Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Normally, I post a topic like this on the “Against the Mainstream” thread. This is because virtually everything I do is highly speculative. This time, I believe there is a serious threat to the Huygen mission, and I am looking for as much feedback as possible from scientists with more knowledge than myself of solar mechanics.
I have concluded the same failure mode that lead to the demise of Beagle, and indirectly two other Mars probes is inherent in the orbital mechanics of the Huygens probe scheduled to separate from Cassini December 26, 2004. There may be a work-around for this probable failure, but if and only if mission scientists are appraised of the potential problem in a timely and convincing manner as soon as possible.
...snip...
The radar and ranging data we are receiving at this very moment should be yielding curious variance from predictions. If this hypothesis is true, mission planners may be miss-interpreting this data. They may be questioning the calibration of the radar systems or data reduction software. A miss-reading of this data will lead to a fatal episode for the Huygen Titan lander.
I know these predictions, and theoretical reasoning behind them are obscure. But take a few steps backwards and ask yourself: How could the moons and the outer planets be so light, and contain the molecular bonding necessary to hold them together? How can they have features that appear to be volcanoes, and lava flows, and not be volcanic? How can the planet Neptune, and the moons of Neptune, look so much like inner planets and have an average density of much less than the Earth's crust?
The radar and orbital data of Cassini should reveal evidence of the type of variations I have described. As I said, I have developed this concept as an explanation for cosmic events: The patterned rings and the cosmic ray power functions of supernova, the orbits of stars near the edges of galaxies and the Tully-Fisher relationship. I have only recently turned my attention to the solar system, and there may be factual evidence that gravity cannot vary in a second order.
Any posts that shed light on this, pro or con, are cordially solicited.
|
Jerry, I've worked out on ATM the 'variable G constant' on the
Pioneers 10 and 11 Anomalous Acceleration thread, and worked out a variable G that roughly doubles per AU, which I then worked out the planetary Energy (solar irradiance times 1/2 GM), which is a shorthand to get an Earth basis for Energy, where E = 9E+16 Joules (90 petajoules), then worked out the same for other planets. What came of this exercise in 'voodoo-physics' was that the proton mass, per DeBroglie's E = hc/L(proton m), became a variable, where the mass increased inversely to solar irradiance (per AU distance) in a linear manner. (In mine, the mass increased further from the Sun, which if I understand yours is the opposite effect!) But this last may be translated into 'molecular bonding' where higher proton mass means greater 'bonding', as an illustration only. However, there seems to be something amiss with how we calculated distant bodies mass using Newton's orbital equation, which assumes a constant G. [-X
So I'm with you, will be all eyes and ears when they send Huygens down to Saturn's moon Titan. I hope their hard calculations are not too far off from my voodoo-physics results, or as you pointed out, there may be a regretable outcome.
