Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #588002 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-04 20:42 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-07-10 08:19 -0500 |
| Articles | 12 on this page of 32 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 11:40 -0700 |
| Subject | spin corrections to Juno, to keep it alive Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure |
| Message-ID | <24ff3081-0cc1-4aea-a0e6-83d108feb79c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #588776 |
Even if Juno messes up, it won't be their theory's fault FOR SURE!!! They will look everywhere else. It will probably be DM that did it. Or DE. Or they 'hit' a wormhole.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 13:47 -0700 |
| Subject | boneheads of physics who believe in black holes, dark matter/energy Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure |
| Message-ID | <ef12007f-1fb1-47eb-ad28-5887fbdba277@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #588789 |
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 1:40:59 PM UTC-5, john wrote: > Even if Juno messes up, > it won't be their theory's > fault FOR SURE!!! > They will look everywhere else. > It will probably be DM that did it. > Or DE. > Or they 'hit' a wormhole. Yes, the Cambridge bonehead Stephen Hawking would say Juno broke up due to black hole. The MIT bonehead Lisa Randall would say Dark Matter/Energy caused the breakup (she even boneheadly said dinosaurs made extinct by dark whatever, while she profits from book sales). And the CalTech bonehead of Mike Brown et al would say Hitomi broke up due to a new undiscovered planet the size of Neptune. John, the problem with physics, is that these professors never had to take "formal logic in school" so that their minds have at least a good chance of thinking straight and clear. What they end up doing is cluttering up physics with science fiction that is a book seller, not a forum of telling the truth of science. But, John, they cannot hide the data sheet that tells us all the times that Juno, perhaps even Hitomi tried to correct its spin, as gravity is Faradays law with a spin term. Has Juno gone to 6rpm? Was it corrected if it went to 6 rpm? Or did Lisa see some dinosaurs on Europa with dark matter, or did Mike Brown see his new Neptune planet before Hitomi? Physics has no black holes, and only fools of physics bought into that dumb-keit. Physics has no Dark Matter nor Dark Energy, and only fools bought into that nonsense. But Physics does have Juno and how many times it had to correct its spin. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 14:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: boneheads of physics who believe in black holes, dark matter/energy Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure |
| Message-ID | <2087af6f-e79c-4160-96e6-869e78749082@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #588815 |
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 3:47:12 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 1:40:59 PM UTC-5, john wrote: > > Even if Juno messes up, > > it won't be their theory's > > fault FOR SURE!!! > > They will look everywhere else. > > It will probably be DM that did it. > > Or DE. > > Or they 'hit' a wormhole. > > Yes, the Cambridge bonehead Stephen Hawking would say Juno broke up due to black hole. The MIT bonehead Lisa Randall would say Dark Matter/Energy caused the breakup (she even boneheadly said dinosaurs made extinct by dark whatever, while she profits from book sales). And the CalTech bonehead of Mike Brown et al would say Hitomi broke up due to a new undiscovered planet the size of Neptune. > Just informed that Lisa Randall is from Harvard, not MIT, and apologies to all concerned. Corrected on original. > John, the problem with physics, is that these professors never had to take "formal logic in school" so that their minds have at least a good chance of thinking straight and clear. What they end up doing is cluttering up physics with science fiction that is a book seller, not a forum of telling the truth of science. > > But, John, they cannot hide the data sheet that tells us all the times that Juno, perhaps even Hitomi tried to correct its spin, as gravity is Faradays law with a spin term. Has Juno gone to 6rpm? Was it corrected if it went to 6 rpm? Or did Lisa see some dinosaurs on Europa with dark matter, or did Mike Brown see his new Neptune planet before Hitomi? > > Physics has no black holes, and only fools of physics bought into that dumb-keit. Physics has no Dark Matter nor Dark Energy, and only fools bought into that nonsense. > > But Physics does have Juno and how many times it had to correct its spin. > > AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 11:43 -0700 |
| Subject | spin corrections to Juno, to keep it alive Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure |
| Message-ID | <c4eb6224-16c5-41e0-95ab-275f948e26bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #588776 |
Suck gravity should have been scrapped when galactic rotation curves were discovered.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 13:52 -0700 |
| Subject | shameful response by physicists when spiral galaxies were discovered Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure |
| Message-ID | <1dbea850-c01f-407c-b90f-b300f7e4424b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #588790 |
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 1:43:56 PM UTC-5, john wrote: > Suck gravity should have been > scrapped when galactic rotation curves > were discovered. No, when spiral galaxy rotations were analyzed and found that gravity is R to 1/R to 1/R^2, what should have happened if physicists had had a gram of logic in their brain, was to realize that gravity is not Newton nor General Relativity, but is in fact EM gravity since you have all three of those force ranges in Faraday law. What did happen was that the illogical boneheads of Old Physics whipped up Dark Matter and Dark Energy. They fantasized something shamefully illogical. When you want to play the game of physics and have a illogical mind, you end up with fantasy, and fiction. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-12 11:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: shameful response by physicists when spiral galaxies were discovered Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure |
| Message-ID | <4aa4fa48-008c-40b1-883e-0f9b8c0ba30c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #588817 |
AFAiK, that is the ideal of Alfven, but that is plasma physics > No, when spiral galaxy rotations were analyzed and found that gravity is R to 1/R to 1/R^2, what should have happened if physicists had had a gram of logic in their brain, was to realize that gravity is not Newton nor General Relativity, but is in fact EM gravity since you have all three of those force ranges in Faraday law.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 10:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: shameful response by physicists when spiral galaxies were discovered Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure |
| Message-ID | <nm89jc$1htp$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #588817 |
On 7/11/2016 3:52 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > When you want to play the game of physics and have a illogical mind, you end up with fantasy, and fiction. Of course, it's interesting that two completely logical minds can come up with two different theories that can be demonstrated to both be completely logically consistent, while at the same time disagreeing with each other. How to resolve the conflict? Does the conflict mean that one of them MUST be logically faulty, and that the mind that came up with it MUST be illogical? No, because after all, it is demonstrated that both of them are logically consistent and there is no logical error in either. So what is the recourse? Hey, I have an idea. What if we look to see what MEASURABLE predictions the two theories make and specifically those predictions where they are in conflict? Then the procedure to resolve is simple: make the measurement and see which one is right. Notice that in that resolution, there is no false brandishing of "my logic is better than your logic" or "I am smarter than you and so my logic cannot be challenged by the likes of you". All that matters is comparison with repeatable, verifiable, experimental measurement. Son of a gun, that sounds like a solid method to doing science! I hereby dub it the Scientific Method! Who's on board with that? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Anon Y. Mouse" <nobody@home.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 22:31 -0400 |
| Subject | 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 |
| Message-ID | <nm1kjs$1u3c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #588722 |
On 7/11/2016 3:01 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Is there an experiment to prove this? Of course, Juno proves it by requiring > constant corrections to a developing spin acquired from orbiting Jupiter. What constant correction has Juno required? You just made that up. didn't you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 22:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: revising Faraday Law to include spin Re: EM gravity has rotation orbit but also spin, while GR has no spin Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure |
| Message-ID | <29a32b10-6eae-4fb4-8ca0-2fd7c8a72a53@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #588839 |
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 9:28:20 PM UTC-5, Anon Y. Mouse wrote: > On 7/11/2016 3:01 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > Is there an experiment to prove this? Of course, Juno proves it by requiring > > constant corrections to a developing spin acquired from orbiting Jupiter. > > What constant correction has Juno required? You just made that up. > didn't you. What __constant__ spin rotation of 5 rpm is Juno doing? You just made that up, didn't you. what a silly fake name
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Anon Y. Mouse" <nobody@home.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-12 01:42 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: revising Faraday Law to include spin Re: EM gravity has rotation orbit but also spin, while GR has no spin Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure |
| Message-ID | <nm1vq2$a3o$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #588843 |
On 7/12/2016 1:06 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 9:28:20 PM UTC-5, Anon Y. Mouse wrote: >> On 7/11/2016 3:01 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >>> Is there an experiment to prove this? Of course, Juno proves it by requiring >>> constant corrections to a developing spin acquired from orbiting Jupiter. >> >> What constant correction has Juno required? You just made that up. >> didn't you. > > What __constant__ spin rotation of 5 rpm is Juno doing? You just made that up, didn't you. I do know the spin was increased (not decreased) to 5 rpm for the orbital insertion. The law of Conservation of Angular Momentum says the spin should still be 5 RPM until they change it again. So if it is not 5 RPM, how do you know? Or you can tell us which NASA source discusses this constant spin correction. > what a silly fake name "Archimedes Plutonium" isn't a silly fake name?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-10 14:24 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: did the high gain antenna on Galileo spacecraft ever work? Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure |
| Message-ID | <nlu7e0$12pd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #588563 |
On 7/10/2016 12:50 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > 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. the parts did not fail, the lube was not designed to be stored for so long. Storing the Galileo for so long was the mistake.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-10 08:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Juno, spinning out of control just like Hitomi Re: I opine Juno spacecraft at Jupiter will end in failure |
| Message-ID | <nlti09$2u6$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #588528 |
On 7/9/2016 3:26 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > 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 here we have a prediction by which to test your theory. If your prediction turns out to be wrong, what then will you do with your theory? Hmmmmm? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web