First Postulate as it relates to Special Relativity per Wikipedia.

Note the link to 'principle of relativity' which gives a fairly good description of General Relativity, where the 'equivalence principle' is described. No problem with that, nor with the second postulate on lightspeed v = c. My question is whether or not we can assume the first postulate is correct, that 'the nature of the universe must not change for an observer if their inertial state changes'. Another way to say it is: 'the laws of the universe are the same regardless of inertial frame of reference'.

This is a key point, that IF all reference frames are NOT equally valid, for the observer or the observed, then though we may treat them mathematically as valid, they may not be. The default is then that relativity is what it always was, an observational study from the observer's reference frame. Observing relativistic events requires factoring in relativistic velocities and acceleration, without transposing those observations unto the universe, nor the observed. Once you change the inertial state, meaning you accelerate a frame, it is NO LONGER the same frame it was in its rest inertial state. The laws of the universe have not changed, of necessity, but calling the same frame in its rest phase or accelerated phase as if it remained the same is a conceptual error. That error, that there are no preferential reference frames, meaning that accelerated frames are equally valid in terms of the laws of the universe to the rest frame, will then carry throughout conceptual developments of any theory derived from it. Do you have any idea what that means? It means you can build a whole theoretical framework on a false basic premise. The math is beautiful, elegant, incredibly refined, but it leads to nonsense. That is the univese we've been given over the past hundred years, and it is time to stop it.

But now I'm drifting 'relativistically' far off topic. Sorry. Has nothing to do with Huygens, variable G, nor variable c. Those will be discovered through observations dedicated to finding them, experiments designed to measure them, and not incidentally because the clamps released Huygens from Cassini without incident (or one reaction wheel failed, per Tassel's above, by spinning up to 300 rpm vs 50 rpm designed), and the probe got pulled into Titan's gravity successfully. I would think real science would like a somewhat more durable and dedicated proof, then settling for a whitewashed version of it. Then you'll say "GR has had ample proof and that EP has been verified"... and I'll say "yes, EP has been verified at ~ 1AU, but GR only within the parameters of the mathematics of Relativity"... and you'll say "then you are ignoring the findings of professional scientists"... and I'll say "findings based on an erroneous premise"... and you'll say "a hundred years of research cannot be proven wrong by your saying it is wrong"... and I'll say "the research was good only within the context of unverifiable assumptions of the first postulate"... and you'll say... "verifying EP proves GR, which proves the first postulate"... and I'll say "wrong, it only verifies EP, not the first postulate"... and you'll say "we've been through this before, so you're refusing to accept you're wrong"... and I'll say "right." ... Been there, done that.

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

Thanks for the schedule, Travis, we wait with baited breath...

It is a double edge sword - sometimes multiple reviews and committee designed dilutes ownership, and no one digs into the details, everyone figuring someone else already had done their homework.

A few years ago my son was hired as a Summer intern to work with a high pressure system (~20k psi) that I had both designed and assembled. I took a long, long look at the plumbing, the electronics, the tubing guides, valves, shielding, etc.

But I didn't catch everything - there was a bleed off path from a high pressure line through a supply valve in the low farm, and it popped a burst disk. Would more reviews have caught this failure mode? Maybe. A better engineer would not have created the potential. (No one was hurt, but it scared the hell out of him when the disk burst and vented...)

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know. We should try harder to find out.

We were talking about GENERAL Relativity:
the Principle of General Relativity is a bit different from the Principle of Special Relativity (that's why they have different names).
The principle of GR includes the principle of SR.

And where is the evidence that makes you question the principle of relativity?

General Relativity has been successfully tested, but researchers know very well that it is not complete, hence they actually do research.
But, unlike you, they know what they are doing.

Why? Do you have actual experimental evidence that shows unambiguously that the theory gives wrong predictions?
No, you have not: the only thing you provided is your personal distaste and misconceptions, none of which has any relevance to the validity and success of the theory.

You see? You still believe that you are right.
You are not interested in the truth as you claimed. You expect to be "vindicated" by new experiments, willfully ignoring all the explanations and referencse given to you that show that you are wrong.
But, hey, don't let reality get in the way of your dreams.

Why don't you pull your head out of the sand and do some actual research?


Yes, you refuse to accept that you are wrong.
This is plain obvious to everybody who followed the thread.
You dismiss evidence that does not fit your idea, because it does not fit your idea.
This is pseudo-science.

__________________
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="Hamlet"] In a court of law, a judge must allow equal weight to each and every hypothesis that is constistent with the physical facts, and not grant extra weight to the theory that has been on the table the longest and/or the most technical detail. There is a lot of evidence that contraindicates Big Bang theory that in my opinion is unfairly-unscientifically downplayed.

Point taken. Tilt data in the time-stamped housekeeping data must be consistent with the probe being laterally dormant after about twenty minutes from entry.

There are other indicators than must be dormant or not changing above noise levels as well: Pressure, all of the accelerometers, the speed of sound - external temperature should be nearly constant. - after the first 20 minutes.

Maybe my 'Mooning Titan' that shows up from frame to frame is a big steel ball :wink:

Well, don't give Lebreton's idle spectulation too much weight - the judge wouldn't buy it.
So far, I have temperature, speed of sound, and optical data that are well outside of the expected profile, and consistent with a data set below 40 km. I can add one more:

Cassini's scratch & sniff machine has detected a number of hydrocarbon derivatives of methane, including ethane, benzene, and periodic combinations consistant with the predicted solar-induced methane reactions. The first reports from Huygens GCMS, if the Planetary Society report is correct, show suprisingly low levels of these gases. This is consistent with a scenario where Huygens did not start sampling the atmosphere until it was less than 40km,. where the solar-induced reaction rates should be less.

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know. We should try harder to find out.

Give it up, I think you know this has just turned into a Trolling game.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Gawd, this isn't even what the article says. :roll: But that's not the point. I'll remind you of what you said:

Well, Cassini's reaction wheels have provided data. This is just one of many data points that you've ignored.

Here's another data point: Halley's Comet. You (or Jerry, for that matter) have never been able to explain why it follows the trajectory predicted by Newtonian physics "perfectly". This is another simple observation that kills both yours and Jerry's theories/hypotheses/speculations/whatever. Jerry even said so himself:
Lunatik, here's your commentary on the Halley observation:
So, unless you want to claim the Halley is special somehow, there you are acknowledging your "hypothesis" can't accurately describe the motion of objects in orbit around the sun. Not being able to accurately describe the motion of objects due to gravity is not really a hallmark of a great new theory of gravity I'm sorry to say. It is however great evidence that you need to modify your "hypothesis" or throw it out...because in its current form it does not work.

I'm certainly not the first person to bring these to your attention. These plain and simple observations are not new and they're probably not even the best evidence that's been presented that your "hypothesis" is wrong. They've simply been ignored and forgotten about...and then 75 pages later you're claiming we have to wait for data. :roll:

So, Lunatik, there's a bunch of "data" that you claim we don't have. Do you plan on revising your "hypothesis" so it agrees with these observations? Jerry, how about you?

Sloppy is the wrong word: Optimistic.

Noone on Earth (including me) thought that Huygens would survive a twenty minute descent to the surface, so it is very difficult to interprete the data without engineering details. Do you have specifications that provide more detail? Does the Penetrometer and landing accelerometer data really reflect the landing time, or could it be a time-out buffer polling time?

I think that I can put together a pretty reasonable explaination for the temperature, the optical density, and the speed-of-sound numbers - all of which are out of wack with the predictions, but without all the details concerning how and what kind of landing signal was broadcast, and what all of the criteria were for altituded time-outs. I cannot reconciliate the mission ending time with a rapid descent.

I am asking good questions, trying to put together a plausible descent that is consistent with the data and in the process better contrain (or even eliminate) an alternative basic theory of gravity and motion.

I have posted some ideas that have proven absolutely laughable, as the details of the engineering has emerged. Not a problem - I get to be wrong, and every constructive comment is helpful.

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know. We should try harder to find out.

If you read Anderson's papers on how the ranging data was obtained on the Pioneer missions, and why other probes cannot be used to unambiguously verify the Pioneer anomalies, it should be clear to you we do not have the capability of measuring Haley's postition with enough accuracy to measure the same accelerations. I have stated this at least a dozen times on this thread.

We do not have ranging data - Signals sent from Earth and repeated back to us from Haley's comet - this is the only way to unambiguously measure distance to the level of accuracy achieved by the Pioneer probes...and even these measurements are ambiguous if, as I have hypothesised, the speed of light is increasing with increasing distance from the sun.

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know. We should try harder to find out.

This statement is false. If an astronomer can get Halley in the eyepiece of a telescope when it's at the edge of the solar system, that astronomer knows precisely where Halley is.

We're not just talking about distance anyway, we're talking about location. But even if it was just distance, we wouldn't need to measure it with the accuracy of the Pioneer probes to show that yours and Lunatik's hypotheses are false, since you both predict a huge change in G versus the predicted value.

It's obvious that you like to use your ambiguous ad hoc undefined variable speed of light to patch any gaping hole in your "hypothesis", but what does the speed of light have to do with the location of Halley's comet? It's either in the predicted location or it's not. It doesn't matter how long the light took to get from there to here. If it wasn't precisely where it was supposed to be in its orbit, it would be impossible to find. Try again.

The trick to knowing exactly where Haley's comet is not the result of exacting gravimetric predictions, but knowing the current position, and precisely where the comet was a minute, an hour, a day ago, a week ago, a month ago, and a year ago. The rate of change in every vector can then be calculated, and it's position in the sky tomorrow can be predicted and plotted without even using the laws of gravity - especially if it is a long ways from the sun, where daily and even weekly changes in velocity and acceleration are minicule.

