Today’s Cassini pass near Dione includes science experiments that provide another test of ‘Non-Newtonian Physics’.

http://planetary.org/blog/20051010.html

For two hours near closest approach, Cassini is scheduled to be transmitting to the Earth, and if all is well, the very large array has already captured Doppler data that should give us a good approximation of the Newtonian mass of Dione. However, if ‘Jerry physics’ are real, there must be a gradient in this data that is consistent with an 'increase’ in mass upon closest approach!

Just like with Ganymede, this will likely be interpreted as a gravitational anomaly with no corresponding surface feature: a very dense region relative to the mass of the moon in general.

Results consistent with what I have describe would not prove non-Newtonian gravitational effects – there could be a true gravitational anomaly. However, a failure to observe this type of event would be compelling evidence that a non-Newtonian gradient does not exist, nullifying this hypothesis.

It may be a while - months or even years - before the detail from this science experiment is publically available. (We are still waiting for the science data from Huygens, scheduled to be released in June of 2006.) So don't expect a quick answer. Watch and see.

Isn't this fun?

__________________
jwj

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

(Please let me do this wordplay.)

Are you going to jerrypick the evidence as you did with Huygens, which did not crash nor missed Titan, as you had predicted?

__________________
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)

I made a very rough prediction that Huygens would be ~800km off-target and be moving faster upon entry than expected - It's all on the Potential Threat to Huygens' thread. The preliminary data (Elias posted references to) has visual graphs that indicate Huygens was 1100 km off-target, and moving more than 30m/s faster-than-expected and continued to accelerate for almost two minutes after first detection!

The rest of the Doppler data is completely consistent with a much faster than expected descent and deceleration.

So I don't see anything inconsistent with my hypothesis EXCEPT for the landing time. In any case, the data are all preliminary, and we are not likely to have hard numbers until June.

I don't have any problem waiting for the data. In the extended Cassini mission, they hope to do a lot of Doppler ranging and gravitational/mass measurements. If I am right, every time they collect ranging data during a close pass, Cassini will record a high (positive) gravity anomally that does not correlate with surface features, only with time of closest measured approach.

I can't think of anything more exciting than making a prediction based upon a completely new and original concept of science, and having a mission actively testing and constraining that hypothesis. Even if it turns out to be wrong!

__________________
jwj

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

Could you give a link to either the preliminary data or the post where Elias gave that link? I can't find it.

I do notice that you left out a few of your other predictions (G three times higher than expected, Huygens crashing, ...).

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Your prediction was that Huygens would crash if they did not implement corrections based on your "theory".
After Huygens landed exactly as planned, you shifted goalposts and started arguing about the details of the descent in the atmosphere, which had absoultely nothing to do with the context of your original prediction.
And you still do not accept that you were simply wrong.

__________________
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)

With the data from the various 'close encounters' of the Jovian moons, by Galileo in hand, what anomalies did you find when you analysed that data, Jerry?

How about close encounters of the Earthly/Luna/Venusian/Eros (Erotic?)/Martian/Phobos (Phobian?)/Deimos (Demonic?)/Ida (Ideal?)/Mathilda/Wild/Iapetus/Phoebe (Phoeble?)/etc kind?

Yes, I find these delays very frustrating. A cynic might say that it allows the mainstream time to tinker with the facts and the theories in order to bring them into line.

Egos are inevitably bruised when theories prove inadequate. Better to stall for time and play with the parameters. That way it can be denied that theories have been falsified.

So you are saying that NASA and ESA lie and cheat with their results?

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

Of course the cynic would be expected to support such an accusation of dishonesty with proper evidence.

Are you talking about Jerry here, or about "mainstream" scientists?

__________________
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)

Papageno is correct...that is exactly what Jerry "predicted".

Again, this is exactly what happened.

Once again, this was/is exactly what happened.

What I found most "telling" was this statement...

Jerry, you can't think of anything more exciting than making a prediction, even if it is wrong??? Personally, I'd consider it infinitely more exciting to make a prediction that turns out to be right...

No. They merely tweek the evidence and the theories to conform to the inertia of prior belief.

Do you have any evidence?

__________________
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)

Comets were Dirty Snowballs, then Snowy Dirtballs and, more recently, Powdery Fluffballs. Whatever next? But what does it matter? The theories remain in tact, sort of...

So, you do not have evidence that the data have been "tweaked" to fit standing theories.
What you just mentioned is a change in the theory driven by new experimental results, which contradicts your claim.

__________________
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)

I advise that you read up on Falsificationism ... it might help you with your PhD studies.

Which I just concluded succesfully. What I learned is to support my claims with evidence.

So, where is your evidence?

__________________
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)

I wish that you and RAF would quit putting words on paper for me. Here are some of the relevant direct quotes from the "Potential Threat to Huygens Thread"

Potential Threat to the Huygen Mission
December 8, 2005
At that time I did not know Huygens was being deployed on a 8 meter parachute, and the release of the parachute was based upon a mach number, not timed. By the time of the landing, I was convinced that these design tolerances gave Huygens a good chance to at least return some data:


Potential Threat to the Huygen Mission
January 12, 2005 (Two days before Huygens landing)

The internal heat sensors did sense surprisely high temperatures during the descent, but I am of the opinion that for a reason I did not anticipate, the heat shield experienced lower heating rates than expected(!).

Finally, the day before Huygens' landing:

Potential Threat to the Huygen Mission

January 13, 2005
We beat that thread into exhaustion, and the fact remains: The relevant data that could prove or disprove this hypothesis is scheduled for release in June of 2006. I don't see a lot of merit in discussing the issue further until then, but if you have seen the charts of the Doppler data, you know they were not even close to the priors, requiring extreme +/-vertical shear winds to model.

Incidently, I am still waiting for descent profiles from Spirit and Opportunity. With as much upheavel as there is at NASA, it couild be a while.

__________________
jwj

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

So you are defending yourself from papageno's claims with a quote from the day before the landing which says:
What is the difference with the claim of papageno and RAF?

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse