Juno Earth Flyby Anomaly Results Gone Dark

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Juno Earth Flyby Anomaly Results Gone Dark

Postby DeltaV » Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:20 pm

I expected, 15 months on, that there would be at least some public disclosure of what was measured ("something", "nothing", or "somewhere in between"), above and beyond the non-public AGU 2013 presentation.

The continuing silence is deafening.

Juno Earth Flyby as a Sensitive Detector of Anomalous Orbital-Energy Changes
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUFMSM33B2187A

Wonder what's up...


DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Re: Juno Earth Flyby Anomaly Results Gone Dark

Postby DeltaV » Fri Jan 23, 2015 6:04 pm

The Flyby Anomaly and the Effect of a Topological Torsion Current
Mario J. Pinheiro
April 7, 2014
http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1101

<highlights added>
A new variational technique determines the general condition of equilibrium of a rotating gravitoelectromagnetic system and provides a modified dynamical equation of motion from where it emerges a so-far unforseen topological torsion current (TTC)...

Moreover, the topological torsion current emerge[s] from the universal competition between entropy and energy, each one seeking a different equilibrium condition (this happens in the case of planetary atmospheres, when energy tends to assemble all atmospheric molecules on the surface of the planet, but entropy seeks to spread them evenly in all available space). This TTC may be envisaged as the missing force term in the traditional hierarchy of agencies responsible for the motion of matter, as depicted in Fig. 1, and following along the same electromagnetic analogy proposed by Chua [23]. The basic four physical quantities are the electric current i (or speed v), the voltage V (or the force F), the charge q (or the position x), and the flux-linkage Φ (or momentum p = mv). Under the logical point of view, from six possible combinations among these four variables, five are already well-known. However, the TTC points to the existence of a so-far unforeseen relationship between momentum and angular motion through the agency of a vector potential (see Refs. [23, 24]).

The emergence of a new force term - the topological torsion current - offers a simple explanation for the flyby anomaly, in fact resulting from a combined slingshot effect (which is not identifiable to frame-dragging) with retardation effects due to the non-instantaneous character of the gravitational force. In addition, the TTC may be well the missing fourth element of force that might be expected on logical and axiomatic point of view, establishing an operational relationship between linear momentum p and angular motion θ.
Attachments
Pinheiro_Missing 4th Element of Force.png
Pinheiro_Missing 4th Element of Force.png (75.58 KiB) Viewed 7064 times

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Re: Juno Earth Flyby Anomaly Results Gone Dark

Postby D Tibbets » Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:23 am

This anomaly is apparently inconsistent and may be susceptible to assumptions and measuring factors like space craft spin. Some links that may enlighten... or not.

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/50 ... y-anomaly/

http://news.discovery.com/space/will-an ... 131009.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly

http://www.prlog.org/12232145-juno-eart ... pdate.html

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Re: Juno Earth Flyby Anomaly Results Gone Dark

Postby DeltaV » Tue Feb 24, 2015 5:24 pm

This might also explain the delay in publishing:

Derivative kinematics in relatively rotating coordinate frames: investigation on the Razi acceleration
The Razi acceleration has been discovered as a new acceleration term that appears due to relative motion of multiple moving reference frames. When Newton's laws of motion are transformed between a stationary frame and a rotating frame, additional acceleration terms called inertial accelerations, must be introduced to take into account of the acceleration of the rotating frame itself. Traditionally, there are three types of inertial acceleration that acts on a particle in a rotating frame: the centripetal acceleration, the Coriolis acceleration, and the tangential acceleration. Most of the discussion of kinematics of rotating frames is, however, limited to only two frames and often the attention is restricted to two-dimensional models. Introducing a third relatively-rotating frame, the vector derivative transformation between three frames exhibits a peculiar acceleration term, which is written as a triple product of two angular velocity vectors and a position vector.

On the Razi Acceleration

mvanwink5
Posts: 1783
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Re: Juno Earth Flyby Anomaly Results Gone Dark

Postby mvanwink5 » Tue Feb 24, 2015 5:45 pm

Interesting. Thanks guys. I should wonder about metallic meteor flight calculations, their long term path predictions, and how accurate current predictions are?
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Re: Juno Earth Flyby Anomaly Results Gone Dark

Postby DeltaV » Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:42 am

The lead investigator for the Juno flyby anomaly is also lead author of a new paper about a 5.9 yr variation in the value of gravitational "constant" G:

http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/110/1/10002/article

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Re: Juno Earth Flyby Anomaly Results Gone Dark

Postby DeltaV » Sat May 09, 2015 12:11 am

Recent measurements of the gravitational constant as a function of time
http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.01774

hanelyp
Posts: 2237
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: Juno Earth Flyby Anomaly Results Gone Dark

Postby hanelyp » Sat May 09, 2015 3:59 pm

a period of T = 5.9 years ... The ratio of the amplitude to the offset is 2.43 × 10−4 .

What kind of effect on stability of orbits might we expect from such a fluctuation in G? Orbits with a period matching the fluctuation would seem to have a different stability than orbits of a slightly different period.

Jupiter's orbital period of 11.8618 years is twice 5.9309 years. Saturn has an orbit 5 times 5.89142 years. Probably not a coincidence. And within the margin of error expected for a period derived from examining 35 years of data. Is this the result of G varying over time, or producing a periodic error in the measurement?
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: Juno Earth Flyby Anomaly Results Gone Dark

Postby KitemanSA » Wed May 13, 2015 11:15 pm

hanelyp wrote:
a period of T = 5.9 years ... The ratio of the amplitude to the offset is 2.43 × 10−4 .

What kind of effect on stability of orbits might we expect from such a fluctuation in G? Orbits with a period matching the fluctuation would seem to have a different stability than orbits of a slightly different period.

Jupiter's orbital period of 11.8618 years is twice 5.9309 years. Saturn has an orbit 5 times 5.89142 years. Probably not a coincidence. And within the margin of error expected for a period derived from examining 35 years of data. Is this the result of G varying over time, or producing a periodic error in the measurement?
Hmmm, sounds mightily like the timing of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Longer term oscillation that I don't know has a name but is visible in the data.

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Re: Juno Earth Flyby Anomaly Results Gone Dark

Postby DeltaV » Tue Jun 14, 2016 1:08 pm

Does the velocity of light depend on the source movement?
http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.03921

Vibrating Rays Theory
http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.5001

VRT_sim_data.png
VRT_sim_data.png (30.48 KiB) Viewed 3176 times

krenshala
Posts: 900
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Re: Juno Earth Flyby Anomaly Results Gone Dark

Postby krenshala » Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:32 pm

hanelyp wrote:
a period of T = 5.9 years ... The ratio of the amplitude to the offset is 2.43 × 10−4 .

What kind of effect on stability of orbits might we expect from such a fluctuation in G? Orbits with a period matching the fluctuation would seem to have a different stability than orbits of a slightly different period.

Jupiter's orbital period of 11.8618 years is twice 5.9309 years. Saturn has an orbit 5 times 5.89142 years. Probably not a coincidence. And within the margin of error expected for a period derived from examining 35 years of data. Is this the result of G varying over time, or producing a periodic error in the measurement?


And Neptues orbit of 165 years is 28 times 5.892857143. The 84 year orbit of Uranus, however, is 14.25 times 5.89608096 or 14 times 6.00136812 .

kunkmiester
Posts: 866
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Juno Earth Flyby Anomaly Results Gone Dark

Postby kunkmiester » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:07 pm

I'm gonna have to read up on vibrating ray theory. Most of my looking at alternative physics has focused on aether theory, vrt sounds a bit distinct.

They mentioned longitudinal waves, which Tesla clined to be using for power and other uses. They also talk about the speed of light being variable, which Tesla and his modern followers go on about.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

KitemanSA
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: Juno Earth Flyby Anomaly Results Gone Dark

Postby KitemanSA » Sun Aug 14, 2016 6:21 am

The fundamental data behind astrology? Did the ancients record annual weather events for a long enough period to observe cycles related to the major planets?


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests