HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)

But Enceladus does not have a density of 1000kg/m^3, in fact it is mostly hollow

And that is another baseless claim from you which you are yet to back up.
And no, that doesn't make my calculation useless at all.

The simple fact is that it CANNOT be anything like a rocket.
Again, a rocket expends its fuel in a period of a few minutes, with this fuel making up the majority of the mass.
This is not happening with the moon. These jets have lasted quite a while and there is absolutely no indication that the majority of the mass is gone.
As such, it will not produce a significant force.

Like I said, if you don't like the numbers I have used, provide your own, with valid references to back them up, and do the math. Until you do so it is extreme dishonesty to claim it proves anything about the functioning of rockets in a vacuum as you have failed to show that there should be any significant force.

Quote from: sandokhan on September 03, 2019, 01:08:24 PM

We are discussing here the official data as put forth by Nasa.

And Nasa knew all along that there was something very peculiar about Enceladus (very low density).

Here is the declassified note written by F. Dyson at CalTech in 1958:



In fact, HE proponents are saying that Enceladus is hollow (while mainstream science is stating that cavities make up a third of the core volume):

http://hollowplanet.blogspot.com/2008/04/enceladus-south-polar-plume-fills.html

A reference to [ by F. Dyson at CalTech in 1958:] is certainly outdated it's not worth considering,
and doe's not answer The question.
Just how did Cassini get to Saturn and Enceladus, without rockets working in space?

Once again, you choose not answer, I am waiting for an answer, Will I get it?

Electric arcs theory for Enceladus:

https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/061108enceladusgeysers.htm

https://www.holoscience.com/wp/enceladus-cometary-plumes/

https://www.universetoday.com/29580/electrically-charged-particles-found-in-enceladus-plumes/



Observations from the Cassini Plasma Spectrometer (CAPS) made during the Cassini flyby of Enceladus on 12th March 2008, superimposed on Cassini’s path. As the spacecraft passed the moon, CAPS detected streams of charged particles in individual jets within the plume; negative particles are shown in this view. Each ribbon in the image gives an indication of the measured particle energy per charge: high energy particle fluxes are shown nearest Enceladus, and lower energy particles are farthest. The red points marked on Enceladus show the locations of known jet sources found by other Cassini instruments. Credit: MSSL-UCL.

These jets have lasted quite a while and there is absolutely no indication that the majority of the mass is gone.

Exactly.

Now, you the RE have to explain this mystery as well.

Electric arcs theory for Enceladus:

https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/061108enceladusgeysers.htm

https://www.holoscience.com/wp/enceladus-cometary-plumes/

https://www.universetoday.com/29580/electrically-charged-particles-found-in-enceladus-plumes/



Observations from the Cassini Plasma Spectrometer (CAPS) made during the Cassini flyby of Enceladus on 12th March 2008, superimposed on Cassini’s path. As the spacecraft passed the moon, CAPS detected streams of charged particles in individual jets within the plume; negative particles are shown in this view. Each ribbon in the image gives an indication of the measured particle energy per charge: high energy particle fluxes are shown nearest Enceladus, and lower energy particles are farthest. The red points marked on Enceladus show the locations of known jet sources found by other Cassini instruments. Credit: MSSL-UCL.

Yes how did Cassini get there?

No.

The latest research is very clear: Enceladus has at least 33% cavities in the core. And that core is not rocky, but is composed of ice.

The data you posted refers to the old research, which is now totally outdated.

Please read the references provided.

Can you read your link, it is almost diametrically opposed to your statement, bit of a recurring theme here.

Enceladus was thought to be Ice, however its mass measured by Cassini refuted this, it has the second highest density of Saturns major satellites, 3rd highest overall.

So the latest thoughts, as stated in your link, is that Enceladus has a rocky core with 20-30% empty space which would theoretically allow a geological process, such as the geysers which are observed.

But Enceladus does not have a density of 1000kg/m^3, in fact it is mostly hollow, that is why your calculations are useless.

You haven't done your homework!

True, "Enceladus does not have a density of 1000kg/m³, in fact" it has a density of 1610 kg/m³, that is why your calculations are useless.

Universe Today: Saturn’s Icy Moon Enceladus
Composition and Surface Features:

Enceladus has a density of 1.61 g/cm³, which is higher than Saturn’s other mid-sized, icy satellites, suggesting a composition that includes a greater percentage of silicates and iron. It is also believed to be largely differentiated between a geologically active core and an icy mantle, with a liquid water ocean nestled between.

Planetry Fact Sheet: Saturnian Satellite Fact Sheet
Bulk parameters:         Mass           Mean density
  Enceladus (SII)    1.08 x 10²⁰ kg      1610 kg/m³

Enceladus: Ocean Moon
Cassini revealed the dramatic truth: Enceladus is an active moon that hides a global ocean of liquid salty water beneath its crust. What’s more, jets of icy particles from that ocean, laced with a brew of water and simple organic chemicals, gush out into space continuously from this fascinating ocean world. The material shoots out at about 800 miles per hour (400 meters per second) and forms a plume that extends hundreds of miles into space. Some of the material falls back onto Enceladus, and some escapes to form Saturn’s vast E ring.

In order to calculate the thrust, with the new figures (at least 33% cavities), we need the pressure (as I have said from the start).

Incorrect, the density is 1610 kg/m³! And I've quoted that mass, about 1.08 x 10²⁰ kg, before!
 
And to calculate the thrust you need an estimate of ejection rate (kg/s) and the ejection velocity, quoted as "about . . . 400 meters per second" above.

Au contraire.

In order to explain the puzzling findings within the context of heliocentrism, scientists had to INVENT the global subsurface ocean for Enceladus.

However, the electric arc theory disposes of that hypothesis quite easily.

Enceladus is a hollow ice shell, that is why the thrust provided by the huge geyser jets cannot be explained by the RE unless they accept the fact that these jets do not interact at all with the vacuum.

The only thing left to explain is the apparent regeneration of the mass of ice which is lost continuously to the vacuum of space.

I made a FLAT EARTH BELIEVER out of you:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83049.msg2200252#msg2200252

The density readings provided are based on several ASSUMPTIONS, including the Airy isostasy hypothesis which has been proven to be false here on Earth.

Since now scientists accept that Enceladus is mostly filled with cavities, they had to INVENT the subsurface ocean in order to satisfy the assumptions just mentioned.

These jets have lasted quite a while and there is absolutely no indication that the majority of the mass is gone.

Exactly.

Now, you the RE have to explain this mystery as well.

No we don't.
It is a tiny portion of the mass that is being ejected.

With a pathetic mass flow rate of 1000 kg/s, which is highly variable with it dropping much lower, and a total mass of ~10^20 kg, it would take roughly 10^17 s for it to all go, that is roughly 10^12 days or 3*10^10 years. That is 3 billion years.
With the mass flow rate dropping to 100 kg/s, that would be 30 billion years, or longer than the life time of the universe.

So there is no problem or mystery for the RE.

The only way to try and get there to be a problem is to completely ignore the scales involved to baselessly assert that the mass flow rate is massive to try and produce a massive amount of thrust and pretend that the moon should disappear in a short period of time.

So still no problem for a RE, still no indication that rockets magically wont work in a vacuum.

Enceladus is a hollow ice shell...

And how would you know this?

Electric arcs theory for Enceladus:

https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/061108enceladusgeysers.htm

https://www.holoscience.com/wp/enceladus-cometary-plumes/

https://www.universetoday.com/29580/electrically-charged-particles-found-in-enceladus-plumes/



Observations from the Cassini Plasma Spectrometer (CAPS) made during the Cassini flyby of Enceladus on 12th March 2008, superimposed on Cassini’s path. As the spacecraft passed the moon, CAPS detected streams of charged particles in individual jets within the plume; negative particles are shown in this view. Each ribbon in the image gives an indication of the measured particle energy per charge: high energy particle fluxes are shown nearest Enceladus, and lower energy particles are farthest. The red points marked on Enceladus show the locations of known jet sources found by other Cassini instruments. Credit: MSSL-UCL.

First link is refuted by the last link you asked me to look at

https://scitechdaily.com/new-research-into-saturns-geologically-active-moon-enceladus/

2nd link hypothesises what the plume may be made up of, link is from march 2008

Cassini analysed the plume in 2008 and 2009 and found salt particles

https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Cassini-Huygens/Cassini_samples_the_icy_spray_of_Enceladus_water_plumes

I dont disagree with the 3rd link, struggling to see the point you are making.

Quote from: rabinoz on September 03, 2019, 03:08:42 PM

I made a FLAT EARTH BELIEVER out of you:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83049.msg2200252#msg2200252

The density readings provided are based on several ASSUMPTIONS, including the Airy isostasy hypothesis which has been proven to be false here on Earth.

Since now scientists accept that Enceladus is mostly filled with cavities, they had to INVENT the subsurface ocean in order to satisfy the assumptions just mentioned.

Firstly the mass of Enceladus was confirmed by its gravitational affect on Cassini, you dont dispute the size of Enceladus density = mass/volume tahdah

secondly your own evidence is that Enceladus has a rocky core with 20-30% cavities, hardly most.

thirdly almost 90% of your quotes prove Enceladus and Saturn are spherical, something you seem to simultaneously refute

Not trying to be rude but your argument is a mess, you refuted most of it yourself

Very well done.

Quote

In March 2007, it was found that the variation of radio emissions from the planet did not match Saturn's rotation rate. This variance may be caused by geyser activity on Saturn's moon Enceladus. The water vapor emitted into Saturn's orbit by this activity becomes charged and creates a drag upon Saturn's magnetic field, slowing its rotation slightly relative to the rotation of the planet.

Now, there is no escape for the RE.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228339175_Enceladus_A_significant_plasma_source_for_Saturn's_magnetosphere

Gravity is only a partial description of the overall interaction between Enceladus and Saturn; electromagnetic forces must be included to obtain a much better understanding.

These terms, the electromagnetic potential, have to be included in the relativity equations, since Einstein's original equations do not have a bounded dynamic solution (i.e., can only be applied to static situations).

In either case, Enceladus is clearly implicated as a significant, if not dominant, source of Saturn's magnetospheric plasma.

Material blasted into space by Enceladus feeds Saturn’s giant E ring and is a major source of material (plasma) fueling Saturn’s magnetosphere.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/cassini/science/magnetosphere/

Ok, based on your own claims about masses and distances, the Enceladus and Saturn are big enough and far enough.
You confirmed that at their closest the Saturn and the Earth are 1.2 billion kilometers apart, and at their farthest it is 1.7 billion kilometers.

Now, is the Earth rotating, or the Saturn is revolving around the Earth?

If Saturn is revolving Earth, at those 1.2 billion kilometers the orbit is 7.54 billion kilometers long.
It means orbital speed of 314 000 000 km/h or 87 222 km/s.

If Saturn is revolving Sun then its orbital speed is 9.68 km/s and all math about orbital mechanic works.

Geocentric version with everything revolving around Earth requires much stronger gravitational force to keep it in orbit.

Now repeat the same for Proxima Centauri which is 4.24 light years away.

The density readings provided are based on several ASSUMPTIONS, including the Airy isostasy hypothesis,

Rubbish! You just make up stories to fit your "narrative". Your "Airy isostasy hypothesis" does not come into it!

The mass of a planetary body can be estimated from its effect on other nearby bodies, including the Cassini spacecraft - learn some astrophysics!

Enceladus
Internal structure
Mass estimates from the Voyager program missions suggested that Enceladus was composed almost entirely of water ice. However, based on the effects of Enceladus's gravity on Cassini, its mass was determined to be much higher than previously thought, yielding a density of 1.61 g/cm³. This density is higher than Saturn's other mid-sized icy satellites, indicating that Enceladus contains a greater percentage of silicates and iron.

You might read Enceladus Francis Nimmo, University of California Santa Cruz,CA, USA and Carolyn Porco,CICLOPS, Space Science Institute, Boulder, CO, USA

which has been proven to be false here on Earth.

[/quote]
No, it hasn't! You might think so but that means nothing in real life.

Since now scientists accept that Enceladus is mostly filled with cavities, they had to INVENT the subsurface ocean in order to satisfy the assumptions just mentioned.

In other words, more of your stories to fit your "narrative".

Not just a subsurface ocean but also irin and nickel in the core - that does push up the average density.

Being fill with cavities does not prevent Enceladus from having an average density of around 1.61 kg/m³.

Like it or not, that mass and hence density of Enceladus is not as low as YOU seem to believe!

Lets say you are all by yourself not gravitationally bound to anything nearby, so you are completely motionless. The only thing you have on you is your oxygen tank. If one were to pierce it (causing a sudden escape of all the oxygen very quickly) would the astronauts position move at all?

Yes, but I wouldn't recommend it (unless you want to die rather quickly).  Rather, I would suggest using an MMU, or something similar.

You really need to upgrade your references.

The article posted here is based only on assumptions (Enceladus must have an interior heat source, it must have an ocean, and a silicate core), no PROOFS.

Moreover, it is a description of the final conclusions, not the methodology they were based on.

This alone says volumes about your capacity to understand astrophysics: you simply opened the first pdf you found and surreptitiously brought it here thinking it will impress someone. It does not.

HERE IS THE REAL REFERENCE ON ENCELADUS, which provides the ASSUMPTIONS which lead to certain conclusions:

http://douglashemingway.com/publications/Hemingway-3003-reprint.pdf

Page 64 (page 8 of the pdf document)

A compensation mechanism is therefore required.

is Airy-type isostatic compensation.


This is HOW they reach the final conclusions about Enceladus: they make the same assumptions they made here on Earth.

But the Airy isostasy hypothesis is false:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1096437#msg1096437


Page 65 (page 9 of the pdf document)

as it would require Enceladus to be one of the most strongly differentiated solid bodies in
the solar system. This observation also provides a clue about the spatial extent of the subsurface liquid layer (assuming Airy type compensation)

Assuming Airy compensation


Again, they assume the AIRY ISOSTASY hypothesis to reach final conclusions.


