Humblemunn

"But you said modeling of time", ...no, I'm only interested in modelling how the clocks interact with assumed spinning Archimedes screw gravitons. The pendulum makes intuitive sense. The atomic clock 'ticking' faster in a lower flux of gravitons suggests to me that we need a FULL understanding of atomic theory before we can understand the "why?".

You're being pedantic. The software uses math, yes. I don't need to know high level math when using it. I do need to know how to tweak the code. That's the difference between simulation modelling and mathematical modelling.

It's the ability to convey an understanding of a system to a layperson which is it's greatest advantage imv. It means that potential obvious errors within the system can be spotted more easily. It is perfectly suited to exploring the frontiers of science, complementary to mathematical modelling, which is what the OP is asking. The OP is right in suggesting that "Observation and Hypothesis" should be at the forefront of exploring the frontiers of science. That's exactly what I've done which has led to my qualitative prediction for a lateral deviation to the left for the Juno flby. This is COMPLETEY NEW. It isn't a guess about the amount of velocity increase. It's a lateral force prediction, which I've specified will be to the left of the spacecraft flightpath due to the unique hypothesis of left-hand spinning Archimedes screw gravitons.

I'm not sure on the amount of force that will be applied, but thinking about it, at 30,000ft an airliner experiences a 1.6g acceleration in Clear Air Turbulence which I'm attributing to this force. The spacecraft Juno will be coming as close as 514 Kilometers. I'm assuming a narrow angle of divergence for the fluid exotic matter force particles. There was a case of a water depression of just 20 feet across in the Caribbean, which stretched across the sea in both directions. The occupants said that when they entered, they were thrown forward onto the bottom and the lady hurt her wrist. This I estimated to be around a 1.6g force acting on the fluids of the body. The aircraft in CAT typically jolt and then jolt again around 10 seconds afterwards. I've done the calculations before for an ultra rough appoximation on the beam width, but I'm not inclined to do it again. The spacecraft weighs 3,625 kilograms. I don't know the weight of fluid fuel which will be left during the flyby, but I guess it will be significant due the amount needed for a successful entry into Jupiter orbit. That's why I say a large flyby anomaly. The lateral deviation left will be proportional to this velocity increase. In the thread Is Mathematics Alone a safe medium for exploring the frontiers of Science. Or should Observation and Hypothesis lead in front ? the OP is right in suggesting that "Observation and Hypothesis" should be at the forefront of exploring the frontiers of science. That's exactly what I've done which has led to my qualitative prediction for a lateral deviation to the left for the Juno flby. This is COMPLETEY NEW. It isn't a guess about the amount of velocity increase. It's a lateral force prediction, which I've specified will be to the left of the spacecraft flightpath due to the unique hypothesis of left-hand spinning Archimedes screw gravitons. Sorry I can't be more specific for you, but I'm happy with what I've deduced so far.

Professor Ray Paul of Brunel University would disagree with you. One thing I forgot to mention is that once the basic dynamical model is created using the software, on-hand tweaking of the code is needed for a tailored model.

I'm predicting that the force acts on the fluids of the spacecraft during a flyby anomaly event and is greater with a lower altitude. If I correctly predict a lateral deviation to the left in addition to a large positive acceleration for Juno then the hypothesis can be tested for other previous spacecraft anomaly events. It's the specific amount of fluid aboard each craft which is difficult to find by casual search engines. I imagine that if my qualitative prediction is correct, then others will take the baton to do more specific mathematical correlation with previous data. Thanks for the positive comment from yourself and Greg H. P.S. I somehow lost access to my email account and had to create another as well as another registration here. Arrghh Thanks for the positive comment. Edit: There's always future missions to prove me right! New Mission Will Explore Bizarre Gravitational Anomaly Around Earth