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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#589096

On 7/13/2016 2:08 PM, john wrote:
> MM
> You would rather believe in
> invisible "different-than-matter" matter
> than "spinny stuff"?
> Earth spins. Sun spins. Galaxy spins.
> Atoms don't spin?
>

I'm greatly amused by your constant yammering about CHOOSING what you 
want to believe in. This includes grasping at justifications for your 
CHOICE in what you want to believe.

In science, you never CHOOSE what you believe. What to believe is FORCED 
on you by data. If you had hopes that something was true and firmly 
believed it, but data proves you wrong, then you are properly FORCED to 
no longer believe it's true. If there is something you don't want to be 
true and don't believe it, but data confirms that it is true, then in 
science you are FORCED to accept it as true.

Now, John, this stripping you of the FREE CHOICE to believe what you 
want may be the thing that you hate most about science. And of course, 
you can abandon science and stick to believing what you want to believe, 
because you want to fight for that right. But then, why would you hang 
around a newsgroup about science?

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

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

#589100

Odd
So- when galactic rotation curves PROVED
by the data that suck gravity was
wrong, why did you 
believe in DM?

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

#589113

On 7/13/2016 3:06 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> So- when galactic rotation curves PROVED
> by the data that suck gravity was
> wrong, why did you
> believe in DM?
>

We've had this discussion before, John. I will repeat it ONE MORE TIME 
for you, giving you the opportunity to jot it down on a 3x5 card.

========================================
A theory is a model that says:
IF you know all the inputs, and you put them into the equations of this 
model, then the outputs of the model should match measurable observations.

Note the IF. This means that in the event that there is a mismatch 
between the outputs of a model and the observations, then there are TWO 
possible conclusions, and you are obligated to investigate BOTH.

Possibility 1: You did in fact know all the inputs correctly, and the 
theory is wrong.

Possibility 2: The theory is right, but you did not know all the inputs 
correctly.
=========================================

There are LOTS of examples of this, John.

Example 1: Launching cannonballs, where the claim is if you know all the 
forces on the ball at launch and during flight, then you should know 
where it lands by Newton's laws of motion. But if you include the force 
of gravity, air friction, and the impulse of the cannon, you find that 
the cannonball lands consistently to the right of where you expected. 
Does this mean Newton's laws of motion are wrong? Maybe. But maybe there 
was a force you did not include in the inputs. And lo and behold, it 
turns out you forgot the Coriolis effect or didn't even know was there. 
But when you figure out the Coriolis effect, it accounts for the 
difference exactly.

Example 2: Electrostatics tells you that like charges repel. But the 
protons in the atom are all positively charged, and yet the nucleus of 
the atom seems to stay together. So is Coulomb's law of electrostatics 
wrong? Maybe. But maybe there is ANOTHER force that is stronger than 
electrostatic repulsion. And lo and behold, you discover that there is a 
nuclear force that is attractive and stronger than electrostatic 
repulsion that you didn't know about before.

Example 3: Conservation of energy tells you that in the decay of the 
neutron into a proton and an electron, the energy of the neutron should 
equal the energy of the proton plus the energy of the electron. But when 
you measure them, they don't end up equal. So is the conservation of 
energy wrong? Maybe. But maybe there's a particle coming out the decay 
you didn't notice or know about. And lo and behold, there is a proposed 
neutrino (something that was never dreamed of before this) and then when 
you go looking for the neutrino, there it is.

Example 4: General relativity predicts certain rates of galactic 
rotation, if you know the amount of mass in the galaxy. So you count up 
all the mass you can see and the galactic rotation rates don't match up 
to the prediction. So is general relativity wrong? Maybe. But maybe 
there's an additional source of mass that you didn't notice before or 
even know was there. So you go looking for it, and ... well, we'll see 
if there's a lo and behold the same way there has been for DOZENS AND 
DOZENS of other examples where something new was proven out.

Now, John, if you're HELL BENT on pursuing only one of two options, 
instead of investigating both, then I suppose that's up to you. But then 
you're being both an obtuse idiot and unscientific to boot.

Got it now? Can you absorb this in your wee head and prove that you can 
still learn SOMETHING?

