[Kryptid]

So, how do we know for sure if we measure the shadow of Phobos while it is 27Km, 22Km or 18Km?

Because they aren't morons. The shape of the shadow changing will not cause the shadow to slowly get further and further "ahead of schedule". The location of the center of the shadow would not be affected by that. If the shadow is rising earlier than expected and setting earlier than expected, then it must either be because Phobos is moving faster or it is getting closer. For an orbit, both of those things would be the same.

How do we know if we set the measurements at the Periapsis, Semi-major axis or exactly at the Semi-major axis.
At each location the velocity is different.

Again, they aren't morons. They know these things. The time it takes for Phobos to complete an orbit would always be the same if its distance from Mars was unchanging. Either that, or the time to complete an orbit would increase if it was getting further away. Neither of those two scenarios are supported by the measurements.

I assume that there might be some other issues as the accuracy of the probe velocity and location.

Again, those things are knowable. That would be taken into consideration as a part of the measurement error (which is a mere 0.03 seconds). You are wrong and you know it. You are just attempting to save face in your desperation.

Therefore, in order to get a clear indication we need to set one probe on Mars and the other on Phobos.
There is no short cut.

This is a lie. If I threw a baseball towards you, you wouldn't need a laser beam to tell you that it's getting closer to you.

Therefore, I totally reject this unrealistic measurement.

Because it contradicts your world-view. You will reject any and all evidence that contradicts what you believe is true.

Please remember - All objects at long rang MUST drift outwards due to gravity.
Moons and planets are considered as located at long rang.
Therefore, all the Moons and planets in the solar system must drift outwards without any exception!

This is a perfect example of "begging the question". You use your own conclusion to assume that any evidence against it is automatically wrong. This is a logical fallacy.

[Bored chemist]

How our scientists couldn't consider this possibility?

What makes you think they didn't consider it?
Do you actually have a copy of the research report?
Does it include error analyses?

Or are you just trying to pretend that science doesn't work, and you know better?

Well that's not going to work, not least because you keep getting stuff wrong.

Sorry, I totally reject this unrealistic measurement.

Again, you are rejecting  observed reality.
There are words for people who do that. Most of them are not polite.

[Kryptid]

To further clarify why your argument is stupid, take into consideration that MOLA measured the travel time for the shadow 15 separate times. What's more important, is that some of these measurements were taken many years apart. The first measurement was done on September 20, 1977, while the most recent one was taken on June 28, 2004. That's almost 27 years. 27 years multiplied by an average rate of 0.8 seconds per year means that Phobos' shadow was seen to be ahead of schedule by about 21 seconds in 2004 when compared to 1977. It would have risen 21 seconds earlier than expected and set 21 seconds earlier than expected. To claim that a laser system with millisecond precision could somehow be off by a whopping 21 seconds is unbelievable.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

To further clarify why your argument is stupid, take into consideration that MOLA measured the travel time for the shadow 15 separate times. What's more important, is that some of these measurements were taken many years apart. The first measurement was done on September 20, 1977, while the most recent one was taken on June 28, 2004. That's almost 27 years. 27 years multiplied by an average rate of 0.8 seconds per year means that Phobos' shadow was seen to be ahead of schedule by about 21 seconds in 2004 when compared to 1977. It would have risen 21 seconds earlier than expected and set 21 seconds earlier than expected. To claim that a laser system with millisecond precision could somehow be off by a whopping 21 seconds is unbelievable.

Actually, I agree with you.
In the following article it is stated:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004JE002376
Phobos is very close to Mars, at a mean distance of 9378 km, compared to 3394 km radius of Mars, and with an orbital period of only 7.65 hours, is well within the synchronous orbital distance.
So, Phobos is located very close to Mars, therefore, we can't consider it as a long range.
Sorry for missing this key information.
Remember my explanation:

Please remember - All objects at long rang MUST drift outwards due to gravity.
Moons and planets are considered as located at long rang.
Therefore, all the Moons and planets in the solar system must drift outwards without any exception!

As Phobos is clearly located at a short range, I fully agree that it should actually drift inwards.

[Kryptid]

Oh, so you accept the data only after you realize that it doesn't contradict your model? Basically what you are telling me is that you will be critical of data that disagrees with you, but will not be critical of that exact same data when you later understand that it never disagreed with you in the first place. That's a perfect example of your bias showing.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Basically what you are telling me is that you will be critical of data that disagrees with you, but will not be critical of that exact same data when you later understand that it never disagreed with you in the first place.

I have stated clearly that:

All objects at long rang MUST drift outwards due to gravity.

That statement is correct By 100%
Phobos can't be considered as Long range.
Therefore it drifts inwards.
Sorry again for missing this information.
If you think that this statement is incorrect, than find other moon at a long rang that drifts inwards

[Kryptid]

I have stated clearly that:

It doesn't matter what you said. The issue is that you just showed your bias.

If you think that this statement is incorrect, than find other moon at a long rang that drifts inwards

And at what distance does something become "long range"? You have to define that, otherwise I wouldn't even know what I'm looking for. Since you accept that the Moon is moving away from the Earth, can I assume that you will say that any orbiting objects separated by a distance greater than that from the Earth to the Moon will move away from each other over time?

[Bored chemist]

We know that distant objects obey Newtonian gravity.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
(The so-called anomaly is now resolved and the data for the movement of the objects tallies with expectations.)

[Dave Lev (OP)]

And at what distance does something become "long range"?

Well, I will claim that it is a good question as I don't know the exact answer.
If I really knew the answer, I would claim for excellent question.
In any case, that range must be based on the ratio between the radius of the main object to the distance to the orbital object. The ratio in the mass also must have an impact and some other variants.
However, it is quite clear that the ratio between radiuses to distance is the most important issue.
Therefore, in order to make it easy, I would assume that if the distance to the orbital object is below five times the radius of the main object, it should be considered as short rang.
If the distance is more than 20 Times the radius, it should be considered as long rang.
I'm not sure about the range between 5 times to 20 times.
However, just for the discussion, let's assume that the boarder is about 10 Times the radius.

Since you accept that the Moon is moving away from the Earth, can I assume that you will say that any orbiting objects separated by a distance greater than that from the Earth to the Moon will move away from each other over time?

The moon is at a distance of 380,000 Km from the earth.
The radius of the earth is about 6,350 Km
So the ratio is more abot 60 times. Therefore, it is surly considered at a long range.

We know that distant objects obey Newtonian gravity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
(The so-called anomaly is now resolved and the data for the movement of the objects tallies with expectations.)

Wow!!!
Thanks for that great article.
It is fully correlated with my theory.

In the article it is stated:
"As the anomaly was growing, it appeared that the spacecraft were moving more slowly than expected.
 The spacecraft were flying with almost no additional stabilization thrusts during their "cruise",
If the positions of the spacecraft were predicted one year in advance based on measured velocity and known forces (mostly gravity), they were actually found to be some 400 km closer to the sun at the end of the year"

The outcome is:
This anomaly is now believed to be accounted for by thermal recoil forces.

However, it is also stated:
Gravity
It is possible that deceleration is caused by gravitational forces from unidentified sources such as the Kuiper belt or dark matter. However, this acceleration does not show up in the orbits of the outer planets, so any generic gravitational answer would need to violate the equivalence principle (see modified inertia below). Likewise, the anomaly does not appear in the orbits of Neptune's moons, challenging the possibility that the Pioneer anomaly may be an unconventional gravitational phenomenon based on range from the Sun.[28]

So, my answer to this anomaly is gravity and only gravity.
I agree with the following assumption that it is due to Kuiper belt:
It is possible that deceleration is caused by gravitational forces from unidentified sources such as the Kuiper belt or dark matter.
As there is no dark matter, you can ignore this issue.
So, Kuiper belt has an impact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt
The Kuiper belt (/ˈkaɪpər, ˈkʊɪ-/),[1] occasionally called the Edgeworth–Kuiper belt, is a circumstellar disc in the outer Solar System, extending from the orbit of Neptune (at 30 AU) to approximately 50 AU from the Sun.[2] It is similar to the asteroid belt, but is far larger – 20 times as wide and 20–200 times as massive.
But I would even add the Oort cloud:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud
The Oort cloud (/ɔːrt, ʊərt/),[1] sometimes called the Öpik–Oort cloud,[2] first described in 1950 by Dutch astronomer Jan Oort,[3] is a theoretical cloud of predominantly icy planetesimals proposed to surround the Sun at distances ranging from 2,000 to 200,000 au (0.03 to 3.2 light-year
So, how it really works:
My statement is: "Gravity works locally and locally is relatively"
So, as those spacecrafts do not orbit any more around the Sun or any other main object, they are not considered as gravity bonded to any main object in the solar system including any other planet or moons.  They are clearly free in the open space.
Therefore, as they enter to the aria of Kuiper belt they are surly effected by the gravity of this belt.
Our scientists have rejected this idea due to:
"However, this acceleration does not show up in the orbits of the outer planets, so any generic gravitational answer would need to violate the equivalence principle (see modified inertia below)"
That is perfectly Ok.
this acceleration does not show up in the orbits of the outer planets, Due to the idea that GRAVITY WORKS LOCALLY
As the outer planets are gravity bonded with the Sun, Kuiper_belt wouldn't have any impact on their orbital velocity.
In the same token:
All the asteroids that orbit the Sun don't care about the Earth Gravity force.
So, if a group of one billion asteroids cross the orbital path of the earth, some of them might directly collide with the earth and fall in as meteors, but NONE of them would be trapped by the gravity force of the earth and start orbit the earth instead of the Sun.
Yes, Never and ever!
Please remember - "Gravity works locally and locally is relatively"

Later on I will explain how the whole spiral galaxy is directly effected by this anomaly.

[Kryptid]

In any case, that range must be based on the ratio between the radius of the main object to the distance to the orbital

Why would the radius matter when gravity isn't based on the radius? If you look at Newton's equation, only distance and mass matter. If you squeezed the Earth down to half its current diameter while keeping its mass the same, the orbit of satellites or the Moon would not be affected at all.

But even if you use radius as the metric, then the Hulse-Taylor binary would count. It's a pair of neutron stars in orbit around each other and they are slowly getting closer. Neutron stars are very, very small (about 10 kilometers in radius) and the distance between these two neutron stars varies between 1.1 solar radii (about 765,000 kilometers) and 4.8 solar radii (about 3,340,000 kilometers). The distance between them therefore varies from about 76,500 times to 334,000 times their radii, thus qualifying as "long ranged" by you. So their orbit is decaying despite them being at long range: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse%E2%80%93Taylor_binary

[Bored chemist]

So, my answer to this anomaly is gravity and only gravity.

The actual scientists disagree.

[Bored chemist]

t NONE of them would be trapped by the gravity force of the earth and start orbit the earth instead of the Sun.
Yes, Never and ever!

the idea that collision could create new planet or moon is a pure fiction.

You seem to have stated that the Moon does not exist.

[Kryptid]

If the Earth's gravity is repelling the Moon, then what is the force that keeps the Moon in orbit around the Earth?

If natural satellites cannot form by a planet capturing asteroids via gravity, nor by a collision event, then how do you propose that satellites come into existence at all?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Why would the radius matter when gravity isn't based on the radius? If you look at Newton's equation, only distance and mass matter. If you squeezed the Earth down to half its current diameter while keeping its mass the same, the orbit of satellites or the Moon would not be affected at all.

Newton is correct.
Gravity is based on mass and the orbital radius.
However, we can also claim that the mass (assuming that it is not BH or Neutron Star) is directly affected by the radius of the object, assuming that the density for a given radius is more or less the same between all the objects in the Universe.
Hence, I assume that if we take a planet with the same radius of the Earth, it should have more or less the same density of mass as the Earth and therefore the same total mass.

As I have stated, I don't know how to extract the correct ratio from the mass itself.
Therefore, I have used the ratio between the Radius of the Main object (which represents the total mass of the main object) to the distance till the orbital object (which represents the orbital radius).

Therefore, this ratio is only valid for a planet or moon due to their fixed density of mass per radius.
It isn't applicable for BH or Neutron star

But even if you use radius as the metric, then the Hulse-Taylor binary would count. It's a pair of neutron stars in orbit around each other and they are slowly getting closer. Neutron stars are very, very small (about 10 kilometers in radius) and the distance between these two neutron stars varies between 1.1 solar radii (about 765,000 kilometers) and 4.8 solar radii (about 3,340,000 kilometers). The distance between them therefore varies from about 76,500 times to 334,000 times their radii, thus qualifying as "long ranged" by you. So their orbit is decaying despite them being at long range: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse%E2%80%93Taylor_binary

As the mass is the key element in our understanding, we need to verify what should be the equivalent radius of this Neutron star if its mass wasn't so compressed.
Therefore, let's compare it to the Sun.
In the article it is stated that the mass of this Neutron stars is 1.441 M☉
To make our calculation easier let's assume that the total mass of this star is exactly as the Sun.
We know that the radius of the Sun is: 696,342 ± 65 kilometres
Therefore, we need to Use the Sun radius as an equivalent radius to that star.

the distance between these two neutron stars varies between 1.1 solar radii (about 765,000 kilometers) and 4.8 solar radii (about 3,340,000 kilometers).

Now, if we compare the equivalent radius of the neutron star to the Orbital radius (distance), we get exactly the magic ratio of one to five as I was expecting for short range.

[Kryptid]

As the mass is the key element in our understanding, we need to verify what should be the equivalent radius of this Neutron star if its mass wasn't so compressed.

Uh huh, yeah, you moved the goalposts. Typical.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:20:32
As the mass is the key element in our understanding, we need to verify what should be the equivalent radius of this Neutron star if its mass wasn't so compressed.

Uh huh, yeah, you moved the goalposts. Typical.

Is it real?
I have clearly set the relationship between short rang and long rang and we have just found that it perfectly works even for Neutron star.
Where is your appreciation for this important discovery.
If you still assume that this discovery is wrong, would you kindly offer an example to support your assumption?
If you can't do so, don't you agree that I should get a reward from the science community for this discovery.

[Kryptid]

In order to make your idea work, you had to "decompress" the neutron star. You had never said anything before about needing to do that. You introduced that idea solely so you could avoid having to admit that you were wrong. That's called "moving the goalposts", and it's a logical fallacy.

[Bored chemist]

I have clearly set the relationship between

You have not done anything "clearly" except cheat by moving the goal posts.
Don't forget to address this as well as these

t NONE of them would be trapped by the gravity force of the earth and start orbit the earth instead of the Sun.
Yes, Never and ever!

the idea that collision could create new planet or moon is a pure fiction.

You seem to have stated that the Moon does not exist.

And, of course, these

As I have stated, there are two possibilities for falling in objects:
Fall in and collide with the main object or be pushed away.

Why don't  you consider the third possibility?
Don't you understand it?
Most people would get to grips with it quite easily.
They thing falls towards something, and then misses it.

Since you don't seem to understand basic physics, you are not in a position to criticise it, but let's see how you did.

(1) Gravity does not push - Yes It does

It plainly does not.
But you don't understand how something can get close to something and then miss.
This says a lot about you...

2) Black holes don't break the conservation laws  - Black hole does not break the conservation laws and also does not evaporate as Hawking had claimed. There is no negative particles. BH has the ability to create new positive particle pair and give them extra kinetic energy by its high gravity energy.

Unless it evaporates in the process of creating new particles, what you have described is a breach of the conservation laws.
It's just that you don't seem to be bright enough to recognise this.

(3) Even if they did, it wouldn't help because they wouldn't build a universe that looks like this one - Yes it does. The Rocket over rocket system can do it easily.

That wouldn't work anyway,, but it doesn't matter.
The "rocket over rocket "idea is a breach of GR.

(4) Even if they could, you still need to explain where the first one comes from - The Universe and its infinite space was always there

No.
Because Olber.
Also because the conservation laws.

(5) This simply isn't true "The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size." - Yes it is. I have already explained this issue. You would never ever get a black body radiation outside the cavity (in the open space). Only if you are located at the cavity itself (or monitor the radiation in the cavity by a tiny hole) you could find the Black body radiation.

That's not a sensible explanation.
Inside of a finite, large, universe that was once very hot, you expect a CMB.

As I have pointed out, what if we are in a big (but finite) box with black walls at 2.7K?
That would be finite, and we would see BBR .

(6) Even if it was true, this wouldn't be a valid deduction "Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age." - Yes it is. In order to set an infinite Universe from a single BH you must use infinite time.

Other mechanisms (those which are  not a pile of junk) do not start from a singe BH and make it grow by magic.

(7) We know that it's finite, thanks to Olber - This is a fiction. Our Universe is infinite. Olber theory could work only if in the all the galaxies in the infinite universe are moving at a velocity which is lower than the speed of light relative to our location.

No, because some of them would be moving towards us (very fast).

Now, since it's clear that you are wrong about all that, why not just accept that you are wrong?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

In order to make your idea work, you had to "decompress" the neutron star.

Yes, that is very normal and expected approach.
The radius of a Moon, Planet and even a star is a good indication for its mass.
However, if we are using a compressed object as BH or Neuton star, why can't we "decompress" it in order to find its equivalent radius.
I would like to remind you that we have started our discussion on the drifting direction of orbital objects around a planets or moons.
I have stated that for a long range the drifting would be outwards, while for short range wound be inwards.
I have also answered your question how to distinguish between long rang to short rang.

Quote from: Kryptid on Yesterday at 06:12:19
And at what distance does something become "long range"?

Well, I will claim that it is a good question as I don't know the exact answer.
If I really knew the answer, I would claim for excellent question.
In any case, that range must be based on the ratio between the radius of the main object to the distance to the orbital object. The ratio in the mass also must have an impact and some other variants.
However, it is quite clear that the ratio between radiuses to distance is the most important issue.
Therefore, in order to make it easy, I would assume that if the distance to the orbital object is below five times the radius of the main object, it should be considered as short rang.
If the distance is more than 20 Times the radius, it should be considered as long rang.
I'm not sure about the range between 5 times to 20 times.
However, just for the discussion, let's assume that the boarder is about 10 Times the radius.

At that moment, I didn't even consider if that ratio would be applicable also for a BH or Neutron Star.

You had never said anything before about needing to do that.

Sure, as we didn't discuss on a compressed objects as BH or Neutron Star
Why do you claim that it is forbidden to find the equivalent radius that is needed to reflect the real mass of that objects?.
By "decompress" the neutron star (I have called it "equivalent radius'), we have got the a perfect fit to the expected drifting direction based on short rang.
Therefore, your following message is totally incorrect:

You introduced that idea solely so you could avoid having to admit that you were wrong. That's called "moving the goalposts", and it's a logical fallacy.

I didn't change the ratio in order to meet unexpected observation as our scientists normally do when they see a contradiction.
It is very logical to "decompress" the mass/radius of a neutron star or a BH in order to understand its real equivalent radius.
That by itself gives the highest confidence to the theory about the drifting direction based on short rang or long rang.
Hence, I would expect to get from you the highest appreciation for my theory as it works even for Neutron star.

[Bored chemist]

why can't we "decompress" it in order to find its equivalent radius.

Because it's "making up the results".

Yes, that is very normal and expected approach.

OK, then you should be able to show where other people have talked of decompressing neutron stars.
Just a few links would be good.

I would like to remind you that we have started our discussion on the drifting direction of orbital objects around a planets or moons.

No.
You started it by saying this

The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.

Which, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is not true.

I have stated that for a long range the drifting would be outwards, while for short range wound be inwards.

And yet, reality continues to show that it isn't.

Why do you claim that it is forbidden to find the equivalent radius that is needed to reflect the real mass of that objects?.

Because that's just fudging the numbers so they fit the answer you want. It's not science.

It is very logical to "decompress" the mass/radius of a neutron star or a BH in order to understand its real equivalent radius.

No.
You have two choices, you can use the real radius or you can make up an"equivalent radius".
You can't have both.

And then there's the rest of this

I have clearly set the relationship between

You have not done anything "clearly" except cheat by moving the goal posts.
Don't forget to address this as well as these

t NONE of them would be trapped by the gravity force of the earth and start orbit the earth instead of the Sun.
Yes, Never and ever!

the idea that collision could create new planet or moon is a pure fiction.

You seem to have stated that the Moon does not exist.

And, of course, these

As I have stated, there are two possibilities for falling in objects:
Fall in and collide with the main object or be pushed away.

Why don't  you consider the third possibility?
Don't you understand it?
Most people would get to grips with it quite easily.
They thing falls towards something, and then misses it.

Since you don't seem to understand basic physics, you are not in a position to criticise it, but let's see how you did.

(1) Gravity does not push - Yes It does

It plainly does not.
But you don't understand how something can get close to something and then miss.
This says a lot about you...

2) Black holes don't break the conservation laws  - Black hole does not break the conservation laws and also does not evaporate as Hawking had claimed. There is no negative particles. BH has the ability to create new positive particle pair and give them extra kinetic energy by its high gravity energy.

Unless it evaporates in the process of creating new particles, what you have described is a breach of the conservation laws.
It's just that you don't seem to be bright enough to recognise this.

(3) Even if they did, it wouldn't help because they wouldn't build a universe that looks like this one - Yes it does. The Rocket over rocket system can do it easily.

That wouldn't work anyway,, but it doesn't matter.
The "rocket over rocket "idea is a breach of GR.

(4) Even if they could, you still need to explain where the first one comes from - The Universe and its infinite space was always there

No.
Because Olber.
Also because the conservation laws.

(5) This simply isn't true "The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size." - Yes it is. I have already explained this issue. You would never ever get a black body radiation outside the cavity (in the open space). Only if you are located at the cavity itself (or monitor the radiation in the cavity by a tiny hole) you could find the Black body radiation.

That's not a sensible explanation.
Inside of a finite, large, universe that was once very hot, you expect a CMB.

As I have pointed out, what if we are in a big (but finite) box with black walls at 2.7K?
That would be finite, and we would see BBR .

(6) Even if it was true, this wouldn't be a valid deduction "Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age." - Yes it is. In order to set an infinite Universe from a single BH you must use infinite time.

Other mechanisms (those which are  not a pile of junk) do not start from a singe BH and make it grow by magic.

(7) We know that it's finite, thanks to Olber - This is a fiction. Our Universe is infinite. Olber theory could work only if in the all the galaxies in the infinite universe are moving at a velocity which is lower than the speed of light relative to our location.

No, because some of them would be moving towards us (very fast).

Now, since it's clear that you are wrong about all that, why not just accept that you are wrong?