|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
Jerry said:
Quote:
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. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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"] Quote:
Quote:
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 If you always believe what you already know, you can't learn anything - Liz |
|
|||
|
Quote:
The problem with the gyros is known to be radiation affecting the circuitry. Quote:
__________________
When I am done here I think I will go create something from metal. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Shows us some quantitative estimates and explain why these electric currents are not observed. Quote:
Based on what? Quote:
(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. Quote:
Photons, EM fields carry momentum, even if there is no (material) mass. They have inertial mass because there is energy. Quote:
How do you define a frame of reference? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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? Quote:
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. Quote:
And you can "rub off" electrons from insulating materials because they are not strongly bound to the atoms. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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). Quote:
Quote:
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? Quote:
You are claiming that the current theories cannot provide a proper explanantion. On what is your claim based? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Can you elaborate? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Why should we take you seriously? Quote:
__________________
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) |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Meanwhile, watch, enjoy, and wait: What is the fate of Huygen?.
__________________
jwj If you always believe what you already know, you can't learn anything - Liz |
|
|||
|
Quote:
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. |
|
||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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 If you always believe what you already know, you can't learn anything - Liz |
|
|||
|
Quote:
|