Thanks matt.o.

As I just pointed out in my response to dgruss23, I'm sorry to say that, given Jerry's posting history in BAUT, I cannot tell what's what any more ...

Try rubbing two balloons together, them stick them on the wall, without rubbing them any further. Then try sticking them on the wall without rubbing them together at all . I am a physcist, I can't explain why they stick after being rubbed together, without some rather feeble mumbling about statistical variations and quantum effects. Explain how thunderstorms emit gamma rays. Explain static friction. I don't think that the standard explanations for triboelectric effects are correct - they don't answer enough questions.

Have you listened to Planetary Radio's interview with John Anderson on the flyby data?

http://www.planetary.org/radio/show/00000279/

Anderson & company spent years analysing Earth fly-by data - starting with flyby analysis in 1990. Cassini, Near, Galileo and Rosetta; and the analytical teams included the best planetary navigators in the US and Europe. They did not come up with a formula until about a year ago, and they still do not have any physics to explain why the formula works. (I haven't seen the formula yet.) In the 2006 paper, Anderson states that even with five missions worth of data, they can't isolate whether the anomaly - they don't know if it is due to a change in the Doppler rate (the speed of light), or the velocity of the probe. My working theory says both, but I can't decouple them either - there is not enough well-quantified evidence; and until probes are launched that test fundamental principles, I don't think anything will be settled.

The orbital calculation of Hipparcos is much more complex than these rather simple (coasting) flybys: Everytime the probe is reoriented by any method for any reason, the numbers change. I think I read they had to use 20+ term harmonics to settle down the observed parallax to quantifiable numbers. That is a lot of number crunching for one malnourished grad student.

As we all know, very close to the Earth, gravity is very nearly exactly as predicted by both Newton and Einstein. There are more fertile places to look: Cassini will be returning A LOT of anomalous data; generally interpretable as extreme over-densities near the crust; exaggerated near mountains on closest passes. (The mountains of Iapetus will map as extremely dense.)

I have been predicting gravitational anomalies during flyby's since long before Anderson's paper, ( Another test of Non-Newtonian Physics ) I'm absolutely certain that the teams who are trying to interpret Doppler signals from Cassini are very puzzled - and it may be a while before anything is published - I hope not sixteen years. There are more gravitational flyby's scheduled during the follow up mission.

In Anderson's paper he mentions that he is making the equation available, so that others who are investigating gravitational anomalies will have access to it. I suspect he is aware of the discussion on this board. It may not be the best science forum, but it is the best I have found for sharing screwball ideas...even with turkey timer.

__________________
jwj

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

Jerry made the claim:

"I'm absolutely certain that the teams who are trying to interpret Doppler signals from Cassini are very puzzled.... I have been predicting gravitational anomalies during flyby's since long before Anderson's paper..."

Jerry, the radical skeptic, now you are all of the sudden a believer in "absolute certainty"? How, exactly, are you "absolutely certain" what the teams involved are thinking wrt this issue? Sounds awfully grandiose to me.

I'm not claiming absolute certainty, but I consistently see evidence that Jerry, in a manner akin to conspiracy theorists, interprets any evidence that runs contrary to his predictions and line of thinking as more evidence that his views about the Universe (e.g. his gravitational hypotheses derived from planetary robotic mission "anomalies") are actually correct! Jerry should realize that claimed refutations of basic scientific principles should be held to the same skeptical standard as claimed confirmations, as many times claimed refutations suffer from errors in analysis just as confirmations do. But Jerry spends scads of time making posts in which he links to this or that paper which supposedly questions this or that basic tenet of physical science and then he makes a glib comment like: "I guess we'll have to rethink this....." Jerry, the problem is that you don't, unlike modern cosmologists, hold the papers that agree with your line of thinking that physical science has it almost all or all wrong to the same skeptical standard as you do the what I call the "I guess we'll have to rethink this Ch(J)erry-picked papers." The most reasonable explanation for this double standard, I think (and this is an important revelation), is that Jerry, instead of being the modern-day Socrates-like maverick whom he makes himself out to be, clings dearly to his own set of prejudices and brainchildern just as much as or more than the cosmologists he spends so much time berating (e.g. cosmology is withcaraft, etc)!

Because the charging of insulating surfaces is not just a matter of affinity, especially if you are rubbing them together. What happens is much more complicated and difficult to investigate.

But it seems to me that you are simply slipping into the bog-standard ATM fallacy: "Mainstream cannot explain everything, therefore I am right!"


I beg to differ.





You have not displayed much knowledge about the "standard" explanations.

This should be an interesting review, but unfortunately I cannot access the fulltext.

__________________
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)

Have you ever thought that just maybe, just maybe, the two balloons are not identical materials? I would start there, but again, your default seems to be to toss out all theories that dont match your preconcieved notions.

If you are a physicist, where did you get your degree?

I would be happy to explain TGF's, and will, just as soon as we nail down where they come from so we can see what mechanism creates them. Again, you toss the baby with the bathwater.

All completely irrelevant. If you have a model, you should be able to fit the data. Heck, if you have a model, you should be able to tell them where and what is happening to Hipparcos. That is what fitting the data is.

The rest is unsupported claims that have no bearing on this discussion

It's not 'cherry picking' to point to anomalies being found in astronomical observations or spaceprobe behaviors. Pioneer Anomaly, comet gassing out tails, planetary Bouguer gravity anomalies, Huygens descent anomalies, flyby anomalies, etc., are telling us something we should be paying attention to. The more observations come in, the more anomalies we find to MS cosmology explanations, which means at some point some sort of revision is in order to better explain them. We may not understand the universe as we think.
Cosmology is not "witchcraft" if it sticks to the principles of good science: test test test the theory. But if theory becomes unfalsifiably fantastic, like Dark Matter, space expansion, inflation, etc., then there is room to check why those anomalies are coming in. Maybe ATM should read 'Anomalous Theories of Mainstream' in need of revision?

The only "absolute certainty" here is that if inertial mass is tested away from Earth's orbit, where here is certainly known, and is found to be different (in whatever way it empirically comes up) then we can be "certain" that modern cosmology will be in need for serious revision. There is nothing wrong with being a "whistle blower" that something is not right with current theory. The real proof will come in from real tests of inertial mass out there away from Earth's known 1 AU. That's what Anderson et al are suggesting, and all the 'anomalies' are telling us is that something is not right. Until we test for this, we are operating on fundamentals of a theory that could fundamentally be way off. Anomalies noted are merely clues that we may not have it right. We must test for inertial mass before a verdict can be called. There's nothing 'cherry picking' about calling for a definitive test, out there, away from Earth's known 1 AU. Just good science.

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

I've been kind of curious about this myself.

A quick search shows Jerry has been posting here for about four years, most of it "pre-turkey-timer". I don't read every post, so I may have missed a post somewhere along the way that offers a glimpse at the model being used to make the vague predictions we've seen over the years. Jerry, have you ever posted any details of your "working theory"?

Of the 5 supposed anomalies, only two are actual anomalies. Comet outgassing is not an anomaly, it is just us not knowing what comets are well enough (namely comet internal structure and composition and how that reacts to solar heating). Bouguer anomalies arent anomalies in the sence you are using it either, but simply density differences from an ideal sphere. Huygens is prolly that little thing we call weather. Only the pioneer anomaly and the flyby anomalies are really complete unknowns. Even then, the fact that they are unknown dosent mean that current theory is incorrect.
you not liking the theory does not make it false. your thinking the theory is fantastic does not make it false.
Do you know that inertal mass was tested when Huygens launched from Cassini and every time either Voyager reports home? Do you know that Cassini test inertal mass every time it passes close to a moon and dosent go splat?

Anderson et al have shown anomalies at the scale of part per million. That dosent sound 'way off'

Cassini tests are indirect evidence, not a dedicated test for inertial mass. Can you reference where in the Cassini tests they addressed inertial mass specifically as part of their test?

Here is a link to ESA's proposal to test for 'gravity' anomalies: We're talking here of going beyond the Standard Model, and possibly beyond Newton's G as a 'universal constant', if inertial mass (per Equivalence) is found different away from Earth's known. They universe may still be 'isotropic and homogenous' but not in ways now understood, if tests come in positive. Just good science.

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

A reference? no, but they check inertial mass every time there is an m in one of their equations and they use the value measured on Earth.

The Standard Model is a particle theory, I dont believe it covers gravity yet. [/nitpick]

Yup. Its amazing that if you actually run the numbers, you get serious attention. However it is still far too early to be making such sweeping statements about G and inertial mass. It may be that our understanding of gravity is fundamentally flawed. It may also be that there is a simple effect not accounted for yet.

