Gravity Problem Solved

[Trippy]

This report says that tidal heating is an order of magnitude short; http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002JE001943.shtml

Big deal.

That proves nothing about Gravity, only that Io isn't in thermal equilibrium, or that it has another heat transport mechanism.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0034-4885/68/2/R02/
Which cites your paper suggests a possible explanation as being that Io has only recently entered the Laplace resonance and suggests that the mantle is un-seggregated (thus implying melt seggregation bla bla bla as per your source), and then goes on to suggest observations which might clarify which it is.

Big deal, I don't think anyone would be surprised to discover that the Gallilean satelites have a dynamic element to their orbits.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Okay, I admit I may have made a mistake with that remark.

So you didn't bother to check before hand? Just shows how little integrity you have.

I remember my physics teacher saying that the moon would eventually fall into the earth. That was only about 25 years ago!

Teacher? Didn't you do an astronomy degree? Shouldn't you have got more advanced information from lecturer?

Prof Brian Cox (who runs the LHC experiment)

No, he's involved in it. He isn't 'running it', it involves thousands of physicists and engineers. He isn't the head of CERN either.

(I saw it on TV).

Weren't these things covered in your degree? Isn't any of your information from actual primary scientific sources rather than here-say, TV and dodgy websites?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

It's intuitive lateral thinking and looking ahead. I do have a clever explanation if the pioneer anomaly is found to be genuine.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

So what's your model? What are the equations of motion for gravitational systems?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

So what's your model? What are the equations of motion for gravitational systems?

My model is that the gravitational field of the sun increases towards the invariable plane. This is due to assymetry within the sun's core. This can be verified by showing that the two pioneer craft are actually heading towards the invariable plane. This leads to a mechanism of rapid climate change; orbital tidal mixing. It even fits with the new upcoming data that global temperatures are in fact dropping. I never would have believed this either in a million years. Now I think we need to prevent the arctic sea-ice from forming!

To you this is just waffle, I know. But there is a branch of scientific research called Simulation Modelling. There's more than one way to solve a problem.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

My model is that the gravitational field of the sun increases towards the invariable plane. This is due to assymetry within the sun's core. This can be verified by showing that the two pioneer craft are actually heading towards the invariable plane. This leads to a mechanism of rapid climate change; orbital tidal mixing. It even fits with the new upcoming data that global temperatures are in fact dropping. I never would have believed this either in a million years. Now I think we need to prevent the arctic sea-ice from forming!

So what's your model then? Give me the quantitative details. If you worked for an aerospace company for so long, as you claim, then surely you know how to give quantitative methods, because Boeing or Airbus aren't going to accept "I think the plane will fly", they'll want a ton of CFD simulations, wind tunnel analysis and, back in the day, some analytic fluid mechanics perhaps using conformal transformations. You claim to have worked in a business which demands details in their models but whenever I ask you for such details you never provide. Why is that?

To you this is just waffle, I know. But there is a branch of scientific research called Simulation Modelling. There's more than one way to solve a problem.

I've told you before, I know of such an area of scientific research. My father has a professorship for his more than 30 years in precisely that area. He's worked on the supersonic car, the Eurofighter, the Airbus A380 (and numerous other aircraft by Boeing and Airbus), published textbooks on numerical methods and optimising mesh generations, written more papers than you've even read and now heads a department with a budget running into the tens of millions. If he said "I've got a model for [something]" he'd be able to provide anyone who asked with the governing equations, the numerical methods used to solve them, numerous simulations to justify any claims (and allow for statistical analysis) and a rundown of those results compared to other methods/models out there. You haven't done any of that.

Is your 'model' qualitative or quantitative? If qualitative then you've got nothing. If quantitative, give me the equations you're working in. If you can't then you're all talk with nothing to say. You try to avoid answering these pretty standard questions by pretending there's something special about 'simulation methods' which I don't understand. Unfortunately for you I know enough about numerical methods in practice and the area of research as a whole conceptually to know the methods you are using are not scientific or anything like those used by the actual numerical methods community. Ask yourself this, would your 'model', if written up, get published in peer review? If not, why not. If it wouldn't then it's not the amazing thing you think it is.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

My intuitive model, based on a background of scientific R&D combined with simulation modelling tuition is very low key, I admit. But I have made some predictions that can be verified. If the pioneers are found to be heading towards the invariable plane, with calculations which match the rate of motion anomaly, then I have succeded in showing that my idea has potential and should be investgated further.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

My intuitive model, based on a background of scientific R&D combined with simulation modelling tuition is very low key, I admit. But I have made some predictions that can be verified. If the pioneers are found to be heading towards the invariable plane, with calculations which match the rate of motion anomaly, then I have succeded in showing that my idea has potential and should be investgated further.

I've had some communication with the leading Nasa expert on the subject and here's what happened:

Idea Predicts Two Distance Changes In Gravity Field Interactions‏
From: Alan Lowey (amlowey@hotmail.co.uk)
Sent: 18 September 2009 09:03:14
To: Slava Turyshev (*)

Dear Slava,

I've discovered that the Pioneer spacecraft acceleration anomaly is not due to changes within the gravitational field of the sun as I previously suggested, although I still think that it can explain the 100,000 year glacial cycle mystery. The Pioneer misprediction now makes sense, I have looked at my idea more closely and found that this is consistent with the concept of a particle theory of gravity. A change in gravity field interaction occurs between baryonic matter emitting gravitons and baryonic matter interacting with gravitons. This is intuitively assumed to reside at the end of the Oort Cloud at the edge of the solar system. The other change in gravity field interaction occurs between innermost core of 'low-entropy-density dark matter' and other similar matter at a large distance. This is assumed to be the causation of the average intersteller distance; the distance between one star and another. The Pioneer craft was a red-herring in MOND-like thinking imo and must be experiencing an apparent added acceleration towards the sun due to some other reason or combination of reasons. It all fits in my book.

Kind regards,

Alan



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: amlowey@hotmail.co.uk
To:
Subject: Pioneer Trajectories Away From Invariable Plane
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:39:57 +0000

Dear Slava,

I have looked at the Horizons system and found that:

"BACKGROUND
This mission was the first to be sent to the outer solar system and the
first to investigate the planet Jupiter, after which it followed an
escape trajectory from the solar system.

The spacecraft achieved its closest approach to Jupiter on December 4, 1973
(UTC), when it reached approximately 2.8 Jovian radii (about 200,000 km).

Last fully successful acquisition of signal was March 3, 2002. Pioneer 10
signal at the Earth (185 dBm) is now at DSN threshold limit of reception.

Launched : 1972-03-03 at 01:49:00 UTC"

If the spacecraft was launched in March 1973 and it's closest approach to Jupiter was December 1973, and from Wikipedia I found that "The invariable plane is within 0.5° of the orbital plane of Jupiter,[1]" then I have concluded that some 36 years later the Pioneer 10 is NOT heading towards the plane of angular momentum of the solar system. I can therefore rule out the notion of a possible extra gravitational acceleration towards this plane being responsible for the trajectory anomalies. I still believe that the idea can effectively explain the 100,000 year ice age mystery; by increasing the natural earth tides that travel across the ocean floors which would result in mixing of cold bottom waters and the upwelling of tons of nutrients to the surface. This combined effect would lower global temperatures an induce an ice age IMHO. Do you understand the concept I'm getting at?

Kindest of regards,

Alan


> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:29:44 -0700
> From:
> To: amlowey@hotmail.co.uk
> Subject: Re: Science Website Feedback from amlowey@hotmail.co.uk (Subject: Pioneers: Side Elevation of Trajectories)
>
> Dear Alan:
>
> The trajectories of the Pioneers are very well known and you could makes
> the plots by getting the data from JPL's Horizons system:
> http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons Please let me know what will you learn.
>
> Best wishes,
> Slava
>
> amlowey@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > EMAIL: amlowey@hotmail.co.uk
> > SUBJECT: Pioneers: Side Elevation of Trajectories
> >
> > REFERRING PAGE:
> > http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=turyshev+nasa&meta=&aq=f&oq=
> >
> > COMMENTS:
> > Dear Turyshev, Why can't we see the path of the pioneers from a side angle? It's always a plan view of the solar system. I have a prediction that both pioneers are heading towards the plane of angular momentum of the solar system (approx equal to the orbital plane of Jupiter). It would verify the idea of a non-uniform gravity field emitting from a non-baryonic innermost core of the sun.
> >
> > Best wishes, Alan
> >
>
> --
> Dr. Slava G. Turyshev, Research Scientist
> Relativistic Astrophysics Research Group
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, MS 301-486
> 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Phone: +1(818)-393-2600 Fax: +1(818)-393-5239

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Wow, so you've lowered yourself to spamming NASA scientists with your "I've got the answer to everything, my ideas are consistent with quantum gravity and I explain the ice ages". I am sure he and his colleagues are laughing at your emails right now.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Wow, so you've lowered yourself to spamming NASA scientists with your "I've got the answer to everything, my ideas are consistent with quantum gravity and I explain the ice ages". I am sure he and his colleagues are laughing at your emails right now.

You really shouldn't judge other people by your own standards. Funnily enough I remember a similar outcome of a MOND-like proposal where the gravity field is predicted to fall off and then increase. It was in Nicolson's 'Dark Universe' I think, I'll look it up. Incidentally I now think there are four distances of change of gravity field interactions which could correspond to the four forces within baryonic matter, defined by geometric gravity interactions. This is a new groundbreaking area for me and may take some time to tease out the details but I'm confident that I'll get there.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You really shouldn't judge other people by your own standards.

You're emailing a guy from NASA. I would imagine he doesn't appreciate the emails if all you're doing is just monologuing about your 'theories'. My 'own standards' involve having quantitative stuff to back me up, I would imagine a NASA worker has similar criteria.

Funnily enough I remember a similar outcome of a MOND-like proposal where the gravity field is predicted to fall off and then increase. It was in Nicolson's 'Dark Universe' I think, I'll look it up. Incidentally I now think there are four distances of change of gravity field interactions which could correspond to the four forces within baryonic matter, defined by geometric gravity interactions. This is a new groundbreaking area for me and may take some time to tease out the details but I'm confident that I'll get there.

'Details'? You've never provided details. IT's funny, you spend ages saying "Oh my idea is worth a look at" because you don't provide any details and when a short amount of time on Google provides proof you're wrong you utterly fail to realise that my criticism of you have been proven right and you just change to a new random postulation.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

AN; your repeated use of the phrase "your random postulations" is rather tiresome. I'm making good progress thanks. My idea is direct verification of MOND and provides an intuitive overall picture:

MOND and its implications by R.H Sanders . I quote from page 72:

This is why that, on a epistemological level, MOND is more successful than dark matter. But, of course, MOND must fit into a larger picture. One may naturally ask - what are the larger scale implications of modified dynamics - specifically, what are the implications for gravitational lensing and does MOND imply a reasonable cosmology and cosmogony? These are the questions which require a more basic theory underlying MOND, and this is, at present, the essential weakness of the idea.

Is anyone else a MOND-man?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Can you explain why your 'work' isn't random postulations? You spent considerable time in this forum saying how it was worth everyone looking at your ideas because you had a simple and elegant explaination for galaxy rotation curves, the Pioneer anomaly and the glacial cycles of the Earth and when someone finally manages to push some raw data infront of your nose (which you are too inept to find yourself) and you realise your claims were wrong all along you simply change claims and carry on as if no problem has occured at all.

That isn't science, that's self deception.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Can you explain why your 'work' isn't random postulations? You spent considerable time in this forum saying how it was worth everyone looking at your ideas because you had a simple and elegant explaination for galaxy rotation curves, the Pioneer anomaly and the glacial cycles of the Earth ..

lol. I'll admit I made a boo-boo with the Pioneer prediction, but the finding that I made a mistake and that the basic idea is still valid has made me see deeper. The Ice Age cycle is somehow beyond you; others manage to understand what I mean. The new find that the main problem with MOND is the lack of a basic understanding and an overall picture means that I can see the finish line. I'm more than confident that I'll have something concrete very soon.

 

[draqon]

The mountains and ocean are also seen to be affected by the moon's gravitational influence, but NOTHING ELSE.

You are effected by moon gravity as well...you alone of all the billions of people on this planet, along with the mountains and oceans.

moon's selective you see.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

You are effected by moon gravity as well...you alone of all the billions of people on this planet, along with the mountains and oceans.

moon's selective you see.

This early quote from around a year ago now was meant to say that the idea fits with the Moon's and Sun's gravitational influence being most prevalent on the innermost core of the earth due to an extra gravitational pull on 'low-entropy-density-matter' to create a bulge of the lithosphere; hence the oceans and mountains move.

 

[Ophiolite]

lol. I'll admit I made a boo-boo with the Pioneer prediction,

And the only reason you are admitting that is that I found you the data you were - to borrow a phrase - too inept to find for yourself. Do you really think your other ideas will stand up to even cursory scrutiny?

but the finding that I made a mistake and that the basic idea is still valid has made me see deeper.

No. No. No. You made a mistake. That is true. You did find that. You did not find that the basic idea is still valid. Making a sentence with a conjunction and two subordinate clauses does not automatically validate the contents of the sentence.

The Ice Age cycle is somehow beyond you; others manage to understand what I mean. .

There appear to be three categories of person who have understood what you mean in relation to the ice age
1. People who are being polite.
2. People whom you have misunderstood.
3. People who are as screwed up as yourself.

The new find that the main problem with MOND is the lack of a basic understanding and an overall picture means that I can see the finish line. I'm more than confident that I'll have something concrete very soon.

I give you full marks for being one of the most intelligent delusional personas I've run across on forums.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

I give you full marks for being one of the most intelligent delusional personas I've run across on forums.

I'll take that as a compliment. Thnx.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'll take that as a compliment. Thnx.

Why not. You've misinterpreted everything else you have read.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Why not. You've misinterpreted everything else you have read.

lol!