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

Groups > sci.physics > #588855 > unrolled thread

Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control??

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 00:59 -0700
    Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 06:02 -0700
      Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 08:29 -0500
        Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 07:07 -0700
          Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 09:06 -0500
      Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-12 14:16 +0000
        Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 07:47 -0700
          Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-12 15:06 +0000
          Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-14 14:07 +0000
            Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 07:19 -0700
              Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 09:43 -0500
              Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-14 15:24 +0000
                Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 09:29 -0700
                  Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-14 17:13 +0000
        Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 09:05 -0500
          Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-13 15:16 +0000
            Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 10:53 -0700
              Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-13 18:14 +0000
                Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 11:30 -0700
                  Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 12:08 -0700
                    Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 14:47 -0500
                      Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 13:06 -0700
                        Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 16:28 -0500
                          Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 15:18 -0700
                            Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-13 23:02 +0000
                              Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 17:38 -0700
                                Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 19:56 -0500
                                Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-14 02:13 +0000
                                Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-14 14:21 -0700
                            Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 19:48 -0500
                    Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 13:14 -0700
                    Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-14 13:50 +0000
    Juno teaching us what Gravity-really-is Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 13:33 -0700
      fourth and final engine burn-- is it panic?? Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 18:52 -0700
        photos taken Re: fourth and final engine burn-- is it panic?? Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 22:53 -0700
          spin gravity of Jupiter will destroy Juno - curlxE = dB + S_B Re: photos taken Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 14:44 -0700
      Re: Juno teaching us what Gravity-really-is Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 10:03 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#588855 — Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control??

NASA should provide us with one website that gives detailed information of the spacecraft, up to the hour. In fact, a reporter should be the correspondent in these hourly updates.

The latest information is that NASA has scheduled a considerable correction to the orbit of Juno by 13 July. 
Is it in trouble already? For I do not recall such corrections scheduled before. And why would such correction be scheduled when many of the instruments were opened several days ago. Why open the instruments and then a few days later correct the orbit?

Is the correction involving the spin rotation of Juno?????????????

Has Juno increased its spin rotation from 5rpm to that of 6rpm?????????????

So, looks like nasty times ahead for Juno.

And that our understanding of "gravity" as Newton gravity or as General Relativity gravity is a piss poor understanding. For gravity is really that of Maxwell theory of the Faraday law, wherein a thrusting bar magnet (Jupiter) makes Juno go around in a loop, but also renders spin rotation upon Juno. The extra spin that Earth rendered upon Hitomi earlier this year ended up destroying the Hitomi spacecraft. Jupiter is far far larger than Earth in terms of mass and electromagnetic fields and so a increasing spin of Juno by Jupiter would easily destroy the spacecraft.

So, why this 13 July correction of Juno orbit????????? Is it because Juno has picked up too much spin????

The force law of gravity as Faraday's law looks like this: 

- curlxE = dB + S_B  where the S_B term is the imparting of a spin rotation upon the object (electron) moving in closed loop. In our case, the object is Juno, the bar magnet is Jupiter, and the moving in a orbit is Juno but also, Jupiter imparts a spin rotation increase upon Juno.

It is ironic that Juno is to test out the theory of General Relativity, and what destroys Juno in a spin out of control, is not General Relativity, for that is fake physics, but the true physics is Faraday law with a spin term. So if Juno, spins out of control on 13 July, a day away, we will have learned a lot. We will have learned that you can throw Newton gravity and General Relativity out the window as fakes.

And then NASA will understand that gravity is EM gravity, from Maxwell theory, and in particular Faraday's law with a added term of spin.

So, instead of being a disaster mission, Juno will be the greatest NASA mission ever, for it teaches us, what gravity really is.

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#588878

If gravity is LeSagian,
the profile in close will be different.
It will be like driving a car
and suddenly being on ice- any
corrections will have to be
modified accordingly. Otherwise,
you get a feedback that amplifies
each swerve rather than muting it.
And with a 50 minute delay?? Oh-oh!!

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

#588881

On 7/12/2016 8:02 AM, john wrote:
> If gravity is LeSagian,
> the profile in close will be different.

You'd have to explain why you think it is going to be different.
The claim of LeSagian gravity is that it goes like 1/r^2 just like 
Newtonian gravity. Now you are claiming it should be different, and so 
maybe it's not LeSagian gravity you're thinking of at all.

Or maybe you're just trying to explain away why there hasn't been any 
deviation from expectations where it is.

> It will be like driving a car
> and suddenly being on ice- any
> corrections will have to be
> modified accordingly. Otherwise,
> you get a feedback that amplifies
> each swerve rather than muting it.
> And with a 50 minute delay?? Oh-oh!!
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#588889

Odd
LeSagian gravity is the same for
smaller planets.
For larger planets, it is not.
Can you think why?

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

#589050

On 7/12/2016 9:07 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> LeSagian gravity is the same for
> smaller planets.
> For larger planets, it is not.
> Can you think why?
>

Can you cite something from LeSage's work that says this?
Or is this something you're imagining on your own and ADDING TO LeSage's 
ideas? (In which case, it isn't LeSagian gravity, which purports to 
preserve 1/r^2 behavior regardless of the size of the gravitating body.)


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#588890

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>If gravity is LeSagian,
>the profile in close will be different.
>It will be like driving a car
>and suddenly being on ice- any
>corrections will have to be
>modified accordingly. Otherwise,
>you get a feedback that amplifies
>each swerve rather than muting it.

Yes, and you said that close up gravity would be so different that
Juno wouldn't even be able to orbit Jupiter.  How did that work
out for you?

>And with a 50 minute delay?? Oh-oh!!

Yes, so that means NASA couldn't detect something wrong and
compensate for it. All the programming for dealing with the
gravity and getting into orbit had to be preprogrammed long
in advance.  Kind of like a self-driving car preprogrammed
50 minutes in advance to take a curve at 40 mph due to road
friction and curvature but when the car gets there it's all
iced up and the car tries to take the curve at 40 mph anyway.
As it turned out, you were wrong, no ice, and Juno did fine.

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

#588897

Michael
Juno is still on the road, yes.
Like a car that hits ice on the
highway, keeping it on the road
is the problem 

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

#588899

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael
>Juno is still on the road, yes.

So, if gravity at Jupiter is different, like you claimed, why didn't
Juno either crash into Jupiter or go flying off into space?
Instead, that tricky orbital maneuver. which they had to get just right,
worked...

And why did Galileo work (within limits of antenna failure), orbiting
Jupiter for many years?

You can't answer these, but no matter what happens you'll go off
posting crap about LeSage Gravity/how we have gravity at Jupiter
all wrong.

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

#589211

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael
>Juno is still on the road, yes.
>Like a car that hits ice on the
>highway, keeping it on the road
>is the problem 

Well, you and Mr. Plutonium can go on and whine how Juno is doomed because
both of you have k00ky gravity theories that say we have gravity there all
wrong.  Meanwhile, I hope the best for it, and that it survives the radiation,
and we get some spectacular photographs and fascinating scientific info
about Jupiter.

p.s. I am still waiting for you to answer how, if we have gravity all
wrong, NASA was able to execute that tricky orbit insertion maneuver
successfully.

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

#589216

Michael
"p.s. I am still waiting for you to answer how, if we have gravity all 
wrong, NASA was able to execute that tricky orbit insertion maneuver 
successfully. "
With larger bodies, that block ALL the
incoming energy through their centers,
the gravity profile should be skewed.
This MAY mean that, at tighter radii,
there will be significant-enough
difference to mess up their 14 day
orbit.
I, too, HOPE that they will be able to
do their science. This is a
FANTASTIC opportunity  

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

#589221

On 7/14/2016 9:19 AM, john wrote:
> Michael
> "p.s. I am still waiting for you to answer how, if we have gravity all
> wrong, NASA was able to execute that tricky orbit insertion maneuver
> successfully. "
> With larger bodies, that block ALL the
> incoming energy through their centers,
> the gravity profile should be skewed.
> This MAY mean that, at tighter radii,
> there will be significant-enough
> difference to mess up their 14 day
> orbit.

I sense backpedaling, but not the right kind of backpedaling.
The right kind of backpedaling is to say, "OK, I made a firm prediction, 
and the prediction did not come true, so my idea turned out to be 
wrong." Instead, you've gone with, "OK, so let me revise my firm 
prediction to be a wish-washy might-or-might-not prediction, so that I'm 
not making any testable prediction at all."

