I will not reply further as I cannot think of a rebuttal to utter nonsense.

__________________
When I am done here I think I will go create something from metal.

Yeah, and the joke is that you don't understand the difference between Weight and Mass...something that even a first year Astronomy student would certainly know.

This all sounds very nice...and doesn't make a lick of sense. You can't just "make up" the rules as you go along...where is your evidence to support your claims?

You're right...you need something...but "this" ain't working for ya.

I've gotta agree...the more Jerry posts...the more he demonstrates that he doesn't have any idea what he is talking about.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Since we are observing the probes from Earth, what would that change?

Are you talking about Newton's constant G, or the graviational acceleration g?

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)?

And on what basis do you exclude a force that has not been accounted for?

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).

For which you have experimental evidence?

This shows that you have never studied Quantum Mechanics.

It is correct that gravity is ususally negligible when dealing with microscopic systems.

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.

How would that happen?

Why?

How is angular momentum converted into heat?

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".


And nothing new, since the Theory of General Relativity came along.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

"heavier" and "lighter" can refer to density, as Jerry obviously intended. In any case, isn't it a bit of a straw man to use his bad joke to dismiss his ideas?

To me, it makes a lot of sense. That does not make Jerry correct, of course. A lot more math is going to be required to prove that his theory does not contradict observational evidence.

Dismissing an ATM idea out of hand because it does not conform to conventional science is a bad idea when conventional science cannot explain observations. The entire point of the thread is that there is evidence of something unexpected going on to cause the Pioneer anomaly. Plenty of mainstream scientists are looking at ATM ideas to explain it.

Jerry has cited observational evidence that, at first look at least, can plausibly be explained by his theory. Some of this evidence will surely be eliminated by additional research, and it is likely that the basic ideas can be directly contradicted by hard data. However, having read all of Jerry's previous posts, I think it is worth the effort to actually research the evidence rather than simply dismiss him.

Really, have you two even read his posts in ATM? Certainly not carefully enough, if you think he could mistake mass and weight.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

Papageno, I have one nit to pick. You said "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.
"

Einstein didn't just dislike quantum mechanics, he did not believe it to be a true description of the world at all. He is famous for having said "God does not play dice with the universe". He never could wrap his head around the idea and vigorously opposed the notion of "spooky action at a distance". He essentially wasted the rest of his life trying to disprove QM.

__________________
When I am done here I think I will go create something from metal.

He was trying to find a better theory.
He did not like the interpretation of QM that leads to "spooky action at a distance" or probabilities, but his reasons were more philosophical in nature rather than physical.
He did not consider QM wrong as a theory, because he accepted that the predictions match the experimental results.
And he did not go back to classical mechanics, because this does not fit the obsevations.

As much as he did not like QM, he accepted it as a scientific theory, at the same working to replace it with something better.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Because the inertial field strength would be almost uniform in the area of Earth, so experiments would not detect a variable G.

Such as? There have been numerous failed attempts to explain the acceleration (already thoroughly discussed) with known phenomena. If you’re going to consider unknown forces, Jerry’s is as good as any.

Obviously, the hypothetical inertial field is very slightly stronger on the side closer to the Sun. However, does this not contradict the notion mentioned above, that the field is uniform enough not to affect experiments showing a constant G on Earth? The effect is probably lost in measurement error.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

Papageno, I disagree. Starting in 1935 with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper he began directly attacking the presumptions of QM and continued to try to prove that QM theory was "incomplete".

He did not propose any better theory nor did he seem to be working on such. He was obsessed with certain aspects of QM that he simply didn't believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

__________________
When I am done here I think I will go create something from metal.

Obviously intended? Hmmm, I don't seem to recall Jerry saying that.

Perhaps...but if that's true, someone is going to have to explain to me exactly WHAT the joke is. I'm serious about this because as a "joke" it just doesn't make any sense.

