Time, Fluid Gravity, Flyby predictions - split from A Fatal Flaw in Relativity

[Humblemun]

My dear, clocks measure time, not produce it. You might want to google "second" for the accurate definition of a second.

It's the mathematical concept of "time" that I uncomfortable with. In a simulation model of the creation of structure, I can imagine structures forming from an external energy within a void which eventually become spinning neutrons, protons and galaxies. I don't need complex mathematics, just a visual model. "Time" is just a perception within the minds of human beings who observe structures moving relative to one another. Until atomic physics has a simulation model of the nucleus and electrons, then I'm not happy with mathematical modelling of time. I want a TOE that a layman can understand.

[Mellinia]

It's the mathematical concept of "time" that I uncomfortable with. In a simulation model of the creation of structure, I can imagine structures forming from an external energy within a void which eventually become spinning neutrons, protons and galaxies. I don't need complex mathematics, just a visual model. "Time" is just a perception within the minds of human beings who observe structures moving relative to one another. Until atomic physics has a simulation model of the nucleus and electrons, then I'm not happy with mathematical modelling of time. I want a TOE that a layman can understand.

 

My dear, you have to learn to walk before you fly. That's why you need to learn basic sciences before you advance.

Also, if you are not aware, atomic physics do have a simulation model of the nucleus and electrons.

[Humblemun]

 

My dear, you have to learn to walk before you fly. That's why you need to learn basic sciences before you advance.

Also, if you are not aware, atomic physics do have a simulation model of the nucleus and electrons.

They certainly don't have one for the nucleus that I've seen which makes me think they have a full understanding of the inner most workings of structure. As my Professor of Simulation Modelling used to say, when you're 90% sure of something is when you are at your most dangerous.

[Mellinia]

They certainly don't have one for the nucleus that I've seen which makes me think they have a full understanding of the inner most workings of structure. As my Professor of Simulation Modelling used to say, when you're 90% sure of something is when you are at your most dangerous.

 

My dear, science is never sure, but striving to improve. QM is the current model.

That beside the point, what does this have to do with time?

Edited August 29, 2013 by Mellinia

[Humblemun]

 

My dear, science is never sure, but striving to improve. QM is the current model.

That beside the point, what does this have to do with time?

Most people on here seem more than sure that Newton's and Einstein's continued works are the real deal. Newton assumed that the Earth is composed of entirely the same kind of matter found on the surface. I've deduced that fluid exotic matter exists around the central core. The foundations of the modern mainstream theory of gravity is way to simplistic for me to take seriously. "Time" is a factor within these potentially very flawed equations.

[Mellinia]

I've deduced that fluid exotic matter exists around the central core.

 

Exotic matter of what properties?

[Humblemun]

 

Exotic matter of what properties?

Fluid exotic matter which intermittently emits force particles which interact with fluids to create an anomaly with an acceleration towards the surface with a lateral deviation to the left.

 

It's my solution for the 777 crash at San Franscisco Airport just recently: Autothrottle Function Probed in Asiana 777 Crash

 

 

 

The instructor pilot who occupied the cockpit’s right seat at the time of the crash reported that he assumed the autothrottles were maintaining 137 knots when, at 500 feet, he saw three red precision approach path indicator (PAPI) lights and one white light, indicating a low approach. At that time, he told the pilot flying—a 9,700-hour captain in training who had accumulated roughly half of the needed initial operating experience in the 777—to “pull back.” As the airplane descended between 500 feet and 200 feet, they experienced a “lateral deviation” and continued to fly too low. By the time they reached 200 feet, the instructor pilot noticed four red PAPI lights, indicating a very low approach. [Two red lights and two white lights indicate a correct approach height.—Ed.] Finally recognizing that the autothrottles hadn’t maintained proper speed, the instructor pilot “established a go-around attitude,” and as he attempted to push the throttles forward, he realized that the pilot in the left seat had already done so. The airplane’s speed increased from 103 knots three seconds before impact to 106 knots at the time the tail section hit the sea wall. The airplane careened off the pavement, “ballooned” and spun nearly 360 degrees until it came to rest several hundred feet from the point of impact.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Humblemun

[Humblemun]

 

And I want a pony. Not going to happen. What we do have, in the context of this discussion, is relativity. Which is quite successful.

It might happen if science moves on in a new and unexpected direction.

[Mellinia]

Fluid exotic matter which intermittently emits force particles which interact with fluids to create an anomaly with an acceleration towards the surface with a lateral deviation to the left.

 

It's my solution for the 777 crash at San Franscisco Airport just recently: Autothrottle Function Probed in Asiana 777 Crash

 

 

There's always a revision of fluid dynamics(i.e. air currents) at your mouse tip, without reverting to another failed concept (that I have met in another locked post before, with exactly the same mechanism as yours)

Edited August 29, 2013 by Mellinia

[swansont]

"Time" is just a perception within the minds of human beings who observe structures moving relative to one another.

Much the same as length is a perception within the minds of human beings who observe structures existing relative to one another.

 

Until atomic physics has a simulation model of the nucleus and electrons, then I'm not happy with mathematical modelling of time.

