You are probably not aware that Huygens employs 35 small Radioisotope Heater Units for thermal support. In addition, the mission is designed in a way to avoid Huygens freezing: After the heat shield is released, Huygens will be descending under an 8 m diameter parachute for 15 min. After that, this large parachute will detatch, and a smaller one (3.2 m diameter) will be used to accelerate the descent. This is done for three reasons:

1. If the 8 m parachute is used for the whole descent, Huygens will drop very very slow and it will freeze. So the descent has to be accelerated.
2. If the 8 m parachute is used, the batteries wont last until Huygens reaches the lower atmoshere and touches on the surface. Observations of the lower atmosphere and the surface are very important and can't be neglected
3. Even if the batteries could last for a very long time, the descent would have been so slow that Cassini wolud have gone out of line of site, before Huygens reaches the lower atmosphere, so communications would have been impossible.

So, you can see that thermal issues are considered too (together with a lot more issues).

In any case I don't think that they would have been so stupid, that they wouldn't test and simulate the "thermal" part of the mission, during the testing on the Earth.

The Voyager data atmospheric occultation experiment & earth observationa have been used to create the atmosphere engineering model used for Huygens (Yelle model). There is uncertainty of course, but I have seen technical documents of Huygens and the have simulated the descent including all range of possibilities. Plus, after the new mission was implemented due to the doopler problem they experienced, they had the chance to perform one distant and two close flybys of Titan, before the Huygens descent. They are using data from these flybys to validate the atmospheric models and since everything is still going as planned, the Yelle model is probably confirmed.

No, that is one of the most important axioms in scientific inquiry: Don't fall in love with your theory.

I could write a book about how badly PIs have screwed up an investigation by working towards a specific goal or verification, rather than looking at the data objectively. If we should learn anything from the two shuttle disasters, it is that people with vested interests in budget, schedule and public relations make lousy engineers.

My favorite example, though, comes from a friend who worked a Bedouin site in Jordan. The PI had them counting layers of camel dung, certain he could predict the age of the stable by examining the straw strata. He came up with a number like 3000 BC, And managed to get funding for another year. (This in spite of the fact the worker bees kept telling him people tend to shovel out the stable more often than once a year.)

The second year included C-14 dating, which was a good thing, because it showed quite conclusively the bottom most layers were about 400 years old. Impressive, but the whole project was just a pile of dung. The Bedouin thought the whole adventure was comical.


It is impossible to eliminate bias. That is inherent in the scientific method. Yes, the PI’s can and should make their own assessments, but the papers presenting the data, and the theoretical interpretations should be separate, and in my opinion, not released concurrently.

Good, because that is one of my goals.

This is because I am aware of phenomena that cannot be explained in the context of current theory, and also of phenomena, (such as the anisotropy in the CMB), that can only be interpreted with unwieldy and unrealistic projections of current theory.

Only if it is irrational to suspect current theory is not complete. Once you accept the possibility not every aspect of GR should be canonized, then it is reasonable to ask the type of questions I have been asking.

My projection of the density of Titan is based upon a handicapped analysis of supernova events, and an very real attempt to model the rotational effects known as MOND and the Tully-Fisher Relationship. Virtually everyone will concede that if there is no dark matter, it is impossible to model the rotation of galaxies without new physics. I am simply saying since we have not been able to detect dark matter, we should be able to detect these gravimetric effects in our own solar system. This is a reasonable hypothesis based upon observations of the physical world.

We should not be so certain of our understanding of the physical world that we continue to write off anomalies in our space programs to poor design, instrumental errors and other unknown causes. I believe I have identified a physical error: an error in our understanding of physics.

When I look at the photos of Pheobe, I see ice and frozen methane and carbon dioxide on top of an earthy planet, not the other way around - I can compare the talus slopes in the craters of Pheobe with the slopes I can see in the snow outside my window this very moment, and state that this is the most reasonable conclusion. I think everyone should be looking at the photos and spectroscopic data with enough objectivity to include this possibility in their analysis. I hope the PI s can do that.

__________________
jwj

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

Just a couple of comments...

Jerry, I think you might be missing Evan's point.

So, if we were truly objective, we'd see things your way?? Is that what you're saying??

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

Thank you. This is the type of information that is very helpful.

Does anyone know how closely the data have matched the model? Are the predictions of the thickness of the atmosphere near Titan's surface based upon direct observation or computational data extrapolated from the edge of atmosphere?

