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

[Humblemunn]

I've woken up with a guessimate of around 1g for the force acting on the rocket fluids.

 

You don't have the mental image of how this force is being produced. It's variable. Anyway, all I need now is the amount of fuel on board at flyby, which should be known by somebody involved in the mission. The speed and altitude at flyby can be closely estimated. The time that the force acts on the rocket fuel is something that I could guesstimate once again I suppose.

 

Feel free to help in any way you can BN

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I've woken up with a guessimate of around 1g for the force acting on the rocket fluids.

 

You don't have the mental image of how this force is being produced. It's variable. Anyway, all I need now is the amount of fuel on board at flyby, which should be known by somebody involved in the mission. The speed and altitude at flyby can be closely estimated. The time that the force acts on the rocket fuel is something that I could guesstimate once again I suppose.

 

Feel free to help in any way you can BN

 

You guys are going to be as famous as Einstein was with the Mercury anomaly . good Luck .

 

Can I come on board , I must have said something sensible somewhere, !

 

Mike

Edited August 30, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Humblemunn]

 

You guys are going to be as famous as Einstein was with the Mercury anomaly . good Luck .

 

Can I come on board , I must have said something sensible somewhere, !

 

Mike

Yes, you're someone who gve me positive support at the vital time. If the prediction is correct, then you're welcome to do the media circus for me. It's not my cup of tea at all!

[Humblemunn]

Here's just one of a long list of light aircraft accidents which involve an anomalous lateral deviation to the left.

 

Danville pilot killed in fiery plane crash (Aug 30 2013)

 

DANVILLE -- Virginia State Police confirm a Danville man was the victim in a deadly plane crash Thursday night at Danville Regional Airport.

"A single-engine Piper Warrior aircraft was coming in for a landing at the airport when it made a sharp left and struck an ILS tower," said Corinne N. Geller, public relations director with the Virginia State Police, in a news release.

 

One wing was clipped, the plane crashed to the ground near the runway and then caught fire, Geller said.

The plane was completely destroyed in the 7:45 p.m. crash.

The plane’s only occupant was the pilot, an adult male from Danville, who died at the scene. His remains have been transported to the Office of the Medical Examiner in Roanoke for positive identification and examination and autopsy.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Humblemunn

[Klaynos]

I've woken up with a guessimate of around 1g for the force acting on the rocket fluids.

 

You don't have the mental image of how this force is being produced. It's variable. Anyway, all I need now is the amount of fuel on board at flyby, which should be known by somebody involved in the mission. The speed and altitude at flyby can be closely estimated. The time that the force acts on the rocket fuel is something that I could guesstimate once again I suppose.

 

Feel free to help in any way you can BN

Care to share your working?

[Humblemunn]

Care to share your working?

As I stated earlier; " 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."

 

It's a tricky calculation because I'm assuming the force acts on the fluids of the airliner and not the solid frame. So the amount of fuel on board is critical and the human passengers, being largly fluid based, can even be considered. The data recorded 1.6g is an assumed result of moving the aircraft frame as well. This implies a greater than 1.6g force acting on the fluids. The divergence of the cone of influence is the next factor to be considered. The 'fluid force' is over 1.6g at 30,000ft or 9150m (~1km) but what is it at 500 times this distance above the surface?

 

If from a point source, then the force particles emitted can be considered travelling in a straight, so the inverse square law still applies. But the source of the emissions are considered to be from the hypothesised fluid exotic matter surrounding the 360mile diameter inner innermost core. The nature of the emissions are considered to be neutron-neutron collisions, analogous to kilonova events, due to the similarity of gamma ray flashes also recorded from Earth.

 

Maybe the emissions are due to the formation of eddies in the fluid neutron matter around the equatorial regions? If so, then this localises the source towards a point source. However, there is also the potential for a source which isn't point-like, but spread across the 360 mile surface. This makes an estimate something tending towards guesswork.

 

My 1g guesstimate is more likely to an upper figure with a shallow cone of particle divergence, whilst a lower figure would be expected from a more point-like imagery.

 

I suspect that that you're going to be very unimpressed by this analysis, but I'm banking on the signature left-handed deviation to be enough to bring the hypothesis into the spotlight. If someone else can make a better prediction that turns out to be more accurate than my own, then I wish them well with no hard feelings.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Humblemunn

[Klaynos]

You've not shown your working. Talked a bit with some numbers in it then the 1g appeared. I was hoping for some equations. Oh well.

 

Are you proposing a new theory of gravity in general here?

[Humblemunn]

. Oh well.

 

Are you proposing a new theory of gravity in general here?

