Thirded - and given that this is ATM, Jerry is obliged to respond.

If our knowledge of the Mass of Mars is wrong to the tune of 14%, then the successful operation of spacecraft at and around Mars for decades is unarguably the greatest miracle of all time.

Yeah, I'd like to see some numbers, too. I probably won't understand them, but they need to be there. There need to be measurements, calculations, a reason to believe there's actually a theory, instead of a bunch of words that don't seem to me to mean anything. I don't understand why direct answers seem to be so hard to produce. Even some questions that should be yes or no take three paragraphs. Something that's answerable by equations is instead answered by a stream of words. All I see is words, and none of them seem to be evidence of anything other than that Jerry doesn't agree with the mainstream, and I think we all knew that going in.

__________________
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!"

Here ya go CM. As usual, Jerry is making objections to GR without knowing whereof he speaks.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Sometime ago I did work out the math on an alternative 43” per century, follow link: Mercury’s precession as a function of Sun’s equatorial angular momentum transfer at perihelion. But that got no response then, nor do I expect any now. I’m surprised the Brans-Dicke idea was never followed up by MS, not as a function of Sun’s oblateness but as angular momentum transfer, where equatorial spin at perihelion is sufficient to ‘propel’ Mercury just a tad, like 43” per century. The GR explanation is grand, of course, but there is no causality to explain it.

Tassel, I'll have to go and find the originals on 'variables inertial mass' tests outside Earth-Moon orbital region, which is where those tight parameters were measured before, in Earth orbit. I don't believe I ever saw the same scientific test, as a dedicated test (the kind proposed by ESA), for inertial mass in other orbital regions, especially for the outer planets. But I could be wrong. If you come across them in your travels, let me know. Test test test... out there... same as before, good science. Could Cassini be adapted to do this at Saturn, for example?

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

Put your thinking caps on: GR provides a geometric solution to the Mercury Procession problem. Four dimensional; but it is not that different from Keplar trying to use perfect shapes to plot the orbits of all of the planets. GR is so widely accepted because it resolved the one outstanding issue with solar Newtonian mechanics. Hell, I'm arguing Newton is off on outer planet masses by factors of more than two. Where GR fits in all of this is absurdly academic.

Meanwhile, from the Planetary Society's Emily:

Just as it was necessary to use a major gravity anomaly to explain the close flyby of Galileo of Ganymede, the very first pass of Mercury is about three sigma out of wack.

What the hell? If you remember my predictions about Mercury, I expected something quite opposite: Mercury should be lighter than Newtonian estimates, so I'm 180 degrees wrong, right? Maybe. Once again, not enough information: I figured Mercury would provide less gravitational braking than expected. This article does not say whether the assist was more or less than expected. To achieve gravitational braking, you cross in front of the planet's orbit and let gravity reign in some momentum.

mmm...Ok, I can see a couple of solutions, but more information is needed. If this was our closest pass to Mercury, and closest by a fairly long shot, previous passes may have under estimate the Newtonian mass/density of Mercury that we will measure once in orbit. The other solution would require an inside to outside pass - I just don't know enough about Messengers path. What is clear, is that the earlier-than-planned orbital correction last year was indeed due to an unexpected gravity-related event...because, like Ganymede and Europa, it can't be written of as atmospheric.

__________________
jwj

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

READ THE LAST POST: Tell me again I am not providing evidence; and you will have to define for me what you consider evidence, because I don't know.

Math is an abstraction, not reasoning. Every mathematical problem you can model of can be computed in binary logic: Ones and Naughts. Most of the physics that is taught, up to a graduate level is simplifications - we all know a ball does not follow a truly hyperbolic path because of air resistance and such. ANY mathematical solution to these complex issues must be simplified.

Words convey logic, reasoning, draw analogies that don't suffer the same ambiguities of simplified mathematical solutions. Feynman said if you can't explain it at a freshman level, you really don't understand it. The Origin of Species draws on many examples that today can be completely characterized in statisticaleze. But if Darwin would have chosen to outline his theory mathematically, he would have had to formally declare definitions in a field that did not exist in his day, and try to do so without losing most of his audience.

Tests of theories usually require mathematical reductions, and here I am handicapped as well: I could go into a very detailed mathematical explanation of as to why the Huygens science team totally whiffed in their scientific evaluation of Huygens descent. I have studied the results, in excruciating mathematical detail, but so what? Who in their right mind would accept my evaluation, my assumptions that are so different from a team of mission scientists? Given the response of audiences when I have thrown simplified formulas on a white board, or offered analysis of data the differs widely from mission scientists; I have chosen other lines of logic, such as pointing out mainstream scientists are really stretching the data to get the answers they need, and occasionally publish what they do not understand.

Besides, does the mailman go for a walk on his day off?

