"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Max Keon" wrote in message
u...
George Dishman wrote:
Max Keon wrote:
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?

He didn't have your (1+v/c) term because it doesn't
exist.

But you said his equations included ((c^2+v^2)/c^2)^.5

Other than that, we now take calculus for
granted as something we all learnt at school while
he had to invent it, so in explaining the physics
he had to write in a much more detailed way. I can
write "a" above and you know I mean acceleration
which is the second derivative.

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)

It would be, why have you added an extra term? The
total acceleration in your theory is

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

of which the Newtonian part is

a = (-G*M/r^2)

and the anisotropy is

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

Add the two together to get the total.
------

--
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.

Sure, but if you add a positive number or subtract a
negative number, the result has the same sign. Your
equations may look pretty to you but they give the
wrong answer.

You seem to be quite adamant that you can't understand my
meaning unless velocity to and from a gravity source is signed
differently. If I use the single equation, it's very confusing
when applied for the universe generated anisotropy. The two
equations are simultaneously active, as a = (-G*M/r^2) * (v/c)
and a = (-G*M/r^2) * (v/c). v is of course negative in one of
them, but I'm not permitted to show which one. Using just the one
equation, v is both positive and negative and thus cancels to
become zero.

Three cheers for mathematics, the universe is once again saved.
You can call them one equation if you like, but they are no such
thing.
------

snip stuff on vectors, it is too advanced at the moment

Your vectors would need to include instantaneous conservation of
momentum at a distance. And that is obviously wrong.
------

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.

That is true in GR but not in the Newtonian gravity
that you are modifying.

This is a whole new ball game based on gravity in the zero origin
universe. It has nothing to do with Newton.

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.

Don't be stupid Max, you know that in order to work,
the maths must be a model of nature. If nature has a
delay, that must be reflected in the maths.

Then why isn't it? The delay obviously exists in nature.

That statement
implies that math dictates how nature must behave.

No, it says the maths must be written to reflect nature.

????

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.

Then change your maths to show that delay.

The universe generated gravity anisotropy depends on there being
a delay _in nature_. The maths assumes that the delay exists.

You assume the existence of dark matter because it ties in with
the maths. I assume the existence of a delay in action at a
distance because the maths requires it. It's also the only
logical conclusion, and is a direct prediction as well.

What you
will find is something Newton knew, that it will
produce aberration of the gravitational force and
again cause the planets to spiral into the Sun. He
didn't like the instantaneous nature of forces but
he knew he had no choice if his maths was to work.

I think he should have put more thought into the physical side of
the problem instead of letting the maths confuse him.

This is a binary star pair. 0 are their instantaneous positions,
while + is where each appears to be. They will spiral away from
each other, losing momentum, and their orbit velocities will slow
until they reach a stable orbit radius. The only consequence is
that they would be orbiting a little slower than the maths would
predict. _But that couldn't be noticed because the masses of the
stars are determined by orbit velocity_.

Why do you think they would continue to lose momentum and spiral
together?

+ 0-


-0 +

If the next scenario was possible, the stars would gain
additional momentum as they are driven inward, and would thus
continuously spiral away from each other.

+ 0-


-0 +

Is that how you see it?

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 word "conserved" means it has the same value
AT ALL TIMES.

Pioneer's velocity will continue to slow and that will cause it
to be drawn in the direction of the focal point of its trajectory
path radius, and the Sun. Its momentum is not (immediately)
conserved, but it isn't lost forever. When its fall rate
in the direction of the Sun and focal point is equal to the
slowing rate applied by the universe in its direction of motion,
all energy would be accounted for.

If Pioneer was in a circular orbit around the Sun it would
eventually arrive at a stable orbit radius, where it would be
orbiting faster than your maths would suggest.

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?

Dark matter does not explain the Pioneer anomaly,

No, but the Pioneer anomaly explains why your search for dark
matter is futile. It's essential that some effort be put in to
prove that the anomaly is in fact nothing more than a glitch in
the system. Until that is done, the search for dark matter is a
waste of time. If the Pioneer anomaly is real, then so is the
zero origin universe.

and
your idea doesn't explain either that or galactic
rotation curves.

That's just hand waving George. If the anisotropy exists, then it
explains those things, and much more.

However, you skills in maths are a
long way short of being able to manipulate the equations
to the point where you can follow the derivations. Either
you start learning stuff like this or you will be stuck
with taking my word for it (or that of others). It is
basic arithmetic that you should have learnt at least in
your first years of senior school so I don't know how you
could have missed out:

It has been a long time, but I know what I'm doing even if you
don't. You'll see the light eventually.

-----

Max Keon