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

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

#589125

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 4:28:12 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/13/2016 3:06 PM, john wrote:
> > Odd
> > So- when galactic rotation curves PROVED
> > by the data that suck gravity was
> > wrong, why did you
> > believe in DM?
> >
> 
> We've had this discussion before, John. I will repeat it ONE MORE TIME 
> for you, giving you the opportunity to jot it down on a 3x5 card.
> 

Get out of my threads, you and moron moroney. Neither one of you are physicists, only failed physicists. You clutter up sci.physics with your prattling nonsense. The two of you together, can only read what is in Wikipedia and throw that on the screen of sci.physics.

Find a philosophy newsgroup where your low grade science mind has peers and is welcomed.

Leave my threads alone.

AP

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

#589129

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

>Get out of my threads, you and moron moroney. Neither one of you are
>physicists, only failed physicists. You clutter up sci.physics with
>your prattling nonsense. The two of you together, can only read what
>is in Wikipedia and throw that on the screen of sci.physics.

>Find a philosophy newsgroup where your low grade science mind has peers and
> is welcomed.

>Leave my threads alone.

I'm sorry. but Usenet newsgroups are for DISCUSSION, not for one way
broadcasting.  I have been DISCUSSING with John (mostly) where he is
going wrong.  Do you wish to discuss physics or your ideas or not?
If so, I will discuss them with you.  If not, then Usenet discussion
groups such as sci.physics are simply not for you.  You should start a
blog or something, where you can censor or disallow discussion on your
own terms.

If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen.

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

#589145

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:03:39 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

Stay out of my threads. You are not a physicist, but a failure of physics, and no logic nor reasoning abilities. Your posts are nothing more than "attack dog posts". Stay out of my threads. Your mind is not good enough for sci.physics, also Odd. Both of you belong in alt.physics or alt.philosophy, or better yet alt.montypython.argument room. Get lost attack dogs.

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

#589153

On 7/13/2016 7:38 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:03:39 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> Stay out of my threads. You are not a physicist, but a failure of physics, and no
> logic nor reasoning abilities. Your posts are nothing more than "attack dog posts".
> Stay out of my threads. Your mind is not good enough for sci.physics, also Odd.
> Both of you belong in alt.physics or alt.philosophy, or better yet
> alt.montypython.argument room. Get lost attack dogs.
>

No, Archimedes, YOU get out of sci.physics.
You do not come here to discuss. You come here only to post and NOT 
discuss, and so you are abusing the intent of the newsgroup. If you want 
to publish your every thought, do it outside of a discussion group.


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

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

#589163

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

>On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:03:39 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

>Stay out of my threads. You are not a physicist, but a failure of physics,
>and no logic nor reasoning abilities. Your posts are nothing more than
>"attack dog posts". Stay out of my threads. Your mind is not good enough
>for sci.physics, also Odd. Both of you belong in alt.physics or
>alt.philosophy, or better yet alt.montypython.argument room. Get lost
>attack dogs.

I'm sorry, but once again, this is not your personal blog.  This is Usenet,
a discussion group system, and sci.physics is for discussing physics, not
broadcasting your ideas.  By posting here, you are agreeing that anyone
who wants, anywhere in the world, can read your post, and anyone who wants,
anywhere in the world, can respond, and they may say things you don't like.
There is no such thing as "my thread" on Usenet, anyone can reply to
anything.  You should know this, you've been on Usenet since at least the
1990s.

I have been mostly (not completely) ignoring you.  In this thread I was
responding to Sefton, not you.  If you want, I can start reading your 
posts again and start picking apart your logic again. After all, it is 
rather easy.

So, are you brave enough to post here and weather the possible storm of
replies and criticisms? Or will you try to hide behind posts like "My 
thread! Attack dogs keep off!!"  

And again, if that is your thinking, Usenet sci.physics is not for you.
There are some nice sites out there to host a blog, however.

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

#589303

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:38:40 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
[]
> 
> Stay out of my threads. You are not a physicist[]

Wait, so are you claiming to be a physicist?
just curious,
 what school is your Physics degree from?
 is it BS, MS or PhD?

Just trying to see if like JM you maintain a double standard.