> I, too, HOPE that they will be able to
> do their science. This is a
> FANTASTIC opportunity
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#589237

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael
>"p.s. I am still waiting for you to answer how, if we have gravity all 
>wrong, NASA was able to execute that tricky orbit insertion maneuver 
>successfully. "
>With larger bodies, that block ALL the
>incoming energy through their centers,
>the gravity profile should be skewed.
>This MAY mean that, at tighter radii,
>there will be significant-enough
>difference to mess up their 14 day
>orbit.

But you didn't address the non-failure of the orbital insertion burn.
If we have gravity all wrong, with it "skewed" and a "significant-enough
difference to mess up their 14 day orbit", why did the tricky orbital
insertion maneuver work at all?

>I, too, HOPE that they will be able to
>do their science. This is a
>FANTASTIC opportunity  

And if it actually does work fantastically, will you be man enough
to admit your LeSage skewed gravity is all wrong?

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

#589246

Michael
When galactic rotation curves showed
that suck gravity was wrong,
was it abandoned or
did they then invent a
whole new class of fantastical, INVISIBLE matter
to "save" it?
Let's see what they allow us to see-
don't forget; we only see what we're 
allowed to see. 

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

#589258

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> 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!

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

#589049

On 7/12/2016 9:16 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> If gravity is LeSagian,
>> the profile in close will be different.
>> It will be like driving a car
>> and suddenly being on ice- any
>> corrections will have to be
>> modified accordingly. Otherwise,
>> you get a feedback that amplifies
>> each swerve rather than muting it.
>
> Yes, and you said that close up gravity would be so different that
> Juno wouldn't even be able to orbit Jupiter.  How did that work
> out for you?
>
>> And with a 50 minute delay?? Oh-oh!!
>
> Yes, so that means NASA couldn't detect something wrong and
> compensate for it. All the programming for dealing with the
> gravity and getting into orbit had to be preprogrammed long
> in advance.  Kind of like a self-driving car preprogrammed
> 50 minutes in advance to take a curve at 40 mph due to road
> friction and curvature but when the car gets there it's all
> iced up and the car tries to take the curve at 40 mph anyway.
> As it turned out, you were wrong, no ice, and Juno did fine.
>

And what is John doing with events that run counter to his predictions?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#589063

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:

>And what is John doing with events that run counter to his predictions?

Ignoring them, of course.

He may go quiet if Juno succeeds, but he'll be back, telling us gravity
is LeSageian despite that normal gravity theory worked perfectly for
Juno.

Of course, if Juno fails for any reason, he'll be here saying "I told
you so!" even if the failure was due to radiation, or the residents of
Jupiter enforcing their "No Trespassing!" sign or anything else
unrelated.

That is how kooks kook.

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

#589077

Michael
Suck gravity was shown to be wrong
by GRCs.
Oops!!
A brand new KIND of matter
was conjured from thin air- Dark Matter!!!
Now DM has to be disproven- even more
inane than Suck Gravity- (and
costing billions)- and EVEN THEN
you won't admit that Suck Gravity
is wrong.
Science is broken, but the herd refuses
to turn, even with the cliff plainly visible 

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

#589081

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael
>Suck gravity was shown to be wrong
>by GRCs.
>Oops!!
>A brand new KIND of matter
>was conjured from thin air- Dark Matter!!!

So, you never did find a 5 year old to explain
"invisible heavy stuff" to you!

>Now DM has to be disproven- even more
>inane than Suck Gravity- (and
>costing billions)- and EVEN THEN
>you won't admit that Suck Gravity
>is wrong.
>Science is broken, but the herd refuses
>to turn, even with the cliff plainly visible 

And you believe making a trip to "Little Pharma"
and taking note of the results is science?

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

#589083

Michael
Invisible heavy fairies? Invisible heavy
Leprechauns?
You do Science by imagination?
You and your 5 year olds might be
satisfied by that

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

#589091

MM
You would rather believe in
invisible "different-than-matter" matter
than "spinny stuff"?
Earth spins. Sun spins. Galaxy spins.
Atoms don't spin?

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web