Jerry said:


Jerry,

You certainly don't seem to understand how spacecraft work. I'm going to assume that the highlighting and italicizing in all those quotes about Galileo are your emphasis. Why the fixation on the word "anomaly"?

Definition of anomaly: A change or deviation from what is considered typical.

An anomaly does NOT imply an unexplained event. It simply means that something is operating outside of design parameters for some reason. In the case of the computer memory being affected by the radiation around Jupiter, that is to be and was expected. It's called a "single event upset" and happens when an energetic particle flips a bit in a memory cell. This causes a checksum error and causes the computer to go into safe mode so it can self test.

The same problem was responsible for the gyroscope anomalies. This is not something mysterious and is a problem faced by all spacecraft. It is well understood and is the reason that spacecraft are still using 486 CPUs in their computers. Modern CPUs such as the P4 have such small feature sizes that they are easily upset by particle events and so are useless in deep space.

It's not feasible to shield the electronics. A small amount of shielding only makes the problem worse because of the secondaries it generates and enough shielding weighs far too much.

There isn't any connection between how a gyroscope functions and gravity. A variation in the gravitational field will not alter the functioning of a gyroscope. Current gyroscopes do not have any moving parts at all and are implemented on silicon chips.

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

There is a relationship between gyroscope active and inertia, and if the inertial field, which I have been writing about, actually exists, the gyros would not behave as anticipated, the moment of inertial would be thrown off, and the probe was designed to go into a protective state if the moment of inertia seemed to indicate it had been struck, or if the gyros showed out of tolerance gimble.

I agree the Jupiter Galileo gyro results alone is not compelling, but when you add in the fact the probe launched fell like a rock, the landings on Mars have all been harder than expected, the doppler anomaly in the pass by Pheobe, the rotational period of saturn, the Earth-like geography on a moon that can't be made out of anything more dense than water, this evidence all piles up.

__________________
jwj

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

Papageno,
There is a great deal of confusion between our posts: I am trying to introduce fundamentally new physics in order to explain unexplained phenomena. I often try to simply both my models and standard physics. When you state this means I do not understand basic principles, you demean and confuse this process. Otherwise your attention to detail is very helpful. I will try to be clearer about what I am representing.

For example, I was explaining how an elevator-rocket would behave in the context of new physics, not the current model.

You wanted to know how tides could be converted into electromagnetic forces, and I used a simple model: It is very clear there is a net tidal force opposite the direction the earth is spinning, and if a fraction of this tidal energy is converted to an electromagnetic force, this could conceptually set up a standing “DC” magnetic field nearly perpendicular to rotating plane of the planet.

Because in the 1930's the static buildup in cars was shocking toll both operators every time they were handed coins, and the constant static arcing between the cars axials and the ground were causing havoc with newly introduced car radios.

They started filling the tires with carbon black and the problem went away. The potential for developing static charges is enormous. I did not say the current stayed in the crust - Only that I think a large portion of the emf is generated in liquid surfaces.



We know the gravity of the Sun and the Moon cause pressure and motion on the earth. We know pressure and motion can be converted to electricity, this is not debatable. I am simply stating I think there is enough of this electromechanical transfer involved to be a major contributor to the Earth’s magnetic field, and the same is true of other planets and other moons. I can further state that I think a more fundamental mechanism is involved, and this is why earthquakes cause disturbances in the ionosphere.

The effect is real, the causality assigned may not be.

I cannot ‘prove’ the origin and mechanisms of cosmic rays are not currently well understood. There is much debate in this area and a lot of proposals on the table, including mine. I think it is understood it is not possible at this time to explain the energy we see in cosmic rays with any confidence using conventional physics.

On other threads I have tried to explain how I think Einstein did not correctly interpret the Michelson-Morley result. I have stated that if they would have repeated the experiment with one plane of the apparatus facing straight down, they would have recorded a very small but detectable difference in the speed of light in the direction toward the center of the earth.

