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

Groups > sci.physics > #589146 > unrolled thread

spin gravity of Jupiter will destroy Juno - curlxE = dB + S_B and what of the 13July orbit correction

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  spin gravity of Jupiter will destroy Juno - curlxE = dB + S_B and what of the 13July orbit correction Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 17:40 -0700
    spin gravity of Jupiter will destroy Juno - curlxE = dB + S_B and what of the 13July orbit correction Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 00:07 -0700
      Re: spin gravity of Jupiter will destroy Juno - curlxE = dB + S_B and what of the 13July orbit correction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 09:21 -0500
        Re: spin gravity of Jupiter will destroy Juno - curlxE = dB + S_B and what of the 13July orbit correction moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-14 15:19 +0000
      comparing Hitomi to Juno Re: spin gravity of Jupiter will destroy Juno - curlxE = dB + S_B and what of the 13July orbit correction Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 14:24 -0700
    Re: spin gravity of Jupiter will destroy Juno - curlxE = dB + S_B and what of the 13July orbit correction "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 14:50 -0700
      Re: spin gravity of Jupiter will destroy Juno - curlxE = dB + S_B and what of the 13July orbit correction Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 15:49 -0700
        Re: spin gravity of Jupiter will destroy Juno - curlxE = dB + S_B and what of the 13July orbit correction "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 19:04 -0700
          Re: spin gravity of Jupiter will destroy Juno - curlxE = dB + S_B and what of the 13July orbit correction Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 21:11 -0700
            Juno in dire straights, because, well, why take a picture that does not improve on pictures by telescopes? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 21:55 -0700
              Juno has but 405 watts power left, and is that enough to correct gravity-spin Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 01:00 -0700
                can 250 watts of power correct a abnormal spin in Juno? Re: Juno has but 405 watts power left, and is that enough to correct gravity-spin Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 18:04 -0700
                  some flight details of Juno Re: Juno has but 405 watts power left, and is that enough to correct gravity-spin Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 23:06 -0700
                    Re: some flight details of Juno Re: Juno has but 405 watts power left, and is that enough to correct gravity-spin Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 12:59 -0500
                    Witze for NATURE has it 1/2 wrong on Hitomi, 28APR2016, spun out of control due to gravity, not software Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 13:40 -0700
                      20 degrees per hour on Hitomi, is it the same for International Space Station? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 15:15 -0700
                        what is the ISS spin Re: 20 degrees per hour on Hitomi, is it the same for International Space Station? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 23:45 -0700
                          does ISS sometimes have a deviation spin of 14 degrees per minute? And Juno destroyed by spin Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 14:18 -0700
                            does ISS sometimes have a deviation spin of 14 degrees per minute? And Juno destroyed by spin Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 16:03 -0700
                              Re: does ISS sometimes have a deviation spin of 14 degrees per minute? And Juno destroyed by spin Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 22:26 -0700
                              Re: does ISS sometimes have a deviation spin of 14 degrees per minute? And Juno destroyed by spin Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 22:36 -0700
                                Re: does ISS sometimes have a deviation spin of 14 degrees per minute? And Juno destroyed by spin Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 10:56 -0700
                                  Re: does ISS sometimes have a deviation spin of 14 degrees per minute? And Juno destroyed by spin Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:41 -0700
                                    Re: does ISS sometimes have a deviation spin of 14 degrees per minute? And Juno destroyed by spin Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 13:39 -0700
    Re: spin gravity of Jupiter will destroy Juno - curlxE = dB + S_B and what of the 13July orbit correction "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 14:52 -0700
      Re: spin gravity of Jupiter will destroy Juno - curlxE = dB + S_B and what of the 13July orbit correction "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 23:20 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#589146 — spin gravity of Jupiter will destroy Juno - curlxE = dB + S_B and what of the 13July orbit correction

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] | [next] | [standalone]

#589198

Looking all over for what the Juno orbit corrections were of 13 July. Found nothing. NASA's Juno must be in dire straights. Is it spinning more than 5 rpm, and soon out of control?

iPhone post 
AP

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

#589217

On 7/14/2016 2:07 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Looking all over for what the Juno orbit corrections were of 13 July. Found nothing.

