Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
Followers 1

# Juno's Gravity Assist & Helical Gravitons

## 21 posts in this topic

With respect to the forthcoming Juno spacecraft due for an Earth flyby gravity acceleration on Oct 9th 2013, it's easier to explain with an Archimedes screw model of particles gravitons than "spacetime fabric".

If one imagines that gravity is due to clockwise spinning right-handed Archimedes screw particles, which emanate out from the Earth in a straight line, then this explains the force relative to our planet when they interact with another body. When Juno approaches Earth towards the Sun, the gravitons also have a velocity of the Earth relative to the Sun. This 'extra' motion is then transferred to Juno as it passes close by, which accelerates the spacecraft relative to the Sun.

Or can anyone give me the mainstream alternative to the Archimedes graviton model?

Edited by NatureBoff

##### Share on other sites

So I can assume that the Archimedes screw model is easier to understand than the "spacetime fabric" explanation for Juno's gravity assist due in 8 weeks time?

##### Share on other sites

So I can assume that the Archimedes screw model is easier to understand than the "spacetime fabric" explanation for Juno's gravity assist due in 8 weeks time?

You can assume whatever you want. I, on the other hand, will continue to reject your theory.

The trajectory for Juno's gravity assist was calculated using General Relativity.

I hope you understand what that means: the scientists and engineers decided what trajectory they wanted Juno to have, and then they explicitly calculated the appropriate course adjustments and gravity boosts necessary to achieve this trajectory.

If Juno goes where it is supposed to go, this will be a success for General Relativity (as have been the many, many, many satellites and probe course corrections done in the past).

-----------

Rather than argue about the inadequacies of your model again, I would like to challenge you to actually make a prediction:

Will Juno experience a flyby anomaly, and if so, will it be positive or negative?

2 people like this

##### Share on other sites

You can assume whatever you want. I, on the other hand, will continue to reject your theory.

The trajectory for Juno's gravity assist was calculated using General Relativity.

I hope you understand what that means: the scientists and engineers decided what trajectory they wanted Juno to have, and then they explicitly calculated the appropriate course adjustments and gravity boosts necessary to achieve this trajectory.

If Juno goes where it is supposed to go, this will be a success for General Relativity (as have been the many, many, many satellites and probe course corrections done in the past).

-----------

Rather than argue about the inadequacies of your model again, I would like to challenge you to actually make a prediction:

Will Juno experience a flyby anomaly, and if so, will it be positive or negative?

Okay, thanks for the challenge. Incidentally, Juno's calculated trajectory is only approximate and an adjuster will be needed after it's gravity assist. It isn't quite as precise as you might like to think.

I'm predicting that if there is a flyby anomaly, it will be large and positive. I'm basing this on the deduction that the force acts on the fluids within the spacecraft. Due it still having half way to go with fuel needed to enter a satisfactory Jupiter orbit, then there is still going to roughly half the fuel left. The positive acceleration is due to the motion of Earth towards the Sun which is needed for the gravity assist. The additional 'left-handed' spinning gravitons should also create an additional force of attraction and forward motion, similarly to the regular gravitons. This is in proportion to the amount of fluid fuel aboard. Whether a flyby anomaly will occur at all, is something I'm less certain of. But due the trajectory traversing the equatorial regions and at such a low altitude, I believe the chances will be high. This uncertainty is due to the apparent irregular nature of this assumed neutron-neutron annihilation taking place in the Earth's core and the nature of the 'beams' produced at the surface which propagate outwards.

In all, I'm predicting a positive acceleration anomaly that will be significantly larger than any other seen before. It will become a sensation and be in the glare of the media spotlight. I'm counting down the weeks as we speak.

Edited by NatureBoff

##### Share on other sites

I also predict a signature lateral deviation to the left.

##### Share on other sites

Okay, thanks for the challenge. Incidentally, Juno's calculated trajectory is only approximate and an adjuster will be needed after it's gravity assist. It isn't quite as precise as you might like to think.

