NASA Baffled by Unexplained Force Acting on Space Probes

Originally posted by rizla
reply to post by Guzzeppi

Thanks for the heads-up. It looks like our model of gravity is incomplete.

I took that as being sarcastic. That's all righty with me though because I do not proclaim to know a whole lot about gravity. I did read into the posters links and.. there is no correlation.

Guz

Originally posted by Guzzeppi

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
It is merely the breaking down of the Time dimension. More of these esoteric paradoxical anomalies to come...

Damn, that's it!

Now you're getting it.

AAC

[edit on 29-2-2008 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

Yes, i understand that the electrogravitic concept has been around for awhile. It is an interesting idea, but doesn't describe in proper detail.

perhaps there is an issue with the classical view of such things as gravitons as "particles" or "waveforms" instead of just calling them waves.

Consider the following musing (no, i don't know this to be true....it is just a path my mind wandered down a few days ago, and i have been thinking about it ever since:

A "graviton" CAN be measured now. I have a thread on Dr. Ning Li and it has a lot of Podkletnov and Dr. James Baker's work in it. These men both have learned how to observe gravitational waves. These waves represent the presence of a force. This force is a graviton, or a unit of gravity. On this scale we know that you can convert plasmon to photon, or phonon to plasmon. They are all EM forces. Is a graviton in the same context as this? My belief is that the universe is EM in nature, so most forces at the most basic form are EM forces.

Yes, electrogravitation described the mechanism for which it could happen. But I did not see much traction be developed off of its' implications. The dinosaur problem, for example.

It is making a comeback lately, being infused with other theories (such as M theory or Brane theory, both of which are fantastic to ponder). But it seems as though the view of subquantum objects as being actual objects, instead of the ripples left behind by a force, is the weakness plaguing physics. You don't "see" the force, but you do measure its impact on a locality.

[edit on 29-2-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

never seen the expanding earth theory? a guy did a great job of showing that ALL the continents fit together, if you shrink the sphere. probably find it on youtube or something.
earth used to be smaller with no oceans. that's why there was less gravity.

Yeah, i have seen it. My problem is that there is little accounting for where the water is coming from. It just doesn't fit any possible model that would make sense to me.

it is a nice concept to ponder, don't get me wrong. If you consider it in context with Hollow Earth, and the flood myth, there is some interesting concepts that can arise.

But mass interchange of EM-gravity influence seems more likely to me. It would be a perfect sequitor for the concept about the waxing and waning EM properties of our Sun's magnetosphere, especially when considered on a "macro" type of level.

reply to post by billybob


And also if you shrink Africa massively, grow Australia, and utterly ignore the fact that continents are made out of stone and not silly putty.

reply to post by rizla


I screwed up one post on this already, so am having to redo it. Should probably go to bed.

I don't believe that the Plasma Cosmology model has been debunked. Maybe that group of snobbish, pseudo-skeptical-scientists over at badastronomy feel satisfied that they have maintained the status quo. That is nice. But out on the cutting edge plasma cosmology is alive and well.

There are well respected individuals who are researching this, using IEEE and LANL funds:

plasmascience.net...

This is not some newly created model, either. It is a long time coming, and a long time being devleoped, if you review the people who have developed most of the concepts of the PC theory:

plasmascience.net...

If you want to review more papers on this concept while we await someone to come in and try to debunk plasma cosmology, start here:

plasmascience.net...

The best part is that one of the biggest proponents of plasma cosmology, Anthony Peratt, is the chief of PC endeavors for LANL. He is also the one who suggests evidence of ancient mans witnessing of massive plasma events:




There is no way you could ever say that it was "debunked".

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

reply to post by billybob


But where does the water come from? Are we employing Heisenberg here and just having it materialize?

It is an interesting theory, but i don't understand where all this water comes from. and how there are deep marine fossils predating land fossils.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


why not asteroids made of ice crashing into the earth?

oh, second part.

were they deep marine fossils? or, maybe they WERE shallow, and sunk?

[edit on 1-3-2008 by billybob]

This reminds me of what Ford Prefect said in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy... I can't remember it word for word, but it went something like...

"You earth men amaze me with how much faith you place in gravity."


In the truth of it... I think the effect might be more consistent with a slight glitch or ripple in our magnetic field. No magnet is perfect after all, why should we expect the entire earth to have a perfect magnetic field?

Classical theory predicts gravity is the same everywhere...seems more and more likely that the classical theory is incorrect!

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by billybob

 

But where does the water come from? Are we employing Heisenberg here and just having it materialize?

It is an interesting theory, but i don't understand where all this water comes from. and how there are deep marine fossils predating land fossils.

Perhaps much of the earths surface was simply flooded back then. I mean, the markings from lake beds would certainly not be around any longer in todays time, such a vast time span with constant erosion would easily destroy evidence of older bodies of water.

Classical theory predicts gravity is the same everywhere...seems more and more likely that the classical theory is incorrect!