Page 66 (page 10 of the pdf document)

Here, the dimensionless factor g is a placeholder allowing for various conceptions of Airy isostasy

However, assuming some version of Airy compensation, a few things can be stated with confidence. First, the thinnest part of the ice shell must be located beneath the large
topographic depression at the south pole. Since the shell thickness is necessarily greater than zero there, this provides an effective lower bound on the mean shell thickness.
Depending on the definition of isostasy, and the assumed ice shell and ocean densities


Every hypothesis made about the DENSITY of Enceladus is provided by the Airy assumption, nothing else.


Page 67 (page 11 of the pdf document)

Whereas all the models discussed so far assume some version of Airy-type isostasy, in which the surface topography is supported in part by lateral variations in the ice shell’s
thickness, it should be noted that the topography could also be supported in part by lateral variations in density [i.e., Pratt-type isostasy (e.g., Besserer et al., 2013; Tajeddine et al., 2017)].


The authors agree that they based their conclusions solely on the Airy hypothesis, and that OTHER isostasy models (just as false) will lead to a different conclusion about the density of Enceladus.


Page 68 (page 12 of the pdf document)

A summary of all of the models is presented: everything is based ON THE AIRY HYPOTHESIS assumption.


Page 73 (page 17 of the pdf document)

and making reasonable assumptions about the ice shell and ocean densities, the total crustal thinning (relative to the mean shell thickness) at the south pole must be roughly 16–18 km, assuming complete Airy-type isostatic compensation


NOW, THE BEST PART!!!

Page 74 (page 18 of the pdf document)

Lateral variations in ice shell thickness assuming complete Airy compensation of all known topography [up to spherical harmonic degree 8 (Nimmo et al., 2011)].


The Nimmo reference is the one you provided!!!

The authors of that article based their final conclusions ON THE AIRY HYPOTHESIS as well.


The rest of the conclusions are based on the PHYSICAL LIBRATION assumptions.

Nothing else.


The gravity measurements, such as they are, are based on RADIO TRACKING, using the Doppler effect, which essentially is an ETHER WAVE theory.


On page 63, the authors describe the HUGE PROBLEMS with the radio tracking method for Cassini.


The 1.61 kg/m3 figure is PURE FANTASY, based on the Airy hypothesis.

You really need to upgrade your references.

The article posted here is based only on assumptions (Enceladus must have an interior heat source, it must have an ocean, and a silicate core), no PROOFS.

Moreover, it is a description of the final conclusions, not the methodology they were based on.

This alone says volumes about your capacity to understand astrophysics: you simply opened the first pdf you found and surreptitiously brought it here thinking it will impress someone. It does not.

HERE IS THE REAL REFERENCE ON ENCELADUS, which provides the ASSUMPTIONS which lead to certain conclusions:

http://douglashemingway.com/publications/Hemingway-3003-reprint.pdf

Page 64 (page 8 of the pdf document)

A compensation mechanism is therefore required.

is Airy-type isostatic compensation.


This is HOW they reach the final conclusions about Enceladus: they make the same assumptions they made here on Earth.

But the Airy isostasy hypothesis is false:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1096437#msg1096437


Page 65 (page 9 of the pdf document)

as it would require Enceladus to be one of the most strongly differentiated solid bodies in
the solar system. This observation also provides a clue about the spatial extent of the subsurface liquid layer (assuming Airy type compensation)

Assuming Airy compensation


Again, they assume the AIRY ISOSTASY hypothesis to reach final conclusions.


Page 66 (page 10 of the pdf document)

Here, the dimensionless factor g is a placeholder allowing for various conceptions of Airy isostasy

However, assuming some version of Airy compensation, a few things can be stated with confidence. First, the thinnest part of the ice shell must be located beneath the large
topographic depression at the south pole. Since the shell thickness is necessarily greater than zero there, this provides an effective lower bound on the mean shell thickness.
Depending on the definition of isostasy, and the assumed ice shell and ocean densities


Every hypothesis made about the DENSITY of Enceladus is provided by the Airy assumption, nothing else.


Page 67 (page 11 of the pdf document)

Whereas all the models discussed so far assume some version of Airy-type isostasy, in which the surface topography is supported in part by lateral variations in the ice shell’s
thickness, it should be noted that the topography could also be supported in part by lateral variations in density [i.e., Pratt-type isostasy (e.g., Besserer et al., 2013; Tajeddine et al., 2017)].


The authors agree that they based their conclusions solely on the Airy hypothesis, and that OTHER isostasy models (just as false) will lead to a different conclusion about the density of Enceladus.


Page 68 (page 12 of the pdf document)

A summary of all of the models is presented: everything is based ON THE AIRY HYPOTHESIS assumption.


Page 73 (page 17 of the pdf document)

and making reasonable assumptions about the ice shell and ocean densities, the total crustal thinning (relative to the mean shell thickness) at the south pole must be roughly 16–18 km, assuming complete Airy-type isostatic compensation


NOW, THE BEST PART!!!

Page 74 (page 18 of the pdf document)

Lateral variations in ice shell thickness assuming complete Airy compensation of all known topography [up to spherical harmonic degree 8 (Nimmo et al., 2011)].


The Nimmo reference is the one you provided!!!

The authors of that article based their final conclusions ON THE AIRY HYPOTHESIS as well.


The rest of the conclusions are based on the PHYSICAL LIBRATION assumptions.

Nothing else.


The gravity measurements, such as they are, are based on RADIO TRACKING, using the Doppler effect, which essentially is an ETHER WAVE theory.


On page 63, the authors describe the HUGE PROBLEMS with the radio tracking method for Cassini.


The 1.61 kg/m3 figure is PURE FANTASY, based on the Airy hypothesis.

But all said and done, you support the idea that Cassini exists and was launched from a rocket in space?

You really need to upgrade your references.

The article posted here is based only on assumptions (Enceladus must have an interior heat source, it must have an ocean, and a silicate core), no PROOFS.

Moreover, it is a description of the final conclusions, not the methodology they were based on.

This alone says volumes about your capacity to understand astrophysics: you simply opened the first pdf you found and surreptitiously brought it here thinking it will impress someone. It does not.

HERE IS THE REAL REFERENCE ON ENCELADUS, which provides the ASSUMPTIONS which lead to certain conclusions:

The Interior of Enceladus, Douglas Hemingway, Luciano Iess, Radwan Tajeddine and Gabriel Tobie

Whereas you cherry-pick your references to find papers with the right words, never mind the meaning or context!

Now, I have no basis or need to question that paper but it does not base any mean density or overall mass estimate on the Airy hypothesis.

That paper, as it's name indicates, is entirely about the "The Interior of Enceladus" and says nothing about how the overall mass is determined.

But look at TABLE 1 where it uses GM  = 7.210443 ± 0.00003 km³ s^–2 and we know big G = 6.67259 x 10^-11 N m²/kg².

So, dividing we get M (the total mass of Enceladus) is 1.08 x 10²⁰ kg, which, I believe is the value that I have used all along.

The 1.61 kg/m³ figure is PURE FANTASY, based on the Airy hypothesis.

No, the 1.61 kg/m³ figure is NOT based on the Airy hypothesis but on independent gravity methods and the Airy hypothesis is used in that paper in the determination of the The Interior of Enceladus.

So, unless you come up with something better, the density of Enceladus stays at 1.61 kg/m³, as NASA says!