His OP was all about density. His bad joke was that since he was apparently suffering from terminal binary dyslexia, he might have the effect of his inertial field theory on Titan backwards. Humor is such a subjective thing...
:wink:

Jerry,
most accretion models of planetary formation predict that density decreases with increased orbital radius, so shouldn’t we expect the close fit of your equation relating the two?

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

What is this "inertial field"?
Also, a variable G would affect the trajectories of objects. Why wouldn't we be able to detect this effect?

It is not.
Assuming a variable G goes against all the experimental evidence we have about gravity.
It is more likely that there is something that we do not see or did not take into account properly, providing an additional force.


"Obviously"?
Also, if there is such a differential, wouldn't we observe the effect on the Moon's orbit, or the orbits of the artifical satellites?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Based on Gibbs' paradox, we can say that classical mechanics is not consistent.
Does it mean that we have to abandon it?
Or maybe, we understand better its limitations?

The EPR paradox proved that these three assumptions are incompatible:
1) concept of "realism";
2) concept of "locality";
3) completeness of QM.

Einstein decided that the third one is wrong.
Today, physicists are more in doubt of the second.

He was working on a "Unified Field Theory", which was supposed to merge QM and GR, without the "quantum probabilities" he did not like.
Other physicists have been working on "hidden variables", but it did not work out.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Yes, what we observe is reasonably consistent with accretion models, although there is a minor inconsistency with Uranus and Neptune being more dense than Saturn.

Hey - I was extremely surprised when I plugged in the numbers, and out popped the same densities for Mercury, Venus, Mars, Pluto, and a dozen moons.

There should be subtle changes in the orbital mechanics, things like this:
We are much better at navigation than the uncertainty we are experiencing in missions to other planets indicates: Two-thirds of the missions to Mars have been failures. I don't think this is an accident. We are systematically underestimating the mass of distant planets, and the further we go, the worse it gets.

I believe the masses of the moons of Saturn are more than three times greater than expected, (based upon our inertially challenges probes), we are looking at earth-like planets and expecting them to be worlds made of ice, and this is what experts are saying as they try to interprete these images from near Saturn:

John Anderson has made an exhaustive search for a causal reason for the Pioneer accelerations, and rolled naughta. I’m looking at a host of unknown forces including Dark Energy, Dark matter; and I am looking at a family of cosmic events - supernova light curves, the crab nebula, radio loud regions of space, quasars, cosmic rays and saying “I can tie all of these things together with a new theory, and this theory predicts Earth-like densities for all of the planets". When I do, out pops the Pioneer 10 and 11 accelerations. Simply amazing.


Big g, Newton’s constant. I am saying that there is only limited equivalence between the acceleration of gravity and the acceleration of Einstein’s elevator, and yet paradoxically that they are identical – they both require mass, and you can only create motion within a gravitational framework. Here is how I think it works:

I jump in Einstein’s elevator and accelerate away from the sun. I have my ion drive perfectly tuned so that my acceleration is always at one earth g, and I try to keep my acceleration constant. But as I get further and further away from the sun, not only can I no longer accelerate, I start losing momentum, and my elevator is getting extremely hot – it is as if the space around me has suddenly thickened, when in fact just the opposite has happened:

My momentum is within a gravitational field, and as that field strength diminishes, so does my ability to propel ions through the weakening field behind me. As soon as they leave my linear accelerator, they begin slow down and radiate at frequencies that are proportional to their velocity relative to the elevator-sun system. The elevator itself is also radiating away energy proportional the motion of the ship relative to the sun. I realize I am stuck in the outer edges of the Oort belt, and if I want to start accelerating again, I will have to aim my elevater toward the sun.

What I am clearly trying to say is nobody understands gravity, myself included. Yes, the field equations described by general relativity effectively eliminate ‘action at a distance’, but the causality assigned by Einstein is just plain wrong.

Observational evidence.

OK, here is a case in point: quantum mechanics said there was no way superconductivity could be extended more than a few calories above absolute zero. When chemists went ahead and did it anyway, the quantum mechanics incorporated the necessary adjustments in no time. The same thing happened with lasars and masers, Chemists made compounds out of nobel gases, you said we could not do that, either.

Hey, when your (Feyman's) analysis allows you to travel backward in time in order to crank out the right number in future time, pretty much anything is possible, and from there on it is "just" a case of assigning probabilities.

I am not saying quantum mechanics does not work, that it has not an effective and progressive branch of science. I work in a laboratory where they are constantly shaking stacks of stuff in an attempt to advance statistical constituent theories just shy of QM's, and by doing so make better scientific predictions. I am only saying the underlying forces are misunderstood...

When I point out to the cosmological world they have everything backwards, they say 'this is the only thing consistent with the quantum world.

When I look at the quantum world, quantum mechanics are getting surprised all the time – high energy Hall effects. and massive particles that refuse to reveal themselves this is just like dark matter and dark energy.

I see the same type of inconsistencies we are observing in the cosmological world. Something very basic is wrong. It is going to take decades to sort this all out.
Wrong! And two wrongs do not make a right. Quantum mechanics have to work backward in time because Einstein warped space and made time a variable. None of this makes any more sense than the Emporers robe!

When I interpret the Michealson Morley experiment as a slowing of electromagnetic wave speed as the wave enters an area of increasing field strength, all kinds of causal relationships emerge for things we just shrug our shoulders about now – I have delineated this on the ATM threads.

It has been interesting to follow your little discussion with Grey about this. There is no question Einstein’s position mellowed with age.

As I have pointed out on the ATM threads, there are many situations where gravity is converted to observable electromagnetic phenomena. The Piezo electric effect is my favorite example, so let’s just assume much of the sand in the beaches is Piezo electric. The net force of all of the waves on the earth disturbing sand generate a net DC charge, with the Earth’s magnetic field perpendicular to it. Obviously there are other factors, but I think this is a major one. Ironically, when I came up with this concept, I was trying to explain to myself how some of the ice planets in the outer solar system could have magnetic fields without iron cores.

The correct answer is that the ice planets are not ice planets at all! They all have iron cores, but the generation of a magnetic field requires periodic tidal events.

Some of it is converted the same way I have explained wave energy from the surf is converted to the Piezo electric current that generates the earth's magnetic field.

But I am also saying that when the velocity of anything starts to exceed the capacity of the local electrogravametric field, acceleration will be retarded and energy will be radiated instead.

Mass accelerated in a supernova explosion ‘collides’ with the 'gravitational' field collapsing because the mass creating the field is being converted to energy. The increase in impedance converts the kinetic energy of the expanding gasses into cosmic rays from hell. This is why there is so much more energy in cosmic rays than relativistic predictions allow. E is still equal to mass times the speed of light squared (I think), but the efficency is related to the velocity relative to the local center of mass.

Remember big G gets smaller with increasing distance. The atoms on the far side of the planet are not able to accelerate as fast as the ones on the near side. Once momentum has been established, the planet rotates like cyclists in a peleton.

I have a big enough basket of cherries, and apples, and oranges. to convince me the basic theories are not right. I think the Cassini Mission is proving this as we speak:

I can. These satellites have roughly the same densities as the asteroids, meteorites and planets we observe near the earth, but very different histories as they were captured by Saturn at different times and in different orbits. The spectragraphic data will show these moons are very earth-like in their composition. Speaking of Spectra, are you sure we have spectral data on Tritan? From what I am reading, our knowledge of Triton appears to be based upon radar, not spectral imaging.

GR does not explain the Pioneer accelerations. Einstein’s successes in relating mass and energy have mask his failures in space and time, and everyone who has raised their hand and said “but that does not make sense!” has been booed out of the classroom.


Was it the atmosphere? Or Gee, was Einstein half right and half wrong?

And we all wonder what happens next.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

I do have one more question for you Jerry. Have you ever managed to convince anyone that your conjectures make sense?

__________________
When I am done here I think I will go create something from metal.

I'm convinced they make sense and are internally consistent. I'm not yet convinced they are consistent with reality yet. Not that my opinion carries much weight, of course, being a lowly engineer.

I do think this thread belongs on ATM, though, if only to keep from confusing visitors. When somebody reads about GR, the BB, Gravity etc, they should get the “mainstream” view here.

Well, planetary migration is going to throw a wrench in any analysis of density versus orbital radius. However, I find it unlikely that planetary density would be consistent—why should it be? The accretion disk would have to be homogenous, which should be impossible given the thermal gradient of the solar nebula.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

Demigrog,

Among many other things Jerry said, again, Apparently he isn't joking. Just how is that consistent with anything, including his own conjecture?

__________________
When I am done here I think I will go create something from metal.

I will be convinced some of this is close to the truth, if these predictions around Saturn fall into the right ballpark 8-I agree. I was asking for input with enough supportive evidence that I could quite literally hand carry to NASA and say, "Look, your Huygen probe is in big trouble".

I have since learned that very little in the mission can be changed at this point, so we will have to wait and see.

I was very surprised when these highly consistent density numbers rolled out. To me, they point toward a completely different synthesis for the solar system:

I don't see how they could have all condensed from an accretion disk, or busted out of the sun. Therefore, in my *Highly Speculative* model, they are captured remnents of a family of very similar stars. This is somewhat consistent with what we observe in other galaxies - the stars in the spirals seem to be clustered by age and type. It is a wonderful puzzle to work on.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Jerry, at this point in the mission much of the navigation is carried out by taking a look with the cameras to see where the spacecraft actually is. It's called Op-Nav. Orbital parameters are adjusted accordingly. It means that uncertainties are corrected for by "looking" out the window.

__________________
When I am done here I think I will go create something from metal.

http://ifp.uni-muenster.de/~sohl/course/neptunians.html

If you can't read German, it's the link entitled 'spektrale Charakteristik.'



As for icy moons having iron cores, let's use Callisto as an example. We know from the Galileo probe that it has a small magnetic field induced by the interaction between salts disolved in a worldwide sub-surface ocean interacting with Jupiter's gargantuan magnetic field. Currently accepted theories hold that its density is around 1.86 grams per cubic centimeter. If your theory is correct and Europa is 50% more dense than we think thanks to an iron core, shouldn't that be contributing to its magnetic field? Remember, we're talking a relatively small moon that's spent some four billion years orbiting very close to a ridiculously powerful magnet. Seems like that should have produced a measurable effect by now.

Thanks Evan! They must be comparing Op Nav every other index, so somebody knows if what I am saying holds water. Anyone?

{{???}}
That was, ah, the point of the thread: I took a causal relationship hypothesis I developed to explain MOND, Tully-Fisher and supernova expansion, and used it to calculate the masses of the planets, and this is what I came up with:

Panet Textbook Mass (kg) 'Jerry Mass' % change
Mercury 3.30x10^23 2.75x10^23g -20%
Venus 4.87x10^24 4.14x10^23g -17%
Mars 6.42x10^23 7.3x10^23 14%
Jupiter 1.90*10^27 7.07*10^27g 233%
Saturn 5.68*10^26 3.54*10^27g 600%
Uranus 8.68x10^25 3.94*10^26g 250%
Neptune 1.04*10^26 4.74*10^26 450%
Pluto 1.3*10^22 3.25*10^22 250%

The number for Mars is interesting, because 2/3s of all Mars missions have been failures. The mission where 'Air Brakes' have been used to settle satellites into orbits have been "nailbiting", the parachutes have deployed late, and the landings have been hard.

The Saturn and Jupiter densities are little more than educated guesses, because I am extrapolating twice: Once from the Sun to the Moons, and then again to the planet.

If Titan actually has a mass 3 times greater than is expected, this should become obvious from the data gathered before the launch of Huygens. Is there a detailed summary of the navigational data anywhere?

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Ask JPL, they have it. Op-Nav has been used ever since there have been cameras on spacecraft. They use Op-Nav simply because there are no analytical solutions to the three (or more) body problem. They have very good numerical solutions but they can diverge unexpectedly in complex situations. This is strictly a mathematical problem and has nothing to do with any variations in mass or density. This especially applies when approaching "L" points.

Numbers like those you have posted are flat out impossible. What you propose isn't in any way related to effects on the Pioneers that are in the 10^-8 range. If the numbers you propose were true we wouldn't be debating this because the solar system wouldn't exist.

__________________
When I am done here I think I will go create something from metal.

Iapetus is not a planet.
Also, on what were previous estimates based?

Titan seems geologically active: how do you interpret this as error in estimating its mass?

Why cosmic events?
Why not something less exotic?
How can you be so sure, before a new experiment has been carried out?

So, rockets do not work.
By the way, where is the evidence that the equivalence is limited?

Why?
Are you saying the ions propel the "elevator" by being pulled out by gravity?
If this is the case, then you have no idea how a rocket works.

Once the ions are separated from the "elevator", it does not matter what they do. It does not affect the momentum transferred to the "elevator".

Why would it radiate?

Why?
If you have fuel, you can still be propelled.
Conservation of momentum does not require the presence of a gravitational field.

The idea of a field acting locally on an object comes from classical electrodynamics, well before Einstein.

Also, why do say that "the causality assigned by Einstein is just plain wrong"?

Since I am not an expert in astrophysics, I would appreciate if you gave references to proper peer-reviewed papers.

Again, you clearly have not studied QM.
The theory that explains one class of superconductors, does not apply to another class of superconductors: this is not exactly earth-shattering.
That superconductivity can be explained at all is an important achievement (worthy of a Nobel prize).

Also, lasers and masers are based on Einstein's discussion of absorption and emission processes, well before lasers and masers were actually made.

(I have no idea about compounds of noble gases.)

But these examples still do not support your statement that "Quantum mechanics have been pretty much tailored to match observations" .

How does it change the fact that the theory's predictions match experimental results.

What forces?

Can you back this up?

Do you subscriibe to the idea that if a theory does not explain everything perfectly from its very beginning, we should just abandon it as useless?

And what evidence do you have?

As I said, whether they make sense to you or to me, it does not matter.

So, you do not even know the experimental setup.
The table was setup so that all mirror were at the same level.
That means the mirrors were all at the same gravitational potential: there was no gravitational gradient between the mirrors, hence no EM wave entering in an "area of increasing field strength".

On what is this assumption based?

Wrong!
The waves go back and forth. That means that if there is a charging effect, then it is oscillating.
Also, why don't we see discharges or people eletrocuted?

Can you explain how this "mechanism" has anything to do with the orientation of the magnetic field?

But, didn't you say above that it has to do with water waves on beaches made of piezo-electric sand?

So, can you explain Io's magnetosphere?

Why don't we oberve complicated patterns in the magnetic field, which depend on the coast-line?

Why?

"Mass colliding with gravitational fields"?

If G varies on panetary scale, what happens to the orbit of the Moon?

This does not change the fact that you are cherry-picking.

My point was, that when GR came along, it was clear the Newtonian gravity was not accurate enough.

Prove the failures.
("It doesn't make sense to me" is not a proof!)

Have you any evidence that the Theoriy of General Relativity is wrong?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Thanks again, for the information – I’m spending a lot of time in the JPL pages.
Let's walk through the numbers and see:

I am saying that ‘G’ constant is not a constant, but a log function of distance from the sun, so if we look at the gravitational effect of the planets on our probes and do not take this into account, we will underestimate the masses and densities of the distant planet systems.

