Space Weather News for May 19, 2007
http://spaceweather.com

DON'T MISS THIS: When the sun sets tonight (Saturday, May 19th), go
outside and look west. Venus and the crescent Moon will pop out of the
twilight barely 1-degree apart. It's a spectacular pairing of the two
brightest objects in the night sky.  The display will be visible from
brightly lit cities and even through thin clouds.  Visit
http://spaceweather.com for a sky map and photos.

If a friend sent you this alert and you would like to subscribe, click
here: http://spaceweather.com/services/

To unsubscribe click here:
http://www.spaceweather2.com/u?id=502885V&n=T&l=spaceweather
or send a blank email to
leave-spaceweather-502885V@...

Deen,

Your "Deen 2007 Pioneer 10 Anomaly.doc" was quite interesting. Two
years ago I had an exchange with an IEEE Spectrum editor about an
article he had written for Spectrum about the Pioneer anomaly. I
suggested that a gradual change in permittivity would duplicate the
blueshift being measured in the Pioneer telemetries.

Part of his response was, "Your suggestion of making the permittivity
and/or permeability of the vacuum radially dependent on distance from
the sun, and so altering the speed of light, would indeed produce
results that look like the Pioneer Anomaly." Then, even after he
stated "we would both agree that while there are no sacred cows in
physics,..", he went on to defend special relativity.

Your report presented the blueshift as being a function of a radial
change in the refraction index. Permittivity = refraction squared.

Ulysses and Galileo spacecraft are also effected.

"Indication, from Pioneer 10/11, Galileo, and Ulysses Data, of an
Apparent Anomalous, Weak, Long-Range Acceleration "

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v81/i14/p2858_1

Ulysses is in a 1 AU to 5 AU orbit. The source below denotes the
Ulysses acceleration.  It was extracted from the P2858_1 article
above, which I do not have access to.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Anomalous/Acceleration.html

As far as I know, vacuum permittivity has never been measured other
than on the earth's surface.

This may be 'old news' but time is getting close. Chapter 8 is about
to begin.

=== BACKGROUND ===

Cassini is a space probe launched in 1997 to study Saturn. At least
that is the public message. The official public website is here:
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.cfm

A summary of its mission is: "After a seven-year voyage that included
four gravity-assist maneuvers, Cassini entered Saturn's orbit in July
of 2004. It then began a four-year mission that includes more than 70
orbits around the ringed planet and its moons. Pointing its various
instruments at carefully calculated scientific targets, Cassini
collects detailed data on Saturn, its rings and the moons orbiting
this gas giant. The information will aid scientists in understanding
this complex and fascinating region. Main scientific goals include
measuring Saturn's huge magnetosphere, analyzing from up close those
stunning rings and studying Saturn's composition and atmosphere."

What is very interesting is that another title for this is the
"LUCIFER Project." Yes, LUCIFER project.

This probe has 72 pounds of plutonium aboard. While used as a
not-so-small nuclear power plant, it also makes for a huge atomic
bomb. How convenient.

=== CONSPIRACY THEORY ===

But there is the "conspiracy theory" mission of Cassini. Two videos
explain:

First is a brief summary (4 minute video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbmd7hWz2qI

Here is a guy reading more detail of what is going on and the theory
of what
could happen (8 minute video).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_4SNs9ny-Q

For some more details, here is a written explanation with illustrations:
http://www.rinf.com/news/nov05/lucifer-project.html

In summary, this probe will be launched into Saturn's atmosphere, such
that the massive pressure will crush the plutonium, causing an atomic
explosion, with the hope that said explosion will ignite the hydrogen
and begin a fusion reaction. The desired result? Saturn is supposed to
turn into a small star! And you think this is science fiction? No
fiction. And mad 'science.' The actual result? Our entire solar system
will be screwed up. The book of Revelation will "explode into reality"
- literally.

When could this happen? The official website says Cassini has a 4-year
mission that began in July 2004. So the currently scheduled time for
the probe to end its data collection official mission and begin its
new conspiracy mission is July 7, 2008. Note that this is not a
specific date setting explanation. The probe can continue to orbit
Saturn until 'they' decide to make it plunge into Saturn. The
*earliest* scheduled date is 7-7-08.

=== PROPHECY ===

So what will happen?

- the moons will collide, explode, affect, infect, cover, insulate,
make cold on earth
- Plutonium far-reaching to earth; will quickly contaminate oceans,
groundwater, and unprotected - unconsecrated soil. WORMWOOD
- Plutonium stays in the air; fragments so small as undetected, the
lungs have no way of ejecting it so must assume it: take it in.
- Radiation poisoning
- The animals will go wild, many will die because of the poisoning
- Sun will have massive CMEs, thus affecting communications and wipe
out some satellites
- Large CMEs will cause unbelievable auroras
- Expect increase of volcanoes and earthquakes
- This will cause Nibiru to change its orbit and come into the solar
system, later to affect the earth more with more of Revelation chapter 8
- Will deplete resources of the countries in response

=== COMMENTS ===

Notice that mankind himself will cause, directly or indirectly, the
physical effects described in the Book of Revelation, specifically see
chapter 8. That's what we get when we throw God out of our lives.

Remember that no specific date is predicted, but rather the
earliest "window of opportunity" is provided (7-7-08), based on the
published scientific schedule. It could be later, or maybe not.
But what is interesting is that 7-7-08 is exactly one year after
Pope Benedict XVI released his Tridentine Mass Moto Proprio on 7-7-07.

How fast will earth be affected after the explosion? The light and
magnetic field impact will be around 1.5 hours later. However, this
explosion will also cause the sun to go crazy with CMEs, and then
those can hit the earth approximately 83 hours (3.5 days) later,
assuming the solar wind at 500 km/sec. Using the same solar wind speed
for the explosion raining plutonium dust on us (coming from Saturn),
then that would hit earth some 35 days later. These are my own
calculations, and not being a rocket scientist, are subject to error.

The plutonium in the lungs and in the water is a major disaster. What
is very interesting is that the Bible mentions 'wormwood.' The nuclear
plant disaster in Chernobyl (Ukraine) was all about plutonium
contamination. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

Chernobyl is the Ukranian word for wormwood.

So just imagine the effects when the whole earth gets this. Animals
willdie in great numbers, and food will not grow. Many will die of
radiation poisoning. See these websites for some details on that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning
http://www.lenntech.com/Periodic-chart-elements/Pu-en.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium

There is no cure for radiation poisoning, unless God works a miracle.

Please pray many Divine Mercy chaplets for mitigation.

This may not be worth your while to read. I forward it because I have
been fascinated with the mistaken idea that Earth once orbited Saturn.
What they don't know is that my idea is that Venus acquires rings of ice
from Vulcan and becomes captured by Earth in a geosynchronous orbit for
1260 days. This has happened before, and it will happen again at the
eschaton, according to my interpretation of Revelation prophecy. My idea
is that the ancients described a planet with rings, obviously observed
at close range, and modern interpreters of their writings have mistaken
that planet for Saturn because at the time, Saturn was the only planet
known to have rings.

Now I admit that it is a tremendous, even unbelievable, feat for Earth
and Venus to come close enough together that people could observe its
rings with their naked eyes, much less that Earth could actually capture
Venus in a quasi-geosynchronous orbit, much less that Venus could have
acquired rings of ice from Vulcan's tail while it was in a close orbit
around Venus before it became launched into an Earth-crossing orbit.
That is because it is well known that all the planetary orbits are
stable, and planets cannot spontaneously migrate to visit each other.

My answer is that Venus comes to rendezvous with Earth using energy
taken from Vulcan in a sense. Actually this energy to boost Venus into
an Earth-crossing orbit comes from Venus's own unseen dark-matter
partner, and Vulcan is only the trigger or the catalyst if you will. So
Vulcan only appears to be the source of this energy because we cannot
see the true source. One way to look at it is that the mass of Venus
suddenly drops, and nature requires that its velocity suddenly increase
in order to conserve momentum, that is to keep the product of mass times
velocity constant. This velocity increase is what could give Venus an
Earth-crossing orbit. The mass of a planet can suddenly change with a
mass transfer between its two components, according to my theory.

M = 1/(1/M_plus + 1/M_minus)

Where M is the effective Newtonian planet mass that you plug into
celestial mechanics formulas, M_plus is the mass of the ordinary,
left-handed matter component that we see, and M_minus is the mass of the
dark-matter, mirror-matter, right-handed matter component that we don't
see. As you might guess from their names, M_plus > 0 and M_minus < 0.
(An interesting consequence of this formula is that if the magnitudes of
the masses of these two components become equal, the effective mass of
the planet becomes infinite.)

Perhaps I may have more to say about this later. Especially if anybody
asks me a question.

Grace and peace,
Glen

-----Original Message-----
From: velikov@yahoogroups.com [mailto:velikov@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Leroy Ellenberger
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 1:18 PM
To: Jerry Pournelle; c.leroy.ellenberger@...; 'David
Morrison'; 'Sean Mewhinney'; 'Robert Grumbine'; dtalbott@...;
emmetsweeney@...
Cc: a.beal@...; aldegrazia@...; awburg@...;
b.j.peiser@...; bill@...; bob@...;
brecciate@...; bstross@...; carolflip@...;
dleveson@...; dwise@...; ejb@...;
emilio@...; eric@...; ev@...;
ghkkoehler@...; ginger@...;
graham.bates@...; ht@...; it@...;
j.d.north@...; john.crowe@...;
joseph_canepa@...; jww.ssl@...; lcwdixon@...;
m.baillie@...; m.mandelkehr@...; mbz41@...;
mwf@...; mwilson@...; napierwm@...;
r.g.a.dolby@...; r.j.huggett@...; robgood@...;
rolandbennett@...; shmage@...; sis-ed-team@...;
stuhar@...; trevor.palmer@...; velikov@yahoogroups.com;
walt@...; warlow@...
Subject: [velikov] RE: The Integrity of Ice Core Research/Methodology

Thanks, too, to Jerry Pournelle (physicist & renowned science fiction
writer) for the benefit of his reactions to recent email content. Jerry
had a very good article in Feb. 1975 Galaxy Science Fiction magazine
criticizing in-depth Velikovsky's revised chronology which was ignored
by Velikovsky's camp despite the editor's published invitation for
Velikovsky's rebuttal, which I know because I obtained my copy of
Jerry's article from Jan Sammer who retrieved it from Velikovsky's files
for me in 1978.
Allow me to interject a few, hopefully brief, comments in reply:

--- Jerry Pournelle <jerryp@...> wrote:

> Too many word, or perhaps my head is not working properly.
>
> Earth a satellite of Saturn? I admit I don't follow this sort of thing

> closely, but I had not heard that one before.  No

The next time you cross paths with James P. Hogan at some SciFi-Con,
button-hole him on this for he has become a devotee of this scenario,
esp. with his Cradle of Saturn and its sequel. This "Earth as satellite
of Saturn" model was hinted at by Velikovsky in an unpublished item
which motivated David Talbott (the publisher of Pensee's "Velikovsky
Reconsidered"
series in 1970s) to research and write his The Saturn Myth (Doubleday,
1980). This theme has been a major topic in Aeon magazine, founded by
Talbott in 1988, and a major subject at his several international
conferences sponsored by Kronia Communications, which he also founded.
Another overview may be read in my "Worlds Still Colliding", written in
2001 for e-Skeptic <http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/velstcol.html>, which
contains links to "Saturnist" web sites and do not overlook (1) the
"electric universe" wherein stars are powered by infalling relativistic
electrons and (2) the "descent of Mars" which planet is said to have
oscillated annually between Earth and Venus as the three planets
maintained synchronous motion with Saturn, which was in front of
Jupiter!  No lie.
<http://www.saturnian.org/descent.htm>

> seasons prior to mythical
> times? On a par with the Arcadians who had been in their lands since
> "before there was a Moon."

A phrase that has prompted Velikovsky and others in Pensee and elsewhere
to speculate on when it was that we had no Moon.

>
> Why in the world should anyone spend much time with this sort of
> thing?

David Talbott has a deep-seated conviction based totally on his
interpretation of the world's mythology and early pagan religious lore
that during the "Golden Age", whenever that was--but recently conceded
to have been in Holocene-- Saturn was positioned at Earth's north pole,
said to have been "ruled" by Saturn (as in Hamlet's Mill), but as Harald
A.T. Reiche explained to me in early 1990s, there are many good reasons
why this role would have been assigned to Saturn as the outermost planet
recognized by our ancestors; but such reasons are dismissed out of hand
by Talbott and his main co-theorists, Everett Cochrane III and Dwardu
Cardona, both involved with Aeon. Talbott is very charismatic in
promoting his "Saturn model" and many Velikovskians, who almost by
definition lack skills in critical thinking and the out-liers are
subject to other intellectual deficits and/or prejudices, are in his
thrall (literally!!!), even including several aging entrepreneurs with
more money than common sense guided by a proper understanding of
physics, who are more than eager to subsidize Talbott's multi-media
initiatives in support of his interdisciplinary revolution in all the
sciences.  One such successful businessman is A. Bruce Mainwaring, Penn
'47 & Penn Trustee, who provided funds to Velikovsky's assistants in the
1960s and 1970s and recently started underwriting Talbott's activities
after donating $7 million to Penn to have his name on the new wing of
Penn's University Museum.  Talbott has been collaborating with Los
Alamos plasma physicist Anthony Peratt on the role of formerly intense
auroral phenomena as inspiring myth and has also had such figures as
Halton Arp and Zecharia Sitchin as guest speakers at his conferences.
>
>
> Jerry Pournelle
> Chaos Manor
>
I hope this helps fill in your database on "non scheduled philosophies"
as Lenny Bruce might phrase it!

Cheers,

C. Leroy Ellenberger, "Per Veritatem Vis"
"An Antidote to Velikovskian Delusions" Skeptic
3:4,'95
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bc31349d10f8e205?>

Yahoo! Groups Links

=====================================================

Thank you.

Your idea would produce a gradual effect that would be a function of
distance. My idea requires discrete sudden changes in the refraction
index like step functions with radial distance because my model involves
concentric spherical layers like an onion. The refraction index, and
hence the speed of light, within each layer would be constant, but as
you passed through successive layers moving radially outward, you would
find the speed of light increasing at each interface crossing.

-Glen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of currere101
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 12:26 AM
> To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [astro-revelation] Pioneer 10 Anomaly
>
> Deen,
>
> Your "Deen 2007 Pioneer 10 Anomaly.doc" was quite
> interesting. Two years ago I had an exchange with an IEEE
> Spectrum editor about an article he had written for Spectrum
> about the Pioneer anomaly. I suggested that a gradual change
> in permittivity would duplicate the blueshift being measured
> in the Pioneer telemetries.
>
> Part of his response was, "Your suggestion of making the
> permittivity and/or permeability of the vacuum radially
> dependent on distance from the sun, and so altering the speed
> of light, would indeed produce results that look like the
> Pioneer Anomaly." Then, even after he stated "we would both
> agree that while there are no sacred cows in physics,..", he
> went on to defend special relativity.
>
> Your report presented the blueshift as being a function of a
> radial change in the refraction index. Permittivity =
> refraction squared.
>
> Ulysses and Galileo spacecraft are also effected.
>
> "Indication, from Pioneer 10/11, Galileo, and Ulysses Data,
> of an Apparent Anomalous, Weak, Long-Range Acceleration "
>
> http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v81/i14/p2858_1
>
> Ulysses is in a 1 AU to 5 AU orbit. The source below denotes
> the Ulysses acceleration.  It was extracted from the P2858_1
> article above, which I do not have access to.
>
> http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Anomalous/Acceleration.html
>
> As far as I know, vacuum permittivity has never been measured
> other than on the earth's surface.
>
>
>
> Subscribe:   astro-revelation-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: astro-revelation-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Group page:  http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/astro-revelation
> Home page:   http://www.glendeen.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

On 24 Jul 2007 at 20:33, astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> In summary, this probe will be launched into Saturn's atmosphere, such
> that the massive pressure will crush the plutonium, causing an atomic
> explosion, with the hope that said explosion will ignite the hydrogen
> and begin a fusion reaction.

That's BS. (A) nuclear bombs don't work that way; (B) if the
plutonium did somehow detonate in a nuclear explosion (which is
impossible) it couldn't ignite the hydrogen in Saturn's atmosphere,
since that is the wrong sort of hydrogen. For details, consult the
internet.

Thomas Goodey

*********************************
The introduction of a multiplicity
of objectives into a problem not
only destroys its unity, but also
increases markedly both the
time necessary for, and the
actual personal danger involved
in, its solution.
------------ Nadreck of Palain VII
**************************************

On 25 Jul 2007 at 12:22, I wrote:

> That's BS. (A) nuclear bombs don't work that way; (B) if the
> plutonium did somehow detonate in a nuclear explosion (which is
> impossible) it couldn't ignite the hydrogen in Saturn's atmosphere,
> since that is the wrong sort of hydrogen.

And I forgot, of course, (C) if and when Cassini is directed into the
Saturnian atmosphere (as was done at Jupiter with the Galileo probe),
it will hit the upper reaches of the atmosphere at extremely high
speed and be completely broken into tiny pieces, essentially dust. So
there is no question of the lump of plutonium even getting
compressed. It's all anti-nuclear fairy tales.

Thomas Goodey

*********************************
The introduction of a multiplicity
of objectives into a problem not
only destroys its unity, but also
increases markedly both the
time necessary for, and the
actual personal danger involved
in, its solution.
------------ Nadreck of Palain VII
**************************************

I understand what you are presenting, and the way you did it makes it
easy to present the concept to physicists, who otherwise  immediately
get their backs up if one suggests permittivity is changing. My
understanding of the Pioneer10 data is that it exhibits a constantly
changing blueshift, which is being presenting as a constant
acceleration, there are no sudden transition points.  We do not know
why the Pioneer blueshift was not recognized  before 20 AU out, but I
suspect it is because of the limits of their instrumentation
precision, late 1960s and early 1970s technology. The Ulysses and
Galileo spacecraft are much newer and have better precision, (in the
vehicles and earth systems) and both of these spacecraft exhibit
telemetry blueshift, and the Ulysses craft is always within 5 AU.

I have to invert my thinking because of the way you calculated the
refractive index.  I have always associated an increased refractive
index with a decrease in the propagation velocity in a medium. You
explain what you did in Sec 4., Cosmic Lens Structure, holding the
value of v constant inside 20 AU and increasing c outside that range.
That results in n being larger, n=c/v. Presenting n that way
illustrates the gradual increase in c with distance.

Could you put that report on your home index page.  The Yahoo URL
reference is humongous.

I was playing around with your data and plotted the increasing
refractive index starting at 1 AU, where we define it at the value of
one. A NASA report cited two reports that indicated telemetry
redshifts were detected when the signal paths were close to the sun.
This suggests, using earth as the reference and your methodology, the
refractive index would be less than one when approaching the sun.

relative permittivity = (refractive index) squared

Frank

--- In astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Deen" <glen.deen@...>
wrote:
>
> Thank you.
>
> Your idea would produce a gradual effect that would be a function of
> distance. My idea requires discrete sudden changes in the refraction
> index like step functions with radial distance because my model involves
> concentric spherical layers like an onion. The refraction index, and
> hence the speed of light, within each layer would be constant, but as
> you passed through successive layers moving radially outward, you would
> find the speed of light increasing at each interface crossing.
>
> -Glen
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of currere101
> > Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 12:26 AM
> > To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [astro-revelation] Pioneer 10 Anomaly
> >
> > Deen,
> >
> > Your "Deen 2007 Pioneer 10 Anomaly.doc" was quite
> > interesting. Two years ago I had an exchange with an IEEE
> > Spectrum editor about an article he had written for Spectrum
> > about the Pioneer anomaly. I suggested that a gradual change
> > in permittivity would duplicate the blueshift being measured
> > in the Pioneer telemetries.
> >
> > Part of his response was, "Your suggestion of making the
> > permittivity and/or permeability of the vacuum radially
> > dependent on distance from the sun, and so altering the speed
> > of light, would indeed produce results that look like the
> > Pioneer Anomaly." Then, even after he stated "we would both
> > agree that while there are no sacred cows in physics,..", he
> > went on to defend special relativity.
> >
> > Your report presented the blueshift as being a function of a
> > radial change in the refraction index. Permittivity =
> > refraction squared.
> >
> > Ulysses and Galileo spacecraft are also effected.
> >
> > "Indication, from Pioneer 10/11, Galileo, and Ulysses Data,
> > of an Apparent Anomalous, Weak, Long-Range Acceleration "
> >
> > http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v81/i14/p2858_1
> >
> > Ulysses is in a 1 AU to 5 AU orbit. The source below denotes
> > the Ulysses acceleration.  It was extracted from the P2858_1
> > article above, which I do not have access to.
> >
> > http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Anomalous/Acceleration.html
> >
> > As far as I know, vacuum permittivity has never been measured
> > other than on the earth's surface.
> >
> >
> > Subscribe:   astro-revelation-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Unsubscribe: astro-revelation-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Group page:  http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/astro-revelation
> > Home page:   http://www.glendeen.com
> > Yahoo! Groups Links

Thank you Thomas. I had the opportunity of rejecting this post since all
posts from new list members are moderated. But there have been few posts
on this list other than mine in recent months, so I let it go through to
see if anybody was listening. I agree with you.