__________________
jwj

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

I suggest you go back and study GR some more then. Your statement here is flat out wrong. The GR equations can be expanded as a power series (something that can't be done to the Newtonian equations). The 43 minutes of an arc per century (in the case of Mercury) is due to the addition of the second order term in the equations.
If you want the simplified physics behind the second order term, then you can think of it this way. That second order term is the additional gravity that has to be added, due to the energy of the sun's gravitational field. This isn't considered under Newtonian gravity, because only mass is the cause of gravity under Newtonian gravity. Under GR, all energy causes gravity, so the energy of the gravitational field has to be included.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Which has nothing to do with my statement. Let's go back to post 145 shall we:

Note my bold. I'll ignore your constants claim, since CM covered it. You claimed that the prediction by GR of Mercury's precession (not procession) was artificial and wasn't equally accurate for the other planets. My link shows that for Venus, Earth, and Icarus that the prediction matches observations within errors. Which you have to agree, pretty much show you don't know what you are talking about in your claim.


LOL Jerry, why is it that as soon as something disagrees with your ideas, it's "not enough information" (even when that something is completly opposite of what you predicted) but when there is the slightest difference in a mainstream theory, your all over it wanting it overturned and replaced?

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

The original prediction is here:
Potential Threat to the Huygen Mission

I revised the masses of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn for Neried somewhere later, but for the rest of it, I stand by the original 'formula' prediction...at least the first two digits.

I would reserve that title for Huygens. Incredible feat, that.

Mars landings - Mars could not possibly be 14% more massive, unless the Newtonian equivalence principle is the root of the problem: It takes less energy to reduce momentum if you are further from objects like the sun. We can land on Mars dissipating less energy than we would have to, if Mars were at the same orbital distance from the Sun than the Earth. Even so, fighting against gravity over-time takes more energy as the rate of descent slows. It is a fact that it took both Viking probes ~5% more fuel to decelerate the last few seconds than Newtonian mechanics predicts. Mission scientists never resolved the discrepancy.

See this thread for LOTS OF evidence on how hard it has proven to land on Mars:

Mars: Hard to hit, or are Probes hitting too hard?

It remains to be seen what will happen with the Phoenix. As always for more distant planets, the probe will fall harder and faster than Newton says it should. The nice thing is we will have both precision Doppler and radar telemetry all the way down.

__________________
jwj

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

You got me Tensor, I don't even know where to start to look for "second order term of the equations" in GR! However, if you or someone have references where I can start, I'd love to follow up on this, especially if it shows "causality" for GR equations for Mercury's precession. Nothing ATM here, just curious about how Einstein's 4 dimensional geometry causes "causality". Thanks.

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

Words dance better than numbers, and every measurement is a number. No measurements, no science.

__________________
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!"

Please apply the 'Jerry Test': If I offered this data and error bars this wide as proof of an ATM theory, it would draw a wild chorus of Naays. As I said the last time we churned this: There is more going on the Either Newton or Einstein allowed and we are finally seeing evidence of it.

That said, you can't even whisper the equations of Maxwell in complex setting without worrying about second order effects: Whether or not you have a good handle on the causality. GR is just one of many possible explanations, not the right one. I am also curious as to why the error bars are tighter for Icarus than for the Earth or Venus. Has somebody got a bead on Icarus?

What makes you assume the data is inconsistent with my theory? I pointed out there is not an obvious connection, because the data is not well enough defined, but it is another gravity anomaly in a place that if I am correct there must be gravity anomalies

Did you even read the article? It says right in the article they need more observations of this important clue to constrain the possible explanation. And if all goes well, we will get it!

Another post with A LOT of Evidence:

Jerry Jensen's ATM idea

__________________
jwj

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

Here are some numbers:

212.3 53.32 1.7^e9

8.82

5

__________________
jwj

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

This is really not an answer at all, it borders on insulting. In fact, it is almost worthy of a complaint, but I shall not be making one in this case.

Please give your real calculation, using real physics and real numbers for the discrepancy in the mass/density/whatever of Mars. I'm sure it's a good deal simpler than calculating the Earth's precession of equinoxes. Give it a try.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Doesn't your theory say that gravity increases as we move away from the sun?

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

Only, maybe for the Earth, would such a ATM result get a nay. And only would these error bars be accepted when there is a plausible explanation in the ATM theory for the size of the error bars.

[/quote]
That said, you can't even whisper the equations of Maxwell in complex setting without worrying about second order effects: Whether or not you have a good handle on the causality.
[/quote]

Maxwell's equations? What have they to do with GR? And what do you mean by "complex setting?" And what "second order effects?"

div(B) = 0
curl(B) = J + dE/dt
curl(E) = - dB/dt
div(E) = rho

do you mean with second order that you get a 2nd order derivative if you want to get a wave equation for E or B?

the second order term that Tensor was talking about was in the Taylor series approximation of the GR equations, which are the terms that go with v²/c².

if you would read, you would have seen that it has to do with the eccentricity of the planet, that is important for the effect.

Okay, so they need MORE density in a certain location (which is, by the way, not so much of a problem, there are enough density anomalies. I will need to search for the correct reference here) to get the orbit right, which will be added to the generally accepted average density.
However, YOU need a lower density that then generally accepted average. How on Earth (or Mercury) can the two be compatible?

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )