Path: csiph.com!feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 17:13:40 +0000 (UTC) Organization: The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989 Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: <78b26000-433c-487d-838e-41ce2ce31b69@googlegroups.com> <8695b756-c214-481c-a79e-8395e6d16b20@googlegroups.com> <3c2d9582-c9de-4599-8538-88b7c6f45011@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com X-Trace: pcls7.std.com 1468516420 16023 192.74.137.71 (14 Jul 2016 17:13:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 17:13:40 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: nn/6.6.5 Xref: csiph.com sci.physics:589258 john writes: >Michael >When galactic rotation curves showed >that suck gravity was wrong, No, as Odd told you many many times, there are two possibilities to consider. #1, the theory is wrong. #2, the data we have (the mass of the galaxy and its distribution). You consider #1 to be the only one to consider for some reason. #2 simply states there is the data (the mass of the galaxy and its distribution) is wrong, but if there is invisible matter there than all is fine. So we have to consider both. Ordinary gravity theory works so well (we can get spacecraft to do multiple gravity assist flybys and accomplish tricky orbital maneuvers) and Einstein ring galaxies give a second confirmation that galaxies really are more massive than we can account for via the stars, so it looks like #2 is correct. But both must be considered. Now, apply that logic to your LeSage "suck" gravity, and Juno. >Let's see what they allow us to see- >don't forget; we only see what we're >allowed to see. Oh good grief. Paranoid, huh? Don't forget to check under your bed tonight!