-Glen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Thomas Goodey
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 4:05 PM
> To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [astro-revelation] Cassini theory
>
> On 24 Jul 2007 at 20:33, astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> > In summary, this probe will be launched into Saturn's
> atmosphere, such
> > that the massive pressure will crush the plutonium, causing
> an atomic
> > explosion, with the hope that said explosion will ignite
> the hydrogen
> > and begin a fusion reaction.
>
> That's BS. (A) nuclear bombs don't work that way; (B) if the
> plutonium did somehow detonate in a nuclear explosion (which is
> impossible) it couldn't ignite the hydrogen in Saturn's
> atmosphere, since that is the wrong sort of hydrogen. For
> details, consult the internet.
>
> Thomas Goodey
>
> *********************************
> The introduction of a multiplicity
> of objectives into a problem not
> only destroys its unity, but also
> increases markedly both the
> time necessary for, and the
> actual personal danger involved
> in, its solution.
> ------------ Nadreck of Palain VII
> **************************************
>
>
>
>
> Subscribe:   astro-revelation-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: astro-revelation-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Group page:  http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/astro-revelation
> Home page:   http://www.glendeen.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Also, Galileo had similar RTGs, and it plunged into Jupiter several
years ago.  No big boom.  Why would Cassini be any different?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
-Glen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Thomas Goodey
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 4:05 PM
> To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [astro-revelation] Cassini theory
>
> On 24 Jul 2007 at 20:33, astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> > In summary, this probe will be launched into Saturn's
> > atmosphere, such that the massive pressure will crush
> > the plutonium, causing an atomic explosion, with the
> > hope that said explosion will ignite the hydrogen
> > and begin a fusion reaction.
>
> That's BS. (A) nuclear bombs don't work that way; (B) if the
> plutonium did somehow detonate in a nuclear explosion (which is
> impossible) it couldn't ignite the hydrogen in Saturn's
> atmosphere, since that is the wrong sort of hydrogen. For
> details, consult the internet.
>
> Thomas Goodey
>
> *********************************
> The introduction of a multiplicity
> of objectives into a problem not
> only destroys its unity, but also
> increases markedly both the
> time necessary for, and the
> actual personal danger involved
> in, its solution.
> ------------ Nadreck of Palain VII
> **************************************

> -----Original Message-----
> From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of currere101
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:28 PM
> To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [astro-revelation] Re: Pioneer 10 Anomaly
>
> I understand what you are presenting, and the way you did it
> makes it easy to present the concept to physicists, who
> otherwise  immediately get their backs up if one suggests
> permittivity is changing. My understanding of the Pioneer10
> data is that it exhibits a constantly changing blueshift,
> which is being presenting as a constant acceleration, there
> are no sudden transition points.  We do not know why the
> Pioneer blueshift was not recognized  before 20 AU out, but I
> suspect it is because of the limits of their instrumentation
> precision, late 1960s and early 1970s technology. The Ulysses
> and Galileo spacecraft are much newer and have better
> precision, (in the vehicles and earth systems) and both of
> these spacecraft exhibit telemetry blueshift, and the Ulysses
> craft is always within 5 AU.
>
> I have to invert my thinking because of the way you
> calculated the refractive index.  I have always associated an
> increased refractive index with a decrease in the propagation
> velocity in a medium. You explain what you did in Sec 4.,
> Cosmic Lens Structure, holding the value of v constant inside
> 20 AU and increasing c outside that range.
> That results in n being larger, n=c/v. Presenting n that way
> illustrates the gradual increase in c with distance.
>
> Could you put that report on your home index page.  The Yahoo
> URL reference is humongous.
>
> I was playing around with your data and plotted the
> increasing refractive index starting at 1 AU, where we define
> it at the value of one. A NASA report cited two reports that
> indicated telemetry redshifts were detected when the signal
> paths were close to the sun.
> This suggests, using earth as the reference and your
> methodology, the refractive index would be less than one when
> approaching the sun.
>
> relative permittivity = (refractive index) squared
>
> Frank
>
> --- In astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Deen" <glen.deen@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Your idea would produce a gradual effect that would be a
> function of
> > distance. My idea requires discrete sudden changes in the
> refraction
> > index like step functions with radial distance because my model
> > involves concentric spherical layers like an onion. The refraction
> > index, and hence the speed of light, within each layer would be
> > constant, but as you passed through successive layers
> moving radially
> > outward, you would find the speed of light increasing at
> each interface crossing.
> >
> > -Glen
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of currere101
> > > Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 12:26 AM
> > > To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [astro-revelation] Pioneer 10 Anomaly
> > >
> > > Deen,
> > >
> > > Your "Deen 2007 Pioneer 10 Anomaly.doc" was quite
> interesting. Two
> > > years ago I had an exchange with an IEEE Spectrum editor about an
> > > article he had written for Spectrum about the Pioneer anomaly. I
> > > suggested that a gradual change in permittivity would
> duplicate the
> > > blueshift being measured in the Pioneer telemetries.
> > >
> > > Part of his response was, "Your suggestion of making the
> > > permittivity and/or permeability of the vacuum radially
> dependent on
> > > distance from the sun, and so altering the speed of light, would
> > > indeed produce results that look like the Pioneer Anomaly." Then,
> > > even after he stated "we would both agree that while there are no
> > > sacred cows in physics,..", he went on to defend special
> relativity.
> > >
> > > Your report presented the blueshift as being a function
> of a radial
> > > change in the refraction index. Permittivity = refraction squared.
> > >
> > > Ulysses and Galileo spacecraft are also effected.
> > >
> > > "Indication, from Pioneer 10/11, Galileo, and Ulysses Data, of an
> > > Apparent Anomalous, Weak, Long-Range Acceleration "
> > >
> > > http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v81/i14/p2858_1
> > >
> > > Ulysses is in a 1 AU to 5 AU orbit. The source below denotes the
> > > Ulysses acceleration.  It was extracted from the P2858_1 article
> > > above, which I do not have access to.
> > >
> > > http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Anomalous/Acceleration.html
> > >
> > > As far as I know, vacuum permittivity has never been
> measured other
> > > than on the earth's surface.
> > > 
> > >
> > > Subscribe:   astro-revelation-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > Unsubscribe: astro-revelation-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > Group page:  http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/astro-revelation
> > > Home page:   http://www.glendeen.com
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> Subscribe:   astro-revelation-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: astro-revelation-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Group page:  http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/astro-revelation
> Home page:   http://www.glendeen.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astro-revelation/
>
> <*> Your email settings:
>     Individual Email | Traditional
>
> <*> To change settings online go to:
>     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astro-revelation/join
>     (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> <*> To change settings via email:
>     mailto:astro-revelation-digest@yahoogroups.com
>     mailto:astro-revelation-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>     astro-revelation-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

slaveofmary3 wrote:
> > Chernobyl is the Ukranian word for wormwood.

The writer didn't make that up. There is a comprehensive article on
Wikipedia that discusses this controversy. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_in_the_popular_consciousness
According to that article Chernobyl or Chornobyl is literally translated
as "Black Grass." I got an independent confirmation of that translation
from a friend of a friend who speaks Russian and Ukrainian.

The Biblical reference to wormwood is in Revelation 8:10-11: "And the
third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as
it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon
the fountains of waters; And the name of the star is called Wormwood:
and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of
the waters, because they were made bitter."

Here is one Christian commentary:
http://ryanj1678.tripod.com/christianity4today/id37.htm

I don't buy that commentary, but I cite it in case others are interested
and want to draw their own conclusions.

Grace and peace,
Glen

The Biblical reference to wormwood is in Revelation 8:10-11: "And the
third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as
it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon
the fountains of waters; And the name of the star is called Wormwood:
and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of
the waters, because they were made bitter."

I take Revelation 8 very seriously, but so far I can only interpret part
of it, mainly 8:8. I have no idea what "wormwood" means in the prophecy.
My tentative interpretation of Rev. 8:10-11 is that the falling "star"
from heaven might be the International Space Station. At the eschaton I
imagine Earth expanding its radius so rapidly that people will fall to
the ground from the upward acceleration. The atmosphere will also rise
up and cause artificial satellites in low Earth orbit to feel enough
drag to bring them down.

In my theory the whole Earth "fell" at the end of the last Ice Age some
13,000 years ago. Before that "fall" the entire Earth was a Garden of
Eden. After the "fall" the Earth's crust contracted or shrunk enough to
cause the world's sea level to rise about 443 feet. This would have been
enough to inspire the myth of a global flood that (the myth writer
thought) completely covered Mount Ararat. Like most myths, this one has
a kernel of truth. Before the "fall" the world's shorelines were at the
edges of the continental shelves.
http://www.meer.org/M15.htm

In my theory Jesus Christ will return in glory at the end of days (maybe
as soon as 2035 AD) when the entire Earth will "rise" again. This means
the Earth will move back into the Kingdom of Heaven, and it will become
a Garden of Eden again. It also means the sea level will fall 443 feet
because the Earth's crust's circumference will expand again.

Isaiah 40:4 says that "Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain
and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and
the rough places plain." This refers to the expansion of Earth's crust
ironing out the wrinkles (hills and valleys) in it. "The crooked" refers
to the winding rivers which will tend to straighten out due to the
expansion and consequent stretching of the Earth's crust. People alive
at the time will ride the crust upward as if they were on an elevator.
They will feel very heavy during this elevator ride because it will
happen quickly. That is the meaning of Malachi 3:2: "But who may abide
the day of His coming, and who shall stand when He appeareth?" Also
Revelation 6:17: "For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall
stand?" People will fall down from the gee forces due to the upward
elevator ride.

The Earth's natural expansion and contraction period may be millions of
years. What God has done is to artificially compress this period to
about 26,000 years for a whole cycle (fall to fall), or 13,000 years for
a half-cycle (fall to rise). It may not be a coincidence that the
observed period for the precession of the Equinox around the Zodiac is
26,000 years.
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sprecess.htm

If all this is true, then Heaven on Earth will be the next Ice Age, and
we can forget our present fears about global warming.

Grace and peace,
Glen

"Galileo plunged into Jupiter's crushing atmosphere on Sept. 21,
2003.

  from: http://galileo.jpl.nasa.gov/



Then on October 19th 2003 almost a month later a strange black
anomaly appears on Jupiter:


http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/jupiter_dark_spot_031023.html



At first it was passed of as a shadow of one of Jupiter's moons, but
then…….



Galileo's plunge had nothing to do with this I guess????



The Seeker



-----Original Message-----
From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com [mailto:astro-
revelation@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:44 AM
To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [astro-revelation] Digest Number 705





1c.

Re: Cassini theory

Posted by: "Glen Deen" glen.deen@...   glenwdeen

Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:52 am (PST)
Also, Galileo had similar RTGs, and it plunged into Jupiter several
years ago. No big boom. Why would Cassini be any different?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
-Glen





--- In astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Deen" <glen.deen@...>
wrote:
>
> Also, Galileo had similar RTGs, and it plunged into Jupiter several
> years ago.  No big boom.  Why would Cassini be any different?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
> -Glen
>
>

The downlink frequency of the Pioneer 10/11 vehicles were at 2400 MHz
and controlled by a hydrogen maser.

http://www.math.ucla.edu/~jimc/documents/mond.html

Since the telemetry blueshift is directly proportional to the changing
velocity of the speed of light, using your increasing "n" values, the
blueshift changes presents an inverse square increase with distance.
Here is another report on the anomaly.

http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0503/0503021.pdf

http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv\
.org%3Agr-qc%2F9808081

Note the acceleration is different near earth vs near Jupiter.
Perhaps one of these reports will give you enough information to add
to the concentric spheres inside 20 AU. From the above,

" we conclude that Ulysses was subjected to an unmodelled acceleration
towards the Sun of (12 ± 3) x 10^-8 cm/s2 "

They recognized that trying to put some other type mass (dark matter)
into the picture contravenes the accuracy of all other astronomical
calculations.

Another report was prepared in the form of a problem set, Sept. 2005.
It goes through a series of issues.

http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0502/0502123v5.pdf

You cannot find one reference to a varying permittivity, or refractive
index, in the discussion.  A varying permittivity would shatter the
catechism of special relativity. How they ever came to the conclusion,
without measurement, that the permittivity in a vacuum on the earth's
surface is representative of that of the whole universe is beyond my
comprehension.  It is like a religious belief that cannot be
questioned. I can understand how religious beliefs influenced the old
scientific view that the earth was the center of the universe, but I
see no religious influence forcing the insistence that earth vacuum
permittivity is the same everywhere.

The only thing I found that applies to what you refer to as the
"sudden onset" at 20 AU is in the shown on the Figure 3 graph you
referenced. This in the 0502123v5.pdf article.

"By 1980, when Pioneer 10 passed a distance of 20 AU from the Sun, the
acceleration contribution from solar-radiation pressure on the craft
(directed away from the Sun) had decreased to less than 4 × 10^-8
cm/s2. This meant that small effects could unambiguously be determined
from the data, and the anomalous acceleration began to be seen."

Frank


--- In astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Deen" <glen.deen@...>
wrote:
>
> The figure below shows a sudden onset of the anomalous acceleration for
> Pioneer 11.
> It is Figure 3 from
> http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf
> <http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oa
> i%3AarXiv.org%3Aastro-ph%2F0608087>
> &identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aastro-ph%2F0608087 "The energy transfer
> process in planetary flybys" by John D Anderson, et. al. I will
> eventually upload my papers to my own website which I have neglected in
> recent years.
>
> -Glen
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of currere101
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:28 PM
> > To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [astro-revelation] Re: Pioneer 10 Anomaly
> >
> > I understand what you are presenting, and the way you did it
> > makes it easy to present the concept to physicists, who
> > otherwise  immediately get their backs up if one suggests
> > permittivity is changing. My understanding of the Pioneer10
> > data is that it exhibits a constantly changing blueshift,
> > which is being presenting as a constant acceleration, there
> > are no sudden transition points.  We do not know why the
> > Pioneer blueshift was not recognized  before 20 AU out, but I
> > suspect it is because of the limits of their instrumentation
> > precision, late 1960s and early 1970s technology. The Ulysses
> > and Galileo spacecraft are much newer and have better
> > precision, (in the vehicles and earth systems) and both of
> > these spacecraft exhibit telemetry blueshift, and the Ulysses
> > craft is always within 5 AU.
> >
> > I have to invert my thinking because of the way you
> > calculated the refractive index.  I have always associated an
> > increased refractive index with a decrease in the propagation
> > velocity in a medium. You explain what you did in Sec 4.,
> > Cosmic Lens Structure, holding the value of v constant inside
> > 20 AU and increasing c outside that range.
> > That results in n being larger, n=c/v. Presenting n that way
> > illustrates the gradual increase in c with distance.
> >
> > Could you put that report on your home index page.  The Yahoo
> > URL reference is humongous.
> >
> > I was playing around with your data and plotted the
> > increasing refractive index starting at 1 AU, where we define
> > it at the value of one. A NASA report cited two reports that
> > indicated telemetry redshifts were detected when the signal
> > paths were close to the sun.
> > This suggests, using earth as the reference and your
> > methodology, the refractive index would be less than one when
> > approaching the sun.
> >
> > relative permittivity = (refractive index) squared
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > --- In astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Deen" <glen.deen@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > Your idea would produce a gradual effect that would be a
> > function of
> > > distance. My idea requires discrete sudden changes in the
> > refraction
> > > index like step functions with radial distance because my model
> > > involves concentric spherical layers like an onion. The refraction
> > > index, and hence the speed of light, within each layer would be
> > > constant, but as you passed through successive layers
> > moving radially
> > > outward, you would find the speed of light increasing at
> > each interface crossing.
> > >
> > > -Glen
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > > > [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of currere101
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 12:26 AM
> > > > To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: [astro-revelation] Pioneer 10 Anomaly
> > > >
> > > > Deen,
> > > >
> > > > Your "Deen 2007 Pioneer 10 Anomaly.doc" was quite
> > interesting. Two
> > > > years ago I had an exchange with an IEEE Spectrum editor about an
> > > > article he had written for Spectrum about the Pioneer anomaly.
> > > > I suggested that a gradual change in permittivity would
> > duplicate the
> > > > blueshift being measured in the Pioneer telemetries.
> > > >
> > > > Part of his response was, "Your suggestion of making the
> > > > permittivity and/or permeability of the vacuum radially
> > dependent on
> > > > distance from the sun, and so altering the speed of light, would
> > > > indeed produce results that look like the Pioneer Anomaly." Then,
> > > > even after he stated "we would both agree that while there are
> > > > no sacred cows in physics,..", he went on to defend special
> > relativity.
> > > >
> > > > Your report presented the blueshift as being a function
> > of a radial
> > > > change in the refraction index. Permittivity = refraction squared.
> > > >
> > > > Ulysses and Galileo spacecraft are also effected.
> > > >
> > > > "Indication, from Pioneer 10/11, Galileo, and Ulysses Data, of
> > > > an Apparent Anomalous, Weak, Long-Range Acceleration "
> > > >
> > > > http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v81/i14/p2858_1
> > > >
> > > > Ulysses is in a 1 AU to 5 AU orbit. The source below denotes
> > > > the Ulysses acceleration.  It was extracted from the P2858_1
> > > > article above, which I do not have access to.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Anomalous/Acceleration.html
> > > >
> > > > As far as I know, vacuum permittivity has never been
> > > > measured other than on the earth's surface.
> > > >

I think it is quite a stretch to suggest that this strange black spot
came from the impact of the Galileo probe a month earlier. When
Shoemaker Levy 9 fragments plunged into Jupiter in 1994 black spots
appeared immediately following each impact. Still, coincidences are
always suspect, so you can't rule out the idea. What you can rule out is
Jupiter's hydrogen atmosphere detonating like a hydrogen bomb. By
analogy, you can rule out the same thing at Saturn.

-Glen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Moser
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:15 AM
> To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [astro-revelation] Re: Cassini theory
>
> "Galileo plunged into Jupiter's crushing atmosphere on Sept.
> 21, 2003.
>
>  from: http://galileo.jpl.nasa.gov/
>
>
>
> Then on October 19th 2003 almost a month later a strange
> black anomaly appears on Jupiter:
>
>
> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/jupiter_dark_spot_031023.html
>
>
>
> At first it was passed of as a shadow of one of Jupiter's
> moons, but then...
>
>
>
> Galileo's plunge had nothing to do with this I guess????
>
>
>
> The Seeker
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com [mailto:astro-
> revelation@yahoogroups.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:44 AM
> To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [astro-revelation] Digest Number 705
>
>
>
>
>
> 1c.
>
> Re: Cassini theory
>
> Posted by: "Glen Deen" glen.deen@...   glenwdeen
>
> Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:52 am (PST)
> Also, Galileo had similar RTGs, and it plunged into Jupiter
> several years ago. No big boom. Why would Cassini be any different?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
> -Glen
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Deen" <glen.deen@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Also, Galileo had similar RTGs, and it plunged into Jupiter several
> > years ago.  No big boom.  Why would Cassini be any different?
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
> > -Glen
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Subscribe:   astro-revelation-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: astro-revelation-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Group page:  http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/astro-revelation
> Home page:   http://www.glendeen.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

I just found this

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/13may_2004mn4.htm

That asteroid in the year 2029

Will that mark the end of the world? Or, should we just not worry about
it and get on with our lives?

Frank,

You said,
> You cannot find one reference to a varying permittivity, or
> refractive index, in the discussion.  A varying permittivity
> would shatter the catechism of special relativity. How they
> ever came to the conclusion, without measurement, that the
> permittivity in a vacuum on the earth's surface is
> representative of that of the whole universe is beyond my
> comprehension.  It is like a religious belief that cannot be
> questioned. I can understand how religious beliefs influenced
> the old scientific view that the earth was the center of the
> universe, but I see no religious influence forcing the
> insistence that earth vacuum permittivity is the same everywhere.

There is none, but the principle is the same. It's geocentrism in a
different way. Really, Einstein's theory of special relativity has
become a dogma to established physics because they regard Einstein as
being like a prophet.

Do you know about the Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA)?
http://www.worldnpa.org/main/
This is a group of dissident physicists, including amateurs (like me)
and professionals, who are not afraid to question established physics
dogma. I presented my Pioneer 10 paper and another one at the 2007 NPA
conference at the University of Connecticut at Storrs, and I am standing
in the back row of the group picture at this web page.

Also have a look at http://www.einsteinwrong.com/main/
David de Hilster and his family are making a documentary film entitled
"Einstein Wrong - The Miracle Year". You can watch the trailer at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2707332488059305178
They have been filming at our NPA conferences for the last several
years.

-Glen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of currere101
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:00 AM
> To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [astro-revelation] Re: Pioneer 10 Anomaly
>
> The downlink frequency of the Pioneer 10/11 vehicles were at
> 2400 MHz and controlled by a hydrogen maser.
>
> http://www.math.ucla.edu/~jimc/documents/mond.html
>
> Since the telemetry blueshift is directly proportional to the
> changing velocity of the speed of light, using your
> increasing "n" values, the blueshift changes presents an
> inverse square increase with distance.
> Here is another report on the anomaly.
>
> http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0503/0503021.pdf
>
> http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&iden
> tifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Agr-qc%2F9808081
>
> Note the acceleration is different near earth vs near Jupiter.
> Perhaps one of these reports will give you enough information
> to add to the concentric spheres inside 20 AU. From the above,
>
> " we conclude that Ulysses was subjected to an unmodelled
> acceleration towards the Sun of (12 ± 3) x 10^-8 cm/s2 "
>
> They recognized that trying to put some other type mass (dark
> matter) into the picture contravenes the accuracy of all
> other astronomical calculations.
>
> Another report was prepared in the form of a problem set, Sept. 2005.
> It goes through a series of issues.
>
> http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0502/0502123v5.pdf
>
> You cannot find one reference to a varying permittivity, or
> refractive index, in the discussion.  A varying permittivity
> would shatter the catechism of special relativity. How they
> ever came to the conclusion, without measurement, that the
> permittivity in a vacuum on the earth's surface is
> representative of that of the whole universe is beyond my
> comprehension.  It is like a religious belief that cannot be
> questioned. I can understand how religious beliefs influenced
> the old scientific view that the earth was the center of the
> universe, but I see no religious influence forcing the
> insistence that earth vacuum permittivity is the same everywhere.
>
> The only thing I found that applies to what you refer to as
> the "sudden onset" at 20 AU is in the shown on the Figure 3
> graph you referenced. This in the 0502123v5.pdf article.
>
> "By 1980, when Pioneer 10 passed a distance of 20 AU from the
> Sun, the acceleration contribution from solar-radiation
> pressure on the craft (directed away from the Sun) had
> decreased to less than 4 × 10^-8 cm/s2. This meant that small
> effects could unambiguously be determined from the data, and
> the anomalous acceleration began to be seen."
>
> Frank
>
>
> --- In astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Deen" <glen.deen@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > The figure below shows a sudden onset of the anomalous acceleration
> > for Pioneer 11.
> > It is Figure 3 from
> > http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf
> >
> <http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=
> > oa
> > i%3AarXiv.org%3Aastro-ph%2F0608087>
> > &identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aastro-ph%2F0608087 "The
> energy transfer
> > process in planetary flybys" by John D Anderson, et. al. I will
> > eventually upload my papers to my own website which I have
> neglected
> > in recent years.
> >
> > -Glen
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of currere101
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:28 PM
> > > To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [astro-revelation] Re: Pioneer 10 Anomaly
> > >
> > > I understand what you are presenting, and the way you did
> it makes
> > > it easy to present the concept to physicists, who otherwise
> > > immediately get their backs up if one suggests permittivity is
> > > changing. My understanding of the Pioneer10 data is that
> it exhibits
> > > a constantly changing blueshift, which is being presenting as a
> > > constant acceleration, there are no sudden transition
> points.  We do
> > > not know why the Pioneer blueshift was not recognized
> before 20 AU
> > > out, but I suspect it is because of the limits of their
> > > instrumentation precision, late 1960s and early 1970s technology.
> > > The Ulysses and Galileo spacecraft are much newer and have better
> > > precision, (in the vehicles and earth systems) and both of these
> > > spacecraft exhibit telemetry blueshift, and the Ulysses craft is
> > > always within 5 AU.
> > >
> > > I have to invert my thinking because of the way you
> calculated the
> > > refractive index.  I have always associated an increased
> refractive
> > > index with a decrease in the propagation velocity in a
> medium. You
> > > explain what you did in Sec 4., Cosmic Lens Structure,
> holding the
> > > value of v constant inside 20 AU and increasing c outside that
> > > range.
> > > That results in n being larger, n=c/v. Presenting n that way
> > > illustrates the gradual increase in c with distance.
> > >
> > > Could you put that report on your home index page.  The Yahoo URL
> > > reference is humongous.
> > >
> > > I was playing around with your data and plotted the increasing
> > > refractive index starting at 1 AU, where we define it at
> the value
> > > of one. A NASA report cited two reports that indicated telemetry
> > > redshifts were detected when the signal paths were close
> to the sun.
> > > This suggests, using earth as the reference and your methodology,
> > > the refractive index would be less than one when approaching the
> > > sun.
> > >
> > > relative permittivity = (refractive index) squared
> > >
> > > Frank
> > >
> > > --- In astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Deen" <glen.deen@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > Your idea would produce a gradual effect that would be a
> > > function of
> > > > distance. My idea requires discrete sudden changes in the
> > > refraction
> > > > index like step functions with radial distance because my model
> > > > involves concentric spherical layers like an onion. The
> refraction
> > > > index, and hence the speed of light, within each layer would be
> > > > constant, but as you passed through successive layers
> > > moving radially
> > > > outward, you would find the speed of light increasing at
> > > each interface crossing.
> > > >
> > > > -Glen
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > > > > currere101
> > > > > Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 12:26 AM
> > > > > To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: [astro-revelation] Pioneer 10 Anomaly
> > > > >
> > > > > Deen,
> > > > >
> > > > > Your "Deen 2007 Pioneer 10 Anomaly.doc" was quite
> > > interesting. Two
> > > > > years ago I had an exchange with an IEEE Spectrum
> editor about
> > > > > an article he had written for Spectrum about the
> Pioneer anomaly.
> > > > > I suggested that a gradual change in permittivity would
> > > duplicate the
> > > > > blueshift being measured in the Pioneer telemetries.
> > > > >
> > > > > Part of his response was, "Your suggestion of making the
> > > > > permittivity and/or permeability of the vacuum radially
> > > dependent on
> > > > > distance from the sun, and so altering the speed of
> light, would
> > > > > indeed produce results that look like the Pioneer Anomaly."
> > > > > Then, even after he stated "we would both agree that
> while there
> > > > > are no sacred cows in physics,..", he went on to
> defend special
> > > relativity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your report presented the blueshift as being a function
> > > of a radial
> > > > > change in the refraction index. Permittivity =
> refraction squared.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ulysses and Galileo spacecraft are also effected.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Indication, from Pioneer 10/11, Galileo, and Ulysses
> Data, of
> > > > > an Apparent Anomalous, Weak, Long-Range Acceleration "
> > > > >
> > > > > http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v81/i14/p2858_1
> > > > >
> > > > > Ulysses is in a 1 AU to 5 AU orbit. The source below
> denotes the
> > > > > Ulysses acceleration.  It was extracted from the
> P2858_1 article
> > > > > above, which I do not have access to.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Anomalous/Acceleration.html
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as I know, vacuum permittivity has never been measured
> > > > > other than on the earth's surface.
> > > > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Subscribe:   astro-revelation-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: astro-revelation-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Group page:  http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/astro-revelation
> Home page:   http://www.glendeen.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

I just learned that Galileo went into Jupiter 1/4 degree south of the
equator while the spots are significantly off the equator.

-Glen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Glen Deen
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:27 AM
> To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [astro-revelation] Re: Cassini theory
>
> I think it is quite a stretch to suggest that this strange
> black spot came from the impact of the Galileo probe a month
> earlier. When Shoemaker Levy 9 fragments plunged into Jupiter
> in 1994 black spots appeared immediately following each
> impact. Still, coincidences are always suspect, so you can't
> rule out the idea. What you can rule out is Jupiter's
> hydrogen atmosphere detonating like a hydrogen bomb. By
> analogy, you can rule out the same thing at Saturn.
>
> -Glen
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Moser
> > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:15 AM
> > To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [astro-revelation] Re: Cassini theory
> >
> > "Galileo plunged into Jupiter's crushing atmosphere on Sept.
> > 21, 2003.
> >
> >  from: http://galileo.jpl.nasa.gov/
> >
> >
> >
> > Then on October 19th 2003 almost a month later a strange
> black anomaly
> > appears on Jupiter:
> >
> >
> > http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/jupiter_dark_spot_031023.html
> >
> >
> >
> > At first it was passed of as a shadow of one of Jupiter's
> moons, but
> > then...
> >
> >
> >
> > Galileo's plunge had nothing to do with this I guess????
> >
> >
> >
> > The Seeker
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com [mailto:astro-
> > revelation@yahoogroups.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:44 AM
> > To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [astro-revelation] Digest Number 705
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 1c.
> >
> > Re: Cassini theory
> >
> > Posted by: "Glen Deen" glen.deen@...   glenwdeen
> >
> > Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:52 am (PST)
> > Also, Galileo had similar RTGs, and it plunged into Jupiter several
> > years ago. No big boom. Why would Cassini be any different?
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
> > -Glen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Deen" <glen.deen@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Also, Galileo had similar RTGs, and it plunged into
> Jupiter several
> > > years ago.  No big boom.  Why would Cassini be any different?
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
> > > -Glen
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Subscribe:   astro-revelation-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Unsubscribe: astro-revelation-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Group page:  http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/astro-revelation
> > Home page:   http://www.glendeen.com
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Subscribe:   astro-revelation-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: astro-revelation-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Group page:  http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/astro-revelation
> Home page:   http://www.glendeen.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

I forgot the URL.
http://galileo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/display.cfm?News_ID=8161

> I just learned that Galileo went into Jupiter 1/4 degree
> south of the equator while the spots are significantly off
> the equator.
>
> -Glen
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Glen Deen
> > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:27 AM
> > To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [astro-revelation] Re: Cassini theory
> >
> > I think it is quite a stretch to suggest that this strange
> black spot
> > came from the impact of the Galileo probe a month earlier. When
> > Shoemaker Levy 9 fragments plunged into Jupiter in 1994 black spots
> > appeared immediately following each impact. Still, coincidences are
> > always suspect, so you can't rule out the idea. What you
> can rule out
> > is Jupiter's hydrogen atmosphere detonating like a hydrogen
> bomb. By
> > analogy, you can rule out the same thing at Saturn.
> >
> > -Glen
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Moser
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:15 AM
> > > To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [astro-revelation] Re: Cassini theory
> > >
> > > "Galileo plunged into Jupiter's crushing atmosphere on Sept.
> > > 21, 2003.
> > >
> > >  from: http://galileo.jpl.nasa.gov/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Then on October 19th 2003 almost a month later a strange
> > black anomaly
> > > appears on Jupiter:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/jupiter_dark_spot_031023.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > At first it was passed of as a shadow of one of Jupiter's
> > moons, but
> > > then...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Galileo's plunge had nothing to do with this I guess????
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The Seeker
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com [mailto:astro-
> > > revelation@yahoogroups.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:44 AM
> > > To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [astro-revelation] Digest Number 705
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1c.
> > >
> > > Re: Cassini theory
> > >
> > > Posted by: "Glen Deen" glen.deen@...   glenwdeen
> > >
> > > Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:52 am (PST)
> > > Also, Galileo had similar RTGs, and it plunged into
> Jupiter several
> > > years ago. No big boom. Why would Cassini be any different?
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
> > > -Glen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Deen"
> <glen.deen@...>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Also, Galileo had similar RTGs, and it plunged into
> > Jupiter several
> > > > years ago.  No big boom.  Why would Cassini be any different?
> > > >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
> > > > -Glen

> I just found this
> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/13may_2004mn4.htm
> That asteroid in the year 2029
> Will that mark the end of the world?

No, but this list is the best place to get answers to questions like
that.

> Or, should we just not worry about it and get on with our lives?

Yes. Very definitely yes. The world itself will not end (remember "world
without end"?) anyway. Only our present age or dispensation will end,
and when it's gone the survivors will say "good riddance", because the
next world is the Kingdom of Heaven. By comparison our present world is
Hell. I don't know when the eschaton (when Earth is transformed) will
happen, but I speculate it should be after 2034. As we get closer, we
may be able to predict it better. We may not know the exact "day or
hour" (Matt. 24:36), but we may come to know the month and year.

I am presently working on the return date for Comet Vulcan, which is
unknown to the astronomy establishment. I plan to publish a book
entitled _Vulcan's Return_ before next Spring. If I am right, Vulcan's
apparition will be much more impressive than this little asteroid will
be. That's because a comet's coma is much larger than its nucleus, and a
comet nucleus is comparable in size to an asteroid. When I saw Vulcan
transit the 3-day old crescent Moon on August 14, 1999 in my telescope
in Plano, Texas about ten minutes before sunset it was about one
arcminute in diameter. When it next appears it will reach a maximum of
between 9 and 30 arcminutes in diameter. I don't know exactly because I
don't yet know the altitude of the Earth flyby, but I believe that these
are the limits. The Moon's diameter is about 30 arcminutes, so I'm
saying that Vulcan's coma at its closest will be between 1/3 and one
Moon diameter in angular size as viewed from the surface of the Earth.
Also its surface brightness will be greater than that of the Moon
because I saw it clearly against the background of the Moon's sunlit
crescent during the lunar transit. We will see it coming in the night
sky for a few weeks before it arrives at the Earth. Astronomers will
compute its orbit, and they will predict a close flyby the Earth but no
collision.

If I am right Vulcan is the Star of Bethlehem and the destroyer of Sodom
and Gomorrah. This would be confirmed if Vulcan dwells above the Dead
Sea for a couple of hours in a quasi-geosynchronous orbit as I envision
it during its upcoming flyby. According to my theory, Vulcan will have a
stiletto-like anti-tail that will stretch between the coma and the
ground. To observers on the ground this will look like an extremely
bright shaft of fire. Physically it will be a vortex of free neutrons
flowing upwards, and free neutrons release thermal energy when they
experience beta decay. (Their half-life is about 15 minutes.) The Sun's
corona has a temperature of a million degrees, and according to my
theory this thermal energy comes from the beta decay of free neutrons
that rise up from the Sun. That would be news to established physics,
since they have no idea where such neutrons could come from or what
transports them upward. The beta decay products are protons and
electrons, and that is ionized hydrogen plasma. As it cools this plasma
radiates red hydrogen alpha light like the Orion nebula.

This Dead Sea flyby is described in Rev. 13:13: "And he doeth great
wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in
the sight of men." This refers to the comet's brilliant anti-tail, which
will resemble the "pillar of fire" mentioned in Exodus. Both pillars of
fire are columns of decaying neutrons, but the comet's pillar is
transitory during its brief flyby over the Dead Sea while the Exodus
pillar lasts several years. That one is a whole other topic.

The earliest apparition date for Vulcan's return is May 6, 2008 based on
my preliminary calculations. These calculations maximize the duration of
the comet's incoming radiant being nearly coincident with the 8th
magnitude target star HIP 66600 in Virgo, but I have not yet looked back
to the March 26, 1859 solar transit observed by Lescarbault and earlier
solar transits observed by others to see which orbit conforms to that
observation or those observations as well. When I do I will let you
know.

I am presently leaning towards May 15, 2008 for the Dead Sea flyby
because that date yields an orbital eccentricity of about 0.666, which
was an unexpected bonus. It also has a 4-day (April 8 to April 12)
average displacement from the target radiant star of only 11 arcseconds,
and it is less than 0.1 degree from the target star for 20 days.

Early May in 2010 is another possible but less likely apparition date
for the Dead Sea flyby. Apparitions in 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015,
2016, etc. are also possible but they fail to conform to the prophecy of
two heliocentric laps since the 1999 lunar transit. The year 2011 is not
a possible apparition date because if it were, we would have already
seen this comet in the night sky on July 4, 2003 and June 25, 2007, and
we haven't seen it. The orbits I choose keep Vulcan hidden from view for
as long as possible. We don't see it now because it is still dormant.

The prophecy regarding two heliocentric laps is Rev. 13:11. "And I
beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns
like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon." A "horn" is prophetic language
for a lap around the Sun in an elongated elliptical orbit that resembles
a horn when plotted in the ecliptic plane. The perihelion of my current
favorite orbit for Vulcan after 1999 is about 0.9 AU, and its aphelion
is about 4.5 AU. That makes the ratio of maximum to minimum distance
from the Sun equal to 4.5/0.9 = 5, and that is a fairly elongated
ellipse that resembles a fat horn.

Revelation 12 and 13 speak of two or three "beasts", depending on how
you count them. The verses are 12:3, 13:1, and 13:11 ("another beast").
All of these scriptures refer to Vulcan but at different times in its
career. Events described in the Book of Revelation are not listed in
chronological order. Rev. 12:3 speaks of a great red dragon having seven
heads and ten horns and Rev. 13:1 speaks of a beast having seven heads
and ten horns. Rev. 13:1 refers to Vulcan after its upcoming Dead Sea
flyby (described in Rev. 13:13) and before its lunar impact during the
solar eclipse of April 8, 2024. Rev. 12:3 refers to Vulcan after its
lunar impact on April 8, 2024. This lunar impact is described in Rev.
8:8: "And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain
burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea
became blood:" Vulcan will be that "burning mountain", and the sea will
be the Sea of Crises on the Moon. The impact will produce a brilliant
flash of light bright enough to be seen from Earth while the Sun is
partially eclipsed. The impact site will be heated to incandescence, and
it will glow red in the night sky for weeks after the impact.

I have already defined the prophetic meaning of a "horn". A "head" is a
close and threatening encounter with the Earth. "Coming to a head" means
an approaching catastrophic threat. The animals in Rev. 13:2 are
constellations. The leopard is Lynx, the bear is Ursa Major, and the
lion is Leo. These are constellations that Vulcan will pass through
during the close encounters. I have not yet computed the ephemeris of
this comet following its Dead Sea flyby, but these are clues that will
help define it.

"Coming up out of the earth" in Rev. 13:11 refers to the fact that
before the 1999 lunar transit that I observed, Vulcan was always inside
Earth's orbit. Whenever it crossed Earth's orbit it was at its aphelion
or maximum distance from the Sun. After the 1999 lunar transit the comet
made a U-turn around the Moon, and the slingshot effect increased its
velocity relative to the Sun such that it would spend most of its time
outside Earth's orbit, approaching the orbit of Jupiter (5.2 AU) at its
new aphelion (4.5 AU). "Speaking as a dragon" means this "beast" is a
comet because comets, like legendary dragons, have tails and breathe
fire.

God has done a very good job of hiding any proof of His existence from
scientists and scholars. But if Vulcan appears as I envision it, God
(Jesus Christ) will be recognized as being the author of Revelation and
the designer and implementer of the eschaton. That will change
everything.

Grace and peace,
Glen

So is the a proof of "beggars can't be choosers?" :-)


--- In astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Deen" <glen.deen@...>
wrote:
>
> Thank you Thomas. I had the opportunity of rejecting this post since all
> posts from new list members are moderated. But there have been few posts
> on this list other than mine in recent months, so I let it go through to
> see if anybody was listening. I agree with you.
>
> -Glen
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Thomas Goodey
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 4:05 PM
> > To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [astro-revelation] Cassini theory
> >
> > On 24 Jul 2007 at 20:33, astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> >
> > > In summary, this probe will be launched into Saturn's
> > atmosphere, such
> > > that the massive pressure will crush the plutonium, causing
> > an atomic
> > > explosion, with the hope that said explosion will ignite
> > the hydrogen
> > > and begin a fusion reaction.
> >
> > That's BS. (A) nuclear bombs don't work that way; (B) if the
> > plutonium did somehow detonate in a nuclear explosion (which is
> > impossible) it couldn't ignite the hydrogen in Saturn's
> > atmosphere, since that is the wrong sort of hydrogen. For
> > details, consult the internet.
> >
> > Thomas Goodey
> >
> > *********************************
> > The introduction of a multiplicity
> > of objectives into a problem not
> > only destroys its unity, but also
> > increases markedly both the
> > time necessary for, and the
> > actual personal danger involved
> > in, its solution.
> > ------------ Nadreck of Palain VII
> > **************************************
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Subscribe:   astro-revelation-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Unsubscribe: astro-revelation-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Group page:  http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/astro-revelation
> > Home page:   http://www.glendeen.com
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

How about because it is going in at the pole, and therefore the probe
can get much deeper unlike the equatorial entry in Jupiter. And a mere
17 lbs of plutonium made a 7900 mile wide explosive area on Jupiter in
the equator. So what will 4X as much start?

So then, how about a detailed rebuttal of the referenced article at:
http://www.rinf.com/news/nov05/lucifer-project.html

Well, we have time to see what happens, correct?


--- In astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Deen" <glen.deen@...>
wrote:
>
> Also, Galileo had similar RTGs, and it plunged into Jupiter several
> years ago.  No big boom.  Why would Cassini be any different?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
> -Glen
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Thomas Goodey
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 4:05 PM
> > To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [astro-revelation] Cassini theory
> >
> > On 24 Jul 2007 at 20:33, astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> >
> > > In summary, this probe will be launched into Saturn's
> > > atmosphere, such that the massive pressure will crush
> > > the plutonium, causing an atomic explosion, with the
> > > hope that said explosion will ignite the hydrogen
> > > and begin a fusion reaction.
> >
> > That's BS. (A) nuclear bombs don't work that way; (B) if the
> > plutonium did somehow detonate in a nuclear explosion (which is
> > impossible) it couldn't ignite the hydrogen in Saturn's
> > atmosphere, since that is the wrong sort of hydrogen. For
> > details, consult the internet.
> >
> > Thomas Goodey

You are talking about the comet Vulcan:

Your favorite scenario is Number 3: Oct 20, 2009 thru Dec 26, 2019

Should we worry about it, do things before we die, and everything?

Or, should we all laugh hard at the idea of Vulcan destroying us, and
just enjoy our lives?

I found a NPA web page a couple of months ago and it must be an older
site, as it has a different URL and much outdated, with a last revised
date of 2001.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Deneb/mem_pgs.htm

The geocentrism goes much deeper, it is embedded in other aspects of
the physical sciences. I have stated that SI units are not suitable
for scientific inquiry and the replies I receive are much the same as
one gets with special relativity (SR), "You can't question that!"  It
seems to be a cultural failing of the human species, once "some
esteemed authority" has established a set of rules or principles, it
is heresy to question or propose a concept that does not fit the
catechism of the established authority.

I think it is quite appropriate to use a religious term (catechism) in
association with a scientific theory when it is considered "fact"
rather than theory. I did not know that Professor William L. Hughes
(1926-2007), see bottom of March 2007 newsletter, was a member of NPA.

I had been corresponding with him by email since Jan 2004 fairly
regularly, mainly on a different subject,  even when he was in the
hospital. He referred to himself as "one of the inmates" during one of
his month long sessions. I had confided in him the complete response
that I received from the IEEE Spectrum editor.  Professor Hughes
responded thusly,

"Frank, you must understand that the special theory of relativity
(SRT) is the holy grail.  It's the place where religion and science
become one.  If one has the audacity to suggest other possibilities,
he is forever shunned, banned, and is a candidate for being burned at
the stake.   However, there are a few of us hiding in caves that still
believe there may be alternatives."

Professor Hughes and I had some cross-over history (same campus), this
before he went to Oklahoma State. I never met him personally, although
it is possible that I could have seen him. 10,000 student campuses
were considered big back in those days.

Your use of the diffraction index in the "Pioneer 10 Anomaly" article
and the lens concept in "Cosmic Lens" article, for the most part,
nicely avoids the term permittivity. You did mention that scary word
once in the latter article (pg 9).

I wonder if you have ever seen wavelength and frequency relationships
presented in a geometric form? (one page)

http://vip.ocsnet.net/~ancient/DualityPi.pdf

I am getting some interesting comments about that concept, as the
duality of pi seems to fit in areas I am unfamiliar with. I do have an
article that illustrates how the concept of DualityPi can be extended
to practical values.

Frank

--- In astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Deen" <glen.deen@...>
wrote:
>
> Frank,
>
> You said,
> > You cannot find one reference to a varying permittivity, or
> > refractive index, in the discussion.  A varying permittivity
> > would shatter the catechism of special relativity. How they
> > ever came to the conclusion, without measurement, that the
> > permittivity in a vacuum on the earth's surface is
> > representative of that of the whole universe is beyond my
> > comprehension.  It is like a religious belief that cannot be
> > questioned. I can understand how religious beliefs influenced
> > the old scientific view that the earth was the center of the
> > universe, but I see no religious influence forcing the
> > insistence that earth vacuum permittivity is the same everywhere.
>
> There is none, but the principle is the same. It's geocentrism in a
> different way. Really, Einstein's theory of special relativity has
> become a dogma to established physics because they regard Einstein as
> being like a prophet.
>
> Do you know about the Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA)?
> http://www.worldnpa.org/main/
> This is a group of dissident physicists, including amateurs (like me)
> and professionals, who are not afraid to question established physics
> dogma. I presented my Pioneer 10 paper and another one at the 2007 NPA
> conference at the University of Connecticut at Storrs, and I am standing
> in the back row of the group picture at this web page.
>
> Also have a look at http://www.einsteinwrong.com/main/
> David de Hilster and his family are making a documentary film entitled
> "Einstein Wrong - The Miracle Year". You can watch the trailer at
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2707332488059305178
> They have been filming at our NPA conferences for the last several
> years.
>
> -Glen
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of currere101
> > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:00 AM
> > To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [astro-revelation] Re: Pioneer 10 Anomaly
> >
> > The downlink frequency of the Pioneer 10/11 vehicles were at
> > 2400 MHz and controlled by a hydrogen maser.
> >
> > http://www.math.ucla.edu/~jimc/documents/mond.html
> >
> > Since the telemetry blueshift is directly proportional to the
> > changing velocity of the speed of light, using your
> > increasing "n" values, the blueshift changes presents an
> > inverse square increase with distance.
> > Here is another report on the anomaly.
> >
> > http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0503/0503021.pdf
> >
> > http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&iden
> > tifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Agr-qc%2F9808081
> >
> > Note the acceleration is different near earth vs near Jupiter.
> > Perhaps one of these reports will give you enough information
> > to add to the concentric spheres inside 20 AU. From the above,
> >
> > " we conclude that Ulysses was subjected to an unmodelled
> > acceleration towards the Sun of (12 ± 3) x 10^-8 cm/s2 "
> >
> > They recognized that trying to put some other type mass (dark
> > matter) into the picture contravenes the accuracy of all
> > other astronomical calculations.
> >
> > Another report was prepared in the form of a problem set, Sept. 2005.
> > It goes through a series of issues.
> >
> > http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0502/0502123v5.pdf
> >
> > You cannot find one reference to a varying permittivity, or
> > refractive index, in the discussion.  A varying permittivity
> > would shatter the catechism of special relativity. How they
> > ever came to the conclusion, without measurement, that the
> > permittivity in a vacuum on the earth's surface is
> > representative of that of the whole universe is beyond my
> > comprehension.  It is like a religious belief that cannot be
> > questioned. I can understand how religious beliefs influenced
> > the old scientific view that the earth was the center of the
> > universe, but I see no religious influence forcing the
> > insistence that earth vacuum permittivity is the same everywhere.
> >
> > The only thing I found that applies to what you refer to as
> > the "sudden onset" at 20 AU is in the shown on the Figure 3
> > graph you referenced. This in the 0502123v5.pdf article.
> >
> > "By 1980, when Pioneer 10 passed a distance of 20 AU from the
> > Sun, the acceleration contribution from solar-radiation
> > pressure on the craft (directed away from the Sun) had
> > decreased to less than 4 × 10^-8 cm/s2. This meant that small
> > effects could unambiguously be determined from the data, and
> > the anomalous acceleration began to be seen."
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >
> > --- In astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Deen" <glen.deen@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The figure below shows a sudden onset of the anomalous acceleration
> > > for Pioneer 11.
> > > It is Figure 3 from
> > > http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf
> > >
> > <http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=
> > > oa
> > > i%3AarXiv.org%3Aastro-ph%2F0608087>
> > > &identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aastro-ph%2F0608087 "The
> > energy transfer
> > > process in planetary flybys" by John D Anderson, et. al. I will
> > > eventually upload my papers to my own website which I have
> > neglected
> > > in recent years.
> > >
> > > -Glen
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > > > [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of currere101
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:28 PM
> > > > To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: [astro-revelation] Re: Pioneer 10 Anomaly
> > > >
> > > > I understand what you are presenting, and the way you did
> > it makes
> > > > it easy to present the concept to physicists, who otherwise
> > > > immediately get their backs up if one suggests permittivity is
> > > > changing. My understanding of the Pioneer10 data is that
> > it exhibits
> > > > a constantly changing blueshift, which is being presenting as a
> > > > constant acceleration, there are no sudden transition
> > points.  We do
> > > > not know why the Pioneer blueshift was not recognized
> > before 20 AU
> > > > out, but I suspect it is because of the limits of their
> > > > instrumentation precision, late 1960s and early 1970s technology.
> > > > The Ulysses and Galileo spacecraft are much newer and have better
> > > > precision, (in the vehicles and earth systems) and both of these
> > > > spacecraft exhibit telemetry blueshift, and the Ulysses craft is
> > > > always within 5 AU.
> > > >
> > > > I have to invert my thinking because of the way you
> > calculated the
> > > > refractive index.  I have always associated an increased
> > refractive
> > > > index with a decrease in the propagation velocity in a
> > medium. You
> > > > explain what you did in Sec 4., Cosmic Lens Structure,
> > holding the
> > > > value of v constant inside 20 AU and increasing c outside that
> > > > range.
> > > > That results in n being larger, n=c/v. Presenting n that way
> > > > illustrates the gradual increase in c with distance.
> > > >
> > > > Could you put that report on your home index page.  The Yahoo URL
> > > > reference is humongous.
> > > >
> > > > I was playing around with your data and plotted the increasing
> > > > refractive index starting at 1 AU, where we define it at
> > the value
> > > > of one. A NASA report cited two reports that indicated telemetry
> > > > redshifts were detected when the signal paths were close
> > to the sun.
> > > > This suggests, using earth as the reference and your methodology,
> > > > the refractive index would be less than one when approaching the
> > > > sun.
> > > >
> > > > relative permittivity = (refractive index) squared
> > > >
> > > > Frank
> > > >
> > > > --- In astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Deen" <glen.deen@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your idea would produce a gradual effect that would be a
> > > > function of
> > > > > distance. My idea requires discrete sudden changes in the
> > > > refraction
> > > > > index like step functions with radial distance because my model
> > > > > involves concentric spherical layers like an onion. The
> > refraction
> > > > > index, and hence the speed of light, within each layer would be
> > > > > constant, but as you passed through successive layers
> > > > moving radially
> > > > > outward, you would find the speed of light increasing at
> > > > each interface crossing.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Glen
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > > > > > currere101
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 12:26 AM
> > > > > > To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Subject: [astro-revelation] Pioneer 10 Anomaly
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Deen,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your "Deen 2007 Pioneer 10 Anomaly.doc" was quite
> > > > interesting. Two
> > > > > > years ago I had an exchange with an IEEE Spectrum
> > editor about
> > > > > > an article he had written for Spectrum about the
> > Pioneer anomaly.
> > > > > > I suggested that a gradual change in permittivity would
> > > > duplicate the
> > > > > > blueshift being measured in the Pioneer telemetries.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Part of his response was, "Your suggestion of making the
> > > > > > permittivity and/or permeability of the vacuum radially
> > > > dependent on
> > > > > > distance from the sun, and so altering the speed of
> > light, would
> > > > > > indeed produce results that look like the Pioneer Anomaly."
> > > > > > Then, even after he stated "we would both agree that
> > while there
> > > > > > are no sacred cows in physics,..", he went on to
> > defend special
> > > > relativity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your report presented the blueshift as being a function
> > > > of a radial
> > > > > > change in the refraction index. Permittivity =
> > refraction squared.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ulysses and Galileo spacecraft are also effected.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Indication, from Pioneer 10/11, Galileo, and Ulysses
> > Data, of
> > > > > > an Apparent Anomalous, Weak, Long-Range Acceleration "
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v81/i14/p2858_1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ulysses is in a 1 AU to 5 AU orbit. The source below
> > denotes the
> > > > > > Ulysses acceleration.  It was extracted from the
> > P2858_1 article
> > > > > > above, which I do not have access to.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Anomalous/Acceleration.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as I know, vacuum permittivity has never been measured
> > > > > > other than on the earth's surface.
> > > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Subscribe:   astro-revelation-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Unsubscribe: astro-revelation-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Group page:  http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/astro-revelation
> > Home page:   http://www.glendeen.com
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