When the Jupiter probe fell like a rock, it was fairly easy to write this off as an atmospheric effect caused by billowing updrafts and down drafts. The outer atmosphere of Titan looks stratified.

__________________
jwj

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

I will not waste my time refuting your statements but for this. The entire objective of the scientific method is to eliminate bias. That is why double blind studies are performed. It is not only possible but is the usual course of scientific investigation that experiments are performed in a way to eliminate bias. No matter what the investigator may expect to be the result, if the data indicate otherwise then it is the result. It is the case that many investigations had a presupposed outcome but the data indicated otherwise. This has resulted in some of the most significant discoveries made.

I have been trained in the scientific method since I was a child. I can make a study that is double blind even though I am the only person that handles the data. You do not appreciate how this works.

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

From http://www.planetary.org/news/2004/c...ults_1221.html :

But the most important result to come out of the second Titan encounter was the result of two occultation experiments performed by the UVIS team. An occultation experiment involves staring at a bright light source -- in this case, the bright stars Spica and Shaula -- and watching how the intensity of their light varies as they appear to cross behind a semitransparent target. Occultation experiments will be performed throughout the mission on the atmospheres of Titan and Saturn, as well as on Saturn's rings. UVIS is sensitive to ultraviolet wavelengths, so it probes the uppermost atmosphere, the region in which Huygens will be relying upon the friction between her heat shield and the atmosphere to brake.

Once the data came down from the spacecraft on Monday afternoon, Pacific time, the UVIS team worked around the clock in order to analyze what the flashes of light from Spica and Shaula meant for the vertical structure of the atmosphere. Early Thursday morning was a critical event for the Huygens mission, a "GO / NO-GO" meeting for the Probe Targeting Maneuver, a burst of Cassini's engines that will set the spacecraft on a collision course for Titan. If the atmospheric models proved wrong, the mission would be forced to scuttle the plans for a January descent for Huygens.

Fortunately, the calculated values for the density of Titan's atmosphere -- the most critical number -- came "within three percent of predictions," reported UVIS Principal Investigator Larry Esposito. Because of the near-perfect match between predictions and observations, "We got the green light to proceed for the next step," said Jean-Pierre Lebreton, Project Scientist for Huygens. "The UVIS team did a great job in analyzing the data within 24 hours. In a sense it's almost disappointing -- we did not have to change anything

Your not listening! I am not disparaging the scientific method, I am not question the analytical methods, and I am certainly not questioning the expertise of the talented engineering teams who have pushed our knowledge frontiers to the limit with this and other extraordinary missions.

What I am saying is we should be taking the data in hand at face value: We cannot explain the Pioneer acceleration with known physics. We can detect the rapid acceleration at the edges of galaxies, but not the Dark Matter postulated to explain it.

We don’t know why the Beagle crashed, why the Galileo probe plunged, or why the period of Saturn’s day seems to have shifted six minutes. I am telling you new physics are needed to explain these events.

If you use the scientific method properly, you eliminate all the possible causes, then you have a decision to make: Either you do not understand the application of known physics, or new physical law is manifesting itself. This is the one thing the scientific method cannot tell us, and I am here to tell you we have walked too far down a blind tunnel.

__________________
jwj

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

Thanks :P , this is most definitely good news, because it means Huygens should survive vehicle entry - Hey, whether my prediction is correct or not, the best scenario is for Huygen to survive the complete mission and return as much data as possible!

(A good hypothesis is not defined by whether it is right or wrong, but by whether in the process of disproving or supporting the hypothesis, the body of scientific knowledge is increased. I have strung a long string of observations together, formulated a hypothesis, and made a prediction base upon this hypothesis. The more data, the better the odds are we will find definitive answers.)

__________________
jwj

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

Strict adherance to the scientific method is how science advances.

I think that ordinary human error is the most logical and likely explanation for those events. Lifting the edge of the rug and peering under it will commonly find only dust.

And, by the way, would you please provide some justification for your statement about the "Galileo probe plunged". NASA or JPL would do fine.

A hypothesis is elevated to the status of theory by the ability to predict an outcome. This is an essential part of the scientific method. In the case of a prediction being correct it is not sufficient for the singular outcome to be predicted but the mechanism for that outcome must also be explained.

This goes to the core of what you have proposed. There are certainly things about the universe that we do not yet fully understand. Dark matter is currently predominant on the list of things we need to know more about. Your proposals are not based on any sort of logical construct within the science that we know and have proven to be correct.

It is an accepted fact the the General Therory of Relativity as well as Quantum Theory are not full and complete descriptions of how the universe works. This is self evident as neither can encompass the other.

Your proposals do not fit within the observed continium of scientific observation. Your mathematical recreations are no more significant than spelling "SHELL OIL" on a calculator.

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

You can't explain it with "known physics," I'd say, because you have repeatedly demsonstrated your lack of knowledge of such "known physics."
And, what has dark matter got to do with this probe, exactly.
You don't know why Beagle crashed. The Galileo probe was SUPPOSED to plunge. Jeeze n' Rice, Jerry...

#-o

__________________

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.

Jerry is right that the Galileo probe fell faster than was hoped, but it wasn't so much a suprise to the scientists studying it as a disappointment. The location chosen happened to be in a very rarefied part of Jupiter's atmosphere (as confirmed independently from abundance measurements taken from the probe). The probe "plunged" because the atmosphere was thinner than was expected.

Almost correct:

"Close to expectations"? NASA, what the hell does that mean? Close to the expected levels before or after the higher readings were taken at higher elevation? Close high or close low? What does deeper mean?

This is why I keep harping about NASA’s failure to separate HARD data from interpretive data. As near as I can tell, the HARD date consisted of Doppler and atmospheric pressure readings, although the pressure may have been determined by bumping the measured acceleration up against the drag coefficients. (I read this is how the ESA plans to determine the density of Titan’s atmosphere. If this is true, since they are assuming they know the acceleration due to gravity, and if this is wrong, they will underestimate the density of the lower atmosphere.)

Surprising Doppler readings should not be reported as "strong winds and turbulence." For all we know, the Jupiter probe was snagged in an alien net and hauled off to some breeding ground. It could also mean 'stronger' gravity.

…Not to mention the Russian failures on Mars, and the late deployment of the parachutes on both of the Viking Mars Missions.

Short version: Dark matter is close to where I started: I was looking for a solution for the DM and MOND effects, but also the curious rings that develop when supernovae explode. I was also looking at this in the context of the knee in the cosmic ray spectrum, an event known to be associated with certain types of supernovea. I realize that if we are seeing distant gravity wave events as electromagnetic images, and the electromagnetic field strength dictates the expansion and radiation profile of type II supernovae, everything falls into place.

Then I turned my attention to the solar system and said these equations should describe local behaviors as well, so I plugged the local densities in, and out pops the Huygens probe falling way too fast…just like every other mission into the distant solar system. Venus, though, in comparison is a piece of cake. Venus should be less dense than we think it is, which would explain why one of the Pioneer probes survived after landing, even though it was not expected to. Air braking was much easier on Venus as well. (They did not have the unexpected heating problems experienced air braking into Mars.)

Exactly. I think we have to back-up beyond Newton to fix the fundamental problem: G is not constant. G is not even G, G is governed by an ‘inertial’ potential This means, even though he is close on the mass-energy conversion factor, Einstein was wrong when he bent space and time. Somewhere between now and then we should have realized the speed of light (and all nuclear and chemical reactions) in an electromagnetic system is inversely proportional (via the Lorentz transform) to the total electromagnetic mass of the system.

We’ll see 8-[

__________________
jwj

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

Yes, we will.

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

Well, I think "close to expectations" means "close to expectations". How could somebody explain this? It is so obvious...

Before or after the higher readings were taken? Obviously after... Since the higher readings were taken at the upper atmosphere and the probe was going down. What kind of questions is this? Does it have a scope?

Close high or close low? Doesn't matter, it was close.

What does deeper mean? Since the Galileo probe entered in the Jovian atmosphere... well, it fell... And when you fall you go deeper into the atmosphere. Come on...

If the knowledge about gravity was wrong, Cassini would have probably not been in Saturn right now...

No, it could not mean stronger gravity. The answer is just above. We know how gravity works and therefore if we eliminate the known effect of gravity on the probe's trajectory, we can attribute the rest to winds. That's all.

So what? Do you think that we have perfect understanding of the Martian atmosphere with just a few landing attempts? How do you expect scientist to have perfect knowledge on density and temperature profiles etc. about an atmosphere that has barely been studied? And on top of that, how do you expect them to understand the variabilllity of an atmosphere? You think is easy? NO! You think an atmospheric state is easily predictable? NO! You think that atmospheric densities are definded just by gravity? NO! What about winds, temperatures, latitude, topography, any other type of event that could disturb the atmosphere locally (dust storms)?

There are hundreds of reasons that an atmospheric state cannot be predicted. Especially for landers, where the accuracy in velocity has to be less (or not much more) than 1 m/sec during landing, those differences are much more important, but even more difficult to avoid. Maybe it is impossible. That is why the best thing that can be done, together with some good atmospheric physics, is a lot of statistics, so that margins on density profiles (that are the most important for landers), can be defined. In this case the necessary margins will be applied in mission design.

Now, I am not really sure whether any of these margins were available for the Russian landers (although you forget ot mention that Mars 3 landed within a dust storm), Viking, Pathfinder etc. Maybe they were available for Beagle, but you might know that Beagle had the worst mission design ever.

Plus, also don't forget that landers, orbiters etc are complex devices and they are required to perform difficult missions. There are numerous reasons that for example Polar Lander could have failed (it was so small, that even if everything went well, it could have tripped over if it landed on a small rock). As for the early Russian Mars landers &amp; orbiters, if you see the technology they used, you might understand what was the probable cause of failure...

You don't just fall when you are about to land. You also fall when you are in orbit. So according to you, both Cassini and Huygens, which have identical orbits currently, are in the wrong trajectory, since Saturn is also in the distant solar system... So, you are wrong. Because Cassini and Huygens are just where they supposed to be.

It was not expected, but it was not impossible. The pioneer probes were not just a thin piece of metal. Plus let me also remind you that Galileo worked for many more more years than expected, the MER rovers have worked for almost a year (not expected), the Cassini is already expected to have a 4 year extended mission, the Laser Reflectors on the Moon left by astronauts were designed for 10-year life, but they are still working, MGS is still working, NEAR landed on the asteroid while it was just an orbiter ,etc etc. In mission design, they are never optimistic. They always require a more than 90% propability that a mission will work. If they tell them "Well, the MER rovers have an 80% probability to survive more than one year", they wont make the 1-year survivability a goal of this mission (although the chances are good). Space missions deal with hundreds of millions of dollars/euros, and project managers and space agencies cannot give promises that are not almost sure that they could come true...

Well, air braking at Venus was done with Magellan at the end of the mission, as a technology/new technique demostration. It was not mission critical, as it was with MGS. If it was mission critical, they would have been much more concerned about the Maggellan instrument and system readings.

Plus, if you once say that densities on Mars are less than expected due to wrong understanding of gravity, and then you attribute the heating problems to this bad understanding, you are probably in a big confusion. Because lower densities would not cause unexpected heating problems. Only higher densities...

We don't have to wait for Huygens to see if Jerry is right or wrong. He is wrong. Physical laws apply everywhere and not just on a few landers, the Pioneers, or the outer planets. So his ideas should have applied everywhere (even at small scales). And they dont.

And even if Huygens doesn't send any data, this doesn't mean that Jerry was correct. Huygens is a very difficult mission. I know that there is tons of redundancy to make this mission work, but still there are always a lot of unknowns (technical and scientific), each one of these being very critical. Titan is still an unexplored planetary body. Its atmosphere is unique in the solar system.

From a technical point of view Huygens works perfectly. But all testing is based on simulated missions and scenarios. And simulations are just images of our thinking and current knowledge. So, everything should be expected, although I believe Huygens will work. But we have to be realistic. It is not an easy mission

But definately, this there is no danger due to mistaken understanding of gravity...

Correct. It would be one more data point, hopefully Huygens will survive entry and we will obtain good scientific measurments. Hopefully we will not be told “The atmosphere was thicker than we expected…there was strong turbulence…the clouds were thinner,… “. Numbers baby, that is what science is about!

Not true. The engineering margins are tight.

This is a statement of optimism, not of fact.

Can you explain how dark energy “works”? Can you explain where the energy comes from that is “pulling the universe apart”?

Can you successfully model the “Tuffs of Dark Matter” necessary to explain the observed rotation of galaxies?

Can you explain how supernova emit cosmic rays with energy spectra that exceed all known and theoretical mechanisms?

Can you explain why jets from galaxy centers remain collimated across eons?

Can you explain why the Tully-Fisher relationship (A correlation between gravimetric rotation in galaxies and luminosity) is consistent across a galaxy size ration of 600?

Can you explain why supernovae expand in rings, rather than in shells?

Can you explain why there is an anti-correlation between X-ray emission and radio loud regions of star forming structure?

Can you explain how wispy bubbles of hydrogen gas emit X-rays?

These are the phenomena I am trying to model, and this is where I developed my working hypothesis: Inertial movement is a field-limited effect – in order to sustain motion in a mass it is necessary to move within a field generated by a massive system.

I was amazed when I applied this principle to our own galaxy and the numbers I posted on this thread popped out.

I am also amazed, that in the wake of all the hard landings on Mars, the bizarre behavior of the Galileo probe every time it passed near a moon, and the rapid decent of the Galileo probe no one seems willing to even consider the option that there might be a correlating force factor we do not have a handle on.

Voyager II inexplicably kicked on the after- burners after passing through Saturn’s rings. There is unexplained Doppler shift error in Cassini’s pass near Phoebes. The solar neutrino count is a third of what it should be, and Jupiter has the same gas fractions as the sun. Something is wrong with our model of the solar system.

Cosmologists are trying to tell us 96% of the mass fraction of the universe exists as undetected “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy”

It is time to realize that our engineers are better at building rockets than our Physicists are at modeling the universe. Sometimes it does take a rocket scientist.

__________________
jwj

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

With your repeated display of lacking sufficient knowledge of the Huygen, or is it Huygens?, probe, I tend to think I'd look up what kind of tolerances they've alotted for this little marvel.

Jeeze-us-cripes. Ok, where to begin. Big obvious question is, did you post this list to the wrong thread? WTH does most of this have to do with the Huygens mission?

Jerry, How many different types of Neutrinos are there? And wich one is the normal on? (Hint: Electron Neutrino.)

Supernovae do expand in shells. If you were really curious you'd have found the reason they appear as shells... This is ridiculous. It's on the webpage associated with this board. 1987A... :-?

Jupiter was made from the same accretion disk that the sun was... Ohmugawd, the ratios are the SAME!? Dear lord. #-o

I am so [b]not[/i] amazed when I popped my birthday and street adress minus the number of seconds I've been alive that Lyndon Ashmore's theory popped out! =D> Mathematical coinciedence.

We don't need a force. We can account for all of these things you point to. Everytime someone offers you a reasonable explanation you switch the subject.

I want one thing from you the next time you post.
List the different Neutrinos. K Jerry?

__________________

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.

No it's not! You are at least a decade out of date on this one! As TravisM said, there are more than one type of neutrino. They oscillate between types.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Well, I do suppose that I am not talking to a 10-year old or that I am not writing a paper for a scientific journal, so that I have to be so careful with my words. I think it is obvious that we are talking here about a solar system mission, about an orbit of a spacecraft that does nothing more but falling towards Titan...

In this case, yes, we understand how gravity works. We have sent thousand of satellites into so many different orbits, we have observed thousands of asteroid and cometary orbits, and also the orbits of the planets and their moons are known with very good accuracy to verify that Newtonian mechanics is just enough for the solar system...

I don't know if there are any quantum-gravity effects, or any strange relativistic effects that we still don't understand, but even if they do exist, they don't apply in our case, since they are to small to be observed. If they were significant, they would have already been observed in many cases, and not just in a couple of landers.

The only questionable case seems to be the accelaration of the Pioneer spacecraft, but we are talking about a 10^(-11) difference compared to what we expected. There are so many factors that could cause this difference, as it is too small. But even in the case we are talking about an unknown gravity effect, so what? Its 10^(-11) difference! Plug this difference in your numbers and you will get an almost identical orbit for Huygens, for Mars landers etc. The difference would be so so small, that would be less than the accuracy with which you are able to determine the orbit of a spacecraft in most cases.

With my previous message I just wanted to emphasize to you that the problems with the landers appeared only in bodies with an atmosphere. And an atmosphere's effect on a lander is not easy to accuratelly predict, even if you understand the dynamics of the atmosphere very well. Plus, a 10^(-11) difference in gravity acceleration is a lot less than the accelerations due to atmospheric forces etc... Such a small deviation from the known gravity would not account for a few second delay in the deployment of parachutes...

So, just to end this, there is no threat to Huygens due to wrong understanding of gravity. There are threats, but not this...