Try again!

But it is entirely based ON THE AIRY HYPOTHESIS.

Please read.

Page 74 (page 18 of the pdf document)

Lateral variations in ice shell thickness assuming complete Airy compensation of all known topography [up to spherical harmonic degree 8 (Nimmo et al., 2011)].

The Nimmo reference is the one you provided!!!

The authors of that article based their final conclusions ON THE AIRY HYPOTHESIS as well.


It is the Airy hypothesis which leads them to believe that there a subsurface ocean, and that the geysers have an interior heat source.

Without the Airy hypothesis, all we have a left is an icy hollow shell (perhaps some 50 km in thickness).


You cannot invoke the gravity readings.

Here is why.

Cassini is A THREE AXIS (3-AXIS) STABILIZED AIRCRAFT.

As such, it suffers from the same gravitational anomalies experienced by the Pioneer space mission.

http://www.ptep-online.com/2016/PP-47-02.PDF

However, it is a very specific solution that applies only to the main term of the Pioneer spacecraft anomaly, but left unresolved many other anomalies, including those of the spaceships Cassini, Ulysses and Galileo.

Consider the anomalous acceleration detected at the shortest distance of the Cassini spacecraft during solar conjunction in June, 2002.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.4184.pdf

The results from Galileo, NEAR, Cassini, and Rosetta, as well as the null result from
MESSENGER, summarized in Table 1, suggest that a relationship may exist between the
magnitude of the flyby anomaly and the altitude and geometry of the flyby trajectory.


Here is the EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY'S own assessment of the situation:

http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/MAD/pub/ACT-RPR-MAD-2006-(JSR)NonDedicatedOptionsToTestThePioneerAnomaly.pdf

Also the Cassini tracking does not yield results of the necessary precision because the spacecraft is three-axis stabilized. Furthermore, thermal radiation from the RTGs causes a large acceleration bias, the magnitude of which is not well determined. The large bias
originates from the placement of the RTGs close to the spacecraft bus. The thermal control of the propulsion module subsystem is accomplished by collecting thermal radiation from the RTGs in a cavity covered with insulating blankets. The radiation geometry of the cavity is complicated and leads to a large uncertainty in the acceleration bias due to RTG heat.



Cassini is completely unreliable to provide any sensible data on any kind of gravitational reading.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0308017.pdf

Attempts to verify the anomaly using other spacecraft proved disappointing. This is
because the Voyager, Galileo, Ulysses, and Cassini spacecraft navigation data all have
their own individual difficulties for use in an independent test of the anomaly.

This would have made the navigational accuracy too poor, as happened with the 3-axis-stabilized Voyagers. This is one of the main reasons the Pioneers were so well tracked.
Further, modern 3-axis stabilization relies heavily on the use of precise fuel gauges (to
measure fuel usage during maneuvers for input into navigational models), high quality thrusters (for precise attitude control purposes), reaction wheels (to keep preferred spacecraft pointing for a limited time), and often high resolution accelerometers (to track onboard generated non-gravitational disturbances). Although there exist fuel gauges with the desirable precision, thrusters have low repeatability and reaction wheel de-saturation introduces high acceleration noise. Finally, existing pico-g level accelerometers also have low reliability. This all makes 3-axis stabilization a very costly and undesirable choice for our deep space mission.



Furthermore, any gravitational reading, flawed as it is, must be CORROBORATED with the basic assumptions made regarding the geology of Enceladus.

And these assumptions, all of them, involve the AIRY HYPOTHESIS.

HERE IS THE REAL REFERENCE ON ENCELADUS, which provides the ASSUMPTIONS which lead to certain conclusions:

http://douglashemingway.com/publications/Hemingway-3003-reprint.pdf

Page 64 (page 8 of the pdf document)

A compensation mechanism is therefore required.

is Airy-type isostatic compensation.


This is HOW they reach the final conclusions about Enceladus: they make the same assumptions they made here on Earth.

But the Airy isostasy hypothesis is false:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1096437#msg1096437


Page 65 (page 9 of the pdf document)

as it would require Enceladus to be one of the most strongly differentiated solid bodies in
the solar system. This observation also provides a clue about the spatial extent of the subsurface liquid layer (assuming Airy type compensation)

Assuming Airy compensation


Again, they assume the AIRY ISOSTASY hypothesis to reach final conclusions.


Page 66 (page 10 of the pdf document)

Here, the dimensionless factor g is a placeholder allowing for various conceptions of Airy isostasy

However, assuming some version of Airy compensation, a few things can be stated with confidence. First, the thinnest part of the ice shell must be located beneath the large
topographic depression at the south pole. Since the shell thickness is necessarily greater than zero there, this provides an effective lower bound on the mean shell thickness.
Depending on the definition of isostasy, and the assumed ice shell and ocean densities


Every hypothesis made about the DENSITY of Enceladus is provided by the Airy assumption, nothing else.


Page 67 (page 11 of the pdf document)

Whereas all the models discussed so far assume some version of Airy-type isostasy, in which the surface topography is supported in part by lateral variations in the ice shell’s
thickness, it should be noted that the topography could also be supported in part by lateral variations in density [i.e., Pratt-type isostasy (e.g., Besserer et al., 2013; Tajeddine et al., 2017)].


The authors agree that they based their conclusions solely on the Airy hypothesis, and that OTHER isostasy models (just as false) will lead to a different conclusion about the density of Enceladus.


Page 68 (page 12 of the pdf document)

A summary of all of the models is presented: everything is based ON THE AIRY HYPOTHESIS assumption.


Page 73 (page 17 of the pdf document)

and making reasonable assumptions about the ice shell and ocean densities, the total crustal thinning (relative to the mean shell thickness) at the south pole must be roughly 16–18 km, assuming complete Airy-type isostatic compensation


NOW, THE BEST PART!!!

Page 74 (page 18 of the pdf document)

Lateral variations in ice shell thickness assuming complete Airy compensation of all known topography [up to spherical harmonic degree 8 (Nimmo et al., 2011)].


The Nimmo reference is the one you provided!!!

The authors of that article based their final conclusions ON THE AIRY HYPOTHESIS as well.


The rest of the conclusions are based on the PHYSICAL LIBRATION assumptions.

Nothing else.


The gravity measurements, such as they are, are based on RADIO TRACKING, using the Doppler effect, which essentially is an ETHER WAVE theory.


On page 63, the authors describe the HUGE PROBLEMS with the radio tracking method for Cassini.


The 1.61 kg/m3 figure is PURE FANTASY, based on the Airy hypothesis.


All we have left is an icy hollow shell with huge jets of water vapor which do not interact at all with the vacuum.

Here is your 500 km hollow rocket:

But it is entirely based ON THE AIRY HYPOTHESIS.

Please read.

Page 74 (page 18 of the pdf document)

Lateral variations in ice shell thickness assuming complete Airy compensation of all known topography [up to spherical harmonic degree 8 (Nimmo et al., 2011)].

The Nimmo reference is the one you provided!!!

The authors of that article based their final conclusions ON THE AIRY HYPOTHESIS as well.


It is the Airy hypothesis which leads them to believe that there a subsurface ocean, and that the geysers have an interior heat source.