You may not be very good at web searches.
http://spaceflight101.com/juno/juno-mission-trajectory-design/

> NASA's Juno must be in dire straights. Is it spinning more than 5 rpm, and soon out of control?
>
> iPhone post
> AP
>


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

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

#589233

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:

>On 7/14/2016 2:07 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> Looking all over for what the Juno orbit corrections were of 13 July. Found nothing.

>You may not be very good at web searches.
>http://spaceflight101.com/juno/juno-mission-trajectory-design/

Thanks for that pointer.

Looks like it was planned: "A few days after the JOI Burn, Juno performs a Clean-Up
Maneuver to target the time and location of the large Period Reduction Maneuver that
is made after the Capture Orbit is complete."

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

#589305 — comparing Hitomi to Juno Re: spin gravity of Jupiter will destroy Juno - curlxE = dB + S_B and what of the 13July orbit correction

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 2:07:38 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Looking all over for what the Juno orbit corrections were of 13 July. Found nothing. NASA's Juno must be in dire straights. Is it spinning more than 5 rpm, and soon out of control?
> 
> iPhone post 
> AP

Now here I need to cover the fate of Hitomi spacecraft, an X-ray telescope spacecraft launched 17FEB2016 and died 26MAR2016. Its mission duration was supposed to be 3 years but lived only less than 2 months.

I do not know if anyone is taking a serious hard look at what caused the failure. To me, the failure was not knowing true gravity as being Faraday's law with a AP spin component:

- curlxE = dB + S_B

The S_B is a displacement spin just as in the Ampere/Maxwell law which has a displacement current J_E

- curlxE = dB + S_B        the Faraday/AP law
curlxB = dE + J_E       the Ampere/Maxwell law

Gravity is the Faraday/AP law which explains why spiral galaxies have a range of rotations from solidbody R to 1/R to 1/R^2.

And when we send up Hitomi, the Earth's gravity gives rise to added spin which destroyed Hitomi. 

Juno was launched 5AUG2011 with a planned mission ending at FEB2018.

Of course, Juno is programmed with the fake theories of Newton gravity and General Relativity gravity and the mission control people on Earth are unaware that their gravity ideas are fakery.

If the scientists of NASA and Hitomi had used the proper understanding of gravity, Hitomi would still be in orbit and Juno could fulfill its mission.

However, neither spacecraft used the correct gravity, and Hitomi was destroyed by true gravity for it made Hitomi **spin out of control with too much spin**. As for Juno, every day is exciting to see or hear if it has spun out of control. Juno is supposed to have a large spin of 5rpm, but Jupiter's gravity is going to give Juno even a greater spin than 5rpm. And the scientists at NASA have no more energy to correct that increasing spin.

AP

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

#589309

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 5:40:39 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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

jUNO COULD LOCK IN WITH JUPITERS SPIN LIKE OUR MOON.nOT HARD TO DO.tREbERT

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

#589327

Locking in spin is part of the law of EM gravity, unlike Old Physics which ascribes "locked in" as caused by tidal forces.

Gravity resonance results from EM gravity not from tidal forces.

iPhone post 
AP

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

#589348

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 3:49:17 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Locking in spin is part of the law of EM gravity, unlike Old Physics which ascribes "locked in" as caused by tidal forces.
> 
> Gravity resonance results from EM gravity not from tidal forces.
> 
> iPhone post 
> AP

EM gravity ?????  Spin gravity?  I don't get there meaning.  TreBert

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

#589362

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 9:04:38 PM UTC-5, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 3:49:17 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Locking in spin is part of the law of EM gravity, unlike Old Physics which ascribes "locked in" as caused by tidal forces.
> > 
> > Gravity resonance results from EM gravity not from tidal forces.
> > 
> > iPhone post 
> > AP
> 
> EM gravity ?????  Spin gravity?  I don't get there meaning.  TreBert

You were never a physicist, so there is nothing to get, only your inane posts. Don't you have something more constructive to do other than inane posts.

- curlxE = dB + S_B

The dB, changing magnetic field makes the electron go round in a wire loop or Juno going around Jupiter, while the S_B is the amount of spin afixed to the electron going around, or, spin added to Juno from Jupiter's gravity.

Gravity is EM force of a revolution orbit plus, a spin to the object in orbit.

Study Maxwell equations before you make another inane 10,000 posts to sci.physics.

AP

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

#589370 — Juno in dire straights, because, well, why take a picture that does not improve on pictures by telescopes?

So, there was a orbital correction of Juno on 13July, but we heard nothing of what was wrong and what needed correcting and whether it was -- fixed, or not ---. Instead, what we got was a picture of Jupiter with three moons of Io, Ganymede, Europa. A picture that is worthless, since it is not as good of a picture that can be done by telescopes on Earth.

If you had taken a picture of Jupiter at closest approach of its pole, something we cannot get here on Earth, then that would be something to crow about.

So why take a worthless picture? Because, maybe, Juno is so much in trouble that a picture is better than nothing? Hitomi, in its short life, did manage to get at least a x-ray photo of distant galaxy that was useful.

Now is it possible for NASA to set up a simulation model of Juno with Jupiter, showing where Juno is approx position relative to Jupiter and where its body is spinning and what direction the solar panels are aimed.

I am afraid of the extra spin that Jupiter is going to give Juno is a spin not aligned with its existing spin at 5rpm but a spin that is oblique to the existing spin, causing widespread instability of orbit.

Of course, if Juno fails in the next few days, NASA will not blame themselves in not knowing what gravity truly is, but rather blame and make excuses that Jupiter's radiation caused the mission to fail.

It is a shame that Hitomi did not occur 5 years before Juno was launched, so that scientists would learn to use EM gravity for Juno, to spare it as a failed mission along with Hitomi.

AP

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

#589385 — Juno has but 405 watts power left, and is that enough to correct gravity-spin

So quoting from a NASA website:

"In general, once we're out at Jupiter, we need 405 watts, which is not really enough to even run your hair dryer," Gehling said. "Of those 405 watts, about half of them go toward keeping the spacecraft warm. So, the other half, somewhere in the 250 range, is to run all of the instruments and all of the avionics."

Now does Juno have 405 Watts throughout its travels around Jupiter, because the 13July report of orbit correction said it was the final course correction, and then, how much watts was used to correct on 13July?

I suppose the solar cells are no longer pointed towards the Sun to maintain 405 watts.

And if Juno starts a gravity spin, can 405 watts cover that spin so as to not get out of control.

Reviewing what a second spin, oblique to the spin-at-present, does to a spacecraft. What is the math of two spins?

AP

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

#589505 — can 250 watts of power correct a abnormal spin in Juno? Re: Juno has but 405 watts power left, and is that enough to correct gravity-spin

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 3:00:30 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> So quoting from a NASA website:
> 
> "In general, once we're out at Jupiter, we need 405 watts, which is not really enough to even run your hair dryer," Gehling said. "Of those 405 watts, about half of them go toward keeping the spacecraft warm. So, the other half, somewhere in the 250 range, is to run all of the instruments and all of the avionics."
> 
> Now does Juno have 405 Watts throughout its travels around Jupiter, because the 13July report of orbit correction said it was the final course correction, and then, how much watts was used to correct on 13July?
> 
> I suppose the solar cells are no longer pointed towards the Sun to maintain 405 watts.
> 
> And if Juno starts a gravity spin, can 405 watts cover that spin so as to not get out of control.
> 
> Reviewing what a second spin, oblique to the spin-at-present, does to a spacecraft. What is the math of two spins?
> 
> AP

So, is a 250 Watts of power for avionics able to correct or "right the spacecraft" as it picks up additional spin from Jupiter's gravity? In Newtonian or General Relativity gravity, gravity does not impart a spin upon its captured object, but when gravity is realized to be that of Faraday's law with the added displacement spin

- curlxE = dB + S_B  the Faraday/AP law with a displacement spin S_B
curlxB = dE + J_E    the Ampere/Maxwell law with displacement current J_E

A shame that NASA was not able quick enough to learn why Hitomi broke to pieces for neglect of Earth gravity spin subjected onto Hitomi, but now Juno is in for destruction by spin.

So what the Juno mission is going to be all about-- is teach Humanity-- what gravity really is.

And before Juno breaks to pieces, NASA scientists should be 100 percent honest in reporting -- they are in trouble with Juno, and not these publicity stunts of first photos by Juno.