I'm predicting that if there is a flyby anomaly, it will be large and positive. I'm basing this on the deduction that the force acts on the fluids within the spacecraft. Due it still having half way to go with fuel needed to enter a satisfactory Jupiter orbit, then there is still going to roughly half the fuel left. The positive acceleration is due to the motion of Earth towards the Sun which is needed for the gravity assist. The additional 'left-handed' spinning gravitons should also create an additional force of attraction and forward motion, similarly to the regular gravitons. This is in proportion to the amount of fluid fuel aboard. Whether a flyby anomaly will occur at all, is something I'm less certain of. But due the trajectory traversing the equatorial regions and at such a low altitude, I believe the chances will be high. This uncertainty is due to the apparent irregular nature of this assumed neutron-neutron annihilation taking place in the Earth's core and the nature of the 'beams' produced at the surface which propagate outwards.

In all, I'm predicting a positive acceleration anomaly that will be significantly larger than any other seen before. It will become a sensation and be in the glare of the media spotlight. I'm counting down the weeks as we speak.

I'm sorry, but "I'm predicting that if there is a flyby anomaly, it will be large and positive." is not a prediction, it is at best a guess.

One of the tests conducted in an attempt to verify Einstein's theory of relativity was measuring the angle that the light of a star was deflected as it passed near the sun. Einstein's theory of relativity predicted an angle of 1.75 arcseconds, while the dominant theory at the time, Newton's law of gravity, predicted an angle half of that. When the measurements were completed, Einstein's theory was correct.

Predictions made by scientific hypotheses normally have a precise value perhaps with a +/- error.

What is your prediction that the deviation will be?

##### Share on other sites

So I can assume that the Archimedes screw model is easier to understand than the "spacetime fabric" explanation for Juno's gravity assist due in 8 weeks time?

Since when has easy to understand = correct.

I could explain gravity in terms of tiny invisible animals which grab hold of objects with mass and, swimming in the ether push the objects together. It is remarkably easy to understand. It is also nonsense.

What it does have in common with your hypothesis is that they share the same amount of evidence... none at all.

##### Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but "I'm predicting that if there is a flyby anomaly, it will be large and positive." is not a prediction, it is at best a guess.

You've conveniently ignored my prediction of an additional anomaly of a lateral deviation to the left of it's flightpath, analogous to the lateral deviation recorded by data recorders of the 777 SFO airliner crash Jul 2013.
As the airplane descended between 500 feet and 200 feet, they experienced a “lateral deviation” and continued to fly too low

Not only am I making the prediction of the spacecraft Earth flyby anomaly, but I'm predicting that this same anomaly is the cause of most aircraft malfunctions and crashes.

##### Share on other sites

Since when has easy to understand = correct.

I could explain gravity in terms of tiny invisible animals which grab hold of objects with mass and, swimming in the ether push the objects together. It is remarkably easy to understand. It is also nonsense.

What it does have in common with your hypothesis is that they share the same amount of evidence... none at all.

The difference is that I've submitted my idea of an Archimedes screw particle mechanism to explain the gravity force in essay form to a prestigious physics competition held by FQXi. It was well received by other entrants. I had positive personal email correspondence with David Tong, Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge, who was awarded a second prize in the competition as it happens.

Reality Was Born Analog But Will Digital Die?

##### Share on other sites

I could explain gravity in terms of tiny invisible animals which grab hold of objects with mass and, swimming in the ether push the objects together. It is remarkably easy to understand. It is also nonsense.

So... you're saying that gravitation turtles AREN'T real???

##### Share on other sites

So... you're saying that gravitation turtles AREN'T real???

Are you a Stephen King fan?

##### Share on other sites

The difference is that I've submitted my idea of an Archimedes screw particle mechanism to explain the gravity force in essay form to a prestigious physics competition held by FQXi. It was well received by other entrants. I had positive personal email correspondence with David Tong, Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge, who was awarded a second prize in the competition as it happens.

Again since when has a well written essay = correct?

I don't care if it was well received by the Pope and the Queen of England, you will still have provided the same amount of evidence to support your hypothesis... NONE.

##### Share on other sites

Again since when has a well written essay = correct?

I don't care if it was well received by the Pope and the Queen of England, you will still have provided the same amount of evidence to support your hypothesis... NONE.

Physicists interested in the Fundamentals Of Physics had plenty of corroborative work and commented that their own research had similar elements to my own. There was also plenty of posts in addition to the two essays that I'm submitted. Left field thinking is encouraged in this professional forum.

Besides which, I have made a distinct left field prediction for the forthcoming Juno flyby and expected anomaly. What will be your response do you think if an anomalous lateral deviation to the left IS announced after the data is analyzed?

Edited by NatureBoff

##### Share on other sites

Are you a Stephen King fan?

No. I actually don't like King at all.

##### Share on other sites

Besides which, I have made a distinct left field prediction for the forthcoming Juno flyby and expected anomaly. What will be your response do you think if an anomalous lateral deviation to the left IS announced after the data is analyzed?

As you have not quantified your prediction nor presented any calculations to show how you arrived at it I will consider it nothing more than a lucky guess.

2 people like this

##### Share on other sites

Is this essay in PDF format? Perhaps you would be kind enough to present this to the thread so you can actually back up your claims. After all if it was so well received by the men of Cambridge was it? Then surely your not worried about the critiques of a few forum members.

##### Share on other sites

As you have not quantified your prediction nor presented any calculations to show how you arrived at it I will consider it nothing more than a lucky guess.

It doesn't really matter what you think, I've made the same left handed lateral deviation hypothesis on the Forbes website.

##### Share on other sites

It doesn't really matter what you think, I've made the same left handed lateral deviation hypothesis on the Forbes website.

It does matter what we think. Your going against long accepted science and making some audacious claimes to back yourself up yet make absolutely no effort to present any of your data or proof that you wrote a well accepted essay detailing your theory. I might as well claim I found gold at the top of Everest while carrying orphan children and puppies on my back.

2 people like this

##### Share on other sites

Waspie_Dwarf and DecoNoir, I think you are both being too harsh to NatureBoff.

NatureBoff did give a specific prediction. It isn't quantitative, but it doesn't really have to be. He has provided justification for it within the confines of his theory.

Personally, I think NatureBoff's theory of ``spiral gravitons'' is somewhat ridiculous and rife with internal inconsistencies. I also think the very way he poses his theory makes it impossible to make a sensible mathematical formulation. But, I can't really criticize him on the latter point because I lack the interest to attempt to mathematically formulate his theory myself, and it isn't fair to expect everyone to have a deep background in advanced mathematics.

In the present case, NatureBoff has described a very specific behaviour:

• Large, positive anomalous gain in velocity during the flyby, and
• Large lateral deviation in trajectory during the flyby.

The word ``large'' is obviously a relative term and may be hard to gauge, but the italicized terms are definitely measurable.

He also provided some justification for why these events will occur (using things he has discussed at length in the context of his theory many times before):

• The force driving these anomalies will be roughly proportional to the amount of fluid onboard the spacecraft, and
• The force driving these anomalies will be related to the latitude of the closest point in the flyby, with larger anomalies occurring at lower latitudes.

While I don't think these justifications make sense, they are also testable - one can consult the scientific record to determine the fuel load and latitudes of previous flybys and connect them to the magnitude of any anomalies.

Now IF an anomaly occurs as described above it will not prove NatureBoff's theory - it could be due to something else entirely - but if there is a flyby anomaly as large as he describes it will cast serious doubt on the mainstream theory (which predicts no anomaly).

1 person likes this

Thanks sep

## Create an account

Register a new account