What's the latest view on Nibiru / Planet X around here?

I just finished Andy Lloyd's book on the Dark Star, and read some
internet material at yowusa.com. Seems quite plausible. It would seem
that this planet/star would cause the Book of Revelation troubles that
are described in Relevation chapter 16.

Do you all here think 2012 is the year?

--- In astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com, "slaveofmary3"
<slaveofmary3@...> wrote:
>
> So is the a proof of "beggars can't be choosers?" :-)

I don't understand the question. I'm the list owner, and it's my duty
to moderate newcomer's posts. I always reject spam, and I don't report
it when I do. Your message was allowed because even if it is based on
misunderstanding of science, it is nevertheless what some people are
talking about, and I thought it would be good to see if it provoked
any replies, which it did.

-Glen

>
> --- In astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Deen" <glen.deen@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Thomas. I had the opportunity of rejecting this post
since all
> > posts from new list members are moderated. But there have been few
posts
> > on this list other than mine in recent months, so I let it go
through to
> > see if anybody was listening. I agree with you.
> >
> > -Glen
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Thomas Goodey
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 4:05 PM
> > > To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [astro-revelation] Cassini theory
> > >
> > > On 24 Jul 2007 at 20:33, astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > In summary, this probe will be launched into Saturn's
> > > atmosphere, such
> > > > that the massive pressure will crush the plutonium, causing
> > > an atomic
> > > > explosion, with the hope that said explosion will ignite
> > > the hydrogen
> > > > and begin a fusion reaction.
> > >
> > > That's BS. (A) nuclear bombs don't work that way; (B) if the
> > > plutonium did somehow detonate in a nuclear explosion (which is
> > > impossible) it couldn't ignite the hydrogen in Saturn's
> > > atmosphere, since that is the wrong sort of hydrogen. For
> > > details, consult the internet.
> > >
> > > Thomas Goodey
> > >
> > > *********************************
> > > The introduction of a multiplicity
> > > of objectives into a problem not
> > > only destroys its unity, but also
> > > increases markedly both the
> > > time necessary for, and the
> > > actual personal danger involved
> > > in, its solution.
> > > ------------ Nadreck of Palain VII
> > > **************************************
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Subscribe:   astro-revelation-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > Unsubscribe: astro-revelation-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > Group page:  http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/astro-revelation
> > > Home page:   http://www.glendeen.com
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Saturn, like all stars and planets, has first-order spherical symmetry,
and a probe would not go deeper entering the pole than at the equator.
Besides, entering the atmosphere of Saturn would blast the entire RTG
into smithereens, preventing a fission trigger even if it were otherwise
possible.

When I saw the names Jacco van der Worp and Richard C. Hoagland, I knew
from their reputations that this was fantasy being passed off as
science. I am no more interested in debunking their writings than they
are of debunking mine. All of us are interested in our own work, and we
aren't interested in wasting our time debunking the work of others with
whom we disagree.

In my own case, I don't believe that stars obtain their thermal energy
from nuclear fusion, although that is the dominant and conventional
astrophysics paradigm. I believe that all stars receive their thermal
energy from the beta decay of free neutrons which flow from the unseen
dark-matter component into the ordinary-matter component. Planets have
this same neutron flow, and that is the source of the background
radiation observed on the Earth's surface and the radioactivity found in
Earth's crust. The hydrogen observed in the atmospheres of stars and
giant planets comes from the decay products of the beta decay of
neutrons. The Sun's corona has a temperature of a million degrees
because of the thermal energy released by the beta decay of its neutron
flow. Earth's ionosphere is comprised of protons that are the decay
products of the beta decay of its own free neutron flow. The idea that
stars and planets originally form from the gravitational collapse of a
gaseous nebula is nonsense to me because stars are evolved planets in my
theory. In my theory the Sun is not just a ball of gas. It has a hot
liquid surface under its hot atmosphere.

So, Cassini has 72 pounds of Pu-238. You need Pu-239 for a fusion bomb.
Neutron absorption would raise the atomic weight, but how much Pu-239
would be produced from spontaneous and sporadic neutron absorption? They
don't know, and they are only guessing. Ordinary hydrogen will not fuse
like a hydrogen bomb even if "triggered" by a fission bomb. For that you
need deuterium or tritium. They speculate that these heavier isotopes
would be found deeper inside the planet. There is no evidence for that.
There is not even a theory for a mechanism to produce these heavier
isotopes in a planet. It is just conjecture.

Suppose they are right and some black spot appears on Saturn. So what? I
couldn't care less.

They say, "Earth could receive a nasty shower of hot hydrogen a few
weeks later, the real reason for concern." I say Earth receives nastier
showers from the Sun's solar wind all the time, and the worst effect is
a spectacular Aurora Borealis. Earth is protected by its magnetic field.

My bottom line is that in my personal opinion nature can't produce
nuclear fusion in stars, so it would be silly to think that men can do
it in a planet.

-Glen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of slaveofmary3
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 4:31 PM
> To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [astro-revelation] Re: Cassini theory
>
> How about because it is going in at the pole, and therefore
> the probe can get much deeper unlike the equatorial entry in
> Jupiter. And a mere
> 17 lbs of plutonium made a 7900 mile wide explosive area on
> Jupiter in the equator. So what will 4X as much start?
>
> So then, how about a detailed rebuttal of the referenced article at:
> http://www.rinf.com/news/nov05/lucifer-project.html
>
> Well, we have time to see what happens, correct?
>
>
> --- In astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Deen" <glen.deen@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Also, Galileo had similar RTGs, and it plunged into Jupiter several
> > years ago.  No big boom.  Why would Cassini be any different?
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
> > -Glen
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Thomas Goodey
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 4:05 PM
> > > To: astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [astro-revelation] Cassini theory
> > >
> > > On 24 Jul 2007 at 20:33, astro-revelation@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > In summary, this probe will be launched into Saturn's
> atmosphere,
> > > > such that the massive pressure will crush the
> plutonium, causing
> > > > an atomic explosion, with the hope that said explosion
> will ignite
> > > > the hydrogen and begin a fusion reaction.
> > >
> > > That's BS. (A) nuclear bombs don't work that way; (B) if the
> > > plutonium did somehow detonate in a nuclear explosion (which is
> > > impossible) it couldn't ignite the hydrogen in Saturn's
> atmosphere,
> > > since that is the wrong sort of hydrogen. For details,
> consult the
> > > internet.
> > >
> > > Thomas Goodey
>
>
>
> Subscribe:   astro-revelation-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: astro-revelation-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Group page:  http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/astro-revelation
> Home page:   http://www.glendeen.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>