If we know the densities of two bodies, and the gravitational force associated with one of them , we can calculate the g force on the other body. The acceleration of gravity on the surface of the earth is 9.7536 m/s^2 To compare this with other moons and planets, I calculated what the densities of the other planets and moons would be in earth orbit. This gives us a g-force ration between what we should expect , and what we measure. We can then use this to calculate the average acceleration experienced by the probe between the two planets:

If I a predicting the average density of the moons of Jupiter should be 4.934g/cc and the textbook average is 2.8g/cc, then that puts the acceleration of gravity in the vicinity of Jupiter at (2.8/4.934)*9.7536=5.76 m/s^2, and at Neptune.

The textbook puts the density of Neptune at 1.64g/cc, but I have it at 5.77g/cc again (1.64/5.77) *9.7536m/s^2 = 2.77 m/s^2.


The distance from the orbit of Jupiter to the orbit of Neptune is 3718 x10^6 meters, so subtracting the difference between the acceleration in the Jupiter's orbit, and the acceleration in Neptune's orbit (2.77-5.76)= -2.99 m/s^2, dividing by the distance between the two planets (3718*10^6) m
= - 8.04x10^-10m/s^2. The acceleration anomaly of the Pioneer Probes is ~-8.25x10^-10 m/s^2
If you run the numbers between Jupiter and Uranus with my values for the densities, the acceleration is -11.9*10^-10
These are just ball park numbers, but they are within a factor of 0.5 of the measured and as yet to be explained acceleration of the Pioneer probes.

If you mean by this it could not have formed from an accretion disk I agree, but look at the moons of Jupiter: Io, Ganymede, Europia, they do not seem to have the same history at all. [/quote]

Galileo completely destroyed the model of the solar system prior to our intense visit to Jupiter. We thought the planet was loaded with methane and Ice, it has the same atmosphere, and in the same proportions of hydrogen and helium as the sun.
Saturns moons likewise seem to have very different histories.
Speaking of Jupiter – I went back and read the captains log of Galileo and look what I found:

I could go on, but the pattern is obvious: Every time Galileo made a close pass to a moon, it clammed up in safe mode. Why? Because the moons are much more massive than we predicted, based upon the deflection of our probes from a solar orbit. But once Galileo entered the increasing strength of the moon’s own gravity, the probe starts to accelerate much more than expected. The probe gets worried and shuts down.

Later the probe emerges, dusts itself off, and we check our the gyroscopes and they seem healthy. Again and again. Is anybody at NASA doing anything other than counting beans? Because this is exactly the type of behavior the field-limited gravity I have describe would cause.

And the Galileo probe into Jupiter’s atmosphere? It fell like a rock. That is just what is going to happen with Huygen, and just like the parachute anomalies of Mars and Jupiter, you will likely hear about Huygen, assuming it survives entry into a moon three times as massive as we think it is, Huygen will also get caught in a sudden down draft. Is anybody at NASA paying attention? Why didn't anybody tell me all this stuff was out there?

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Jerry: If Jupiter's moons were massive enough to cause Galileo to reboot in safe mode, they should also have been massive enough to alter its trajectory. Again, do you have any documented, unexpected course corrections caused by flybys of the Jovian moons? Or did Galileo remain in its expected orbit?

No. But it can be just as wrong to cling to a theory when our observational data base no longer agree with predictions.
[quote="papageno"]So, you do not even know the experimental setup.
The table was setup so that all mirror were at the same level.
That means the mirrors were all at the same gravitational potential: there was no gravitational gradient between the mirrors, hence no EM wave entering in an "area of increasing field strength".[quote]I am saying the light was slowed equally in both directions because the gravitational field strenght in both directions was the same. The interpretation of the results is the same as with GR, but I am saying light is slowed in a gravitational field, rather than that space and time contract.

Simplification. Moving sand generates electricity. Haven't you ever been in a good sandstorm, and seen the lightening flashing?

Last time I checked, the earth rotates in one direction only, and the Sun and moon should push the net average current in one direction. The result is a reasonably stable magnetic field running North and South.