Relativity is not dependent on any particular model of the atom or nucleus. QED does a pretty spiffy job modeling the atom, though.

[Humblemun]

 

There's always a revision of fluid dynamics(i.e. air currents) at your mouse tip, without reverting to another failed concept (that I have met in another locked post before, with exactly the same mechanism as yours)

I don't think it was me. Can you direct me to it please?

[Humblemun]

Relativity is not dependent on any particular model of the atom or nucleus. QED does a pretty spiffy job modeling the atom, though.

The testing of relativity given in the OP relies on atomic clocks which rely on atomic theory, which is the modelling of the atom in isolation.

[Mellinia]

I don't think it was me. Can you direct me to it please?

LOL I think it was in the trash can. Something about TOE with rotational concepts and force particles. You'd better by reviewing current physics in depth then criticizing it.

[Humblemun]

LOL I think it was in the trash can. Something about TOE with rotational concepts and force particles. You'd better by reviewing current physics in depth then criticizing it.

I doubt whether it was the same as my own worldview. More likely your rash judgement of an apparent similarity was enough for the comment "with exactly the same mechanism as yours".

[Mellinia]

I doubt whether it was the same as my own worldview. More likely your rash judgement of an apparent similarity was enough for the comment "with exactly the same mechanism as yours".

 

Well then, at least the last guy showed us some "maths" and explanations. Why don't you try to flesh out further of your theory?

Though you want to check if it approximates to Newtonian gravity (for simplicity) first because it was right for some approximation.

[Humblemun]

 

Well then, at least the last guy showed us some "maths" and explanations. Why don't you try to flesh out further of your theory?

Though you want to check if it approximates to Newtonian gravity (for simplicity) first because it was right for some approximation.

 

I've made a qualitative prediction for the Juno flyby anomaly expected on Oct 9th 2013. That's not long to wait.

 

Here's a recent article which is potentially on the same lines as my own ideas: MOND predicts dwarf galaxy feature prior to observations - Also indicates gravity fields vary where dark matter presumes uniformity

 

 

 

"At stake now is whether the universe is predominantly made of an invisible substance that persistently eludes detection in the laboratory, or whether we are obliged to modify one of our most fundamental theories, the law of gravity," McGaugh continued.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Humblemun

[Bignose]

I've made a qualitative prediction for the Juno flyby anomaly expected on Oct 9th 2013. That's not long to wait.

I think that this is a decent start. Actually making a prediction gets you ahead of most speculators who arrive here.

 

Now, that said, qualitative predictions in physics are usually somewhat sketchy. Because words alone rarely are as clear and precise as mathematical statements.

 

Compare "it will deflect to the left" with "it will deflect 2.5 degrees" and "it will deflect 75 degrees". Both the latter statements are deflections to the left, but one is significantly more impactful than the other.

 

To put this another way, without quantifying your predictions, how can anyone know whether it is correct or not? If you predict 2.5 degrees and it deflects 75 degrees, then your prediction clearly has significant error.

 

So, can I ask that you try to make more of a quantitative prediction? This will really help build your case after it is observed if your prediction matches what is observed.

[Greg H.]

I think that this is a decent start. Actually making a prediction gets you ahead of most speculators who arrive here.

 

Now, that said, qualitative predictions in physics are usually somewhat sketchy. Because words alone rarely are as clear and precise as mathematical statements.

 

Compare "it will deflect to the left" with "it will deflect 2.5 degrees" and "it will deflect 75 degrees". Both the latter statements are deflections to the left, but one is significantly more impactful than the other.

 

To put this another way, without quantifying your predictions, how can anyone know whether it is correct or not? If you predict 2.5 degrees and it deflects 75 degrees, then your prediction clearly has significant error.

 

So, can I ask that you try to make more of a quantitative prediction? This will really help build your case after it is observed if your prediction matches what is observed.

 

I have to agree with Bignose. Making a testable prediction puts you far ahead of the normal crowd in speculations. It would be more helpful to show some math that demonstrates how you arrive at the prediction, but it's definitely a much better start than most.

[Humblemunn]

I think that this is a decent start. Actually making a prediction gets you ahead of most speculators who arrive here.

 

Now, that said, qualitative predictions in physics are usually somewhat sketchy. Because words alone rarely are as clear and precise as mathematical statements.

 

Compare "it will deflect to the left" with "it will deflect 2.5 degrees" and "it will deflect 75 degrees". Both the latter statements are deflections to the left, but one is significantly more impactful than the other.

 

To put this another way, without quantifying your predictions, how can anyone know whether it is correct or not? If you predict 2.5 degrees and it deflects 75 degrees, then your prediction clearly has significant error.

 

So, can I ask that you try to make more of a quantitative prediction? This will really help build your case after it is observed if your prediction matches what is observed.

 

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

 

I have to agree with Bignose. Making a testable prediction puts you far ahead of the normal crowd in speculations. It would be more helpful to show some math that demonstrates how you arrive at the prediction, but it's definitely a much better start than most.

Thanks for the positive comment.