Without the Airy hypothesis, all we have a left is an icy hollow shell (perhaps some 50 km in thickness).


You cannot invoke the gravity readings.

Here is why.

Cassini is A THREE AXIS (3-AXIS) STABILIZED AIRCRAFT.

As such, it suffers from the same gravitational anomalies experienced by the Pioneer space mission.

http://www.ptep-online.com/2016/PP-47-02.PDF

However, it is a very specific solution that applies only to the main term of the Pioneer spacecraft anomaly, but left unresolved many other anomalies, including those of the spaceships Cassini, Ulysses and Galileo.

Consider the anomalous acceleration detected at the shortest distance of the Cassini spacecraft during solar conjunction in June, 2002.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.4184.pdf

The results from Galileo, NEAR, Cassini, and Rosetta, as well as the null result from
MESSENGER, summarized in Table 1, suggest that a relationship may exist between the
magnitude of the flyby anomaly and the altitude and geometry of the flyby trajectory.


Here is the EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY'S own assessment of the situation:

http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/MAD/pub/ACT-RPR-MAD-2006-(JSR)NonDedicatedOptionsToTestThePioneerAnomaly.pdf

Also the Cassini tracking does not yield results of the necessary precision because the spacecraft is three-axis stabilized. Furthermore, thermal radiation from the RTGs causes a large acceleration bias, the magnitude of which is not well determined. The large bias
originates from the placement of the RTGs close to the spacecraft bus. The thermal control of the propulsion module subsystem is accomplished by collecting thermal radiation from the RTGs in a cavity covered with insulating blankets. The radiation geometry of the cavity is complicated and leads to a large uncertainty in the acceleration bias due to RTG heat.



Cassini is completely unreliable to provide any sensible data on any kind of gravitational reading.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0308017.pdf

Attempts to verify the anomaly using other spacecraft proved disappointing. This is
because the Voyager, Galileo, Ulysses, and Cassini spacecraft navigation data all have
their own individual difficulties for use in an independent test of the anomaly.

This would have made the navigational accuracy too poor, as happened with the 3-axis-stabilized Voyagers. This is one of the main reasons the Pioneers were so well tracked.
Further, modern 3-axis stabilization relies heavily on the use of precise fuel gauges (to
measure fuel usage during maneuvers for input into navigational models), high quality thrusters (for precise attitude control purposes), reaction wheels (to keep preferred spacecraft pointing for a limited time), and often high resolution accelerometers (to track onboard generated non-gravitational disturbances). Although there exist fuel gauges with the desirable precision, thrusters have low repeatability and reaction wheel de-saturation introduces high acceleration noise. Finally, existing pico-g level accelerometers also have low reliability. This all makes 3-axis stabilization a very costly and undesirable choice for our deep space mission.



Furthermore, any gravitational reading, flawed as it is, must be CORROBORATED with the basic assumptions made regarding the geology of Enceladus.

And these assumptions, all of them, involve the AIRY HYPOTHESIS.

HERE IS THE REAL REFERENCE ON ENCELADUS, which provides the ASSUMPTIONS which lead to certain conclusions:

http://douglashemingway.com/publications/Hemingway-3003-reprint.pdf

Page 64 (page 8 of the pdf document)

A compensation mechanism is therefore required.

is Airy-type isostatic compensation.


This is HOW they reach the final conclusions about Enceladus: they make the same assumptions they made here on Earth.

But the Airy isostasy hypothesis is false:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1096437#msg1096437


Page 65 (page 9 of the pdf document)

as it would require Enceladus to be one of the most strongly differentiated solid bodies in
the solar system. This observation also provides a clue about the spatial extent of the subsurface liquid layer (assuming Airy type compensation)

Assuming Airy compensation


Again, they assume the AIRY ISOSTASY hypothesis to reach final conclusions.


Page 66 (page 10 of the pdf document)

Here, the dimensionless factor g is a placeholder allowing for various conceptions of Airy isostasy

However, assuming some version of Airy compensation, a few things can be stated with confidence. First, the thinnest part of the ice shell must be located beneath the large
topographic depression at the south pole. Since the shell thickness is necessarily greater than zero there, this provides an effective lower bound on the mean shell thickness.
Depending on the definition of isostasy, and the assumed ice shell and ocean densities


Every hypothesis made about the DENSITY of Enceladus is provided by the Airy assumption, nothing else.


Page 67 (page 11 of the pdf document)

Whereas all the models discussed so far assume some version of Airy-type isostasy, in which the surface topography is supported in part by lateral variations in the ice shell’s
thickness, it should be noted that the topography could also be supported in part by lateral variations in density [i.e., Pratt-type isostasy (e.g., Besserer et al., 2013; Tajeddine et al., 2017)].


The authors agree that they based their conclusions solely on the Airy hypothesis, and that OTHER isostasy models (just as false) will lead to a different conclusion about the density of Enceladus.


Page 68 (page 12 of the pdf document)

A summary of all of the models is presented: everything is based ON THE AIRY HYPOTHESIS assumption.


Page 73 (page 17 of the pdf document)

and making reasonable assumptions about the ice shell and ocean densities, the total crustal thinning (relative to the mean shell thickness) at the south pole must be roughly 16–18 km, assuming complete Airy-type isostatic compensation


NOW, THE BEST PART!!!

Page 74 (page 18 of the pdf document)

Lateral variations in ice shell thickness assuming complete Airy compensation of all known topography [up to spherical harmonic degree 8 (Nimmo et al., 2011)].


The Nimmo reference is the one you provided!!!

The authors of that article based their final conclusions ON THE AIRY HYPOTHESIS as well.


The rest of the conclusions are based on the PHYSICAL LIBRATION assumptions.

Nothing else.


The gravity measurements, such as they are, are based on RADIO TRACKING, using the Doppler effect, which essentially is an ETHER WAVE theory.


On page 63, the authors describe the HUGE PROBLEMS with the radio tracking method for Cassini.


The 1.61 kg/m3 figure is PURE FANTASY, based on the Airy hypothesis.


All we have left is an icy hollow shell with huge jets of water vapor which do not interact at all with the vacuum.

Here is your 500 km hollow rocket:

Another day another response starts the same way

READ THE PROOF YOU SUBMIT AS EVIDENCE

The paper you submit is trying to describe the density of the planet with variations of the Airy compensation, you do not use Airy to work out density.

Without the Airy hypothesis, all we have a left is an icy hollow shell (perhaps some 50 km in thickness).

How did you reach this conclusion and reconcile the density?

http://www.ptep-online.com/2016/PP-47-02.PDF

What has an acceleration anomaly in interplanetary space got to do with measuring the mass of a celestial object?

ditto

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0308017.pdf

You cant just keep throwing spurious papers at an issue and make spurious interpretations.

Also helps to keep track with your argument and the reason you are posting, you first brought up the density issue, so you could talk about the hypothesised cavity in the rocky core, at 1.61 kg/m³.

You got yourself a bit lost in your own argument, reported 20-30% firstly as 33% hollow then mostly hollow. I assume you must have made the jump to if a sphere is 20-30% hollow the density must be wrong, so reverted to an earlier argument that Enceladus had an abnormally low density.