Well, Classical theory is often dis proven. Mostly because we have technology now that can test it all.
It's not so much as wrong, as required some tweaking to make it exact in most cases.
(Unless you start looking at quantum mechanics)

I would not be surprised in the least if there were another variable at play with gravity that was previously too minuscule in it's effects to notice.


[edit on 1-3-2008 by johnsky]

Originally posted by johnsky

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by billybob

 

Perhaps much of the earths surface was simply flooded back then.

It honestly makes more sense in this video.

Does anyone know the origin of Earth? Is it possible that maybe our planet was hijacked 3 billions years ago from another solar system and another look and feel..
Cold and frozen from a millennia of lonesome traveling..
Before becoming locked in this new orbit.
Of course being in orbit causes a planets core to heat up. Why? Tidal forces, sunlight etc.. CO.2 !
The Earth starts to heat up and whatever is TRULY near the core starts to react and expand and become bodies of water.
The heated core makes magma..
Have you noticed that magma is generally located in places near water? Is it such a "coincidence"?
Possibly..

I mean do we REALLY know the past?.
Do we know REALLY what's at our core?
I read a theory last week it was square!

-- At this point in my life I've seen a lot of ridiculous ideas spring to the forefront. This idea doesn't seem ridiculous from how it was explained, it just not explained with today's knowledge in the same way we have no idea what's affecting our satellites.

Just tell me if I need a tinfoil , lead or brass hat when the time comes..

B



[edit on 1-3-2008 by Bspiracy]

Perhaps there are electro-magnetic gulf streams in space that we are not aware of that cause these anomolies. Obviously, I have no proof or facts to back up this claim, it is just an idea.

reply to post by Guzzeppi

reply to post by Eagle1229

Would you pleas expand on that? It has my attention. Seems there is an unexplained 'Earth Force', that the scientists have yet to explain?

Guz
Dr Hoaglands Hyperdimensional Physics is based on Maxwel's Quaternion equations before Heaviside simplified them into todays Electro-Magnetic theory, Basically (not easy to do with quaternions) the effects we can see and measure: Examples.
The Great red Spot on Jupitor is fueled by HD physics at 19.5 degrees south latitude. The Sun Spots on our Sun are mainly grouped around both 19.5 North and South. The great Hawaiian Hot spot creating all of the Hawaiian Islands and the shoals to the Northwest to Midway all were at 19.5 North latitude. Hubbel has
photographed huge storms on Saturn arising at 19.2 degrees N ,
Just some examples that there are unknown forces at work manifesting themselves at approx 20 degrees N and South latitude based on the plane of rotation.

I'm skeptical of the equations but the observation examples are hard to explain away as pure chance


[edit on 1-3-2008 by Eagle1229]

[edit on 1-3-2008 by Eagle1229]

I vote invisible space trolls tugging at the probe, thinking it was a spacecream cone.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
It is an interesting theory, but i don't understand where all this water comes from. and how there are deep marine fossils predating land fossils.

I've never seen this theory before but it's very interesting. As for the source of the water, maybe the planet was originally covered in water. As the crust cracked apart and expanded, the water ran into the voids and created the oceans.

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe
When I first saw this "Expanding Earth Theory" I was fascinated, even took it one step further and thought about a smaller Earth with much less gravity allowing early pre-historic life to grow to phenominal sizes:-) As debris rains down on Earth from space we grow or by some other mechanism we grow greater gravity killed the Dino's (along with Dino flu (pet theory) and Mammals took over.
As far as Water I agree with BigProbe. Who says all the smaller land/Earth had to be dry? and the steady staters (Earth has always been this large) all agree the Land masses are the oldest while ALL of the expanse under the oceans is less than 100 million years old, They believe the newly created land at the mid ocean rifts causes the older ocean land to slide underneath the continental masses, iw subduction. So we are all in agreement except for. BTW I like the gravity issue explaining how large pre-historic life was able to grow

Originally posted by Eagle1229
..all agree the Land masses are the oldest while ALL of the expanse under the oceans is less than 100 million years old, They believe the newly created land at the mid ocean rifts causes the older ocean land to slide underneath the continental masses, iw subduction.

I didn't know that. What if these mid-ocean rifts originally worked to expand the earth, but at some point the planet reached a critical size where energy/mass/gravity reached a balance and THEN subduction began to occur? Sort of like over tightening a bolt until the thread strips off..?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
But where does the water come from? Are we employing Heisenberg here and just having it materialize?

It is an interesting theory, but i don't understand where all this water comes from. and how there are deep marine fossils predating land fossils.

Are you familiar with Velikovsky’s idea that Venus is a relative newcomer to the system, and that it had electrical exchanges with both Mars and Earth?

www.grazian-archive.com...

Some think Venus might even have been the culprit in stealing Mars’ atmosphere and water, only to dump much of it on the earth in a later exchange. (the great flood?). Velikovsky was genius in his own way, but how he got Venus erupting out of Jupiter I’ll never get.