"Max Keon" wrote in message
...

"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.
....
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. ...

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.

Then when I use your equation, it will tell me what will
happen in the zero origin universe. That's what I do and
the result is a consequence you didn't anticipate and don't
like, but that's what it is.

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

Sure, and then the equation tells us what will happen to
the planets in your universe - they spiral into the Sun.
Theories often have consequences that weren't anticipated
by their originators. Planck could never have known the
consequences of his original lecture on quantisation as a
solution to black body radiation.

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?

Several million dollars hard.

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

Sure, but that gets you no farther forward in identifying
the _cause_ of the effect. What instrumentation are you
proposing to fly to determine that?

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

Maybe, but that would mean changing a Neptune mission
to remove attitude control by thrusters and redesigning
an existing mission - who is going to pay for that? Why
would the mission agree to remove instruments designed
to study Neptune and replace them with instruments to
study the anomaly? Who would refund the cost of the
unused Neptune instruments? As I say, you seem to live
in a fantasy world of unlimited funds.

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.

Then you need to tell everyone what instruments you are
going to fly and how it will resolve one theory over
another. First though you need to have a competing theory
to test that doesn't send the planets into the Sun as your
equation does at present.

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.

It was in Newton's.

The planets would naturally spiral outwards,
not inwards, and would always fall into a natural orbit
somewhere.

Nope, they spiral forever. You really need to go back
and learn vectors if you want to join in science groups.

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.

No, you have screwed it up again so I restored what
I wrote. Go and learn vectors, then read up on the
two-body problem

The apparent position of each
star is along a direct line through each barycenter.

The distance from the star to the focal point of
its orbit is much less than that to the other star.

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.

Except yours.

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.

No thanks, I like the Earth where it is.

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.

In which case the anisotropic force pushes the body
in the same direction regardless of the direction of
motion, the opposite of what you told me.

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.

Yes, gravity is always towards the other body but
the anisotropic part changes direction depending on
the velocity. Your two equations say the anisotropic
part is always in the _same_ direction.

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?

For anyone who understands maths, it conveys it more
clearly than your version, but as long as you keep the
same equation you at least get the direction of the
anisotropy correct.

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,

That's fine, but energy is being removed by the anisotropy
immediately, it is up to you to say where it goes.

so the force
remains like a spring ..

No it isn't. A spring always pulls in the same direction
like gravity but your anisotropy changes direction. A
spring removes and stores energy while being stretched
and returns it while being relaxed because the force is
in the same direction as the speed. Your anisotropy
absorbs energy (and could store it though you haven't
said) while the bodies move apart, but when they move
towards each other, the force changes direction so still
opposes the velocity and continues to remove more energy.

There is no direction of motion in which energy is returned
to the body so the anisotropic force is not elastic.

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.

As is energy.

But still no energy has been
transferred away from what can only be a locally closed system.

You could hypothesise that the energy and momentum
are stored somewhere locally but that is for you to
work out.

The momentum loss immediately converts to potential energy, which
in turn slowly converts to kinetic energy.

Wrong, momentum and energy are not interchangeable, they
are separate quantities, both of which must be separately
conserved (as must the three spatial components of momentum).

According to your maths, that process continues until Mercury
hits the Sun in a million years or so.

No, according to _your_ equation, that's what happens.
I just applied it for you without making your mistake
of confusing energy and momentum.

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

You won't be able to work out what it does until you
learn how to handle vectors, differential equations and
the difference between energy and momentum.

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 did and people were trying to resolve it for 200
years until Einstein found the solution.

It's a little disconcerting to think that
Newton chose the impossible over the obvious, ..

What you think is "obvious" doesn't work, and Newton
knew that, he invented the physics that you should
have learned at school which would stop you making
these errors.

George