Yes, based on the mechanical imagery of a common sense view of how a force of attraction can be conveyed from one object to another within a vacuum. It is the imagery of an emitted spinning Archimedes screw particle. If a right-hand spinning thread particle interacts with another, then a small force of attraction due to it's spin will be produced. In the picture shown as an analogy, the entire Archimedes screw would be emitted to the bottom right of the screen. When it interacts with another helical object, the direction of the force will be represented by the direction of the red ball.

 

Edited August 30, 2013 by Humblemunn

[Klaynos]

OK, my simple first gravity question.

 

Using your idea can you find and show how you find the altitude of a geostationary orbit around earth?

[Humblemunn]

OK, my simple first gravity question.

My model is based on fundamental physics, akin to the founding principles of FQXi - Foundational Questions Institute. We don't need to throw away everything that we have achieved in physics so far. Mathematics will still have a place in the new world. What it will be able to do is provide a new perspective on the flyby anomaly and continue to be integrated into maintream science.

[Bignose]

We don't need to throw away everything that we have achieved in physics so far. Mathematics will still have a place in the new world.

My, my, how generous of you!

 

I'm going to try again, because I am a glutton for punishment, but here goes:

 

The math is needed because it is the most precise way to compare prediction with reality. Words alone are fungible and subject to a wide variety of interpretations.

 

Here is a favorite example of mine:

 

If I walked into your room, sat a box down on a table and said "Phew! That box is heavy!" what does that really mean? Do you actually know how heavy that box is? What if I were an Olympic weightlifter? What if I were a ballet dancer? The point is that the word "heavy" means very, very different things depending on who is interpreting it.

 

On the other hand, if I said "That box weighs 50 kg", there is no wiggle room there. There is no other interpretations possible. 50 kg is 50 kg. Not 40, not 60, and is not highly dependent upon one's perspective.

 

Where this relates to science is if I had two models, model A predicts the box will have 49.3 kg of mass, and model B predicts the box will have 13.8 kg of mass -- one model is clearly superior to the other. And superior is because one model has 1% error and the other is over 70% error.

 

This is the value of mathematics. It has the tools to be objective about just how accurate a prediction is.

 

This is why I tried to encourage you to make specific predictions about how much acceleration and deflection Juno will have. If you can predict "4.5 degrees of deflection and an acceleration of 16.7 m/s^2" and those are very close to the observed numbers, you will get a great deal of attention.

 

I would think that that is what you want, isn't it? Don't you want to be able to tout the successes of your idea? If you truly believed in your idea, shouldn't you try to actually make a good prediction with it? Leaving your "prediction" in general terms leaves a lot of room to be subject to interpretation -- and as I wrote above, leaves a lot of room open for scientists to ignore you prediction.

 

I am just encouraging you make as meaningful a prediction as possible. Per your comments above, you don't "owe" me anything. And per my comments above, in the exact same way, by making such vague and subjective predictions, science doesn't owe you much in return.

[Delta1212]

The more specific a prediction is, the more credence it will be given when it bears out.

 

Imagine I have a deck of cards and ask you to pick one.

 

If I accurately predict the color of your card, that's not super impressive because I had a 50/50 shot at getting it right just by luck.

If I predict the suit, that's a bit cooler, but I still had a one in four shot at getting it right just by chance.

If I can accurately predict the number (or face) on the card, that's getting to be interesting because there's a better than 90% chance of getting it wrong if I'm just guessing.

If I can accurately predict all three, that's notable because there's less than a 2% chance of me being able to correctly predict that just randomly (Aside: I have a friend who used to do a joke card trick where he'd offer strangers the deck and then randomly and incorrectly guess their card as an ice breaker. The one time he actually got it right he nearly fell off his chair.)

 

Anyway, the point is that the more specific you can be, the less likely you are to get lucky, and the more seriously people will take you if your prediction bears out.

[Mellinia]

Yes, based on the mechanical imagery of a common sense view of how a force of attraction can be conveyed from one object to another within a vacuum. It is the imagery of an emitted spinning Archimedes screw particle. If a right-hand spinning thread particle interacts with another, then a small force of attraction due to it's spin will be produced. In the picture shown as an analogy, the entire Archimedes screw would be emitted to the bottom right of the screen. When it interacts with another helical object, the direction of the force will be represented by the direction of the red ball.

 

If so, would an object falling through an gravitational field be deviated to the side because of that lateral deviation?

[Bignose]

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

Well, I think we can call this busted now, can't we? No trajectory anomalies reported http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/10/12/juno_spacecraft_gets_a_boost_from_earth.html