see also electromagnetic fields).
It is still a viable approximation if the objects under analysis move with speeds much lower than the speed of propagation of changes in the field (again see electromagnetic fields).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
This force becomes so weak that distant galaxies are only attracted to each other if there is literally a connecting trail of matter between them. This is all EXTREMELY speculative, but I need it to explain why a universe that is not expanding is not contracting.
|
For which you have experimental evidence?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
[...]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Taibak
The problem with that line of argument is that Newton's concept of momentum has an amazingly successful track record in classical and quantum physics and, with some modifications, in relativity. Anything you posit here has to be consistent with quantum mechanical effects.
|
Yes and no. Quantum mechanics have been pretty much tailored to match observations,... |
This shows that you have never studied Quantum Mechanics.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
... and rarely is gravity a significant factor in the QM world, so the Tweak would be major/minor.
|
It is correct that gravity is ususally negligible when dealing with microscopic systems.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
[...]
If you are asking why I am making the assumption that Newton and Einstein have poorly interpreted the universe, chalk it up to a bitter distaste for dark matter, dark energy, inflation and a few dozen other cosmological observations that seem to make very little sense.
|
Whether they make sense to you or you like them, it is of little consequence for their correctness.
Einstein did not like Quantum Mechanics, but he never questioned that it worked nor did he support a rejection in the lack of a better theory.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
[...]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Taibak
Also, what about the inner planets? If there is an electromagnetic component to gravity, the inner planets should be a better test. Compare the Earth and Venus. Their masses are very similar, so their 'gravitational charge,' if you will, should be very similar. However, Earth has a strong magnetic field and Venus does not. How does your theory relate that to those orbits?
|
In this theory, the magnetic field orientation of the earth is dominated by tidal action associated with the moon. No moon, no strongly oriented magnetic field. |
How would that happen?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Taibak
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
The remaining rotational energy is slowly being radiated away as thermal energy.
|
That doesn't make a lot of sense. How does rotational energy get converted into heat?
|
There is a differential in the “inertial mass” between the side of the planet facing the sun, and the side facing away form it. |
Why?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
With each rotation, a small amount of this inertial energy is converted to thermal radiation. Interesting thought – the rotational velocity of the planet would tend to stabilize when the solar energy absorbed, (in the emitted wavelengths), is equal to the emitted radiation.
|
How is angular momentum converted into heat?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
[...]
Until we can explain this, and why Neptune emits 2.7 x as much radiation as it receives, until we can explain how a planet made out of water generates a relatively strong magnetic field, we don’t have a workable model of the solar system.
|
This is cherry-picking.
You can argue that the current theoris are incomplete, but you have to show that they do not agree substantially with the observations, before claiming that they are not "workable".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Pioneer 10 & 11 gave us a definitive test of Newtonian gravity, and Newtonian gravity failed the test. It is that simple.
|
And nothing new, since the Theory of General Relativity came along.