Beaches tend to be well grounded. However, you can generate a hell of a lot of electricity with a grit blasting hose!

Magnetic fields are perpendicular to current flow: Current flows in the direction of the waves.

piezo electric sand is one of many ways gravitational energy is converted to electricity - This is run of the mill physics. Yes, the molten iron cores MIGHT also be a factor. (Molten Iron is well beyond the curie point.) Liquid + tide = magnetism

Yes, a liquid-coated planet with one hell of a tidal force.

[quote="papageno"]
Why don't we oberve complicated patterns in the magnetic field, which depend on the coast-line?[quote]As I said, many things contribute, but the earth's magnetic field is roughly perpendicular to the average of all the coastlines, No?

Remember, I have put a limit on the amount of kinetic energy anything can have that is proportional to the mass of the system. In a supernova explosion, a big chunk of mass is converted to inertial energy. Evidence?
There is no explaination in GR based cosmology for the energy curves of cosmic rays.
A property of matter, based upon observations of the rings that form after a supernova exposion, and emit gamma rays every time more matter enters the ring.

Like I posted before, the variation in the orbit of the moon would be less than 0.001% Even so, this would help stablize the Earth-facing side of the moon- if not for this force, think about it, without a liquid core, why would the moon stablize facing the Earth all the time? How was all the rotational energy lost?

Yes. The fact cosmologist cannot put together a working model that does not require a Big Band on one end, "Dark Energy" on the other, and "inflation", "Dark Matter" "Vacuum energy" "Expanding Space" and "Population III stars" in between. There is no evidence any of these things exist, the model just does not work without them. This is bad.

IF YOU READ MY POST ON JUPITER, THAT’S ALL THE CHERRIES, THERE ARE NO MORE, AND THEY ALL HAVE HOLES IN THEIR PARACHUTES: EVERY MISSION HAS EXIBITED THE TYPE OF FLAWS OR ANOMALIES PREDICTED BY THIS SCENARIO.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Yes, and there have been many, many trajectory corrections - but it is maddening that they do not give enough detail as how badly they missed - or if they miss, if they did they overshoot or undershoot? Clearly, someone with hands on the Cassini navigational data who understands what I am saying conceptually would know in a heartbeat if any of this holds water.

This is what I am asking for: The references I need to go in and recalculated what happened or is happening, on the bases of field-limited gravimetric effects. A lot of coffee, and a staff of about fifty navigators, programmers, and a larger monitor might help a little, too please.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Jerry, I have to agree with Papageno on this one. Your theory that the Earth's magnetic field is generated on its surface is, frankly, preposterous. For starters, where is all this electricity coming from? The Earth's magnetic field strength ranges from about .3 Gauss to .6 Gauss. That will require massive amounts of current to generate. If the crust is as conductive as you say, all that electricity should be staying in the crust and should be producing measureable effects. Why, for instance, do we never observe electricity arcing from the ground to cars' hubcaps?

Moreover, we know that the Earth's magnetic field periodically changes its orientation. According to your theory, the orientation is based primarily on the Earth's rotation and the influence of the Sun and Moon. The problem is, none of those have reversed direction. That would seem to imply that they've been pushing this current in the same basic direction since day 1 and, by extension, that the Earth's magnetic field shouldn't be changing its orientation. On the other hand, this phenomenon can be explained by the existing model.

If, as you say, tides affect the Earth's magnetic field this, again, should be measurable. That is, the Earth's field should be strongest when the Earth is subject to the strongest tidal forces, new and full Moon. On the other hand, it should be weakest at first and last quarter. Has this been observed?

If, as you say, sand has a greater influence on Earth's magnetic field than the Earth's core, this too should be measurable. It seems like, for instance, the magnetic field should be stronger around the Sahara (more sand -> more current -> more magnetism) than it is in around the permafrost of northern Canada. This link shows the opposite: the field is weaker over the Sahara than it is over Canada. Moreover, this should hold true for any other sand-rich region. There doesn't seem to be any evidence to support this. On the other hand, the data is consistent with the dynamo model.

While I'll agree that dark energy, dark matter, inflation, and the Big Bang aren't as well-understood as they should be, you're wrong to discount vacuum energy. This has been well documented by quantum physicists and particle physicists. The Casimir effect proves that it is real and there's no reason not to think that it doesn't take place throughout the universe.

One more thing: we know the Earth is electrically neutral. Just how long are these charges lasting if the resulting current is powerful enough to create a .6 Gauss magnetic field? Where is this current going? Is enough gravitational energy being lost from somewhere to replenish it? Does this, for instance, produce a measurable effect on the Moon's orbit?

think about it, without a liquid core, why would the moon stablize facing the Earth all the time? How was all the rotational energy lost?

Well that's pretty obvious Jerry: Conservaton of angular momentum.

Here's a great site:

http://instruct.tri-c.edu/fgram/web/AngMom.htm

"By tugging on the tides, the Moon is decreasing the w of the Earth. Conservation of angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system says that the Moon must gain angular momentum. It also gains energy. (Earth rotates in a day, and it takes almost a month for the Moon to go around the Earth, so the tidal bulge on the Moon side is always leading the Moon.) The gain of energy is potential; it is moving farther away and slowing down, so it loses a little kinetic energy, but the net change is an increase of energy of the Moon. This process will continue until the Earth's spin w is equal to the Moon's orbit w , or until the Sun becomes a red giant and vaporizes Earth and Moon, billions of years from now."

So the torque produced by the tidal action of the Earth-Moon system is slowly acting in a way that will cause the net torque on the system to equal 0 (a loooooooong way off) and angular momentum will be constant.

As for Galileo? It was most likely radiation as it was indeed known for most of Io's flybys. But most of the closer moons are bathed in radiation and it wasn't playing well with Galileo's electronic systems, hardened or not.

__________________
"The bread's hollowed out --- the veggies go on forever --- and --- oh my God! --- it's full of meat!" - Maksutov

There is plenty of evidence in support of the theories we "cling" to.
We did not reject classical mechanics, but we understand its limitations.

So, your "slowing of electromagnetic wave speed as the wave enters an area of increasing field strength" has actually nothing to do with the experiment.
Also, how would your "I am saying light is slowed in a gravitational field" explain the result of that experiment?
Not to mention, that result does not need GR to be explained (SR is enough).

I see.
You are using the term "piezo-electric" with a different meaning from any other scientist and engineer on the planet.
Can you explain what exactly you mean with "piezo-electric" (since the usual meaning has nothing to do friction)?

Now we see that you use the term "direct current" (DC) with a different meaning from any other scientist and engineer on the planet.
Tidal waves are periodic. Would mind explaining the meaning of "direct current" as you use it?


That's why we have not seen people on beaches electrocuted, right?
If the beaches are so well grounded, where does the current to produce our magnetosphere, come from?

Waves go back and forth and tidal waves are periodic. Have you ever been to the sea?
How do you get a magnetic field like the Earth's one, with a current produced by waves on beaches?

"Run of the mill physics" that you clearly do not understand.
Molten iron cores do not produce magnetic field via ferromagnetism.

I see, you cannot.
Where are the "piezo-electric" sand beaches on Io?


No.
Get a globe and study some geography.


So, when asked for evidence, you answer "GR can't explain it!"

So, what makes your interpretation of the observation the correct one?


Not observed after more than two thousand years of recorded observations.
How come we can predict eclipses decades in advance?


What makes you think that the angular momentum was not transferred to the liquid core of the Earth?
Also, what makes you think that angular momentum was lost?


So you do subscribe to the notion that if a theory does not explain everything perfectly from its very beginning, we should just abandon it as useless?
Have you actual evidence that contradicts GR?

First, show the evidence.
Second, explain why this is not "observed" anywhere else (like satellites and comets).

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)