"George Dishman" wrote in message
ups.com...
Repeating post lost by ISP:

"Max Keon" wrote in message
...

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Max Keon" wrote in message
...

I'll try to abide by your new set of rules and use a + - switch
to identify velocity direction. I should still get the same
answer though.

You will if you stick with just one of your equations,
the changed sign inherent in using the standard
convention means you don't need to swap between c+v
and c-v.

I've updated the web page accordingly.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/pionomor.html

You still have the incorrect equations show, they should
be removed.

"According to the conventional method of identifying
gravity force direction, and the conventional method
of identifying velocity direction relative to a gravity
source, just the one equation is all that's required.
But what it attempts to describe is not as clear.
((c+v)^2/c^2)^.5*(-G*M/r^2)+(G*M/r^2)"

To anyone familiar with maths at high school level or
beyond, your versions are both incorrect and very confusing.
The Lorentz equations include ((c^2+v^2)/c^2)^.5 and it is
very easy to misread your version as that, I did for some
time before noticing what you were really saying. By far
the clearest way is to write this way:

a = (-G*M/r^2) * (1 + v/c)

Well why didn't Newton do that?

And why do you think that a = (1 + v/c) * (-G*M/r^2) + (G*M/r^2)
is not as confusing as a = ((c+v)^2/c^2)^.5*(-G*M/r^2)+(G*M/r^2)
Your simplified equation is not describing the cause of the
gravity anisotropy at all. It's very confusing in my opinion.

In the original format, as two separate equations, each equation
described very clearly how an object moving toward or away from a
gravity source will be affected. In order to achieve that goal,
there was nothing wrong with the way they were written in this
extract from the web page.

--
The equation representing an upward moving mass relative to a
gravity source is ((c+v)^2/c^2)^.5*G*M/r^2-(G*M/r^2), while
((c-v)^2/c^2)^.5*G*M/r^2-(G*M/r^2) represents a downward moving
mass. Even matter in a fixed position relative to a gravity
source is traveling outward through dimension because dimension
is traveling inward through it, hence the action of gravity.
--

It's obvious that velocity is added to or subtracted from the
speed of light. And that should be obvious to anyone at all.

It is then obvious that your are taking the conventional
Newtonian equation (-G*M/r^2) which everyone recognises
and modifying it by the (1 + v/c) term. It also makes it
clear that the result is first order where anyone looking
at your versions would see the speed appearing only as
"(c+v)^2" and assume it is second order.

While I was there, I made another attempt at finding the words
to better describe how Mercury's apparent loss of orbit momentum
is conserved when it finally comes to rest in a stable orbit that
counteracts the influence from the universe.

It is still wrong, it does not conserve the momentum. Have
you learned stuff about vector addition yet? Momentum is a
vector so you _cannot_ conserve it without dealing with the
direction issue.

Assuming you are now familiar with the scalar laws, you
next need to revise the vectors. You snipped that part:

Velocity is a vector and includes the direction so if
we think in terms of a car then we have a 2D situation
and we can define the velocity as north-south and
east-west components. For a car moving at 80km/h
going east, the velocity would be (0, 80). If it was going
west, it would be (0, -80). North is (80,0) while west is
(-80, 0). The velocity of a car moving with a speed of
80km/h in a north-easterly direction is (56.6, 56.6).

Speed is a scalar and is the magnitude of the velocity
is if an object is moving at (vn, ve) then its speed is
sqrt(vn^2 + vs^2).

This is going to be critical for resolving our disagreements
so please make sure you understand it. Note the velocities
are all shown as number pairs. Try examples in all four
quadrants to see where the components are negative and
positive:

http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/viewtopic.php?t=68

If you don't have Java installed you can get it he

http://www.java.com/en/

This doesn't use Java:

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSC...ors/u3l1b.html

You are going to need to know that maths in order to understand
the next steps.

Just as a reminder of where your theory is at the moment,
applying the equation above, either your form (the one with
the correct sign) or mine, with a value of "the mass of the
rest of the universe" taken from the Pioneer anomaly produces
a simple decay:

That is to be expected of course because the math was never
required to incorporate a velocity related gravity anisotropy.
You later claim that momentum must be immediately conserved, but
that is clearly an impossibility. There is always a time delay
involved.

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/max/Mercury.png

That rules out your model though a smaller mass which is
insufficient to explain Pioneer may allow your idea to survive
that test.

It's impossible to
justify any energy transfer between Mercury and the mass of the
surrounding universe. It must be accounted for locally.

In a collision between two objects, momentum is redistributed
between them which can be considered local.

And a time delay is involved in the process if there is any
component separation at all, even within the colliding
components themselves. It takes time to redistribute momentum.

The effect of
gravity is not local. Right now Pioneer is being slowed by
the Sun and losing momentum. If the total is to be conserved
then that has to be matched by some other equal and opposite
change at the same time.

The Sun-Pioneer relationship is fairly constant, so even though
they are both being drawn toward each other in a way the appears
to immediately conserve momentum, the ten hour signal delay is
still present. Neither the Sun or Pioneer could react instantly
if the other suddenly ceased to exist.

The gravitational effect on the Sun
does that even though the craft is more than ten light hours
away. If you abandon GR for Newton then you have what he
called "instantaneous action at a distance" and whether the
distance is ten light hours or ten light years makes no
difference. Your equation is based on -GM/r^2 which applies
instantaneously, there is no delay term in the equation.

That has always been a totally absurd statement. Of course
there's no delay term built into the equation. Why should there
be? Nature provides the delay, not mathematics. That statement
implies that math dictates how nature must behave. You can't
simply gesture hypnotically and brush the obvious truth aside,
that a time delay in the transfer of momentum in the physical
world is very clearly a part of nature.

But this has nothing whatever to do with Newton anyway. The zero
origin universe has its own very specific rules, which most
certainly don't include instantaneous action at a distance. Light
speed is the absolute limit, **for a very good reason**. Such a
time delay is certainly expected in that universe.

Energy can be almost immediately removed from interacting
charges and stored in space in the form of E/M radiation. But
gravity is equivalent to only a single wave that extends to
infinity. So there is obviously nowhere to store the energy
equivalent of Pioneer's momentum loss due to its motion
relative to the mass of the universe. Momentum is by no means
immediately conserved, but it is conserved in time.

The fact that the Pioneer anomaly exists demands that the
question be resolved, one way or another, and a dedicated mission
seems to be the only way to do that. Such a mission can tell us
**much** about the universe, and is absolutely vital to the
progress of physics.

Afterall, truth is the ultimate goal, whatever the cost. So why
waste time and money chasing rainbows if that experiment has the
potential to turn physics upside down? It needs to be resolved
before we go searching for dark matter, surely?

Many people would like to see a mission perhaps as an adjunct
to an existing plan, but spending money to chase a gas leak
or whatever when major plans are being postponed or cancelled
to fund Bush's publicity stunts is unjustifiable.

Gas leaks or not, until the Pioneer anomaly has been properly
resolved, there is no point whatever searching for the pot of
dark matter at the end of the rainbow. Which is what it all boils
down to in the end, isn't it?

A dedicated mission would seem to be absolutely essential.

-----

Max Keon