Einstein interpreted this variance as the effect of gravity on space and time: I contend it is the effect of gravity on the speed of light: Light moving toward the center of mass is slowed down and blueshifted (conserving energy) in this process, the same way light moving away from a dense object increases in speed with distance from the mass, and ends up very slightly redshifted. If this is true, there is very little distinction between objects with mass, and energy without mass. But the distinction is this: Movement of an object with mass can only occur within a massive framework. The mass framework of our Solar System diminishes as a log/log function with increase distance from the sun, but also from each planet.

This is why the Pioneer probes are “accelerating” toward the sun: They are moving away from the primary sources of the gravitational framework, and their motion cannot be sustained. If they were photons, they would redshift slightly and keep moving. Since they have mass, they radiate photons and slow down. This trend will continue into the Oort zone, where they will eventually head back toward the Sun.

This is correct, but not necessarily right. I am telling you on a cosmic scale, GR breaks down into epicycles. New set of parameters are necessary every time we make a new set of observations.

The piezo-electric effect is a measurable charge and voltage induced by putting pressure on certain types of crystals, usually silicates. Likewise applying a voltage to a crystal if will move, and if the voltage is applied at the resonant frequency of the crystal, it will vibrate. Since no other electric field effects are involved in this motion, in my opinion, it is reasonable to assign this motion to an interaction with the gravitational tensors of the crystals.

Can you explain why friction and pressure cause electrical imbalances? Specifically why earthquakes disturb the ionosphere? Why you can rub electrons off of insulating materials so easily? Why Static friction is about double dynamic friction?

[quote="Jerry"]
Ground Loop Current.

Check out my post about Jupiter. I am not going to plow through the thousands of pages I had to read to find a similar trend on Mars, Saturn and other missions.

I’m sorry my research is not as well documented as it should be. I could not have made any reasonable progress if I had taken the time necessary to annotate every reference I have read since I started on this quest ~ Hundreds of thousands of pages ago – I did not know which facts were germane and which were not. I realize it is unlikely I will get any credit for the discovery, but I think I have found a closer approximation to the truth.

When Wild 2 lands in January of 2006, it will be the first evidence we have on whether or not we have correctly predicted the composition of comets, based upon their orbits. If Wild 2 collected bits of Iron and Nickel disproportionate to their predicted masses, I have confirmation. Jupiter has the same concentrations of helium and hydrogen as the Sun, this means the current accretion theory is highly suspect, as is the GR explanation for the energy produced by the sun. (Jupiter should have a higher percentage of hydrogen.) The solar ratios of helium 3 and helium 4 are also wrong for a primarily fusion reaction. Something fundamental is flawed.

__________________
jwj

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

It would make no difference (your "inertial field"). A rotating mass orientation sensing gyro would still have mass and would still function as expected. Even a change in the mass of the gyro wouldn't change anything. They are driven by servomotors to a constant rpm and changing the mass or inertia or momentum wouldn't affect that other than a possible slowly varying extremely tiny change in drive current. The sensors that detect gyro rotor position couldn't care less about the moment of inertia of the gyro. Solid state gyros also would not be affected.

The problem with the gyros is known to be radiation affecting the circuitry.


What is that supposed to mean? Gravity has nothing to do with it.

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

From your posts, you do not seem to know the "conventional" explanation. This is the problem.

Your explanation seems to be inconsistent.
If the inertial mass (both for the ions and the rocket) adjusts itself, why would the motion of the rocket change?
Also you did not seem to know how a rocket actually works, nor have you shown how it "works" in your model.

You have periodic tidal waves that produce a nearly static magnetic field: how does this happen?

You statements are worthless if you cannot back them up.
Shows us some quantitative estimates and explain why these electric currents are not observed.

You think?
Based on what?

What makes you think that this is not predicted by General Relativity?
(By the way, gravitational red-shift was measured over the height of a building, and the result agreed with GR.)

The result of Michelson-Morley's experiment is correctly interpreted by the theories of Relativity, once it is put into context with other experiments.


And E = mc^2 means exactly this.
Photons, EM fields carry momentum, even if there is no (material) mass.
They have inertial mass because there is energy.