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

#589149

On 7/13/2016 5:18 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 4:28:12 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/13/2016 3:06 PM, john wrote:
>>> Odd
>>> So- when galactic rotation curves PROVED
>>> by the data that suck gravity was
>>> wrong, why did you
>>> believe in DM?
>>>
>>
>> We've had this discussion before, John. I will repeat it ONE MORE TIME
>> for you, giving you the opportunity to jot it down on a 3x5 card.
>>
>
> Get out of my threads, you and moron moroney. Neither one of you are physicists, only
> failed physicists. You clutter up sci.physics with your prattling nonsense. The two of
> you together, can only read what is in Wikipedia and throw that on the screen of sci.physics.
>
> Find a philosophy newsgroup where your low grade science mind has peers and is welcomed.
>
> Leave my threads alone.

I have bad news for you, Archimedes. When you post on an open forum like 
sci.physics, you are agreeing to the terms of use and thereby opening up 
your posts to any and all respondents, regardless of their background, 
opinions, or tone.

You don't have any powers nor in fact any right to control who posts 
what here. If you want more control over who sees and who responds to 
your ramblings, learn how to start a blog site.

>
> AP
>


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

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

#589103

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 12:08:15 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> MM
> You would rather believe in
> invisible "different-than-matter" matter
> than "spinny stuff"?
> Earth spins. Sun spins. Galaxy spins.
> Atoms don't spin?

Atom have to spin.It goes with my "SPIN IS IN THEORY"  The universes has to spin. TreBert

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

#589208

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

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

We do know that they can't spin and precess the way you show in your
benzene spinny thing gif, because of the known laws of physics.

But go ahead, state the law is invalid, and give good proof/evidence
that it is invalid, and _why_ it is invalid.

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

#588946 — Juno teaching us what Gravity-really-is Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control??

Alright, some data:

Jupiter orbit 11.8 years, spin 10 hours

Io orbit 1.7 days, spin 1.7 days

Europa orbit 3.5 days, spin 3.5 days

Ganymede orbit 7.1 days, spin 7.1 days

Callisto 16.6 days, spin 16.6 days


Mercury, need Mercury to compare Faraday law with spin term S_B

- curlxE = dB + S_B  where the S_B term is the imparting of a spin rotation upon the object (electron) moving in closed loop

Mercury orbit 88 days, spin 59days

Earth orbit 365 days, spin 1 day
Moon orbit 27 days, spin 27 days

Venus orbit 225 days, spin 245days (retrograde)

So, with gravity as EM gravity, the Faraday law with a spin term. 

In the Ampere/Maxwell law, we have a current that produces a magnetic field plus a displacement current

In the Faraday/AP law, we have a moving bar magnet that produces a current (an orbit) plus a displacement orbit we call spin

Now, I cannot tell if Mercury is going to end up some future day with a 88 day orbit and 88 day spin or whether Mercury ends up with 59 day orbit and 59 day spin, or averaged in between as a 75 day orbit with 75 day spin.

As for Juno spacecraft, the EM gravity of Jupiter upon Juno would be to transfer the 5rpm spin to that of the orbit of Juno and cause Juno to go faster in orbit.

The EM gravity on Jupiter by the Sun causes Jupiter to go in a 11.8 year orbit with this atrocious spin of 10 hours.

So, would the EM gravity of Jupiter upon Juno cause Juno to increase spin from 5 rpm to that of 6 rpm, or, would the EM gravity cause Juno to decrease spin to that of 1 rpm and transfer that energy to orbital energy causing Juno to race in orbit around Jupiter.

Judging from Mercury, Venus and Jupiter's satellites, that Jupiter will force Juno to move away from Jupiter and thereby decreasing the rpm's of Juno.

So, if the only propulsion on board Juno is the solar panels, then Juno is doomed to failure sooner than later. But, in its failure, it teaches Humanity its most valuable less of all the Space missions so far-- that gravity is not Newtonian, is not General Relativity, but that gravity is from Maxwell Equations and is EM gravity with a extra term in the Faraday law, a term of spin.

So, if Juno fails in a few days, where we lose complete control, it will be a magnificent failure, for it teaches us ** What gravity really is **

AP

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

#589004 — fourth and final engine burn-- is it panic?? Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control??

A website says ". . preparing for our fourth and final main engine burn, which will put us in our 14-day science orbit on October 19."

Sounds ominous, for it sounds as though there cannot be anymore corrections of orbit.

Maybe they do not get enough solar energy from here on out.

And if the spin rotation is to be corrected, it is difficult to correct spin. If Juno has acquired additional spin of 6 rpm, well, it is almost, kiss the probe goodbye.

I do not think it this correction on 13 July was a planned correction. I think what happened is that things started going wrong and snowballed after 4 July to the point where this 13 July correction is a last saving attempt.

It does not make sense to open the equipment after 4 July and now want corrections by 13 July.

Of course the scientists at NASA want an appearance of calm cool and collected, when probably, there is panic at control central.

AP

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

#589026 — 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??

On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 8:52:26 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> A website says ". . preparing for our fourth and final main engine burn, which will put us in our 14-day science orbit on October 19."
> 
> Sounds ominous, for it sounds as though there cannot be anymore corrections of orbit.
> 

Alright, the BBC reports first photos of Jupiter and 3 moons by Juno before it has its course corrections on 13 July, today.

So Juno is still alive, and maybe the picture taking was in case it did not survive the course correction, that at least they got one photo.

So, will NASA give us details of the course correction? Probably not, for it may look too gloomy. Details as to whether Juno picked up some spin rotation and whether it is at 5 rpm.

AP

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

#589119 — spin gravity of Jupiter will destroy Juno - curlxE = dB + S_B Re: photos taken

I wish NASA would make public what its planned scheduled tasks were with Juno and what its unexpected tasks are with Juno.

So was this 13July orbit correction planned years ago, or was it due to troubles of orbit.

Was it planned to open up most instruments shortly after 4 July, or was that unplanned and due to circumstances of trouble in the 4 July orbit insertion?

Was the photo taken, a planned photo, or was it a dire sake, we are in trouble photo taken on 12July? Perhaps the only photo to be taken because of increasing problems of orbit.

So, can NASA reveal what their scheduled plans for the mission were before 4July, so that we can see if the mission tasks are now run purely on "troubles of the orbit".

Alright, now, I understand that NASA wants a 14 day orbit for Juno around Jupiter and looking at the orbits of the moons of Jupiter we see that Callisto is about a 14 day orbit

Jupiter orbit 11.8 years, spin 10 hours 

Io orbit 1.7 days, spin 1.7 days 

Europa orbit 3.5 days, spin 3.5 days 

Ganymede orbit 7.1 days, spin 7.1 days 

Callisto 16.6 days, spin 16.6 days 

However, the spin of Callisto is 16.6 days, synchronous with its orbit.

But the spin of Juno is this rapid 5rpm, and not synchronous with its revolution.

So, is the 13July, today's correction about decreasing the spin of Juno, for if you remember the satellite Hitomi early this year broke in pieces because its spin was far too rapid.

Now I know the scientists of Juno are using Newtonian gravity and General Relativity gravity, which both are wrong and fatal to Juno. What gravity they should be using is Maxwell theory of Faraday's law, the Faraday/AP law as 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

Physicists know that in the Ampere/Maxwell law they have a Displacement current term

curlxB = dE + J_E where the J_E is a displacement current

In the Faraday/AP law we have a similar displacement of "going around in circles" of instead of a orbit, rather a displacement orbit of a spin. So S_B in Maxwell theory is a spin imparted on the object, whether electron in closed loop wire or planet around sun or satellite around planet.

So how much spin is Jupiter giving to Juno, in addition to the 5rpm.

So, Juno is in trouble, in danger, just as Hitomi was destroyed, Juno is set to be destroyed.

AP

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

#589230 — Re: Juno teaching us what Gravity-really-is Re: Juno probe already in trouble, with 13July correction of orbit; spinning out of control??

On 7/12/2016 3:33 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> So, if the only propulsion on board Juno is the solar panels, then Juno is doomed to failure sooner than later.

Juno is DESIGNED to orbit Jupiter for 37 orbits (20 months, until 
February 2018) before deorbiting and descending to Jupiter. That is, it 
is DESIGNED to fail in 20 months.

We'll see if it descends to Jupiter sooner than that.

-- 
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