The actual orbit can then be plotted, and compared with the predicted orbit based upon Keplar's laws. But it is never exactly where it should be, as the solar wind, the perturbations of the planets and any other gases, asteroids, comets - even magnetic field effects cause biases that lead to uncertanties that are of a much higher order than what Lunatik or I predict.

We have only know the position of Haley's comet with great accuracy for about 20 years - since it's total orbital period is >70 years, we don't even know the exact orbit, and even if we did, and it turned out to be consistent with a varying force of gravity, the variance would be written- off as unknown Keplar belt objects, or possibly Dark Energy, which should be lurking out there somewhere.

The Pioneer anomaly is on the order of 1x10^-9 m/sec^2. When the entire orbit of Haley's comet is known, perhaps in another 30 years, we may be able to determine the location and velocity with enough accuracy to verify the Pioneer anomaly, but don't hold your breath.
Not!

The speed of light is a fundamental, in fact one of the critical observations. I am hypothesizing that Einstein was wrong when he attributed the results of the Michelson Morley experiment as time dilation.

Assuming each and every massive objects causes chaotic perturbations in the composite electromagnetic field surrounding it, and that when a photon approaches an object, it is slowed in proportion to the velocity of the object relative to the photon is a reasonable alternative to adjusting time. A necessary extension of this hypothesis, is that massive objects like the sun slow and bend the path of light so much it appears to distort both space and time.

The polarization of light by the gravity of clusters of galaxies is a well known phenomenon that can be predicted using the same calculations used to vary the speed of light in transparent mediums of different densities. The proposal that gravity is electromagnetic has been on the table for as long as GR, but it has been shot down largely because the Planck constant and Wien limits do not allow an electromagnetic field strength with a great enough cross section. I can find no hard reason for the assumption that Planck's constant is absolute, only that it defines the radiation limits of what we term baryonic matter.

Since we cannot, using GR derived limits on inverse Compton scattering, explain the energy or penetration powers of cosmic rays, it is not not the province of GR theoriest to declare the Wien and ZKG limits absolute.

Now a theory can be developed that explains the 'bending of time and space' near the sun in terms of electronic field effects. I am not the first person to explain the 'Zero Point Field' in these terms, but I might be the first to conclude that the field does not exist independent of matter, and that it attenuates with increasing distance from massive objects like the sun, and this effect changes the mean path through space of everything.

Getting back to Haley's comet and the pioneer probes, if the speed of light is increasing with increasing distance from the Earth, the time-of-flight used in ranging studies underestimates the true distance. This means that even the measured accelerations of the Pioneer probes towards the sun are wrong and that the probes may actually be accelerating away from us.

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know. We should try harder to find out.

Oh really? Obviously you didn't read the article I linked to.

Distant Halley's Comet:
Your statement is, once again, false. Halley's Comet was, in fact, exactly where it should have been at 28.06 AU. Try again.

We've gone from yards and pounds to kilograms and meters. Then we did one better, to variable 'Time and lengths' in Relativity. :^o
Why should variable G or c be so difficult? Just use the math based on which relative perspective you wish to observe and measure, from that perspective you derive the units relative to what you are observing, the units there. Typically, our measures are all Earth based, well except for "Star date 'seven thousand four hundred and'...", which may be star based. We could discover units that are universal, and yet allow for variables depending upon observer's location, which is what Relativity was supposed to be. Take out variable time and lengths and replace it with variable gravity and lightspeed, and I suspect you're closer to how the universe works.

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

Hear, hear! We know what comets do close to home, but are looking at a very wide spectrum of space to locate them far out there. Attach a probe for Doppler ranging, and you might get a clue of what they're up to. Otherwise, it's merely an educated guess within so many arc seconds at 28 AU.

Well, Cassini's reaction wheels have provided data. This is just one of many data points that you've ignored. [/quote]

Here's the data from the article you referenced, which perhaps I mistranslated in mine:

"In a diagnostic test on Dec. 18, reaction wheel number two still had higher than normal torque, the amount of force needed to turn it, when it was accelerating to a speed of 50 revolutions per minute, but it spun freely at speeds between 50 and 300 rpm."

I had interpreted the "higher torque than normal" as the amount of force needed to overcome inertial resistance, but perhaps this is not what they meant. I suppose it is puzzling that requiring greater torque it then spins freely six times as fast, so really don't know what they mean here. I then went on to read other NASA pages on Cassini's onboard systems:

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/basics/bsf13-1.html
Spacecraft Navigation, see "orbit determination" section, for how they "drive" it there.

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/basics/bsf11-2.html
Attitude and Spin Control, see "momentum desaturation" or desat, and "inertial reference" items.

I guess we can coin a new slogan for NASA? "Leave the driving to us!" 8)

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...