You seem to be confused by the idea of frame of reference.
How do you define a frame of reference?


What makes you think that the effect on photons is any different form the "conventional" gravity acting on the probes?


In what sense "not necessarily right"?


You do not need to hit a resonance to have a deformation of the crystal.


The crystal is not moving, it is deforming.
And it is deforming because the distance between the atoms change.
And this distance changes because the bonding, which is due to electric interaction, is affected by externally applied elctric fields.
What evidence do you have to interpret piezo-electric effects in terms of gravity?


Friction and pressure have different effects.
Pressure in piezo-electric crystals results in a voltage, because the pressure deforms the crystal and changes the distance between positive and negative charges.
About friction I am not entirely sure, but it should be basically like "rubbing off" electrons from atoms. And the resulting charge imbalance is not easily neutralized because the material is not conducting.


I do not know about earthquakes.
And you can "rub off" electrons from insulating materials because they are not strongly bound to the atoms.

Friction is not my field.
From what I read, it appears that in the case of static friction at least, there are weak chemical bonds forming between the two materials. But they are still working on it.


How come we never measured such current?

They never considered ferromagnetism as mechanism for the planetary magnetic field.
It is considered more like a dynamo effect.
The problem is technical: we can get people or probes down to the core to observe directly what is going on.
But, in order to reject the current theories, you need to provide something better than your "tidal waves on piezo-electric beaches" (beaches which are not piezoelectric in the "conventional" sense).


Which has never been observed.


Why are you talking about the other planets.
You have a "theory" for the magnetic field of the Earth, so you should provide experimental evidence for the Earth.
So, where is your experimental evidence?


You want me to do your research?
You are claiming that the current theories cannot provide a proper explanantion.
On what is your claim based?


That does not answer the question.


Again, how come we can predict lunar eclipses decades in advance?


Sorry, I do not see any explanation.
Can you elaborate?


SO, you do not have actual evidence that contradicts GR.

So you limit yourself to state, instead of providing actual evidence or references.

But you do not provide envidence or references to support this " closer approximation to the truth" .
Why should we take you seriously?

At least provide some proper references.

__________________
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)

The problem with this answer is that it does not explain why the failures were a periodic function of closest approach: why did the probe clam up every time it came into 'closest approach' with both Io and Europia? The electromagnetic disturbance level was high near Io, but not Europia.

Reading through the litany of Galileo events, NASA offered at least three seemingly unrelated reasons the probe clammed up during closest approach. Since I do not know the exact set of diagnostics used by NASA, I can only speculate, but there are several options.

This is true, if you are using conventional physics, but I am not. Near the earth, the behavior of a gyroscope is highly predictable because we never see the effect of changing inertia capacity of a spinning system – we cannot significantly alter the inertial capacity this close to the Sun. But near Saturn, so far from the dominating inertial effects of the Sun, Inertial varience is much greater relative to the mass of the system.

On closest approach to the moons, the inertial capacity of the system changes significantly, and this is as if the mass of each atom increases slightly. As a result, the moment of inertia of the gyroscopes spinning at angles neither perpendicular nor tangent to the plane of the moon suffer differential inertia effects.

I think gravitationally transferred energy can be either directly or indirectly coupled to electromagnetic tensors. This is not a critical point in our discussion of the Huygen mission, but it does explain such things as earthquakes causing ionosphere disturbances, turbulence, gamma rays and other high-energy cosmic events. Of course this is highly speculative, and should be discussed on ATM Threads. I will open one, in a couple days and address this and the other issues contested by Papageno - I can't keep up with him :-k

Meanwhile, watch, enjoy, and wait: What is the fate of Huygen?.

__________________
jwj

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

Jerry, this is total bafflegab. It has no basis in reality or science. You have not the slightest basis for this supposition or any experimental evidence to support your claims. It is not consistent with observed results and there is no reason to think that the universe works in the way you suggest.

To counter your suppositions only requires that a single part of your house of cards be invalidated. It then falls down. Regardless of how a gyroscope is oriented, regardless of the mass of the rotating component, regardless of the rpms of that component, regardless of the method used to sense the position of the rotating component and regardless of the actual construction of the gyroscope it will not be affected in any way by a change of an "inertial field" or the amount of gravity present or any other force.

Unless the gyroscope is subject to a distance varying field of immense proportions such as found near the Swarchchild radius of a quantum black hole there simply is no effect that can influence the spinning of a rotating mass in a differential manner that would change how a gyroscope operates, regardless of orientation.

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

Both of these incidents occurred AFTER NASA had found and isolated the ‘chip’ that was causing the 'gyroscope error'. In the February 1998 incident, the rotating portion of Galileo was a defacto gyro, and the “turn was taking too long to complete.” This error mode is certainly consistent with a change in the inertial moment of the system, as I have hypothesized.

A variance in Doppler shift beyond the error bars calculated by the radio and navigation gurus? Come on! These guys know the laws of physics, and they use extremely conservative error bars.

This anomaly is consistent with the unexplained Doppler events in the initial encounter of Cassini with Pheobe, and the six minute shift in the rotation of Saturn. The radio dudes are much better at keeping track of frequencies that the record suggests, and each of these events is consistent with unexplained accelerations.

If I stick a chunk of mud on one side of a gyroscope, it will not behave very well. Conventional physics does not allow variations in inertia – but I am saying inertia is not a function of the mass in motion, but of the mass of the system. If I make a significant change in the mass of the system near the gyroscope, it is just like sticking mud on one side...but only if the gyroscope is not relatively close to a massive object.

I don’t know the size, mass distribution, composition, rotational velocity, magnetic shielding etc, etc, of the gyroscopes used in Galileo, so you may be correct that a significant error could not be introduced into the gyroscope stability via the differential I am suggesting. But the differential effects I am predicting should be enough to effect the stability of the spin stabilized portion of the Galileo probe, and since shutdown occurred even when the gyro’s were not running, I can be wrong about the magnitude of error introduced into the gyroscopes, but still right about the root cause of these failures, which may not have been a crazy sequence of events caused by a funky gyroscope, a chip, a radiation storm, a 'slow turn' a software glitch, a pair of hardware glitches, a piece of junk, or a metric/Texan conversion error.

__________________
jwj

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

So you are clueless. No one stuck a chunk of mud on the gyro. The simple explanation is most likely the correct one. Radiation affected the circuits that control the gyros. This is expected but the effect is not predictable. ****e happens.

Hmmm.. auto censor going on here...

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

Then why do we have trouble all the time with Hubble's gyros or Mir or the ISS had/have trouble with theirs all the time? Sometimes even I've trouble with gyros, usually after I ate too much at the Greek restaurant.

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

If G depended on distance, the force of gravity would not follow an inverse square law anymore.
So, the orbits of planets, comets, and probes would no longer be elliptical (there would be no such thing as Kepler's laws).

Unless you assume that the masses "re-adjust" themselves so that the force of gravity is exactly an inverse square law.
But in this case, there would not be any anomaly in the orbits of the probes.

Unless you assume that G depends only on the distance from the Sun and the masses of the other objects "re-adjust" themselves to compensate.
But in this case, you have to justify why the Sun is so special. Why doesn't G depend on the distance from other massive objects, such as Jupiter?

__________________
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)

The gyros on the hubble that are a constant source of trouble are not position sensing gyros. They are momentum flywheels used to position and orient the telescope. They are much larger and eventually spin up to very high rpms which is hard on the bearings. Periodically they must be de-spun which requires the use of precious hydrazine thruster fuel. It is a tradeoff between gyro lifetime and fuel use.

Position sensing gyros are tiny and operate at a fixed rpm. They may have magnetic bearings or air bearings and will last essentially forever. Currently rotating mass gyros are a thing of the past. Gyros on a chip have replaced these. One may be seen here.

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

If you carefully read my posts on the first page of this thread, this is just what I said: The relationship of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn with their host planet follow the same law.

