Flyby Anomaly Mystery Deepens

[Schneibster]

Wrong.

Then post them.

[DeltaV]

Them? What "them"? And, if I had access to "them", why would I give such data to a delusional individual such as you?

See how the troll makes up his own reality as he bumbles along?

For example:

And this has what, again, to do with the Juno spacecraft resetting into "Safe" mode?

I wrote zip about Juno going into safe mode. Schnuckie fabricates, out of pixie dust, that I wrote that Juno going into safe mode is due to the Flyby Anomaly.

And have you ever heard of the equivalence principle? You are claiming we can violate it.

Wow. Where did I claim that? Schnoodle, Einstein's heir-apparent, has apparently done all the math required to prove, scientifically, that accepting the mere existence of a Flyby Anomaly is equivalent to rejecting the Equivalence Principle. Meanwhile, real scientists say that the Flyby Anomaly is still an unsolved mystery.

What a clown.

[Schneibster]

So basically you don't know from orbital elements.

Just checking.

ETA: Just so folks know, there are actually three sets of six elements. One heliocentric set from before the Earth Orbital Injection; one geocentric set for the hyperbolic slingshot; and a final heliocentric set once the satellite has left the vicinity of the Earth. I was checking whether this individual actually knew anything by checking if he could even produce the initial heliocentric set, or the expected final heliocentric set. He failed and demonstrated he has no direct knowledge of the spacecraft or its mission. I wouldn't challenge him on the geocentric elements; I suspect those may have been lost in the reset and safe mode.

I'm trying to listen to Stubby and explain myself about things that seem perfectly obvious to me.

[DeltaV]

I was checking whether this individual actually knew anything

Since all I've done in this and related threads is provide links to peer-reviewed science publications about the Flyby Anomaly, which clearly show that there is such an anomaly over many missions (several of those papers providing hypotheses about its cause), I don't have to know anything about it, and never claimed to.

The troll projects his innate need to be the "ultimate expert" onto everyone else. When he can't find evidence of that in their posts, he fabricates it out of thin air. A real magician.

[GIThruster]

Honestly, even with him on ignore he's ruined the forum with hundreds of messages per week all full of his sick posturing.

It's not just here. On his blog he's actually pretending to teach GRT--a guy with a high school degree at best teaching GRT. . .unbelievable.

And seriously, in this thread alone, he went from someone who didn't understand GPB doesn't go through the trajectory to look at the flyby issue, to the world's big expert who is suddenly checking everyone else to see if they know what he thinks he does.

Is there a more archetypal example of a troll anywhere on the web?

[Schneibster]

I was checking whether this individual actually knew anything

Since all I've done in this and related threads is provide links to peer-reviewed science publications about the Flyby Anomaly, which clearly show that there is such an anomaly over many missions (several of those papers providing hypotheses about its cause), I don't have to know anything about it, and never claimed to.

The troll projects his innate need to be the "ultimate expert" onto everyone else. When he can't find evidence of that in their posts, he fabricates it out of thin air. A real magician.

OK, well so far I haven't seen an article that said anything about the results. That's what I'm poking at you about. I'm also pointing out obvious things, like for example for someone so interested in this you don't know the most basic piece of information about it, i.e. the orbital elements. That's where the anomaly will appear; the final orbital elements will differ from the prediction, by some tens of mm/s^2, i.e. a couple km/hour-year. This will be represented in the deviation of the real from the predicted final heliocentric orbital elements.

It's like talking to someone who's very concerned about nuclear energy and finding out they don't know what half-life is.

[Schneibster]

Honestly, even with him on ignore he's ruined the forum with hundreds of messages per week all full of his sick posturing.

It's not just here. On his blog he's actually pretending to teach GRT--a guy with a high school degree at best teaching GRT. . .unbelievable.

LOL you can't understand it, that's what's got you so cranked, you read it and you aren't bright enough.

And it burns.

Shall I explain each term of the Einstein Field Equations to you?

Yes, I think so:

G[μν] (pronounced big gee sub mu nu) is all of the global deformations of spacetime; for example, different values could make gross differences like whether spacetime is open or closed, or whether it's circular or hyperbolic, or whether its "spheres" have the symmetric circular measure volume of 4/3πr³ or deviate from that value; intrinsically and everywhere, that is, not just locally. This is known as the "Einstein tensor," and represents the curvature of the manifold; which is what I just said in more technical language.

g[μν] (pronounced as above, but little gee obviously) is all of the local deformations of spacetime; for example, so-called "gravity fields." (They're in scare quotes, because when you think relativistically gravity isn't a force, it's a local deformation of spacetime and "gravity" is just the change in motion that objects feel because of this deformation.) This is called the "metric tensor." Changes to the metric tensor can create effects ranging from changes in gravity, to changes in the directions of "future" and "toward M31," to changes in the local rate of time compared to other places nearby, say within the same galactic cluster.

Λ (pronounced lambda) is called the "cosmological constant," and represents the change in the metric over time. Cosmologists call this "dark energy."

Those are the left side. I'll save the right side in case I need to humiliate you some more for pretending I don't know what I'm talking about.

But the big message is, Einstein was such a genius that you don't have to be a genius to understand him. He figured out things like the Einstein tensor to make things easy to understand. That's beyond genius.

[Schneibster]

Here's a page on understanding the orbital elements: http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-la ... /3380.html

Of course, it requires access to a NASA page that's down due to the Republican-Amurcn teatraitor shutdown.

[DeltaV]

OK, well so far I haven't seen an article that said anything about the results. That's what I'm poking at you about. I'm also pointing out obvious things, like for example for someone so interested in this you don't know the most basic piece of information about it, i.e. the orbital elements.

Trollogic progression:
A) I simply post about a current event (Juno fly-by) which will produce new data that is highly pertinent to the interesting, years-old, scientifically-accepted Flyby Anomaly.
B) Troll assumes that, since I posted to a blog that he reads, that I want/care specifically about his opinion on the topic and am now morally obligated to provide him with the new data, so that his superhuman intellect can critique it, else why would I have distracted him from weightier matters?
C) Troll assumes that because I don't post the NASA data (which has been locked-up by the intransigence of his left-coast, socialist overlords) that I don't know what "orbital elements" are.

So by Trollogic, knowledge is always self-distributing and gets posted if known, and absence of such a post means absence of said knowledge.

Is this why Troll spews his self-declared "knowledge" in so many bloated posts across this forum? Perhaps he is seeking to excrete enough "information" to guarantee his digital immortality and eventual worship by any meshbacks remaining after his AGW priesthood heroes reduce humanity to under 500e10^6.

[Schneibster]

A) I simply post about a current event (Juno fly-by) which will produce new data that is highly pertinent to the interesting, years-old, scientifically-accepted Flyby Anomaly.

Unfortunately, another anomaly occurs that probably has compromised the data that would otherwise have done so; all the articles talk about it, and none of them talk about the flyby anomaly, but you fail to notice it, according to your story.

I comment; you're so caught up in how I'm a troll that you make a fool of yourself.

You blame me.

Next?

I mean, seriously guy you come out looking like a real obsessive nutjob here. If I was you I'd just let this thread fade into obscurity. Next time wait until something actually happens before you start writing about it.

[DeltaV]

You're lying again.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57606983/

NASA's Jupiter-bound Juno spacecraft went into protective "safe mode" just 10 minutes after a low-altitude gravity-assist flyby of Earth Wednesday, but mission managers said Thursday they were back in touch with the spacecraft and optimistic about a full recovery from whatever triggered the upset.

http://www.spaceflight101.com/juno-miss ... -2013.html

Juno also completed the expected science data acquisition during the Flyby, the bulk of data has already been downlinked while some is still to be downlinked.

Schnipester, you should seriously stop channelling Teilhard De Chardin, get your head out of your ass, and learn about Google.

[Schneibster]

You're lying again.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57606983/

NASA's Jupiter-bound Juno spacecraft went into protective "safe mode" just 10 minutes after a low-altitude gravity-assist flyby of Earth Wednesday, but mission managers said Thursday they were back in touch with the spacecraft and optimistic about a full recovery from whatever triggered the upset.

http://www.spaceflight101.com/juno-miss ... -2013.html

Juno also completed the expected science data acquisition during the Flyby, the bulk of data has already been downlinked while some is still to be downlinked.

Schnipester, you should seriously stop channelling Teilhard De Chardin. get your head out of your ass, and learn about Google.

Well, good for them, maybe we will find something out.

Next time don't borrow trouble. Payback is, as they say, a bxxxh.

Oh, and speaking of lying, the date on that article is two days ago, not five. Anachronism. You're lying again.

[DeltaV]

Stop! You are scaring me.

[Schneibster]

And last but not least, we don't know if the mystery deepened yet. It will lighten, actually, if a) the flyby anomaly happened and b) they got all the data. But if it failed, or if the flyby anomaly didn't happen this time, then and only then will your title be correct and the mystery actually have deepened. And you will have done nothing better than guess lucky.

Just sayin'.

[DeltaV]

we don't know if the mystery deepened yet

You're lying again.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 111111.htm

The experts are stumped.

This is a real cosmic mystery that no one has yet figured out.
- Trevor Morley, flight dynamics expert at ESA's ESOC operations centre in Darmstadt, Germany

Gathering more data that can be analysed by experts is critical if we are ever to solve this perplexing mystery.
- ESA's Daniel Firre, responsible for the tracking support at ESOC