I haven't read everything in this thread, but it has been mentioned that Titan would be 3 times heavier than calculated as well. Very similar trajectory... I can't completely follow this thread, but somehow I feel like it isn't really my fault...

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Sorry, I apologize, and I rephrased it. There is nothing I can do to recover my credibility with either this BB or my management until they correct their statements about the time frame, so you can understand my anger.

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know.

Thanks for the retraction, I'll amend my post to record the fact.

__________________
By asking questions we sometimes get the wrong answers, from wrong answers we learn to ask the right questions.

From the point that Huygens crossed over from a primarily Saturn to a Titan dominated gravimetric field. From this point on, the acceleration should increase at a greater rate than predicted, This means the during the descent phase, it took longer for the braking acceleration to slow the descent to where the large parachute could be deployed, so it deployed at a much, much lower altitude.

In fact, Huygen was still dangling from the main parachute at less than 1000 meters! All of the images we are seeing are at less than 300 meters! The fractal patterns in nature are amazing. Try looking at those patterns of rivers and alluvial fans as patterns in mud, and the nuances of scale start to emerge. We were expecting more than twenty panaramic photos, but there is only one and one half: The rest of the panarama images are in the mud - I am still trying to figure out what the gray screens are. Some of them may be when Huygens swung skyward, others might be either the heat shield or the parachutes settling around the grounded craft. Amazing!

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know.

But you are still making a prediction while the landing speed is the result of an actual measurement. No matter how much misinterpretation, you can "never" find a landing speed of 4.5 m/s from measurement data showing that your craft has been standing on the ground for half an hour anlready. (unless the value "0" has a different meaning in the new theory)...

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Jerry, if this is the case, then Huygens would have hit Titan's atmosphere sooner than it did.

It would also mean that reception of the carrier signal received here on Earth would have been much earlier than it did. Why do you continue to ignore the fact that a heavier Titan would mean Huygens would have arrived much sooner than the predicted time?

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Tensor wrote:
You forgot to include the self adjusting inertial mass of the probe to the equation :roll:

Jerry wrote:
You've got to be kidding. Do you have any proof that this is a fact?

I know that you are waiting for the all important data. Please wait for the data to be released before you start giving your interpreted information as fact.

So the Jury is still out until this can be verified or otherwise?

What I cannot understand is that if the mechanics of the obital path of Cassini and the launch and descent of Huygens were so far off that calculated by NASA/ESA then I'm sure that very fact would overshadow the landing mission and get commented on by every astronomer in the world. If Newton and Einstein were so wrong then it would send shockwaves reverberating thoughout the scientific community. That sort of deal is impossible to keep quiet. The plain fact is everything went as planned

In truth, the mission was a huge success, it's landing site and timing were well within the predicted ranges. Huygens landed softly, has provided remarkable images, sound recordings and radar data and, as soon as it's been analysed and can be publically released, atmospheric and ground data will follow.

ESA made a bit of a PR mess and unfortunately a computer programer had a senior moment and has egg on his face because a vital comand was missed and a com channel lost as a consequence. Aparently we are missing some images. Because of built in mission redundancy no real harm has been done and we now have a 360 degree panorama of the landing taken during descent as well as a series of stills taken at ground level of the local terrain.

Be patient, all the data will come especially any unexpected anomalies and the interpretation of that data. There is no kudos in keeping things quiet and it won't, can't, happen.

__________________
By asking questions we sometimes get the wrong answers, from wrong answers we learn to ask the right questions.

Cite.

This is just a plain lie. From here: http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Cassini-...XM71Y3E_1.html

It's not good to lie to bolster your case. Or do you claim that ESA is lying about the altitude? If so, you're fast descending into conspiracy theorism.

Obviously not the case in the picture cited above.

You mean Hipparcos? It doesn't look good when you get the name of the mission incorrect. And Hipparcos has far-and-away provided the most successful parallax measurement database ever.

You need to think before your post. You're beginning to be very insulting to an entire community.

Your credibility is fast disappearing.

Absolutely!

Notice that the SLI is suppose to shut off at ~500 meters. We have more than two hundred images taken from this camera while it is sitting almost in the mud - you can tell because the matching HRI images in the same triplets are all the same rock. This puppy made landfall before it could complete more than two panoramic cycles.

Earlier in this thread, I posted an analysis of the radar Doppler data released as an audio track. These images of mud coincide with the Radar profile: The Heat shield deploying at~300m (the Doppler starts close and fades quickly as it falls away), 12.5 seconds into the audio the the 3m parachute deploys, you can here the sudden jump in doppler as the probe plays out on the line. This is about where the picture sequence starts - the first panarama was suppose to be taken while both parachutes were deployed, and most of the terrain images we have were taken during this short suspended interval. Then the main parachute was cut, and Huygens quickly accelerated onto the surface - All cameras clicking.

Both the down facing and 45 degree camera were supose to shut down Near an altitude of 500meters. They just kept clicking...because they were still in their sky sequence.

It is hard to be patient, when the principle investigators need help.

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know.

Might there just be the slightest chance that you are maybe just a little bit predetermined? In "science" as I know it, the correct order is "investigate, find outcomes, conclude".

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Yep, no need. After all, it arrived at the time and date predicted by the current constant G theory.

Are you saying that the Cassini team made corrections for a variable G ballistic trajectory for Huygens? If so, and Jerry's value of 4.22 g/c^3 forTitan's density is correct, it would have to have been released later than it was, for its purely ballistic trajectory. There were no corrections possible once released and a higher than predicted density for Titan would have changed the arrival date from what it was.


65 FEET????? If Titan's density was greater than predicted, then it should have arrived at Titan sooner. A balistic trajectory is based on gravity. If Titan's gravity was different, it would not have arrived on the date it did (and the prediction for the date matched a constant G).

LOL, Huygens arrived on the date and within the possible error times predicted by a constant G theory. Exacty what other numbers do you need?

You questions are more silly than pesky. Almost all of your questions have been based on speculations that you have yet to show have any rational basis. How is that reality?

Yeah, those specific predictions (that match observations) that mainstream science makes are so beneath the generalities and idle speculations the pseudo-scientists put out.

As opposed to pseudo-science speculations that don't even have specific predictions? As to the answers in the published papers, well, if the predictions match the observations, yeah, they are pretty much right.

Well, if we could get the pseudo-scientists to make a specific testable prediction (or even get then to do the calculations on observations that are already out there) then we might see some science from the pseudo-scientists. But then, philosophically, I want my theories to make specific predictions that match observations (without resorting to saying the scientists are lying about the observations).

Why not relativistic physics? Or did you forget about this part of one of my posts:

The Cassini science team announced the results of a test of Einstein's theory of gravity, using radio signals from the Cassini probe. The researchers observed a frequency shift in the radio waves to and from the space craft, as those signals traveled close to the Sun. Past tests were in agreement with the theoretical predictions with an accuracy of one part in one thousand. The Cassini experiment improved this to about 20 parts in a million, with the data still supporting Einstein's theory.[/quote]

How similar? There is another of those generalities. I have yet to see you or Jerry show what trajectory should have been used with the probe according to a variable G theory.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Jerry wrote:

A paper written on June 2003 is not proof. Your grasping at air.


Jerry wrote:
The data that you posted above proves you wrong. According to the chart you posted, the cameras work all the way down except the DISR.

You're desperate attempt to show your theory is still valid is so far from the truth that no one is going even consider it.

Someone in authority please close this thread. It's outlived its entertainment value.

Not that I'm lazy, but where exactly in the 68 page PDF is the evidence that all ptures were taken at 300 meters or lower? It's just that I don't have the time to read it all during the exams.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Your statement is non sequitur. You misread. You quoted from the report, the DISR Data Requirements for the Descent Trajectory Working Group -- i.e. the minimum they required to accomplish their goals.

Of course, they did not specify what might be done beyond the minimum that they required.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0....

Oo Oo!! Let me h