This is why I cannot make good estimates for the masses of these planets: I know the mass of the moons of these planets was instrumental in determining the mass of the system. I do not know exactly how these masses were determined, and my guestimates for Jupiter and Saturn may be off as much as 100%.

The same is also true of Uranus and Neptune, but to a lesser extent.

No, you are not listening. I said two things: You may be right, you are probably right: The effect on the gyros may be too small to cause a noticeable error. I also said that the way Galileo is configured, with part of the probe spin stabilizing, and part of the probe stationary, the ship itself is acts as a gyroscope, and this very large gyroscope is much more sensitive to slight changes in inertial. When the probe neared the planet, the moment of inertia was greater than expected, the probe accelerated, but when the “rotation was too slow”, the sensors picked up on this and retired into safe mode.

Galileo went into safe mode while in close proximity to Jupiter’s moons even when the Gyros were switched offline, so it could not have been a gyro control or monitor that caused the 'safing' every time.

The late deployment of all the Martian parachutes could not have been due to the same chip failure, and neither could the Jupiter probe falling like a rock. It is not unreasonable to assume these are all products of the same physical property of matter that is not understood. The same can be said of the Doppler measurements, the heat generated during air-braking, and the hard Mars landings.

This argument is almost academic, because as near as I can tell, there is nothing anyone can do about the fate of the Huygen’s probe. What makes it less than academic is even if the probe reacts the why I am predicting (Falls much to fast, assuming it survives atmospheric entry), other explanations will surface. I need to be able to step forward and say many of these events are interelated, and point to the same causality: We do not understand inertial and gravametric effects.

The other reason it is not academic is you could convince me I am wrong, and I could withdraw the prediction before December 25th. I am satisfied the events surrounding the Galileo mission are consistent with the mass of Jupiter being much greater than we think it is. I also believe our experience with Mars is consistent with a planet that is 14% more massive than we think it is – every time the margin of error has been compromised on Mars missions, the result has been a failure.

My prediction is that Titan is at least 2.25 times more dense, 2.25 times more massive than the Newtonian calculations. If we are fortunate, we should see surface features that are consistent with the materials we find on Earth and Mars - a lot of Earth-like constituents: Aluminum, Silicates, Iron, copper, nickel, magnesium - Materials that make Titan too heavy to have a density of only 1.88. The spectroscopic data ESA and NASA have in-hand right now should contain some of this evidence. Do they understand what they are looking at?

__________________
jwj

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

The last thing anyone else expected was a ferrous coating on Pheobe. Where could it have come from? The Kuiper belt and Oort Cloud are expected to be dominated by icy things that turn into comets.

This comes as no surprise if Pheobe actually has a density of ~>4g/cc, and iron is as common in the outer solar system as it is within the inner solar system.

I don't think the iron clearly detected on the surface of Pheobe is just a thin shell - I think Phoebe looks so much like an astroid because it is made of the same stuff as the astroids, and it picked up a bit of ice and stuff from the rings and/or atmosphere of Saturn when it was first captured.

__________________
jwj

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

Hmmm. I must be missing something here. I went to the image you linked to and saw a couple of "spots" where iron was detected. I certainly wouldn't characterize it as a "coating".

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

Much less a "shell".

At any rate it is a non-event. There is iron everywhere.

here

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

Agreed. Based on what R.A.F. and Evan are saying it sounds more like Phoebe is a comet-like object that's had a few asteroids run into it and swept up some dust in its travels.

Yes, what you are saying is reasonable, if Pheobe spent some time in close proximity to the inner planets. Nowhere in the planetary literature will you find any suggestion of Iron being a principle ingredient beyond the orbit of Jupiter.

The 'Layer of Dark material' they are talking about is ~300 - 1200 meters thick. To be able to detect ferrous iron using Cassini's VIRM with certainty means at the very least, a large part of this crust is iron rich, and the only reason for assuming the mass below the crust is ice is that is about all it could be and still yield a density of less than two.

