"Max Keon" wrote in message
u...

"George Dishman" wrote in message
ups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
George Dishman wrote:
---
How many times do I have to point out that your equation
does not permit the anisotropy to be elastic? You say that
the force is slowing Pioneer as it leaves the Sun but it
would push Pioneer away if it was approaching the Sun. Both
those reduce the energy of the craft so it nevers recovers
what is lost.

You've switched from the universe generated anisotropy for
Mercury to the local anisotropy generated in the Sun-Pioneer
relationship. That's hardly relevant to the "elastic sheet"
comparison in the universe generated anisotropy for Mercury.

The "elastic sheet" model is a way of thinking about the
metric of GR. Your equation(s) would be like friction
between body and the sheet.

That's completely unrelated. GR describes your universe George,
it plays no role in mine.

I agree so let's lay it aside.

Pioneer is not in orbit around the Sun, so that argument becomes
totally disjointed.

The anisotropy must obey your equation regardless. You
said there was no effect from the tangential component
so a planet in a circular orbit would not feel any anisotropic
force. Please correct that if you have changed your mind.

That means that whether we are looking at Mercury or
Pioneer, we only need to consider the radial part of the
velocity when working out the anisotropic force.

Both the Sun generated radial component and the universe
generated component are active simultaneously, but each component
needs to be analyzed separately.

Again I agree, what I am trying to do is get you to
confirm which way the force acts so that we can do
a basic analysis of a two-body problem. Once we have
that, we can extend it to more complexe situations
such as including the "rest of the universe".

In the case of Pioneer, the
universe generated anisotropy is the anomaly.

I understand that part of your ideas, I just want to
make sure I have correctly understood what you are
saying for the direction of the anisotropic effect
when a body is moving towards the Sun. Why can't
you just say yes or no to whether I have that part
right?

....
If Pioneer, or Mercury due to its eccentric orbit, is moving
away from the Sun, there will be a gravitational effect which
will slow that outward motion. There is only one effect but
we can split it into two parts, the conventional effect given
by GR or, to a reasonable approximation, by Newton's Law,
and your extra anisotropic part. You have agreed that the
extra part slows the object more, thus it shows up in Pioneer
as an excess slowing of the craft, it isn't speeding up. I
believe you don't dispute that, we are in agreeement. It is
an indisputable fact that Pioneer is currently losing energy
due to the effect of the anomaly and your equation says
the same.

If Pioneer never returns to this place in the universe, energy
will be permanently lost in time (a long time) ..

Pioneer is losing energy due to the anomaly today, and
that is what your equation says for a body moving away
from the Sun. That part is not in dispute, I just need
to know what your theory says if Pioneer was moving
towards the Sun, then I can do the analysis.

...
If Pioneer was moving towards the Sun, I think you have also
made it clear that the anisotropic force would point the other
way and what you said above matches that:

If the anomaly points in opposite directions on the outward and
inward legs, that would rule out systematic errors as a possible
cause.

What that means is that the conventional part of gravity
pulls towards the Sun so causes the object to increase
its speed towards the Sun as it approaches. Your words
tell me that the effect of the anisotropic force would be
to reduce that effect, the object would speed up slightly
less than expected. Is that right, or do you think it would
speed up _more_ than the conventional theory?

The description at the above link tells the story.

No, it is still contradictory. Your two equations say
it pushes the body away from the Sun but then you give
the single version I wrote which says it pulls the body
towards the Sun. I just want you to tell me which way
the force acts, towards or away? It's a simple question
Max, why can't you clear up the confusion?

I'll snip the rest until we get this sorted out because what
your theory predicts depends critically on your answer.

I think the critical test is for you to prove I'm wrong in this
part that you snipped.

Sure, but as I have said several times now, I can't
reply sensibly until you decide which direction the
force is pointing.

It would also apply for Pioneer if it was
in orbit around the Sun.

----------
I'll shift course to Mercury's eccentric
orbit in the Sun-Mercury relationship.

No energy can be immediately absorbed by the Sun either, and
the Sun-Mercury link is a closed system. The orbit velocity
slowing caused by the anisotropy on the trip to the aphelion
immediately converts to potential energy which in turn converts
to kinetic energy as the orbit trajectory curves more to the Sun
than would normally be expected. Momentum can only be conserved
by the Sun being pulled slightly toward Mercury.

Orbit velocity increases as Mercury falls, until centrifugal
forces build to counteract the effect of the anisotropy. When it
reaches what should be the aphelion, its orbit velocity is
greater than that required to maintain the orbit radius because
the anisotropy would be zero if it followed that radius. So it
continues on its outward trajectory a little further.

On the trip to the perihelion, the pull to the Sun is lessened.
Mercury's trajectory then falls away from the Sun as it slows
and centrifugal forces decrease. Momentum can only be conserved
by the Sun moving slightly away from Mercury.

When Mercury reaches the 180 degree mark from its last aphelion
position, it will be at a greater radius from the Sun than would
normally be expected and it will be traveling slower. So it will
continue to fall to the Sun until its velocity is such that
centrifugal forces again counteract the fall.
----------

_The only energy loss is in the advance of the perihelion._

The advance of the perihelion doesn't change the energy,
it only causes the ellipse to slowly move round to point
in a different direction.

There is a direction change in the orientation of the ellipse
relative to the universe. That is a change in momentum.

The direction of motion of the planet (hence of its
momentum) changes by 360 degrees in every orbit. At
any instant, the momentum points in the direction of
the tangent to the ellipse. However, we were talking
about energy, not momentum. You still seem to have
trouble keeping these ideas separate. You snipped this:

Energy and momentum and distinct, separate quantities
which cannot be converted from one to the other. Each
is separately conserved. The same is true of the three
quantities that go to make up momentum. In familiar
terms, the amount of momentum in the east-west direction
must be conserved, so must that in the north-south
direction and also in the up-down direction. Again all
three must be individually conserved, they are not
interchangeable.

George