To cover this up you start throwing mud around regarding an acceleration anomaly that has been detected by almost all deep space craft.

How does any of this relate to rockets in a vacuum.

If it helps run the maths twice once with the current 1.61 kg/m³ then with whatever density you think it has

then tell us the force in KN being exerted by the vapour, we can then discuss whether it can hope to move enceladus or enceladus light.

TRUE NATURE OF THE MOON AND THE SUN :


1. In the video above you can clearly see (among many other very interesting things) that we can observe stars through the moon?
How is that possible if the moon is a rocky object?

I didn't find anymore about Prof. R. Foster, but I did find this published by NASA from 2007:
The Moon is immersed in a plasma environment—the local cosmos—that is “magnetized.” It is threaded with magnetic fields that are often “frozen” into the plasma, a state of high electrical conductivity that effectively couples the motions of the plasma and the magnetic field.

Besides the fact that when the moon is only a few hours old, and sometimes until past the first quarter, the naked eye is able to see through her body to the light shining on the other side, both fixed stars and planets have been seen through a considerable part of her substance, as proved by the following quotations :

QUOTE 1. Sir James South of the Royal Observatory in Kensington wrote in a letter to the Times newspaper April 7, 1848 :

"On the 15th of March, 1848, when the moon was seven and a half days old, I never saw her unillumined
disc so beautifully. . . . On my first looking into the telescope a star of about the 7th magnitude was some minutes of a degree distant from the moon's dark limb. I saw that its occultation by the moon was inevitable. . . . The star, instead of disappearing the moment the moon's edge came in contact with it, apparently glided on the moon's dark face, as if it had been seen through a transparent moon; or, as if a star were between me and the moon. . . .I have seen a similar apparent projection several times. . . .
The cause of this phenomenon is involved in impenetrable mystery."

QUOTE 2. "Occultation of Jupiter by the moon, on the 24th of May, 1860, by Thomas Gaunt, Esq. 'I send you the following account as seen by me at Stoke Newington. The observation was made with an achromatic of 3.3 inches aperture, 50 inches focus; the immersion with a power of 50, and the emersion with a power of 70. At the immersion I could not see the dark limb of the moon until the planet appeared to touch it, and then only to the extent of the diameter of the planet; but what I was most struck with was the appearance on the moon as it passed over the planet. It appeared as though the planet was a dark object, and glided on to the moon instead of behind it; and the appearance continued until the planet was hid, when I suddenly lost the dark limb of the moon altogether.'"

QUOTE 3. "Occultation of Jupiter by the moon, May 24, 1860, observed by T. W. Burr, Esq., at Highbury. The planet's first limb disappeared at 8h. 44m. 6.7s., the second limb disappeared at 8h. 45m. 4.9s. local sidereal time, on the moon's dark limb. The planet's first limb reappeared at 9h. 55m. 48s.; the second limb reappeared at 9h. 56m. 44.7s., at the bright limb. The planet was well seen, notwithstanding the strong sunlight (4h. 34m. Greenwich mean time), but of course without any belts. The moon's dark limb could not be detected until it touched the planet, when it was seen very sharply defined and black; and as it passed the disc of Jupiter in front appeared to brighten. So that the moon's limb was preceded by a bright band of light, doubtless an effect of contrast."

QUOTE 4. In the "Philosophical Transactions" for 1794 it is stated:--

"Three persons in Norwich, and one in London, saw a star on the evening of March 7th, 1794, in the dark part of the moon, which had not then attained the first quadrature; and from the representations which are given the star must have appeared very far advanced upon the disc. On the same evening there was an occultation of Aldebaran, which Dr. Maskelyne thought a singular coincidence, but which would now be acknowledged as the cause of the phenomenon."

QUOTE 5. Fernando de Magulhane observed that the moon, during a solar eclipse, was not perfectly opaque. He says:--

"On the forenoon of October 11th, 1520, an eclipse of the sun was expected. At eight seconds past ten a.m. the sun, having then reached the altitude of 42°, began to lose its brightness, and gradually continued so to do, changing to a dark red colour, without any cloud intervening that could be perceived. No part of the body of the sun was hid, but the whole appeared as when seen through a thick smoke, till it passed the altitude of 44½°, after which it recovered its former lustre."

QUOTE 6. (ABOUT THE NATURE OF MOON'S LIGHT) :
"The light of the moon, though concentrated by the most powerful burning-glass, is incapable of raising the temperature of the most delicate thermometer. M. De la Hire collected the rays of the full moon when on the meridian, by means of a burning-glass 35 inches in diameter, and made them fall on the bulb of a delicate air-thermometer. No effect was produced though the lunar rays by this glass were concentrated 300 times.

Professor Forbes concentrated the moon's light by a lens 30 inches in diameter, its focal distance being about 41 inches, and having a power of concentration exceeding 6000 times. The image of the moon, which was only 18 hours past full, and less than two hours from the meridian, was brilliantly thrown by this lens on the extremity of a commodious thermopile. Although the observations were made in the most unexceptional manner, and (supposing that half the rays were reflected, dispersed and absorbed), though the light of the moon was concentrated 3000 times, not the slightest thermo effect was produced."

In the "Lancet" (Medical Journal), for March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved that the moon's rays when concentrated, actually reduced the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees.

2. The Sun is not a Nuclear furnace raging at millions of degrees. It is Electric and Cold!

 The nuclear furnace myth of the Sun, which was created to support energy baron profits and control, is exposed by Eric Dollard for the sham it is. This invalidates all tokamak fusion reactors based on the idiotic theory that the sun is a nuke furnace. Meaning, that 48 billion dollars of taxpayer money has been wasted on this fraud called nuclear fusion. This is how the racket is run folks, TPTB fund all of this worthless quackademic psyence in order to keep you paying for energy, which should be pracitically free in all applications.

Their slave system of backwards explosion based technologies insures them that we keep paying for their fuels, fighting their dirty lying wars and enriching the subhuman filth who profit from these demonic world destroying activities.

3. The event was attributed by believers to Our Lady of Fátima, a reported apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to the children who had made predictions of the event on 13 July 1917, 19 August, and 13 September. The children stated that the Lady had promised them that she would on 13 October reveal her identity to them and provide a miracle "so that all may believe."

Marchi reports that, "[t]heir ranks (those present on 13 October) included believers and non-believers, pious old ladies and scoffing young men. Hundreds, from these mixed categories, have given formal testimony. Reports do vary; impressions are in minor details confused, but none to our knowledge has directly denied the visible prodigy of the sun."

Some of the witness statements follow below. They are taken from John De Marchi's several books on the matter.

    "Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was biblical as they stood bare-headed, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws — the sun 'danced' according to the typical expression of the people." ― Avelino de Almeida, writing for O Século

    O Século was Portugal's most widely circulated and influential newspaper. It was pro-government and anti-clerical at the time. Almeida's previous articles had been to satirize the previously reported events at Fátima.

    "The sun, at one moment surrounded with scarlet flame, at another aureoled in yellow and deep purple, seemed to be in an exceedingly swift and whirling movement, at times appearing to be loosened from the sky and to be approaching the earth, strongly radiating heat." ― Dr. Domingos Pinto Coelho, writing for the newspaper Ordem.

    "...The silver sun, enveloped in the same gauzy grey light, was seen to whirl and turn in the circle of broken clouds... The light turned a beautiful blue, as if it had come through the stained-glass windows of a cathedral, and spread itself over the people who knelt with outstretched hands... people wept and prayed with uncovered heads, in the presence of a miracle they had awaited. The seconds seemed like hours, so vivid were they." ― Reporter for the Lisbon newspaper O Dia.

    "The sun's disc did not remain immobile. This was not the sparkling of a heavenly body, for it spun round on itself in a mad whirl, when suddenly a clamor was heard from all the people. The sun, whirling, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was terrible." — Dr. Almeida Garrett, Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University.

    "As if like a bolt from the blue, the clouds were wrenched apart, and the sun at its zenith appeared in all its splendor. It began to revolve vertiginously on its axis, like the most magnificent firewheel that could be imagined, taking on all the colors of the rainbow and sending forth multicolored flashes of light, producing the most astounding effect. This sublime and incomparable spectacle, which was repeated three distinct times, lasted for about ten minutes. The immense multitude, overcome by the evidence of such a tremendous prodigy, threw themselves on their knees." ― Dr. Manuel Formigão, a professor at the seminary at Santarém, and a priest. He had attended the September visitation, and examined and questioned the children in detail several times.

    "I feel incapable of describing what I saw. I looked fixedly at the sun, which seemed pale and did not hurt my eyes. Looking like a ball of snow, revolving on itself, it suddenly seemed to come down in a zig-zag, menacing the earth. Terrified, I ran and hid myself among the people, who were weeping and expecting the end of the world at any moment." — Rev. Joaquim Lourenço, describing his boyhood experience in Alburitel, eighteen kilometers from Fatima.

    "On that day of October 13, 1917, without remembering the predictions of the children, I was enchanted by a remarkable spectacle in the sky of a kind I had never seen before. I saw it from this veranda..." — Portuguese poet Afonso Lopes Vieira.

According to De Marchi, "Engineers that have studied the case reckoned that an incredible amount of energy would have been necessary to dry up those pools of water that had formed on the field in a few minutes as it was reported by witnesses."

You really need to upgrade your references.

You and jamas are the only one arguing against that available references here.
You are the one claiming pure fantasy where the moon magically sheds very large amounts of its mass, yet doesn't disappear.

you simply opened the first pdf you found and surreptitiously brought it here thinking it will impress someone. It does not.

Good job projecting yet again.

None of the spam you are spouting helps to back up your claim in any way.
You are yet to show the jets of Enceladus should produce any significant effect on its orbit and thus it in no way contributes to the discussion on rockets working in a vacuum.

If you want to keep trying to dig this hole, you need to show that these jets should be producing a significant effect on the moon. Until you do, it is useless to say anything more on it as it in no way refutes the reality of rockets working in a vacuum.

TRUE NATURE OF THE MOON AND THE SUN :

And more off topic spam by jamas.

Have you figured out the answer to the question yet or finally decided to be honest and admit that rockets do work in a vacuum?
Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

Will you claim pure magic with gas magically being held inside an open container exposed to a vacuum?
Will you claim pure magic of an object being accelerated without a force?
Will you claim pure magic of an object having a force applied with the corresponding reactionary force?
Or will you be rational for once and accept that rockets will work in a vacuum?

Now, is the Earth rotating, or the Saturn is revolving around the Earth?

If Saturn is revolving Earth, at those 1.2 billion kilometers the orbit is 7.54 billion kilometers long.
It means orbital speed of 314 000 000 km/h or 87 222 km/s.

If Saturn is revolving Sun then its orbital speed is 9.68 km/s and all math about orbital mechanic works.

Geocentric version with everything revolving around Earth requires much stronger gravitational force to keep it in orbit.

Now repeat the same for Proxima Centauri which is 4.24 light years away.

1. Carter: And what are the implications of local motion in the geocentric model? Clearly, the stars are not “fixed” in relation to one another. What then holds them in their respective places are they whirl about the earth at incredible speeds? 

R. Sungenis: The stars aren’t “whirling about the Earth at incredible speeds.” The whole universe is rotating around the Earth and carrying all the stars with it. The stars are moving no faster with respect to the universe than a person sitting in a car is moving with respect to the car moving at 60mph. The very reason these stars can stay fixed is because they are not “whirling.”

2. Keating:   page   78:   “If   aether   does   not   exist...geocentrism   collapses  because  there  is  no  way  to  explain  how  the  star  field  can circle the Earth every twenty four hours, and there is no way to explain what keeps the Earth at the center of the universe.”

R. Sungenis: False. Both Ernst Mach and Albert Einstein allowed for the possibility  of  a  geocentric  universe  in  which  the  stars  revolve  around  a  fixed  Earth,  based  on  the  fact  of  relative  motion,  but  neither  incorporated  an  aether  for  that  purpose.  The  geocentrist  incorporates  aether  because  that’s   what   the   experiments   demonstrate.   As   such,   aether   helps   in   understanding how a geocentric universe would best operate.

3. So what other physics, from the world’s perspective, do we have that does what Einstein’s GRT did for geocentrism? Lo and behold, Newton’s physics does the same thing for geocentrism that Einstein did – he makes it viable. Of course, Newton’s admission has been hidden from us for a long time, but it was finally released. As Steven Weinberg puts it in his latest book, "To Explain the World" :

If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho’s in which the Earth is at rest, then the distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year, and  in  general  relativity  this  enormous  motion  would  create  forces  akin  to gravitation, which would act on the Sun and planets and give them the motions of the Tychonic theory. Newton seems to have had a hint of this. In an unpublished ‘Proposition 43’ that did not make it into the Principia, Newton acknowledges that Tycho’s theory could be true if some other force besides ordinary gravitation acted on the Sun and planets.

Here is what Newton said in Proposition 43:

In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, there is required both universal gravity and another force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the Sun... Since this force is equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun, the Earth can truly remain in equilibrium between these two forces and be at rest.  And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest,as in the Tychonic system.

"We have[...] certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth." - Galileo Galilei in letter to Francesco Rinuccini, March 29th, 1641

4. Keating: page 86: Quoting Newman: “For stars close or far, we can  detect  their  motion  towards  or  away  from  us  by  a  shift  in  their frequency of the light they emit, the so-called Doppler shift. We  find  in  each  of  these  motions  two  components,  one  due  to  the  motion  of  the  Earth  around  the  Sun  (which  varies  with  a  year-long  period)  and  another  due  to  the  relative  motion  of  the  Sun  and  the  particular  star  (which  has  no  such  periodicity).  Again, clear evidence that the Earth is moving around the sun.”

R. Sungenis: False. The Doppler Effect (or Doppler Shift) was discovered by Christian Doppler in 1842. This effect occurs when the source of wave emission  moves  closer  or  farther  away  from  the  observer.  The  waves  are  compressed  when  the  source  moves  closer  and  stretched  when  the  source  moves farther away. This phenomenon does not occur, however, when the receiver  moves  closer  or  farther  away  from  a  stationary  source  since  the  waves  coming  to  the  receiver  are  the  same  in  both  cases.  Light  acts  in  a  similar manner. If the source of light is moving closer to the observer, the light waves are compressed or “blue-shifted”; while if the source of light is moving  farther  away  from  the  observer,  the  light  waves  are  stretched  or  “red-shifted.”  Heliocentrists  have  claimed  that  since  the  Earth  revolves  around the sun at about 19 mps, this movement causes the Doppler shift of stars. As one author puts it, “Classical physics, but not Special Relativity, predicts different Doppler shifts for the source moving versus the observer moving,  allowing  one  to  ‘determine’  whether  the  earth  moves  or  a  ‘fixed  star’ moves....To conclude, Mach did not consider the difference between the  Copernican  and  Ptolemaic/Brahean  systems  and  the  observations  falsifying the latter.”

The truth is, however, that the Neo-Tychonic geocentric system can easily explain Doppler shift. The Neo-Tychonic system has the star field rotating around the Earth on a 1 AU radial hub. As such, on one hemisphere of the star-field  the  stars  will  be  receding  away  from  the  Earth  and  on  the  opposite  hemisphere  the  stars  will  be  advancing  toward  the  Earth.  Those  advancing  toward  the  Earth  will  create  a  Doppler  blue  shift  and  those  receding will create a Doppler red shift.

5. Carter: Why do neighboring stars orbit at the same rate as distant galaxies when there is a multi‐billion‐fold difference in their respective distances? 

R. Sungenis: For the same reason that someone on the rim of a moving carousal is remaining at the same position as someone near the center pole the carousal. They are all on the same platform—the universe. 

6. Carter: What causes them to orbit once a day when some are very close compared to others and nothing is fixing them in place with respect to one another? 

R. Sungenis: Since the platform (the universe) is rotating, not the people (the stars), then there is nothing to disrupt their position. The only thing we need to add is that the centrifugal force of a daily rotating universe is compensated for by gravity and the two other inertial forces, Coriolis and Euler, the same as if a person on a moving carousal can remain on the carousal if he holds on to a horse or if he holds on to a rope anchored to the center pole. Moreover, the fact is, Newtonian, Machian and Einsteinian mechanics all allow the same physical answer. If Einstein did not allow it in GRT, then his GRT would be falsified, since it depends on co‐equivalence and co‐variance of both the heliocentric and geocentric systems.

1. Off topic spam

Again, none of that has anything at all to do with rockets working in a vacuum.
It has already been refuted in another thread. The GC model is a failure, just like the FE model. If you want to discuss it go back to the prior threads where you have had your GC nonsense refuted.

Now try and answer the question for once:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

Will you claim pure magic with gas magically being held inside an open container exposed to a vacuum?
Will you claim pure magic of an object being accelerated without a force?
Will you claim pure magic of an object having a force applied with the corresponding reactionary force?
Or will you be rational for once and accept that rockets will work in a vacuum?

It is important to note that the geysers from Enceladus have shut down: we are discussing here only the data pertaining to the year 2005.

https://www.space.com/31385-saturn-moon-enceladus-geysers-losing-steam.html

Yet, there is no difference in the orbital parameters of Enceladus, with or without the geysers.

Without the Airy hypothesis, Enceladus becomes an icy hollow shell.

The radio tracking data of the Cassini spacecraft cannot be relied upon when it comes to very sensitive observations (see the references provided).

What if the radius of Enceladus is not 500 km, but a much lower figure?

All of these questions can be answered once we infer that Cassini has a hemispherical resonator gyroscope onboard which uses the Coriolis effect to detect rotation.

All of these questions can be answered once we infer that Cassini has a hemispherical resonator gyroscope onboard which uses the Coriolis effect to detect rotation.

Would you mind if i politely asked you this question, also : You support the idea that Cassini exists and was launched from a rocket in space?

There were no Voyager or Cassini missions.

In FET, Jupiter has the same diameter as that of the Sun/Moon/Black Sun/Shadow Moon, some 636 meters.

Saturn, then, has some 200 meters in diameter.

Enceladus, some 20 meters in diameter at most.

That is, Enceladus is as large as a modern rocket.





Then, if we put these numbers into the thrust equation, with m_rf = 1000kg/s, A = 6.25 m², V = 583m/s, and calculate the mass of an icy hollow discoidal shell with an outer radius of 20 meters and an inner radius of 15 meters, we see that the force developed by the geyser jets is formidable, given the true size of Enceladus.

What I have to do is to prove that Cassini never orbited the solar system, and also answer the question regarding the source of matter for the geyser jets given the true size of Enceladus.

It is important to note that the geysers from Enceladus have shut down: we are discussing here only the data pertaining to the year 2005.

https://www.space.com/31385-saturn-moon-enceladus-geysers-losing-steam.html

Yet, there is no difference in the orbital parameters of Enceladus, with or without the geysers.

I believe that is more or less what I said right at the beginning!

Without the Airy hypothesis, Enceladus becomes an icy hollow shell.

The radio tracking data of the Cassini spacecraft cannot be relied upon when it comes to very sensitive observations (see the references provided).

So you say but I've learnt not to trust your interpretation of papers and I've no time to investigate further.

What if the radius of Enceladus is not 500 km, but a much lower figure?

Since you've no basis for that conjecture I'll ignore it.

All of these questions can be answered once we infer that Cassini has a hemispherical resonator gyroscope onboard which uses the Coriolis effect to detect rotation.

It did use "Northrop Grumman’s highly reliable hemispherical resonator gyro is a vital component of the company’s SIRU™, which has provided critical capabilities for the attitude control of NASA’s Cassini spacecraft."
So?

The Stanford Gravity Probe B (GPB) experiment was mentioned above. It involves a mechanical gyroscope, but I know of no physicist who would argue that a mechanical and an optical gyroscope would give different results. It is the intent of GPB to measure the Lense-Thirring frame dragging from earth rotation and the geodetic precession (spinorbit and space curvature effects). The former will amount to about 0.05 arc seconds per year and the latter to about 6.9 arc seconds per year. By contrast, if the gyroscope were affected by the orbital rotation, an additional anomalous precession of 1,296,000 arc seconds per orbit results. This insensitivity of mechanical gyroscopes to orbital rotation is clearly illustrated by the early TRANSIT (Navy navigation) satellites. During launch the satellites acquired a large spin, and the satellites themselves acted like large mechanical gyroscopes. In order to point the transmit antenna toward the earth, a boom with attached mass had to be deployed to cause gravity-gradient stabilization. But the satellite spin had to be removed before the gravity-gradient stabilization could occur—precisely because a gyroscope is not itself affected by the orbital rotation.

Ronald Hatch

Director of Navigation Systems Engineering and Principal and co-founder of NavCom Technology, Inc.
Institute of Navigation (ION), including Chair of the Satellite Division, President and Fellow.
https://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/hatch/


The Cassini spacecraft has an onboard HRG. Why did it not detect the ORBITAL CORIOLIS EFFECT (orbit of the spacecraft around the Sun)?

Vibrating gyroscopes can be used to detect the ether drift (FET, or earth rotation, RET):

http://www.ipgp.fr/~crawford/2017_EuroOBS_workshop/Resources/Robert%202014.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5464685/