This is also yet another reason why ATMers here keep getting told to provide their numbers. With the work shown, errors can be found and anomalies identified. Just waving hands and providing word salad dosent cut it.

Not to nitpick either but if Newton’s gravity is simply F1 = F2 = (GM1 + m2)/ r^2, then if Sun’s mass M1 = 2E+30 kg, and Pioneer’s probe is m2 = 2.6E+2 kg, there is a very serious dislocation of solar mass to probe mass, where the Sun totally dominates gravitationally the mass of Pioneer by 28 orders of magnitude. So any discrepancy in inertial mass from ‘dark matter’ effect or (per Equivalence) probe’s mass increase, it will NOT show up so easily in how the Pioneers misbehave. Remember it took nearly 20 AU for the discrepencies to show up!

So if the above equation is worked out with all the ‘knowns’, everything will work as expected, except for a tiny difference (inertial mass delta, if any) in m2 relative to M1, and all the numbers crunching will work as expected. And… not to belabor or hijack here… if G were different at m2 (though it is known perfectly for M1, whether it represents Sun or planet in flyby), then whatever numbers we figured for the F1= F2 equation will all ‘appear’ to be correct, though the Gm2 relationship would in fact be false. But since m2 is 28 orders of magnitude below M1, it’s almost a non-event… except over very great distances on a hyperbolic trajectory, where such anomalies become apparent. GM1 would dominate to such an extent (by 28 orders of magnitude) that any discrepancies would become mere ‘noise’ in space. What makes these measurable anomalies important is that they may be a revealing clue to how our numbers may give us workable results but not be entirely true to what is happening out there.

My calculations are rough at best, so presenting them here wouldn’t be all that valid, not to mention they would be against forum rules, and OT. In any case, if the Pioneers and other anomalies are from delta in inertial mass out there, they may be pointing to something very important for MS to look at, and measure, out there. Who knows, we might even find adjustments to Einstein's GR, if inertial mass is different, out there.

If I may say this (tongue in cheek) I think the Pioneer probes are 'themselves' becoming a 'dark matter'.

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

Not to nitpick but it's F1 = F2 = GM1 * m2/ r^2.

Much less nitpicky: both masses M1 and m2 in that equation are gravitational masses, not inertial masses. So I fail to see how this equation combined with a change in inertial mass can be applied to the Pioneers.

As has been pointed out in the misty past, direct tests can and have been performed.

Funny how I could look at the equation point blank and still get it wrong! Thanks for pointing it out.

Ah yes, I remember the days... But without a specific reference to how and where these tests (dedicated tests) were performed, my memory fails me.

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

These are measurements near the earth; and just like all measurements on the earth, they do not test the equivalence principle everywhere else.

All relative tests, based upon the initial assumption that Newtonian mechanics properly predict the mass of every moon of Saturn.

If one hypothesized that contrary to Newtonian equivalence principle - the mass/velocity relationship is a function of the total mass of the system; the Newtonian masses of the planets are wrong; but this would not be evidenced in the first order: we would just pencil in the wrong masses, making Mercury much to dense, and Saturn much too light.

No matter how many times we circle these planets, you will always get the same results. But second order effects: Experienced during landings, elliptical passes and flybys should generate measureable anomalies So should passes over surface features.

To test whether or not this assumption is valid, you have to go to these second order effects. Bouguer anomalies are a special class: Mountains that are over-dense relative to the surrounding terrain demonstrate positive Bouguer anomalies. Underdense mountains would run-out as negative Bouguer anomalies.

In these second order effects - flyby's, insertions and fly-overs, is where we have isolated strange anomalies. All of the mountains of Mars are overdense, all of the chasims of Mars are under-dense on Bouguer anomally tables. In our orbital assessments of the densities of surface features of Venus, it is just the opposite; all of the mountains are over-dense, and Venus chasma are under dense. Planetary geophysicists have known this for decades, but without questioning the strong equivalence principle these anomalies are, as you said, not anomalies.

Quite the opposite, the little thing called weather masks these rather subtle second order effects. Galileo's flybys of the weatherless moons Ganymede and Europa lead to very strange gravity maps of these moons.

The evidence is there - if you look for it.

__________________
jwj

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