Tell us the troubles Juno is experiencing,,,,,

AP

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

#589519 — some flight details of Juno Re: Juno has but 405 watts power left, and is that enough to correct gravity-spin

Found a good NASA website:

quoting in places:
http://spaceflight101.com/juno/juno-mission-trajectory-design/

July 1, 2016
Jupiter Orbit Insertion Phase
4 Days
July 5, 2016
JOI Burn
35 Minutes
July 5, 2016
Capture Orbits
101 Days
Oct 14, 2016
Period Reduction Maneuver Phase
5.25 Days
Oct 19, 2016
PRM Burn
22 Minutes
Oct 21, 2016
Orbit 2+3
23 Days
Oct 30, 2016
Perijove Reduction
—
Nov 2, 2016
Clean-Up Orbit

Nov 16, 2016
Science Orbits
461 Days
Nov 16, 2016
1st Science Orbit
14 Days
Feb 20, 2018
Deorbit Phase
5.5 Days


This mission phase begins 126 hours (5.25 days) before the PRM TIG around perijove and ends 50 hours after the conclusion of the maneuver. The Period Reduction Maneuver is the  final Main Engine Burn of Juno’s Mission.

The primary science portion of each orbit is only 6 to 8 hours in duration, perijove +/-3 to 4 hours. During these eight hours, Juno is close enough to the planet to obtain its primary science data at the desired resolution. During the rest of the orbit, the science instruments are active as well and data on Jupiter’s environment is provided. At P+5 to 8 Hours (5 to 8 hours after perijove) on each orbit, Juno performs an OTM – Orbit Trim Maneuver that adjusts the Orbit of the vehicle in order to target the next science pass, especially concerning its longitude.

end quoting in places from above NASA website.

Unless I misread, it appears that NASA is moving up its planned programmed tasks, for I do not see any 13July correction, only an October correction.

And it looks as though NASA originally planned on 11 day orbits and moved that up to 14 day orbit.

And it looks as though, Juno really has made its last burn and can now only rely upon power of its 250 to 450 watts of solar power.

It says that Juno will be making maneuver adjustments, orbit trim, on each orbit, but what if Juno gains unwanted spin in those orbits, can that little amount of power correct the spin?

So what I sense is that the Juno mission is "moving up everything from what was originally planned. Is Juno in danger of being destroyed, just as Hitomi was destroyed earlier this year.

AP

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

#589549 — Re: some flight details of Juno Re: Juno has but 405 watts power left, and is that enough to correct gravity-spin

On 7/16/2016 1:06 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Found a good NASA website:

Yes, you found it because I provided it to you in a reply to a post in 
your thread where you bemoaned the fact that NASA hadn't posted the 
trajectory details. In other words, I found what you couldn't, and now 
you can't stand to give anyone else credit for it.

What does this say to others about you, Archimedes?

>
> quoting in places:
> http://spaceflight101.com/juno/juno-mission-trajectory-design/
>
> July 1, 2016
> Jupiter Orbit Insertion Phase
> 4 Days
> July 5, 2016
> JOI Burn
> 35 Minutes
> July 5, 2016
> Capture Orbits
> 101 Days
> Oct 14, 2016
> Period Reduction Maneuver Phase
> 5.25 Days
> Oct 19, 2016
> PRM Burn
> 22 Minutes
> Oct 21, 2016
> Orbit 2+3
> 23 Days
> Oct 30, 2016
> Perijove Reduction
> —
> Nov 2, 2016
> Clean-Up Orbit
>
> Nov 16, 2016
> Science Orbits
> 461 Days
> Nov 16, 2016
> 1st Science Orbit
> 14 Days
> Feb 20, 2018
> Deorbit Phase
> 5.5 Days
>
>>
> AP
>


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

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

#589567 — Witze for NATURE has it 1/2 wrong on Hitomi, 28APR2016, spun out of control due to gravity, not software

Alexandra Witze, writing for NATURE magazine of 28April 2016 has it half wrong and half correct about the spacecraft Hitomi, in an article titled "Software error doomed Japanese Hitomi spacecraft"

What doomed Hitomi was not software, for it was software that alerted the spacecraft that the laws of gravity based on Newtonian gravity and based on General Relativity gravity are phony laws. What gravity is, is really the Faraday/AP law of Maxwell theory:

- curlxE = dB + S_B  the Faraday/AP law with a displacement spin S_B
curlxB = dE + J_E    the Ampere/Maxwell law with displacement current J_E

NATURE editors are not wise enough to know that gravity is Faradays law and what makes Earth orbit around the Sun is the Faraday law that makes electrons orbit around a thrusting bar magnet (Sun). And in the Faraday law is missing the term of spin, which I write as S_B. So the Sun, not only makes Earth go around the Sun, but makes Earth spin on axis.

So when Hitomi was launched, it had no spin involved with a Newtonian or General Relativity understanding of gravity. The idea of gravity as General Relativity is all phony and that is what caused Hitomi to note a spin, and Hitomi tried correcting that spin given to it from planet Earth's gravity.

So, the software was not wrong, Witze and NATURE, the software was not wrong, what was wrong is the programming of Hitomi with false physics of Newtonian and General Relativity gravity which does not allow a "natural gravity spin".

So, now, if Witze and NATURE were to write about why Juno failed because it spins out of control, would Witze and NATURE be saying the same baloney-- software error on Juno caused it to spin out of control.

AP

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

#589583 — 20 degrees per hour on Hitomi, is it the same for International Space Station?

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 3:41:04 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alexandra Witze, writing for NATURE magazine of 28April 2016 has it half wrong and half correct about the spacecraft Hitomi, in an article titled "Software error doomed Japanese Hitomi spacecraft"
> 
> What doomed Hitomi was not software, for it was software that alerted the spacecraft that the laws of gravity based on Newtonian gravity and based on General Relativity gravity are phony laws. What gravity is, is really the Faraday/AP law of Maxwell theory:
> 
> - curlxE = dB + S_B  the Faraday/AP law with a displacement spin S_B
> curlxB = dE + J_E    the Ampere/Maxwell law with displacement current J_E
> 
> NATURE editors are not wise enough to know that gravity is Faradays law and what makes Earth orbit around the Sun is the Faraday law that makes electrons orbit around a thrusting bar magnet (Sun). And in the Faraday law is missing the term of spin, which I write as S_B. So the Sun, not only makes Earth go around the Sun, but makes Earth spin on axis.
> 
> So when Hitomi was launched, it had no spin involved with a Newtonian or General Relativity understanding of gravity. The idea of gravity as General Relativity is all phony and that is what caused Hitomi to note a spin, and Hitomi tried correcting that spin given to it from planet Earth's gravity.
> 
> So, the software was not wrong, Witze and NATURE, the software was not wrong, what was wrong is the programming of Hitomi with false physics of Newtonian and General Relativity gravity which does not allow a "natural gravity spin".
> 
> So, now, if Witze and NATURE were to write about why Juno failed because it spins out of control, would Witze and NATURE be saying the same baloney-- software error on Juno caused it to spin out of control.
> 

Continuing with the spun out of control Hitomi:

quoting from NATURE as to how and why Hitomi spun out of control

http://www.nature.com/news/software-error-doomed-japanese-hitomi-spacecraft-1.19835

Spin cycle
At 3:01 a.m. Japan time on 26 March, the spacecraft began a preprogrammed manoeuvre to swivel from looking at the Crab Nebula to the galaxy Markarian 205. Somewhere along the way, the problems with the star tracker caused Hitomi to rely instead on another method, a set of gyroscopes, to calculate its orientation in space. But those gyroscopes were reporting, erroneously, that the spacecraft was rotating at a rate of about 20 degrees each hour. Tiny motors known as reaction wheels began to turn to counteract the supposed rotation.
Once the reaction wheels reached their maximum spin, a magnetic rod would normally deploy to keep them from accelerating out of control. But the magnetic rod must be oriented properly in three dimensions to work, and so it failed to slow the reaction wheels. Hitomi spun faster and faster.
--- end quoting ---

So, what I am saying is that, the spin on Hitomi was not a "imaginary spin" but an actual true spin, acquired from Earth's gravity as the term S_B in Faraday/AP law

- curlxE = dB + S_B  the Faraday/AP law with a displacement spin S_B
curlxB = dE + J_E    the Ampere/Maxwell law with displacement current J_E

Now, 20 degrees each hour sounds about correct for a spin acquired from Earth's gravity.