Look, the last time you provided your technical expertise about Huygens, you said that there is no consideration for the low temperatures in the spacecraft design... And you were proved wrong. So I would suggest being more careful with similar comments. Huygens has a lot of redundancy. Just an example about the redundancy considered for the entry detection and deployment of the first parachute:

The entry detection is handled by the Command and Data Managment subsystem (CDMS). This is comprised by two redundant Command and Data Managment Units (CDMU) for data handling and processing and three redundant Mission Timer Units (MTU), which are used to activate Huygens, at end of the coast phase, sometime before entry begins. Even if the triple MTUs fail, Huygens can be activated by two redundant mechanical g-switches*.

The CDMS also includes a Cental Accelaration Sensor Unit (CASU). CASU measures axial decelaration at the center of Huygens, during the entry, and its signal will be processed by the two redundant CDMUs to define the time for parachute deployment (To).

Actually, the parachute deployment will be defined after the CASU detects certain decelaration thresholds. In order to do this, CASU is comprised by three redundant accelerometers. Two of the three accelerometers have to detect the thresholds, for a command to be issued (majority voting). This is done just in case one acceleromenter provides wrong data.

Now, in case the three acceleromenters wont function, the parachute deployment can be triggered by g-switches. Each CDMS includes two redundant g-switches (4 in total). Even in the case that all the g-switches fail, the parachute deployment will be initiated by a time-out event: this means that software will detect that certain time has passed and nothing has happened, so probably something is wrong. This will issue a command to deploy the parachute at a certain point, predefined by orbital mechanics calculations...

So, three redundant scenarios for parachute deployment, and two of the three secnarios have multiple "internal" redundancy...

Plus let me add that all pyros that will deploy the parachutes are double redundant .

*G-switches are mechanical switches that open and close should a certain force (acceleration) is applied to them. The principle for the g-switches of Huygens is that two magnets are kept in a distance due to repelling magnetic forces. When an external force is applied to this system (atmospheric deceleration), the distance between them is reduced. For a certain force (threshold), they come into contact, forcing a switch to close...

TravisM, I hope this is some good data for you, too.

This paragraph was written by a team that claims to have solved the neutrino problem with the Sun, but read it carefully: Any conclusion that requires “a modification of the most basic theories for elementary particles…” has created a bigger problem than they say it has solved. It is just as valid to conclude the results of this experiment has thrown considerable doubt about the basic theory of elementary particles, and since the theory of energy generation of the sun is based upon this basic theory, there is no way these results “confirm the accuracy” of the solar model. This is double speak that should never have been allowed off of the beltway.

The neutrino was invented to explain a slight discrepancy between the yield and the angular momentum of an atomic reaction. Theoreticians hotly debated the need for such a particle, but secondary detection of a ‘particle’ with the right amount of energy lead to its acceptance. But this particle was searched for on the basis of the expected level of energy, and when tau and muon neutrinos were both needed, they expanded the energy bands searched until they reached the new energy quota and declared victory. Is this observational confirmation of basic particle theory, or cherry picking from a broad energy spectrum that we don’t even know what is out there until we go looking for it?

As the Sun is converting mass into energy, the reduction in mass affects the planets and they adjust their orbits accordingly. In particle physics, how is this reduction in mass transmitted to the planets? How do we know our neutrino detectors, (which are strictly secondary detectors) are detecting neutrinos and not, at least in some cases, capturing the essence of what we call gravity?

Since General Relativity and particle physics have not successfully addressed these fundamental questions. We should not express such unwavering confidence in the accuracies of these theories and their predictions. Our failure to observe gravity waves in distant traumatic events underscores this weakness in our understanding of how gravity works. How is energy transmitted from an earthquake to the ionosphere, and what type of detector should we use to find out?

__________________
jwj

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

If you read the actual paper they published you will find that it uses data derived from an extremely high noise level set, is preliminary, relies on other studies to help constrain their own results and makes absolutely no mention of an assumed finite mass for any flavour of neutrino. The results are based solely on statistical analysis and not absolute identification of detection events. They have also made quite a few arbitrary assumptions in order to exclude unrelated noise events and rely on Monte Carlo analysis technique. The results are far from conclusive.

They make no mention in the paper of casting doubt on the Standard Model of particle physics. They also rely on results from other detectors to constrain their data set that have exactly the opposite effect, namely to impose extremely small constraints on the possible mass of any neutrino.

The only conclusion they draw in summary in the paper is that the Standard Solar model of energy production is validated by their results.

The text on the web pages seem to engage in a good deal of hyperbole, the paper does not.

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

There are a couple of things to watch for when Huygens enters Titan's atmosphere: 1) Will atmospheric density be greater than calculated, so the g-switch should activate sooner than expected? 2) will re-entry velocity be greater than projected, which might imply a greater 10^-11 Nm^2 kg^-2 factor than anticipated (not theorized in current physics)?

In either case, other factors may influence g-switch deployment, such as atmospheric winds, but the rate of descent should be a more pure measure of the G factor. Should G be greater >10^-11 N than the universal 6.67x10^-11 N assumed, it might not show up in atmosphere density, since our distant mass calculations for Titan (and other bodies) are based on a constant G; this means that if G were greater, hypothetically, Titan's total mass would have been overestimated, and hence its gravity related atmospheric density would be likewise overestimated. The reason this 'overestimated' atmospheric density might not affect Huygens could be because though we had the wrong numbers, if there were to be a greater G out there (at ~9.5 AU from the Sun) it would, through equivalence principle, give a greater inertial mass, hence greater gas density, to the molecules in Titan's atmosphere, so the two could be a wash.

The probe's rate of descent might not be offset, however, if its inertial mass (at 9.5 AU) is greater than here, so though Titan's mass may be overestimated, meaning its mass is lower per local G, it should 'pull' gravitationally on the probe as if it were 'heavier'... Of course, that all remains to be seen when it happens. Stay tuned! :roll: This could be fun.

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/ Tegmark’s web page has a very clear picture of a supernova Ia forming an unambiguous ring, rather than a shell. http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0203346
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0308533
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0008130
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9711271
http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9710294
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9512025

These papes, and a dozen others, try to explain and characterize the RINGs that formed in the wake and nebula of 1987A. Anyone can explain the formation explosive shells in open space. These are rings, and they radiate big time!

If Jupiter and the Sun were formed at about the same time, as current theory ascribes, and the Sun has been cooking for ions, why isn’t this reflected in the hydrogen/helium ratio? How can the sun burn without creating byproducts? We were hoping that, by comparing the H/He ratio on Jupiter with that of the Sun, we could confirm both the model for the creation of the solar system, and get a firmer estimate on the age of the system. We cannot do either because the model does not fit.

Sensors in the Jupiter probe launched by Galileo indicated ~80% of the mass of the heat shield system was ablated during entry. I wish I knew what erosion rates they were predicting, because that is survival by the thinnest of margins.

8)

__________________
jwj

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

There is no predefined time that the parachutes should deploy. There is predefined acceleration: the parachutes will deploy at certain acceleration values. That's why they use g-switches and not timers for this.

Plus, let me remind you that the g-switches are a back-up option. The primary method to deploy the parachutes is with the accelerometers.

So, if the Titan's atmospherre is denser, yes, parachutes will deploy a little earlier. But not a lot earlier - maybe just a few seconds. Cassini observations have shown that Titan's atmosphere models are quite sufficient for the planning of this mission.

No, reentry velocity is going to be the one expected, as separation went well, Cassini images of the probe show that it is in the correct orbit and Huygens does not have any thrusters to change the parameters of its orbit.

And I just want to state that the 10^(-11) difference calculated for the Pioneers was not in the value of the G constant as you think, but in the acceleration: ~10^-11 m/s^2 difference.

So there is no need to comment on what you are writing about 10^-11 differnece in G and wrong density values for Titan's atmosphere, overestimation of mass, etc.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bitesize...innerring.html

BA, forgive me for quoting you!

__________________

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.

What hydrogen/helium ratio? Why do you think the sun isn't producing helium? You aren't saying that the sun's surface must have the same hydrogen/helium ratio as the core, are you? The sun is not a red dwarf where convection is a major factor.

Anyway, just wanted to say thanks, this thread is fun to read ...

While this may explain the ringed debris field tangent to the plain of the LMC, it does not explain what happed to the gases and debris that should be expanding perpendicular to the ring: There should be a shell ballooning in the non-constricted directions.

There could be, and we have just not detected it, or there could be the field-limited inertial effects, I have tried to describe in this thread, and shortly after the explosion, when the expanding kinetic shell of the explosion collided with the collapsing inertial shell, all hell broke loose, emitting an intense focused gamma ray that has John Middleditch and his fellow gamma ray researchers scratching there heads and saying “How in the hell did that happen”?

