.
.
‘Scientists are puzzled’ as usual when actual evidence arrives, but that’s only to be expected. Not looking good for metallic hydrogen theory?
The Current State of JUNO
The lead scientist, Dr. Scott Bolton, admits essentially that Jupiter is not a gas giant, stating ” We’re seeing a lot of our ideas were incorrect and maybe naive.” (1) Scientists are puzzled to see that the familiar striped cloud layers ‘may be’ only skin deep. These zones and belts either don’t exist or the Juno microwave instrument just isn’t sensitive to it. (2) The gravity experiment is not seeing a concentrated core at the center of the planet or a pure hydrogen interior, the two competing hypotheses, Dr. Bolton stated “and what we found was that neither are true.” Instead, the data suggests a ‘fuzzy’ core, with unexplained ‘anomalous masses’. (3) The enormously powerful ultraoviolet auroral ovals are imagined to be due to energetic particles descending around the poles, but what the Juno JEDI energetic particle detector has detected to date are streams of…
View original post 669 more words
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
We have a lot to learn and understand, just as we do with Earth’s atmosphere and how it works.
Conclusion drawn during last year: Physicists know 0 / ∞.
Jupiter’s Auroras Present a Powerful Mystery
SEPTEMBER 6, 2017
Scientists on NASA’s Juno mission have observed massive amounts of energy swirling over Jupiter’s polar regions that contribute to the giant planet’s powerful auroras – only not in ways the researchers expected.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6940
JPL: “At Jupiter, the brightest auroras are caused by some kind of turbulent acceleration process that we do not understand very well”
Inhibitors lying on the human learning switchboard:
1. false assumptions
2. intimidation
Fire the operator.
Nothing more than the devil’s finger blocks our pace.
“Comparing the processes at Jupiter and Earth is incredibly valuable in testing our ideas of how planetary physics works.”
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/jupiter
So the best guesses by the best guessers were wrong? Plus, they hedged their bets by limiting the information types gathered. And their basic assumption question was wrong, sounds like something I’ve only just heard of, a scientist may be wrong.
Having better data to work with will at least rule out some speculations.