Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #588002 > unrolled thread

I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 20:42 -0700
    Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 14:18 -0700
      Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 14:37 -0700
      will Juno end up as did Hitomi? Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 21:54 -0700
        Re: will Juno end up as did Hitomi? Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-08 14:00 +0000
        spin in gravity as Faraday law, not in Newton or General Relativity Re: will Juno end up as did Hitomi? Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 13:03 -0700
          Juno, spinning out of control just like Hitomi Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 13:26 -0700
            Galileo antenna would not unfold Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 14:02 -0700
              Re: Galileo antenna would not unfold Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure "Anon Y. Mouse" <nobody@home.invalid> - 2016-07-09 22:45 -0400
                did the high gain antenna on Galileo spacecraft ever work? Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 22:50 -0700
                  Re: did the high gain antenna on Galileo spacecraft ever work? Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure "Anon Y. Mouse" <nobody@home.invalid> - 2016-07-10 13:55 -0400
                    Re: did the high gain antenna on Galileo spacecraft ever work? Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-10 14:25 -0500
                    EM gravity has rotation orbit but also spin, while GR has no spin Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 13:24 -0700
                      revising Faraday Law to include spin Re: EM gravity has rotation orbit but also spin, while GR has no spin Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 14:05 -0700
                        revising Faraday Law to include spin Re: EM gravity has rotation orbit but also spin, while GR has no spin Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 17:05 -0700
                          revising Faraday Law to include spin Re: EM gravity has rotation orbit but also spin, while GR has no spin Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 19:57 -0700
                            revising Faraday Law to include spin Re: EM gravity has rotation orbit but also spin, while GR has no spin Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 21:56 -0700
                              Re: revising Faraday Law to include spin Re: EM gravity has rotation orbit but also spin, while GR has no spin Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 00:01 -0700
                                Re: revising Faraday Law to include spin Re: EM gravity has rotation orbit but also spin, while GR has no spin Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 00:45 -0700
                                  spin corrections to Juno, to keep it alive Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 10:08 -0700
                                    spin corrections to Juno, to keep it alive Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 11:40 -0700
                                      boneheads of physics who believe in black holes, dark matter/energy  Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 13:47 -0700
                                        Re: boneheads of physics who believe in black holes, dark matter/energy  Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 14:05 -0700
                                    spin corrections to Juno, to keep it alive Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 11:43 -0700
                                      shameful response by physicists when spiral galaxies were discovered Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 13:52 -0700
                                        Re: shameful response by physicists when spiral galaxies were discovered Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 11:56 -0700
                                        Re: shameful response by physicists when spiral galaxies were discovered Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 10:03 -0500
                                Re: revising Faraday Law to include spin Re: EM gravity has rotation orbit but also spin, while GR has no spin Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure "Anon Y. Mouse" <nobody@home.invalid> - 2016-07-11 22:31 -0400
                                  Re: revising Faraday Law to include spin Re: EM gravity has rotation orbit but also spin, while GR has no spin Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 22:06 -0700
                                    Re: revising Faraday Law to include spin Re: EM gravity has rotation orbit but also spin, while GR has no spin Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure "Anon Y. Mouse" <nobody@home.invalid> - 2016-07-12 01:42 -0400
                  Re: did the high gain antenna on Galileo spacecraft ever work? Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-10 14:24 -0500
            Re: Juno, spinning out of control just like Hitomi Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 08:19 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#588002 — I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure

There is far too large of a electric magnetic field on Jupiter for which our technology and understanding of are primitive. And so, for a spacecraft to maneuver around Jupiter has so many things to go wrong that I sadly opine and predict a failure mission.

We do not even recognize gravity as being Faraday's law, something far different than Newton's gravity and General Relativity gravity GR. So the chances of failure are many times more than success.

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#588196

On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 10:42:30 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> There is far too large of a electric magnetic field on Jupiter for which our technology and understanding of are primitive. And so, for a spacecraft to maneuver around Jupiter has so many things to go wrong that I sadly opine and predict a failure mission.
> 
> We do not even recognize gravity as being Faraday's law, something far different than Newton's gravity and General Relativity gravity GR. So the chances of failure are many times more than success.
> 
> AP

Well, it appears to have "entered Jupiter's orbit" safely, but that is just the first major maneuver. What I opine about is that gravity is EM forces and we have never had our physics understanding of gravity as EM gravity, and so my opining of end in failure is not the booster engine slowing the spacecraft to enter orbit and all those technicians at NASA celebrating on TV and perhaps passing out cigars, and champagne, but is the opinion that now in orbit, that our Newton and GR based gravity will be shredded in failure of the spacecraft in orbit.

I have not heard and news since the successful orbit entry, so that is sort of ominous. Quiet is ominous.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588200

It's all nominal to profile. Despite your impotent hysteria

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588321 — will Juno end up as did Hitomi? Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure

Not much news on Juno, lately, but a lot on Hitomi, the lost satellite of Japan. It says it spun out of control.

My beef with Juno is that we know so little about "true gravity" which is not Newton gravity nor General Relativity gravity but rather, gravity is a Maxwell force of Electromagnetism. Gravity comes out of the Faraday law, and we see gravity in various strengths from that of R, to 1/R to 1/R^2. And since Jupiter is so strongly electromagnetic, and our scientists are grounded in their mistaken gravity of just 1/R^2, that the chances of Juno being successful is less than 50 to 50. 

So, did Hitomi break up because of a poor understanding of gravity? I do not know. I know only that it failed. News reporters are seldom specific on failing missions.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588337 — Re: will Juno end up as did Hitomi? Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>My beef with Juno is that we know so little about "true gravity" which is
>not Newton gravity nor General Relativity gravity but rather, gravity is a
>Maxwell force of Electromagnetism. Gravity comes out of the Faraday law, and
>we see gravity in various strengths from that of R, to 1/R to 1/R^2. And
>since Jupiter is so strongly electromagnetic, and our scientists are grounded
>in their mistaken gravity of just 1/R^2, that the chances of Juno being
>successful is less than 50 to 50.

The fact they got it into orbit at all, despite a tricky maneuver that they
had to get just right, shows they have a very good understanding of gravity
at that location.

There is still a chance of failure, but the spacecraft is already in orbit,
and if it does fail, the likely cause would be the intense radiation at that
location.

>So, did Hitomi break up because of a poor understanding of gravity? I do
>not know. I know only that it failed. News reporters are seldom specific on
>failing missions.

For uncertain reasons, Hitomi started rotating at a very high rate of speed,
so rapidly that it broke into 10 or more pieces.  Speculation as to why it
started spinning rapidly include a stuck thruster, helium leak, or software
error.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588388 — spin in gravity as Faraday law, not in Newton or General Relativity Re: will Juno end up as did Hitomi? Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 11:54:33 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Not much news on Juno, lately, but a lot on Hitomi, the lost satellite of Japan. It says it spun out of control.
> 
> My beef with Juno is that we know so little about "true gravity" which is not Newton gravity nor General Relativity gravity but rather, gravity is a Maxwell force of Electromagnetism. Gravity comes out of the Faraday law, and we see gravity in various strengths from that of R, to 1/R to 1/R^2. And since Jupiter is so strongly electromagnetic, and our scientists are grounded in their mistaken gravity of just 1/R^2, that the chances of Juno being successful is less than 50 to 50. 
> 
> So, did Hitomi break up because of a poor understanding of gravity? I do not know. I know only that it failed. News reporters are seldom specific on failing missions.
> 
> AP

I was reading on Wikipedia, that Hitomi while in orbit-- spun out of control.

So, is this the reason that Newton gravity and General Relativity gravity are fake theories for they do not have spin in the theory of gravity as a Faraday law gravity. Where gravity is EM gravity and obeys Faraday law of Maxwell theory. 

Is this going to be the same fate for Juno, in that Jupiter's EM gravity will cause Juno to start spinning, and spin out of control and then breakup. Will the spin out of control start after its first orbit around Jupiter? Can you believe it, the massive and large Jupiter spins on its axis making a full revolution on axis in just 10 hours. Here on Earth we take 24 hours, while Jupiter only 10 hours. So will Juno begin the process of spinning out of control after 10 hours with Jupiter?

You see, gravity as Newton gravity or as General Relativity gravity is deaf, dumb and silent about spin. While gravity as Faraday's law in Maxwell theory is demanded to have spin involved.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588528 — Juno, spinning out of control just like Hitomi Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure

It is said that Juno will make a total of 37 trips around Jupiter before it plunges to death in Jupiter, in February 2018.
But I think it will plunge to death much earlier and unintentionally plunge to death because gravity is not Newton gravity nor General Relativity gravity, instead, gravity is EM of Maxwell theory of Faraday's law. So that, unfortunately Juno has big sails, three of them as solar collectors and those sails are a liability in Faraday's law because the gravity of Jupiter will cause those sails to start to spin out of control and the entire spacecraft spinning out of control.

This is the fate of a recent Japanese spacecraft called Hitomi, which spun out of control, due to a lack of understanding of gravity.

When you apply Newton gravity or General Relativity gravity, you miss so much of the real force of gravity-- Faraday's law in Maxwell theory.

So, I am anxious as to news of Juno starting to have uncontrollable spin.

When was the spin in Hitomi started? was it after a full orbit?

According to Juno websites, in 14 days from now, Juno will be closest to Jupiter in its orbit, and the spin will likely start then.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588532 — Galileo antenna would not unfold Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure

Let me reopen the Galileo spacecraft mission of 1995 for clues of spin out of control since gravity is really Faraday's law. It is said that the primary antenna would not fully open and the alleged reason being lubricant was dry. Perhaps a better reason is that the EM Gravity was so much causing spin that half the antenna was unable to unfold.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588554 — Re: Galileo antenna would not unfold Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure

On 7/9/2016 5:02 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Let me reopen the Galileo spacecraft mission of 1995 for clues of spin
> out of control since gravity is really Faraday's law. It is said that
> the primary antenna would not fully open and the alleged reason being
> lubricant was dry. Perhaps a better reason is that the EM Gravity was
> so much causing spin that half the antenna was unable to unfold.
>
> AP

The opposite is true. They deliberately made Galileo spin as fast as it 
could safely spin as part of their attempts to unstick the antenna. Plus 
the antenna was found to be stuck and the efforts to unstick it were 
made before Galileo even got close to Jupiter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588563 — did the high gain antenna on Galileo spacecraft ever work? Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure

On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 9:41:56 PM UTC-5, someone wrote:

> 
> The opposite is true. They deliberately made Galileo spin as fast as it 
> could safely spin as part of their attempts to unstick the antenna. Plus 
> the antenna was found to be stuck and the efforts to unstick it were 
> made before Galileo even got close to Jupiter.

Reading about the high-gain-antennae with only 15 of the ribs opened of the 18 total, sounds as though that antennae was 100% unuseable and had to use the low-gain-antennae.

So I think that is a engineering design flaw that why not build those antennae such that if some parts fail, the parts that did not fail could be fully functional. So instead of a 0 antennae we have a 15/18 or 83% functional antennae. I suppose NASA is not using a philosophy of designing equipment so that the whole is not a failure if some parts fail.

And I question the reason for the 3 unopened ribs-- dry lubricant, that the spacecraft had a spin that could not be removed as the cause for them not opening and intentionally spinning faster made it worse.

No-one is looking or expecting failures in space to be because we do not fully understand that gravity is Faraday law as a EM gravity, which can vary in force strength and which has the transfer of spin involved. Newton gravity and GR gravity have nothing to say about transfer of spin.

Let us wait, watch and see if Juno has any spinning problems. Of course, if there is spin problems, NASA will look first to radiation as the culprit, when instead, it is the lack of understanding that gravity is Maxwell theory of Faraday law.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588604 — Re: did the high gain antenna on Galileo spacecraft ever work? Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure

On 7/10/2016 1:50 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Newton gravity and GR gravity have nothing to say about transfer of spin.

GR is not silent on the topic. Look up the Lense–Thirring effect, 
"gravitomagnetism" or "frame dragging". 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

The effect is so tiny that Gravity Probe B was inconclusive about it. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B

There are a lot of similarities between electromagnetism and 
gravitation, including a gravitation version of Maxwell's Equations 
which includes "gravitomagnetism". But where you go wrong is you claim 
electromagnetism *is* gravitation. They're different.

> Let us wait, watch and see if Juno has any spinning problems. Of course,
> if there is spin problems, NASA will look first to radiation as the culprit,
> when instead, it is the lack of understanding that gravity is Maxwell theory
> of Faraday law.

A good scientists, when making a prediction, will admit his basis for 
the prediction was wrong when the prediction turns out to be false. What 
will you do, if Juno just happens to work just fine? How about Galileo 
itself? Excluding what couldn't be done without the antenna and some 
tape recorder glitches, it worked just fine once it reached Jupiter. No 
spin issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588622 — Re: did the high gain antenna on Galileo spacecraft ever work? Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure

On 7/10/2016 12:55 PM, Anon Y. Mouse wrote:
> On 7/10/2016 1:50 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
>
> A good scientists, when making a prediction, will admit his basis for
> the prediction was wrong when the prediction turns out to be false. What
> will you do, if Juno just happens to work just fine? How about Galileo
> itself? Excluding what couldn't be done without the antenna and some
> tape recorder glitches, it worked just fine once it reached Jupiter. No
> spin issues.
>

I know the guys that designed the memory for Galileo, a rad hard design.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588633 — EM gravity has rotation orbit but also spin, while GR has no spin Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure

On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 12:52:08 PM UTC-5, someone with stupid fake name wrote:
> On 7/10/2016 1:50 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Newton gravity and GR gravity have nothing to say about transfer of spin.
> 
> GR is not silent on the topic. Look up the Lense–Thirring effect, 
> "gravitomagnetism" or "frame dragging". 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging
> 
> The effect is so tiny that Gravity Probe B was inconclusive about it. 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B
> 
> There are a lot of similarities between electromagnetism and 
> gravitation, including a gravitation version of Maxwell's Equations 
> which includes "gravitomagnetism". But where you go wrong is you claim 
> electromagnetism *is* gravitation. They're different.
> 
> > Let us wait, watch and see if Juno has any spinning problems. Of course,
> > if there is spin problems, NASA will look first to radiation as the culprit,
> > when instead, it is the lack of understanding that gravity is Maxwell theory
> > of Faraday law.
> 
> A good scientists, when making a prediction, will admit his basis for 
> the prediction was wrong when the prediction turns out to be false. What 
> will you do, if Juno just happens to work just fine? How about Galileo 
> itself? Excluding what couldn't be done without the antenna and some 
> tape recorder glitches, it worked just fine once it reached Jupiter. No 
> spin issues.

How utterly happy I am to have Juno, Hitomi as I do this textbook of Maxwell theory as axioms over all of physics. How the force of gravity is 100% EM from Maxwell Equations.

Now, I have done a preliminary table of planets:

Mercury orbit 88 days, spin 59days
Venus orbit 225days, spin -243 days retrograde
Earth orbit 365 days, spin 1 day
Moon orbit around Earth 27 days, spin 27days
Mars orbit 1.8 years, spin 1 day

Jupiter orbit 11.8 years, spin 10 hours
Saturn orbit 29 years, spin 10 hours
Uranus orbit 84 years, spin 17 hours
Neptune orbit 165 years, spin 16 hours

What I am doing is now correlating how EM gravity transfers some of the force energy to the orbit and some to the spin. That EM gravity involves orbit and spin in one combined process.

This can help explain why spiral galaxies have a force of R (solidbody rotation) then a force of 1/R and finally for its furthest stars a force of 1/R^2

For if you notice that the spin of Saturn and Jupiter are virtually equal at 10 hours. So that EM gravity attracts bodies to go around the central mass (Sun) but that EM gravity also causes the spin of the revolving planet (or moon).

So, here the question to Juno NASA scientists, is not whether Juno is spinning out of control, but rather, the question is, how many times have the scientists had to correct the spin of Juno during its 5 years of cruising and now orbiting Jupiter? How many times was there a scene at NASA that went like this:

Jane: I am seeing data that Juno is spinning at --- per second.

Mike: When was our last spin correction?

Jane: 6 hours ago

Mike: set controls to correct this new acquired spin

Jane: controls set to fire engine to control new acquired spin

Nasa does not report the spin acquired by Juno throughout its 5 or 6 year voyage nor report the measures take to correct the spin as they occur. Perhaps it is automatic control. But the energy taken to make those corrections would be recorded. But not broadcast as news.

And this constant correction of eliminating the acquired spin by the spacecraft is not written in the Newton gravity law nor in the General Relativity gravity law. 

It is written in the Maxwell Equations as EM gravity.

Electricity and Magnetism, as a force, wants to make things -- go around, and make not only the object go around in circles but make the object itself go around in a spin.

So, GR gravity goes like this== Mass bends space and a second mass moves in the curvature of that bent space.

EM gravity goes like this== Mass (bar magnet thrusting) causes a second mass (electrons in wires) to go around in circles and causes the mass itself to spin.

The reason Hitomi failed and Juno so far has not failed is because Juno is better monitored for spin and so often that newly arising spin is counterbalanced by engine correction measures.

So, here we can begin to see a mathematical pattern of how a spiral galaxy can have R, 1/R, 1/R^2 rotation of its stars, because we have not included spin energy.

Notice in the table that Earth and Venus could almost be Solidbody rotation around the Sun with 365 versus 225 days, almost solid body rotation. And if we could slow the orbit of Earth to be 225 days, we would have to increase Earth's spin to be 10 hours instead of 24 hours. And thus, we would have solidbody rotation around the Sun of Earth with Venus.

Likewise, on Jupiter and Saturn, if we could increase Saturn orbit to be 11.8 years instead of 29 years and thereby slowing its spin speed to 11 years instead of 10 hours, we would end up with a solidbody rotation of Jupiter and Saturn around the Sun.

So, NASA, please post any and all spin rotation corrections applied to Juno, especially while in orbit of Jupiter. So far, NASA, has never published or broadcast or given public news about the spin corrections during Juno's flight.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588642 — revising Faraday Law to include spin Re: EM gravity has rotation orbit but also spin, while GR has no spin Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure

For many years I have held the belief that Dirac's magnetic monopoles exist and the Maxwell equations would then be this:

div*E = r_E 
div*B = r_B 
- curlxE = dB + J_B 
curlxB = dE + J_E 

Recently with this 6th edition of this textbook of mine, I discovered that there cannot be magnetic monopoles for it throws the symmetry out of whack and so the old maxwell equations were installed

div*E = r_E 
div*B = 0 
- curlxE = dB 
curlxB = dE + J_E 

But today, realizing that spiral galaxies have a range of forces of gravity as per R, 1/R, and 1/R^2 makes me realize that I need an extra term in the Faraday law that gives not only a rotation of electron in closed loop wire, but gives a spin to that electron and this extra term gives this range of forces from R to 1/R to 1/R^2

So, the Faraday law should be - curlxE = dB + J_B where J_B is not magnetic current density, but seen as something of a "spin concept" and maybe I should write it as just S_B, instead of magnetic current but as magnetic spin.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588669 — revising Faraday Law to include spin Re: EM gravity has rotation orbit but also spin, while GR has no spin Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure

This is extremely fortunate for me that Juno is going on just as I am revising the Maxwell equations. What these spacecrafts teach us, is that gravity is not just making a planet go in a circle orbit but also make the planet itself go into a circle of spin rotation.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588690 — revising Faraday Law to include spin Re: EM gravity has rotation orbit but also spin, while GR has no spin Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure

Alright, judging from the Moon, 27 day orbit and 27 day rotation spin that EM gravity puts equal amounts of energy into forward orbital motion as in spin motion. That the amount of energy in forward motion of Jupiter 11.8 yrs equals 10 hours spin energy.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588706 — revising Faraday Law to include spin Re: EM gravity has rotation orbit but also spin, while GR has no spin Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure

I should have realized this fact long time ago. That Maxwell theory had revolving but not spin. So an extra term in Faraday's law gives us spin. Is this the spin 1/2 in QM?
Yes of course, only here the spin has actual number values.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588722 — Re: revising Faraday Law to include spin Re: EM gravity has rotation orbit but also spin, while GR has no spin Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure

On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 11:56:35 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> I should have realized this fact long time ago. That Maxwell theory had revolving but not spin. So an extra term in Faraday's law gives us spin. Is this the spin 1/2 in QM?
> Yes of course, only here the spin has actual number values.
> 
> AP

So, Faraday's law gives us EM gravity as a revolving planet around the Sun but also gives us the spin rotation of planet where the sun is the thrusting bar magnet, and the planet is like the electron moving in loop of wire. The bar magnet also gives the electron its spin.

Is there an experiment to prove this? Of course, Juno proves it by requiring constant corrections to a developing spin acquired from orbiting Jupiter.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588727 — Re: revising Faraday Law to include spin Re: EM gravity has rotation orbit but also spin, while GR has no spin Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure

Reading about Juno, it says it is desirable for Juno to spin up to 5 rpm for stability. Apparently the scientists do not see spin as a trouble.

Not located what Juno has to slow down spin should it rise above 5 rpm.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588776 — spin corrections to Juno, to keep it alive Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure

On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 2:45:56 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Reading about Juno, it says it is desirable for Juno to spin up to 5 rpm for stability. Apparently the scientists do not see spin as a trouble.
> 
> Not located what Juno has to slow down spin should it rise above 5 rpm.
> 
> AP

NASA web sites say that Juno has a range of spins, from 2rpm to 5rpm. But it does not say what Juno will do if the spin reaches 6 or more rpm's. Does Juno have a self controlling of the spin device, probably with gyroscopes?

Funny how it is said Juno plans to experiment on General Relativity, which is funny because GR is phony baloney, and what the real experiment is-- that gravity is EM of the Faraday law where Jupiter is the thrusting bar magnet and Juno is a analogy of a electron in a loop of wire going around the wire because of Faraday law, but also, Jupiter is causing Juno to spin more than it ever anticipated.

So, Juno will throw out GR as fictional junk science, and with the added spin that Jupiter imparts on Juno is proving evidence that gravity is Maxwell theory. So, all we need do is note and watch and tabulate the spin corrections that have to be made to keep Juno alive.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web