Max Keon wrote:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
ups.com...

Max, I doubt there is much more we can discuss. You
just keep repeating statements that are grossly wrong
and I can't help you see why until you learn what vectors
are and how to manipulate them. I'll respond this time but
I doubt I'll continue much longer. Your theory does not
predict any of the things you are claiming especially the
Pioneer anomaly and galactic rotation curves. You need
to revise your basic maths and mechanics before trying
to work on this.

The maths you are using is based on logic which is not applicable
in the zero origin universe.

The maths I am using is _your _equation.

A gravity anisotropy doesn't exist
according to you, so how could it possibly not cause conflicts
when it's introduced into your maths.

Maths is a tool independent of the physics. Your
equation is supposed to tell me what effect your
anisotropy has and I have just applied that.

The maths must be designed
to incorporate such a thing.

And I assume that is what your equation does.

None of what I propose is wrong in nature. It depends entirely on
how the evidence is interpreted.

The interpretation is supposed to be stated by your
equation. The equation only produces one result
which is what I have worked out for you.

According to the info provided by John Pazmino in a reply to this
thread, posted only to sci.astro, the Pioneer anomaly is the topic
of the 2007 Isaac Asimov Debate. It takes place on 26-3-07 in the
American Museum of Natural History. "A team of expert from
astrodynamics and astronautics will sit in panel in the Museum's
LeFrak theater to argue out what the hell IS this misbehavior of
the Pioneer spacecraft."

Let's hope something positive comes out of it, like the launching
of a proper mission to test the Pioneer anomaly.

That would be nice but unlikely. You don't seem to
understand the difficulty of getting funding.

It cannot
possibly be resolved any other way. Judging by Anderson's paper
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0104064 , conclusive proof either way is
not a possibility. That will obviously not change regardless of
what happens at the conference, unless a proper test eventuates.

We've had nearly 30 years to do it, so why hasn't it been done?
Would you like me to tell you what I think?

You've done nothing else for weeks and it is based on
a fantasy world weher unlimited money is available for
launching spacecrfat without having any idea what
instruments to put on board to resolve a question in
the hope of blundering across an answer. Anderson
and Turyshev have already made a number of proposals
for new missions but they haven't yet succeeded in
making the case that sufficient scientific return would
be obtained.

It's apparent that neither of us will concede one inch of ground
regarding the Pioneer anomaly, so I'll snip most of my reply.

There is no ground to be given, the anomalous motion
of the craft is measured and you have to explain that,
not invent some non-existent tangential effect just
because you don't like the fact that energy and
momentum are being lost.

One thing that really needs to be addressed though is the
instantaneous action at a distance that was proposed by Newton
to explain why the planets don't spiral into the Sun. That is
completely wrong of course.

Yes, but GR already does that very elegantly in the
form of the metric.

GR may well have tied itself up in knots trying to explain the
reverse of what would actually happen. So the fortress may begin
to tumble down after all.

The binary star pair diagram that I previously posted
demonstrates beyond any doubt that the two stars would spiral
away from each other.

+ 0-


. (center of mass)


-0 +

Each "0" is offset to the "+" and that's where each star appears
to be according to the other. Each "+" is the focal point of
their respective orbits.


No Max, you are off into fantasy world again. The
focal point of elliptical orbits is the barycentre. The
slight effect of a delay would move them from there
so you get a diagram like this:

0-


+ . +


-0



Now we have the problem of explaining why the planets don't
eternally spiral outwards. It shouldn't be too hard to understand
that, without invoking the ridiculous.

It isn't GR does it very nicely.

Truth has now raised its ugly head, and it will never go away.

The truth is that, before Christmas, you couldn't even simplify
your own equation or understand signed velocities which is
a level of algebra that you should have matered by the age
of 12. Hopefully that problem has gone away if you studied
the web page I gave you.

Right now, the fact is that you cannot handle vectors and
don't seem to know what they are. Since the acceleration in
your equation is a vector and so is the momentum that it
changes, you are incapable of working out what your
equation (theory) tells you about orbits or anything else.

You may have set out to demolish the zero origin concept, ..

Nope. I set out to explore its consequences to see whether
there was any existing evidence either for or against. The
result was that, if it explained the Pioneer anomaly, then it
also requires the planets to spiral into the Sun, Mercury
in about 1 million years. Your theory isn't dead but the
"mass of the rest of the universe" value you use must be
small enough to avoid the demise of the planets, and that
means the effect cannot be more than a tiny fraction of
the Pioneer anomaly, well below the noise.

The best way to test your theory remains with the change
it would cause in the _eccentricity_ of Mercury's orbit
which we haven't analysed fully.

George