 

 

Edit: There's always future missions to prove me right! New Mission Will Explore Bizarre Gravitational Anomaly Around Earth

 

 

 

Something strange happens to spacecraft swinging past Earth for a gravity boost--they suddenly speed up, and their trajectories change in unexpected ways. It’s a tiny change, but enough that physicists have started to take notice. The European Space Agency is planning a new mission that could measure this gravity anomaly and figure out if a new, unknown physics is at work.

Before heading out to far-flung destinations in the solar system, spacecraft often slingshot around the Earth, so the planet’s gravity provides a boost to send them on their way. In several cases in the 1990s and early 2000s, scientists saw an unexplained change in spacecraft velocities after their closest Earth-shaves. They didn’t see it in action, in part because the satellites weren’t logged into the Deep Space Network when it happened and even when they were, there’s a 10-second delay between data acquisitions. But they knew it did happen because the spacecraft trajectories changed.

Scientists could not trace a hyperbolic arc for the slingshot--they could only trace incoming and outgoing arcs, with a slight difference between them. This slight difference comes from a velocity boost that no one can explain. It’s too much to be an error introduced by something like the solar wind, some other celestial body’s influence, or Earth’s own “frame-dragging” as it churns spacetime around itself.

“As a result, the yet unknown origin of the flyby anomaly could signal the presence of new or ‘exotic’ physics at play, a possibility which should not be taken lightly,” write the authors of a new paper, Jorge Paramos of the Technical University of Lisbon and Gerald Hechenblaikner of the European satellite maker Astrium.

It could be that our equations of gravity are wrong, which would be interesting. It could be that measurements of spacecraft trajectory are wrong, too, which would be somewhat less exciting. Either way, someone needs to determine what’s happening. The ESA is developing a mission that might be able to do this, but there’s not a firm commitment yet.

The Space-Time Explorer and Quantum Equivalence Principle Space Test (STE-QUEST) is one of a handful of missions seeking to explain gravity, and why it can’t be reconciled with the weak, strong, and electromagnetic interactions into a comforting theory of everything. General relativity breaks down somewhere along the line between the macro and the quantum realms, but experiments so far have not been powerful enough to see where and how. STE-QUEST will complete several tests with incredible precision to nail this down. One test will measure the way atoms move in a gravitational field while in an eccentric orbit around Earth--a measurement that could shed light on the strange slingshot speed bump.

As KFC points out over on the physics arXiv blog, the Juno spacecraft will complete a flyby next year to prepare it for its mission to Jupiter. If scientists see the same anomaly, that would be strong motivation to approve this mission and figure out just what’s going on.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Humblemunn

[Bignose]

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.

You thank me for the comments, but then you didn't actually address them.

 

How much to the left?

 

How much acceleration?

 

I'll admit I am in some small way trying to make sure that you don't come back on 10 Oct and be like "See! See that 0.00249% deviation in the path! That's what I predicted!" when that small of a deviation could really just be noise in the system.

 

So, you don't need to have exact figures. You should be able to estimate it. Assume that the mass of the spacecraft is some % fluid and then use that -- just state that assumption up front.

 

I would accept something like "it will deviate between 5 and 8 degrees" and "it will accelerate somewhere between 10 m/s^2 and 20 m/s^2".

 

But saying "it will deviate and accelerate" alone really isn't a meaningful prediction. You obviously already have some broad estimate, you keep calling the acceleration "large". Just state it more precisely so that what you call "large" will be known up front.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Bignose

[Humblemunn]

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.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Humblemunn

[swansont]

The testing of relativity given in the OP relies on atomic clocks which rely on atomic theory, which is the modelling of the atom in isolation.

Testing, yes. But you said modeling of time, not the testing. The theory was developed well before QM was developed, and as I said, the atomic theory is pretty good.

[Bignose]

The lateral deviation left will be proportional to this velocity increase.

 

Sorry I can't be more specific for you, but I'm happy with what I've deduced so far.

Humblemunn, this is almost useless.

 

"The lateral deviation left will be proportional to this velocity increase.".... um, yeah. ANY deviation left will be proportional to ANY acceleration. If it goes 5 degrees left and speeds up 10 m/s^2, then it is 5/10 proportionality. If it goes 50 degrees left and speeds up 17 m/s^2, then it is a 50/17 proportionality.

 

Just saying "proportional" is meaningless.

 

Like I wrote above, take some time, and please post some actual estimates. "left" and "large" is not good enough in a scientific setting. You have time -- Oct 9th is more than 30 days away. Take the time to do your math correctly and post an estimate.

[Humblemunn]

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.

 

I don't need to appease you.

[Bignose]

I don't need to appease you.

Nope. You sure don't.

 

I am just trying to suggest to you a way in which to make a far more meaningful prediction. Feel free to ignore this advice all you want.

 

The risk is that the probe jigs just a little, and you're like "0.5% movement! That's huge!" whereas to someone else a half a percent is tiny. That's the risk of just using fungible words like that.

 

Again, feel free to ignore this advice. And vice versa, without more specific instructions, other scientists are going to feel more freedom to ignore these supposed predictions because they are so general as to be very low in value.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Bignose