"George Dishman" wrote in message
ps.com...
On 30 May, 00:38, "Max Keon" wrote:
George Dishman wrote:
"Max Keon" wrote in message
...

I'll snip the rest and concentrate on this major error, which is
obviously the root of all of the confusion.

What you say is true for Mercury while in its stable eccentric
orbit around the Sun, so long as the anisotropy isn't included.

What I said above is true for all objects changing
speed for any reason whatsoever under any circumstances.

Certainly _not_ under any circumstances George.

Yes, under _any_ circumstances Max. The word
"acceleration" is _defined_ as rate of change
of velocity so in a short time dt the velocity
will change from an initial value v_i to a final
value v_f given by

v_f = v_i + a * dt

where a is the acceleration. v_i, v_f and a are
all vectors and can be handled as x and y
components as I do in the code. (You need z too
in general of course but our orbits are two
dimensional).

Your calculations
apply for any normal trajectory taken by an object naturally
moving to or from a gravity source.

No, it applies to _all_ motion of _any_ nature
whatsoever. That is fundamental to the whole
of dynamics and the process of integrating
acceleration to find velocity is pure maths.

You of course agree that an object in a sustainable concentric
orbit around the Sun will not shorten the radius between it and
the Sun?

Obviously since concentric just means at constant
radius.

You also agree that the radius will shorten at the full
gravity rate only if its orbital speed is zero. AND ONLY THEN?

No! You are missing the whole point. Compare two
similar but slightly different motions for Mercury.
In the first it is in a perfectly circular orbit at
some radius with an orbital speed of 48km/s:


^
|
Sun M
|

In the second we have a snapshot of part of some
more complex path when the planet is also moving
at 48km/s:

^
\
Sun M
\

The difference is in the direction of motion, not
the speed. If the angle between the two paths is
just 1 degree the Mercury will move 48000*sin(1)
or 837.7m closer to the Sun in 1 second and that
is without even considering additional acceleration
effects.

The same of course applies for an eccentric orbit.

Do you reject any of that so far?

It is virtually all wrong, you don't seem to know the
definition of acceleration and you have completely
failed to grasp the importance of the direction of
motion.

There's no point in replying to the rest of your post until
this has all been cleared up. You are repeating the same old
mistakes over and over again, again.

I'm not making any mistakes Max, everything I
said follows directly from the definition of
velocity and acceleration. The problem is that
you have forgotten about the effect of the
direction of motion and discarded fundamentals
to try to get the answer you want. Velocity is
the integral of acceleration, _always_.

The gravity force is pointing directly at the Sun, ...

Yes, and Mercury is moving almost at right angles to
that, so the major influence is to change the direction
of motion, not the speed.

so unless
Mercury falls closer to the Sun on average its orbital speed
cannot be increased. Adding a new force does not change the pull
direction, so orbital speed cannot change from the normal unless
the average radial length changes. Can you now see that?

Change of orbital speed is a secondary effect due to
the slow reduction of radius (Mercury moves faster
than the outer planets), what you are missing is that
increasing or decreasing the pull towards the Sun
changes the rate at which the direction of motion
alters. My code includes that effect and the results
follow.

I don't know how to get it through to George, but you are wrong
and I am right. Go and study it properly.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/peri.html

It seems to me that you may have a problem understanding what is
actually going on here. A gravity anisotropy is something you've
never encountered before and you are trying to explain it using
reasoning that you are accustomed to. That doesn't work.

Perhaps it might help if you realize that you are in no better
a position to see the truth than anyone else who has evolved
through any other society where "truth" has been indoctrinated
into them over many years. I use the word "indoctrinated" because
that's exactly what it is in every form of learning. One cannot
progress if they don't, at least temporarily, blindly accept
certain elements of the learning program.

But if you do know that what I say is correct, that's a whole
new ball game.

I'm going to need to elaborate quite a bit, so don't nod off.

I just happened to catch the final episode of a series, titled
"The Root Of All Evil", within the parent program "Compass" which
is aired on the ABC (Australia). Richard Dawkins of Oxford
University (you perhaps know him) highlighted the consequences
of the religious indoctrination of the young. He described it as
a virus of faith which is transmitted from the older generation
to the new. It's a never ending cycle that divides a community
and leads to a religious intolerance that extends to everyone
who is not likewise indoctrinated.

He also mentioned that even though science is constantly
falsifying the basis for creationism, the message doesn't seem
to be getting through.

The problem is, no matter what evidence science may find, it
could have been created as an integral part of the universe
while the universe was being made in the designated time of 6
or 7 days, depending what one wants to believe. So, it really
doesn't matter a damn what evidence is found.

I don't want to seem overly critical but offering the big bang
theory as an alternative reality is absolutely useless. It does
not describe how the universe began, or how it will end. All it
does is attempt to explain why the universe is what it is.

How can that constitute reality to anyone? The door is wide open.

It's about time the zero origin universe assumed the role of
explaining reality, that's what I think. That universe naturally
has a beginning which can be seen when we look back in time. We
see how the universe has evolved up until now, but we can't see
into the future to the ultimate end of the universe.

If you understood the consequences of that origin and where we
are heading, you would probably realize that life is not about
the individual or the fulfillment of one's self indulgent
desires, including working toward claiming the pot of eternal
bliss at the end of life's rainbow. All life, even in a primitive
state of evolution, is unbounded in its potential for future
development. Every bit of life in this universe has infinitely
more chance of averting the ultimate fate of everything that
exists in this universe than no life at all.

I watch my cat loafing around with no apparent purpose in life.
What is he waiting for? What is the point to the life of a tiny
amoeba floating about at the edge of a backwater? What is the
point to my life, or your life? Life may not seem to offer much
hope in the grand scheme of the universe, BUT WITHOUT IT, THERE
IS NO HOPE AT ALL. No matter how mundane a life may appear to be,
it still can be of absolute importance. Who knows what the future
consequences of its existence will be?

But there is a catch22. The demand for the planet's dwindling
resources in the rapidly developing countries is rising
exponentially. And that doesn't really take into account the
enormous future impact that 220000 plus per day world population
growth. Even a blind man could see that it MUST eventually come
to a sticky end. Choosing to ignore that obvious fact and
blundering down the same old path will lead to the self
extinction of mankind and just about everything else on the
planet. So why did we even bother in the first place.

It would have been far better for us to stay in the backwater
with the amoebas and let something else have a go.

Even though Richard Dawkins would probably tell me I have no
right to impose my own personal morality on anyone, any more than
does anyone have the right to impose their own personal morality
on me, which is invariably not just a moral issue but always
extends to the imposition of one's entire "reality", one thing is
for certain, if we can't all learn to live together as one united
community, there is not one hope in hell of us ever getting out
of the mess that we have so stupidly created here on Earth.

I don't know what the fix will be, but I do know that I won't
like it any more than will anybody else. But failure here is
not an option.

Do you now understand the importance of knowing the truth?

-----

Max Keon

You know the question, just as I did.
What is the Matrix?
Power, control,