. This is a good questions because I know a lot papers have emphasized that there is not a lot of convection between the surface and the core of the sun, and I have even heard this used to explain the low neutrino count (although if you think about it, that isn't very logical)

I don’t know if the fact that the H/He ratio on the sun appears unchanged in the 100 years we have observed it is one of the main constraints used in creating a physical models limiting convection beyond the outer 20% of the solar sphere. If the neutrino count means we do not completely understand the nuclear burning process, our solar models are certainly suspect.

I see a lot of thermal chemists raising there hands and saying we have a hard time with that one: Our gas laws seem to require fairly rapid migration of a molecule as inert as helium in a bellowing heat machine like the sun. So yes, I am saying the helium/hydrogen ratio should not be a lot greater in the core than at the surface.

There should be an inertial shell slowly shrinking about our own sun as matter is converted to energy –a very slow version of what happens in a supernova event. The energy of this field could explain the disproportional nature of the solar neutrino count, and the slower fuel exhaustion rate of the sun. (This also means E does not equal mc^2, it is much greater, but I don’t think the world is ready for that…yet).

I think these two examples are a good demonstration of the revisionist nature of the current model of the universe. We see something we did not expect, but usually in the same paper where the unexpected is first describe, a rational is also introduced, and most of us nod our heads and agree there is order in the universe. I’m here to tell you that using the current model, the rings don’t make sense.

It has to be fun because science should be. Besides, if I am wrong, at least it was entertaining.

__________________
jwj

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

You might really want to do some more research on this one. There isn't all that much convection between the core and the outer layers of the Sun so there shouldn't be a whole lot of mixing between them. Moreover, the core of the Sun is incredibly dense - dense enough that it takes, on average, hundreds of thousands years for gamma rays to escape from the core, let alone big helium atoms. All that pressure is going to keep the overwhelming majority of the Sun's helium locked in the core. Heck, it's so dense you can't even use the gas laws to describe what's going on there.

Moreover, we have a fairly good understanding of stellar structure. The Solar neutrino problem has been solved. Helioseismology lets us model what's going on beneath the surface. Heck, helioseismology even lets us map the far side of the Sun and, since it can be checked once that side rotates into view, we know it works. As for the He/H ratio changing appreciably over 100 years, keep in mind that the Sun's life expectancy is about ten billion years. Even though the Sun is fusing a LOT of atoms, it's not going to fuse a high percentage of its hydrogen in a lousy century.

If E = mc^2 is wrong, explain why quantum electrodynamics works as well as it does. As for the Sun shrinking, are you factoring in its temperature and the radii of helium nuclei compared to protons?

No, but shouldn't it have changed since the creation of the solar system? If so, why are the ratios H/He in Jupiter's atmosphere and the Sun's atmosphere the same?

Elias and Evan have very different prospects of the neutrino flipping solution, as we discussed above. Does the neutrino solution you eluded to require a change in neutrino mass? Has basic theory been modified to accomidate this change? Either answers or references would be very helpful.

When we - USofA - conducted an H-bomb test on the Bikini Atoll the yield was three times what we expected. The cause of this failure was a matter of scale: We did not know that scaling-up the size would induce much more fusion in the lithium shell. (If we keep testing long enough, we might find a yield that will fuse the whole planet )

QE works well within the sphere of knowledge we have been able to test, but we have to make some reasonable assumptions that may or may not be true. I think they are close - because things like Neutron stars behave very close to the predictions, but the energy output is proving diffecult to model, as are the gamma rays released by supernova and the X-rays in jetted hydrogen - so we should not consider the ink dry on basic nuclear theory.

The mass of the sun is shrinking, (inertial shell, in my pet venacular), not necessarily the physical size. If there is an "inertial field" as I have speculated, this is what is slowly getting smaller.

__________________
jwj

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

...or it could be lava, similar to the dark red lava we see on the surface of Mars, except that would mean Iapetus would have to be two to four times more dense than it should be...

__________________
jwj

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

I already answered this. All fusion takes place in the core. The helium produced there does not mix with the outer layers in any appreciable amount.

TravisM already answered this. They formed out of the same cloud of gas.

Can't help you there. All I know is that neutrinos can oscillate.

What assumptions are these?

As for quantum electrodynamics, the theory is accurate to one part in a hundred trillion. It works EXTREMELY well. In fact, given it sucess rate, I'd say that if what you're saying is correct that it's more likely to be a gap in our understanding of supernovae, neutron stars, and hydrogen jets. More importantly, if you want to replace QED, you'll have to come up with something that's AT LEAST as succesful.

Taibak