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

But you are using my equation in the wrong universe.

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.

Don't be ridiculous. Did the maths invent the big bang universe,
or did that universe determine how the maths would be applied?
If theory predicts a CMBR, the maths is applied accordingly. If
a gravity anisotropy is predicted, the maths is applied
accordingly. But when maths starts predicting things to fill
holes in a theory, that is cause for alarm, _don't you think_?
Such a thing would leave us completely in the dark.

The maths must be designed
to incorporate such a thing.

And I assume that is what your equation does.

It certainly does in the zero origin universe.

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.

You are still in the wrong universe. My equation doesn't design
the zero origin universe, the universe designs the equation.

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.

How hard would it be to send exactly the same Pioneer 10-11
configuration on a trip to Neptune and back? How hard would it be
to detect the anomalous acceleration on the outward and inward
legs? How hard would it be to notice that one is pointing in the
opposite direction to the other, relative to the Sun? Whatever is
the cause, there should be some sort of anisotropy evident in the
result.

It would be best if the new Pioneer's trajectory path for both
legs was as close as possible to a direct line between the Sun
and Neptune. And measurements only need to be taken between the
Uranus orbit radius and Neptune, where the anomaly is clearly
evident.

There must surely be something else we need to know about Neptune
while Pioneer is out there?

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.

The scientific return is that theoretical physics has been put
to the test and has emerged victorious. Or it has failed. The
anomaly will remain a thorn in the side of physics while it's
left unresolved. All progress of any consequence will in fact
cease.

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.

But GR's amazing feat is quite irrelevant anyway because
instantaneous action at a distance was never a requirement in
anybody's gravity. The planets would naturally spiral outwards,
not inwards, and would always fall into a natural orbit
somewhere.

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 +

I've fixed the diagram for you. The apparent position of each
star is along a direct line through each barycenter.

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.

As does everyone else's theory.

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.

Perhaps you should try living in my world for a while.

Anyway; This is how I described the cause of the anisotropy at
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/pionomor.html

---------
The story unfolds as a direct consequence of a universe which
came into being from absolutely nothing, a zero origin universe
in fact. In that universe, light doesn't actually propagate
anywhere, but it does move relative to a base that is set by the
combined input from all local matter, anywhere, i.e. the Earth.
According to the laws of that universe, the entire dimension
surrounding every bit of matter in the universe is shifting
inward into its own gravity well at the rate of (G*M/r^2)*2
meters in each second and is updated at the speed of light.
Meaning that its acceleration capability diminishes to zero for
anything moving at light speed toward its center of mass. The
shift rate of dimension is necessarily twice the shift rate of
the matter that the moving dimension carries along with it,
otherwise there would be no driving mechanism available to
perform the task.

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.

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)
---------

That entire description is very easy to follow, for anybody,
right down to the final correction. I choose to not simplify it
because that would diminish its purpose. Why should I turn it
into this, v/c(-GM/r^2) ? That is certainly how it should be
used, but does it in any way represent the message I'm trying to
convey? It will stay as it is for now.

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.

That wasn't the case at all. I'll try to explain each step of the
process in some detail (for my own benefit).

The conclusion was that no energy (or momentum) can be
immediately absorbed by the matter of the universe, so the force
remains like a spring which is applying a constant restraining
force on Mercury's orbital motion. That action will of course
initially slow Mercury, which in turn will begin a slow
acceleration toward the Sun. As you say, that reaction cannot be
elastic, and momentum is lost. But still no energy has been
transferred away from what can only be a locally closed system.
The momentum loss immediately converts to potential energy, which
in turn slowly converts to kinetic energy.

According to your maths, that process continues until Mercury
hits the Sun in a million years or so. But that's not the case at
all because centrifugal forces increase at a squaring rate per
velocity increase, while the orbit velocity is slowed at a linear
rate. When Mercury has fallen so far that it's orbit velocity per
orbit radius is such that the freefall rate to the Sun is
3.2e-9m/sec^2 greater than it would normally be for the orbit
radius (orbiting faster than expected according to your maths),
the added centrifugal force will counteract the elastic force
applied by the universe. Mercury will be thrown outwards as fast
as it falls inwards.

http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/merc-un.gif

That's exactly why the planets arrive at a stable orbit
regardless of where the barycenter may be wandering, in a
_closed system_.

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.

The eccentricity would not be affected by the universe generated
gravity anisotropy at all when Mercury arrives at a stable orbit.

The need for instantaneous action at a distance to overcome the
problem of the planets spiraling into the Sun should have
sounded alarm bells. It's a little disconcerting to think that
Newton chose the impossible over the obvious, that he really
didn't understand gravity at all. GR just sidesteps the issue.

-----

Max Keon