What I need to check up upon, is the spin acquired, the S_B by the International Space Station in orbit around Earth. Is it 20 degrees per hour and which the ISS takes care of automatically, so that none of the crew has to worry about the S_B term of Earth's gravity causing a spin on ISS.

AP

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

#589628 — what is the ISS spin Re: 20 degrees per hour on Hitomi, is it the same for International Space Station?

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 5:15:31 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
snipped
> quoting from NATURE as to how and why Hitomi spun out of control
> 
> http://www.nature.com/news/software-error-doomed-japanese-hitomi-spacecraft-1.19835
> 
> Spin cycle
> At 3:01 a.m. Japan time on 26 March, the spacecraft began a preprogrammed manoeuvre to swivel from looking at the Crab Nebula to the galaxy Markarian 205. Somewhere along the way, the problems with the star tracker caused Hitomi to rely instead on another method, a set of gyroscopes, to calculate its orientation in space. But those gyroscopes were reporting, erroneously, that the spacecraft was rotating at a rate of about 20 degrees each hour. Tiny motors known as reaction wheels began to turn to counteract the supposed rotation.
> Once the reaction wheels reached their maximum spin, a magnetic rod would normally deploy to keep them from accelerating out of control. But the magnetic rod must be oriented properly in three dimensions to work, and so it failed to slow the reaction wheels. Hitomi spun faster and faster.
> --- end quoting ---
> 
> So, what I am saying is that, the spin on Hitomi was not a "imaginary spin" but an actual true spin, acquired from Earth's gravity as the term S_B in Faraday/AP law
> 
> - curlxE = dB + S_B  the Faraday/AP law with a displacement spin S_B
> curlxB = dE + J_E    the Ampere/Maxwell law with displacement current J_E
> 
> Now, 20 degrees each hour sounds about correct for a spin acquired from Earth's gravity.
> 
> What I need to check up upon, is the spin acquired, the S_B by the International Space Station in orbit around Earth. Is it 20 degrees per hour and which the ISS takes care of automatically, so that none of the crew has to worry about the S_B term of Earth's gravity causing a spin on ISS.
> 

So, 20 degrees per hour does not seem like a lot of spin, considering that Juno is 5rpm when orbiting Jupiter.

So, what is the spin that ISS feels, and by "feels" I mean what spin is applied to ISS by the Earth's gravity and which is corrected by equipment on ISS?

What would happen to ISS if it spun at 5rpm, or even just 1rpm?

How did NASA compute the spin desire-ability of 1rpm to 5rpm?

So if true gravity is Faraday's law with a displacement spin caused by the Earth, then ISS must feel a very powerful force of spin from Earth. 

AP

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

#589685 — does ISS sometimes have a deviation spin of 14 degrees per minute? And Juno destroyed by spin

On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:45:11 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 5:15:31 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> snipped
> > quoting from NATURE as to how and why Hitomi spun out of control
> > 
> > http://www.nature.com/news/software-error-doomed-japanese-hitomi-spacecraft-1.19835
> > 
> > Spin cycle
> > At 3:01 a.m. Japan time on 26 March, the spacecraft began a preprogrammed manoeuvre to swivel from looking at the Crab Nebula to the galaxy Markarian 205. Somewhere along the way, the problems with the star tracker caused Hitomi to rely instead on another method, a set of gyroscopes, to calculate its orientation in space. But those gyroscopes were reporting, erroneously, that the spacecraft was rotating at a rate of about 20 degrees each hour. Tiny motors known as reaction wheels began to turn to counteract the supposed rotation.
> > Once the reaction wheels reached their maximum spin, a magnetic rod would normally deploy to keep them from accelerating out of control. But the magnetic rod must be oriented properly in three dimensions to work, and so it failed to slow the reaction wheels. Hitomi spun faster and faster.
> > --- end quoting ---
> > 
> > So, what I am saying is that, the spin on Hitomi was not a "imaginary spin" but an actual true spin, acquired from Earth's gravity as the term S_B in Faraday/AP law
> > 
> > - curlxE = dB + S_B  the Faraday/AP law with a displacement spin S_B
> > curlxB = dE + J_E    the Ampere/Maxwell law with displacement current J_E
> > 
> > Now, 20 degrees each hour sounds about correct for a spin acquired from Earth's gravity.
> > 
> > What I need to check up upon, is the spin acquired, the S_B by the International Space Station in orbit around Earth. Is it 20 degrees per hour and which the ISS takes care of automatically, so that none of the crew has to worry about the S_B term of Earth's gravity causing a spin on ISS.
> > 
> 
> So, 20 degrees per hour does not seem like a lot of spin, considering that Juno is 5rpm when orbiting Jupiter.
> 
> So, what is the spin that ISS feels, and by "feels" I mean what spin is applied to ISS by the Earth's gravity and which is corrected by equipment on ISS?
> 
> What would happen to ISS if it spun at 5rpm, or even just 1rpm?
> 
> How did NASA compute the spin desire-ability of 1rpm to 5rpm?
> 
> So if true gravity is Faraday's law with a displacement spin caused by the Earth, then ISS must feel a very powerful force of spin from Earth. 
> 

--- quoting ---
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-ISS-always-face-the-Earth
So, if we say the ISS is flying LVLH 0,0,0 we are saying that the body axis is perfectly superimposed on top of the LVLH axis.  In reality, ISS is usually deviated from this (a biased attitude), often 5-10 degrees off-axis.  We describe the station attitude either using yaw-pitch-roll Euler angles or by a quaternion.  We fly the bias to align the vehicle with a TEA (Torque Equilibrium Attitude).  A TEA is an attitude at which the gravitational torques and the atmospheric torques will best cancel each other out, over the 90 minute orbit.  Flying a TEA reduces the amount of work the CMGs (Control Moment Gyroscopes) have to do to maintain attitude control.
--- end quoting ---

From this website we see a spin rotation of ISS of 10 degrees per minute deviation on top of the 4 degree per minute that ISS is intended to have.

Now Juno has a huge intended spin of 5rpm which is 5*360 = 1800 degrees per minute. Compare that to ISS with a 4+10 = 14 degrees per minute. Hitomi, in comparison was 20 degrees per hour which is 20/60 = 1/3 degree per minute.

So, apparently ISS can withstand 14 degrees per minute spin rotation, but it is quickly brought under control to be a 4 degree per minute spin.

So, here, the question is, why was there never a scientist curious enough as to ask where this extra 10 degree per minute spin comes from? Was there never a scientist curious as why and how ISS picks up these extraneous spin?

I am curious, and offer an explanation of where this spin comes from. It comes from Earth's gravity for gravity is not only about making ISS orbit in a revolution around Earth, but gravity also imparts a spin upon ISS. Apparently for ISS, this spin is approximately 10 degrees per minute of spin.

And what ISS does is eliminate that unwanted spin via its equipment on board.

You see, gravity is not the phony baloney of a Newton gravity nor the phony baloney of a General Relativity gravity, but rather, gravity is Faraday's law with a displacement spin term.

- curlxE = dB + S_B  the Faraday/AP law with a displacement spin S_B
curlxB = dE + J_E    the Ampere/Maxwell law with displacement current J_E

Earlier this year, Hitomi, the Japanese X-ray telescope that broke up in orbit was due to the fact that NASA and other scientists were going by Newton and GR gravity, not realizing that gravity has a spin term, and so Hitomi broke in pieces.

And now we have Juno around Jupiter and the scientists are still in the error filled understanding of GR with Newton gravity. And that Juno is highly likely of being destroyed due to spin out of control. Even if Juno gains too much spin, Juno has not enough power to put that extra spin under control and will be destroyed by Jupiter's displacement spin in Faraday/AP law.

AP

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

#589712 — does ISS sometimes have a deviation spin of 14 degrees per minute? And Juno destroyed by spin

So, here the major question is why on curiosity on the part of scientists at NASA and elsewhere. If you know the ISS is continually barraged by an increase in spin rotation, would you not ask for what and where that spin comes from, instead of just letting the equipment aboard ISS fix the added spin.

Is there not one curious scientist except me, who wants to know where the spin is coming from.

iPhone post 
AP

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

#589734 — Re: does ISS sometimes have a deviation spin of 14 degrees per minute? And Juno destroyed by spin

Shame we do not have a single scientist curious, except AP, as to where this wanted spin on ISS comes from. Scientists are supposed to be curious. If your equipment on board is constantly having to correct for spin, you should be curious where and what that spin is.

AP

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web