__________________
jwj

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

And why does that statement not apply to detecting anything else with certainty, the "anything else" being far more abundant than iron in the spectrograph taken with the VIMS (Cassini doesn't have a "VIRM", whatever that is )? The fact that some signatures for iron were found in no way implies the "crust" is iron rich. There is no logical reason to infer that.

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

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.

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

Lunatik and I are looking at the same data and assigning a prediction that is contrary to Newtonian or Einsteinian physics to different causalities: Even though I calculated the effect as if it were gravametric, this is a simplification.

What I am really saying is what we call 'momentum' is a function of the total mass of the system, not just the mass of the object in motion. Since I think gravity and electromagnetic forces are identical on a very fundamental level, it is correct to categorize motion as an actual inbalance, whether the motion is 'constant' or accelerating.

If a mass is electromagnetically isolated, it has no definable motion. A mass near the edge of a system, such as at the edge of the galaxy or even the edge of the solar system, the amount of momentum a mass can "contain" is limited by the gravitational/electromagnetic field around it. This is a totally non-Newtonian concept, but I think it is a good fit to cosmic observations. I have found a couple of similar concepts in the literature, but not any predictions of the type of behavior I am expecting as Huygen descends to Titon. It is going to be a very interesting three weeks

__________________
jwj

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

The only thing I find interesing is this...

After the Huygens probe successfully completes its mission, how in the world are you going to be able to admit that you were wrong.

Can anyone tell me why, when the VIMS appears to show with some confidence there are large exposed areas of 'ferrous iron' the principle investigators did not even mention this fact in statements and interviews?

I'm not screaming conspiracy, I think we are being patronized: Why, if iron is 'common and everywhere', and we can clearly detect it, why do they go on about the CO2 and not even mention the iron? What am i missing?

They stated Pheobe is definitely not an astroid, because of the presence of CO2. That does't make any sense: You bring Pheobe into the asteriod belt and all of the CO2 wiill vaporize off in a heartbeat. CO2 on the surface could easily mean Pheobe passed through an atmosphere rich in CO2, or all astroids could have started like Phoebe, rich in CO2 and water, but it all sublimed off when they were captured closer to the Sun. Stating that the presence of CO2 means that Pheobe does not assay like an asteroid is absurd. It sure as hell looks like an asteriod, and the detection of large tracts of 'ferrous iron' is consistent with an asteroid.

I think that they haven't mentioned the iron on Phoebe because iron is a stunning, almost unbelieveable development. It infruriates me that they say they don't know how to interprete what they are seeing, but they don't share the evidence at hand, explaining what the instruments are detecting, and why it is a mystery.

If it is a mystery, why can't they share the clues? Why not let the whole world work on the secrets?

__________________
jwj

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

Space.com's Huygens latest: Splash, Thud, or Whimper?
When I see lines like this (fair use), I get nervous:

"Due to Titan’s low gravity, its atmosphere is ten times deeper than Earth’s – the outer limits are at 600 km above Titan’s surface!" :-?

This 'low gravity's' deeper atmosphere is a mystery, and would only make sense if Newton's G at Saturn's orbital region is greater than here, since 'molecular bonding' would be greater, so atmosphere is thicker and 'heavier' than low gravity would account for. However, this means our mass estimate for Titan would be off, since this was calculated with a constant Newton's G orbital behavior. So will it be a Splash, or a Thud? Very much interested to see what happens on January 14th. My guess is that if G is greater, Huygens's greater inertial mass will be 'pulled' down faster than predicted, so that it could be a Bang! 8)

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

The atmosphere is DEEPER, not thicker or heavier. That IS consistent with low gravity, completely. It is very cold and therefore does not easily escape as the kinetic energy of the molecules is very low.

Splash or Thud refers to if it lands in liquid or on hard surface, not to the decent rate. Sheesh!

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

Chains of logic that lead no where...

Higher gravity, more pressure at the surface, denser atmosphere...
Lower gravity, less pressure at the surface, thinner atmosphere...

