Right. (Don't know about the China thing, either.) Now? Not so much.

How about (you don't have to answer this one, Jon; you're not any of the people I'm aiming at) the idea that blood flows through the human body? ATM at first or no?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

How much physics do you know? Physics gets less precise as you get further along, not more. Most physicists study equations for decades trying to find another decimal of confirmation or to find a flaw.

Spend all the time with nature that you want, but while nature dosent lie, what you think you see and what is there can be two very different things.

the fact that you dont know enough to know how complicated things really are isnt my fault or my problem. Assuming that scientists are just trying to get you by making things harder than they need to be is wrong, and insultingly so. I would love it if all of physics could be simple one liners, but that is not the way it is, no matter how much you may dislike it.

Wiki says that until 1950 comets were thought of as rocks covered with ice. Fred Whipple changed that in 1950. I guess that means we were both wrong.

Unless that alternate theory fits better. That goes back to doing it yourself. The fact that it would be hard isnt really an excuse when you want to change so much.
And fusion power has been 10 years away for half a century. Dosent make either one not true.
Pushing decimals can give some results. It is why there is a difference between classical and modern physics.

Yes, there are alot of wacko paths out there. That is why I keep telling you to present your results in a manner acceptable to mainstream physics. You cannot go from wacko to mainstream without it.

GR and QM, down to observable limits, are more precise than classical mechanics. That is the definition of more correct to a physicsist. The fact that they may not be more complete than classical physics is a completely different story. I doubt that there are many physicists that think that either is complete.

You are also incorrect on what QM and GR are compared to classical physics. They are not adding in higher order terms, they are looking at physics in a completely different way. Ways that give better fundamentals over their respective areas than classical physics did. That does not mean that they are the end all or even the expected end all of what we know.

As a matter of fact, the reason you keep getting told to present your work in a manner acceptable to the physics community is not to dismiss you, but to see if you are right. The fact that you dont present it in our language is why you get dismissed. It may seem a bit selfish, but that is the way it works.

While it is an interesting article, do not read too much into it. It dosent say when and where these probes were accelerated, it dosent say how well the acceleration vectors correlate with either the probe position or probe velocity vectors.

there are two major problems. First:
This is utterly irrelevant. There could be a different cause for each if the anomalies ever measured. Not likely, but not that different in likelyhood to Anderson's statement.

Second:
This paragraph is very frustrating in its lack of coherent science. Did NEAR approach 13mm/s faster? Did it leave 13mm/s faster? How do the approach and exit latitudes matter? What was the delta-v of the pass?

The reason I brought this up is that it can make a big difference. If the 13mm/s is only seen when receeding from the Earth, then the tiny comparative change may be a higher order geoid term in Earth's gravitational field. If it is seen when NEAR is approaching Earth, if Earth is farther from the sun than NEAR when approaching, then the acceleration vector seems to be opposite to the Pioneer anomaly. We just cant tell with this article.

On the oither hand, this is pretty interesting. They should try to make sure they have extremely accurate position data for all probes from now on.

Your slipping away from the issue again: The willingness of MS physicists to accept substandard data reduction routines in the treatment of astrophysical data, while at the same time holding the feet of those who propose alternatives to the fire prevents new concepts from emerging.

As near as I can find, not one other physicist made a single public statement when the ESA threw out the results of the Huygens radar and used low resolution temperature and pressure data to plot Huygens decent. (The ESA press release, was very deceptive: It claimed 'all of the methods agreed', but 'all of the methods' did not include either of Huygens' radar systems, Huygens' sonar, or the VLA trianglulation results.)

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMCSUUHJCF_index_0.htm
There has been very little public comment about the Gravity B probe scientists 'backing out' the frame dragging from unexpected forces experienced by the G probe gyroscopes. (The G probe team gets high marks for candor.)

Few are asking why the WMAP data releases are consistently years late; and once again the team is silent; other than to say there have been more difficulties with the calibration. Like supernova researchers, every time they release data, they reinvent the wheel.

Then we have the Anderson group, finally publishing what they have been trying to sort out on their own for more than a decade. At least they have publicly stated they cannot resolve the differences between what is expected and what they have measured; though I am like you, frustrated that in this case, not enough detail is provided to really sort this all out.

I can tell you that Anderson et al's treatment of the Pioneer anomally was exhaustive; and the residual effect cannot be attributed to known possible causes, simple or otherwise.

This solar system does not behave the way Newton anticipated; even with the the paltry GR corrections. And as long as principle science teams keep insisting Iapetus is a white moon painted with dark 'stuff' instead of the other way around, and as long as scientist are allowed to conclude Titan is covered with a thick layer of hydrocarbons when none of the physical or spectral evidence supports this conclusion, we will continue to wallow in dark stuff.

The evidence is there, step back and look at it without prior expections.

__________________
jwj

The Reluctant Cosmologist

Jerry. This is a direct question. Was the flow of blood through the human body once considered ATM?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Still with the Huygens? after all this time!

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

Well, for interest, this is being published in the current issue of Physical Review Letters. You have to buy the article or have a subscription, but here's a link to the abstract. I would imagine this paper has more detail than the popular science press releases that have been discussed so far. I have a PRL subscription and will take a look at it.

BTW, I love this because it puts the spoke in Jerry's usual contention that mainstream science somehow "suppresses" this sort of thing. PRL is as mainstream as it gets, arguably the premier physics journal in the world. Just goes to show that when results seem to disagree with theory, even at a tiny level, scientists show interest.

Of course Jerry will probably say that we're finally "waking up" to this and that the revolution that will overthrow everything from Archimedes to Weinberg and Hawking is imminent. Total garbage of course. Also note that the abstract mentions a quantitative prediction for another probe pass. Take note Jerry, that's how science is done.

P.S. Ketterle still has his Nobel.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

And let's not forget that a certain BAUT member has not, ever (AFAIK), published anything to do with any alternative ideas wrt (local) gravity ...

Suppresses? We don't tend to publish things we do not understand - nobody wants to admit that they are stumped.

Listen to what Anderson wrote in 2006:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-p.../0608087v2.pdf

If it has long been a concern at JPL, why wasn't it published until November of 2006? Not suppression: Years of hesitation - decades of mulling over the data in-house, looking for Mainstream acceptable answers. There are none.

But when anomalies can be written off as atmospheric effects, they are: The rapid decent of the Jupiter probe was modeled by using an outlandish down draft. When exceptional conditions are assumed in order to get the data to agree with established theory, you are violating Jerry's first rule: You are slanting the playing field away from possible alternatives.

After all this time, Huygens principle investigators finally acknowledged that they ignored Huygens' radar, assumed a 'G' value for Titan, and used a suddenly reversing wind to remove anomalies from the data. This is where the 'Jerry rule' comes into play: If the assumptions necessary to get results consist with a mainstream theory would be laughed at if they were made to support an alternative theory, these mainstream assumptions must be treated with severe skepticism.

If I said Huygens didn't behave because of a peculiar force, but to model this peculiar force I had to assume a suddenly reversing wind, and also assume that the probe rotated backwards, opposite the aerodynamic design, I would be laughed off of the internet. But it is not me, it is the mainstream scientists, who are resorting to bazarre interpretations: A sudden reversal of wind direction in high altitudes is not consistent with our limb studies, or thermodynamic models of this moon. Huygens' decent cannot be modeled with reasonable interpretationa of known physical laws.

Titan covered with meters of hydrocarbons? In the form of what? Skin? Hydrocarbons are black - especially black when there is limited oxygen. Titan is rusty red, Zion's National Park red. Red sand dunes. Red alluvial deposits. Without a red model for hydrocarbons, mainstream planetary scientists are driving a Model T.

The latitude given to MS scientists in making these assertions is incredible...when they are accepted without question; there is no latitude left for alternative theoriest to stake out a claim.

The data tells us our understanding is infantile.

__________________
jwj

The Reluctant Cosmologist

I publish here all the time, and make predictions - you know what I have predicted regarding the Mars Phoenix probe. (It will enter at a higher-than-expected attitude, and fall fast and fall hard; consuming more fuel than expected if it lands safely - just like the Viking probes.)

And if you are talking about peer reviewed publications; as I just restated: the playing field is awfully slanted - The eyes pretty much glaze over as soon as you say Both Newton and Einstein are way, way wrong. I present at conferences. (I see lots of glazed eyes).

__________________
jwj

The Reluctant Cosmologist

I know the answer to this one.

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."

You couldnt have posted this monday so I could get the article while I was up at school yesterday

By the way, how many of us close minded, orthodoxy fanatic mainstreamers here at BAUT are kinda interested in this?

Ding!

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

I will answer this because it relates directly to one of the many areas of interest I have in the sciences. Even though Galen's assistant and then some 300 years later another supposed blood to pass from the heart to the lungs in a minor flow it was not considered a body flow. Even Leonardo da Vinci did not go so far but he did note no direct connection from the vessel of the heart into the lungs because the alveoli were closed and not allowing blood to empty into the lungs. He did experiment and proved the heart valves allowed flow in one direction only and the heart had four chambers not two but did not presume to explain flow to the 'pores'.

Galen's work of the blood acting only to distribute heat from the furnace of the heart and thereby not allowing the blood to corrupt the spirit of man was taught until a Michael Servetus published privately that the blood flows through the body. For this his books were destroyed and he was burnt at the stake by Calvin.

Why it is relevant to me is that one of the areas I am interested in is this:-

Until now the maximum size of a quantum particle is about 200 times the size of a proton. One such reaction provided a brief reaction of around 2 trillion degrees. CERN will produce results 100 times greater than previous trials. Quantum particles can only be measured by their waveform, meaning the energy that it takes to excite a proton to the size required. Only energy is produced because the particle if it was really there dissolves in such a way that no residual matter is left. Nice and clean.

Here is the math:-

200 'size' times 100 'greater results energy' equals 2000
2000 is bigger than 1760 the maximum needed to produce a stable particle
100 'greater result' times 2 trillion degrees equals 200 trillion degrees

A stable reaction would be capable at that temperature of converting matter to rest mass energy. A sustained reaction could continue to convert matter to rest mass energy. A chain reaction could continue to convert matter to rest mass energy until such time as there is enough to burn at the stake all the bad science that ever was.

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."

This is a disturbing statement by Anderson, that “total geocentric orbital energy per unit mass should be the same before and after the flyby. The data indicates this is not always true.” What does this mean exactly?

Korjik above said: