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

If you always believe what you already know, you can't learn anything - Liz

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

If you always believe what you already know, you can't learn anything - Liz

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)

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

If you always believe what you already know, you can't learn anything - Liz

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

If you always believe what you already know, you can't learn anything - Liz

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 cont