The Iron? Why have you got this apparent obsession with cover-ups and misinformation!? What's the big deal? You want in on the discovery? You want a hand in development of such missions? You want to be able to know at any given second, "whatcha thinkin? whatcha thinkin? huh!?"
Go apply for a job at one of these places. Get in there and stir up the pot man! I for one would cheer you on. Maybe you'd see the universe, the way is understood and described exteemly accurately as a more beautiful and intruiging place than one without conspiracies?

And, just how will you admit you are wrong Jerry? Will ya buy us all a commerative plaque? I've still got my 90 bucks!

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

Absolutely! It is never a good idea to have the same people interpreting the data that are collecting the data. It is too easy to let preconceptions into the loop. When they hold a news conference and say "whooh! Whatever this is, this is not what we expected to see, it is going to take us a long time to solve this puzzle."

All that says is "we don't have a clue what we are looking at, and rather than tell you why, we are going to try to solve the puzzle first and then tell you what we tink we see". This has a biasing effect upon all future interpretations of the data, especially if they massage the data so that it provides the best possible fit to their interpretation before they release it.

Iron is a great big fat deal. How much Iron can you put on the surface of an icy planet, and expect it to stay there? A needle will sink right through an ice cube. Iron should be in the middle. So if there is Iron on the surface, you should expect to find iron in the middle, just like the earth and Mars. Iron also means nickle, it means matter that has an average density well over three, and more than a skiff of recently acquired iron in the outer planets poses a major problem for the standard model.

The distribution of the atmosphere should be Gaussian, the more dense or massive the planet, The "tighter" the atmosphere, and it will be relatively thinner at higher altitudes.

I am still asking the question: How are they calculating the density of Huygen's atmosphere? if they are looking sideways through the top layers and assuming a Gaussian distribution based upon the predicted mass of the planet, if my prediction is correct, the atmosphere will be much thicker near the surface. If they are looking at the total depth of atmosphere and calculating the thickness based upon the total atmospheric density, they will over-estimate the density of the outer atmosphere, and the parachutes will open at a much lower altitude than expected - Just like they did on the Mar probes.

I get to be wrong, as you might have have noticed by now. Even if my prediction comes true, even if Einstein and Newton are both wrong, it does not mean I am right. But I might be close. And I might be even closer if I could find all of the necessary facts.

__________________
jwj

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

A very thin layer of accumulated ferric compound dust in the occasional spot should do nicely and show up in quite well in a spectrograph. Why should some ferric oxide sink anywhere? It will only sink if the ice melts. Not likely.

Of course the atmosphere is thicker near the surface. It is compressed by the atmosphere above it. The people figuring this out aren't stupid. The reason for the extended atmosphere is the much lower gravity which flattens the distribution. Your proposal would result in a much more compressed and much less extended atmosphere, not consistent with observation.

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

That is what worries me. But I don't know that the atmosphere has been completely characterize, and that is why I am asking: do we know how thick it is near the surface, do we know how thick it is at elevation? do we know the molecular gradiant? What is it?

I still do not understand why they did not dress Huygen for such cold weather. I know there is a percentage of the world community that is extremely skitish about nuclear batteries, but come on, if the moon is - minus below zero, we are not going to radiate any lemmings.

__________________
jwj

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

So, what you are saying is that the principle investigator who designed an experiment and knows how the equipment works, has invested perhaps a decade of his/her life on the project, is not qualified to interpret the data that the experiment delivers? They should not be allowed to see the data and draw logical conclusions from it? That would be the end of science. That is perhaps the most outlandish statement you have yet made.

Well designed experiments by qualified investigators are expressly designed to eliminate bias. That is inherent in the scientific method. You have clearly demonstrated how preconceptions can warp data as well as logic. You have ignored the simple and logical explanations for the results that have been returned, results that agree with the theories that predicted them and therefore validate them. Instead you propose effects without cause, causes without effect. You propose impossible circumstances and give conjectures that ignore completely rational explanations that are certainly the correct ones. Why do you waste your time as well as ours?

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