Anisotropy and Mercury (2)

During the process of a quick edit just prior to posting, I
turned one paragraph into what can probably be describes as
illegible babble. I can't leave it that way.
----------------------

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

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.
---

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 of the 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.

In the aforementioned program, Richard Dawkins made it very clear
that _nobody_ has the right to impose their own personal morality
on anybody else. What he didn't mention is the fact that that
imposition eventually extends to one's entire version of reality.
Professor Dawkins would no doubt point the critical finger at me
for trying to impose my reality on the world. But my reality
cannot be scientifically faulted. And that reality demands
absolute compliance with the laws of nature on this planet, if
we are to survive with any purpose.

That is all an impossible dream unless we learn to live together
as one united community. Otherwise 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,

In article ,
"Max Keon" wrote:

In the aforementioned program, Richard Dawkins made it very clear
that _nobody_ has the right to impose their own personal morality
on anybody else. What he didn't mention is the fact that that
imposition eventually extends to one's entire version of reality.
Professor Dawkins would no doubt point the critical finger at me
for trying to impose my reality on the world. But my reality
cannot be scientifically faulted.


Yawn. Another loon with the sole track to truth.




--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).

Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only).

"Max Keon" wrote in message
u...
During the process of a quick edit just prior to posting, I
turned one paragraph into what can probably be describes as
illegible babble. I can't leave it that way.

You needn't have worried, I think we both want to be sure
we have the correct analysis. The pages below will help
you do that.

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

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.
---

I don't know how to get it through to George, but you are wrong
and I am right. Go and study it properly.

You are not right Max, here again are some pages for you
to study. You can find lots more through Google:

http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~romango...eleration.html

http://hep.physics.indiana.edu/~rick...inematics.html

http://www.blurtit.com/q286865.html

Also look at the "Force and Motion" topic he

http://learningcenter.nsta.org/produ...e_objects.aspx

The tutorial I have been giving you are the basic laws
of motion from which the equations you have tried to
use are derived. Those derivations no longer work when
you include anisotropy but the laws from which they came
are still valid.

George

On 3 Jun, 01:46, "Max Keon" wrote:

Let me just pick up a point that Phineas noted:

... But my reality
cannot be scientifically faulted. And that reality demands
absolute compliance with the laws of nature on this planet, ...

Your model of reality has certainly been "scientifically
faulted". What we have done is take your revised equation
for the Newtonian force and calculated the resulting
motion. Your attempted method for doing that is grossly
wrong in many ways and is at odds with the laws of nature.

Given an acceleration, which is our strating point, the
laws require that velocity is the integral of acceleration
and position is the integral of velocity. You have not done
that and consequently your conclusions are hopelessly
flawed. Correctly applying those laws of nature tells you
that, should your anisotropy exist, Mercury's eccentricity
would fall nearly exponentially to zero within a few
thousand orbits, and the effect of the "mass of the rest of
the universe" which you suggested explained the Pioneer
anomaly would reduce Mercury's mean orbital radius until it
collided with the Sun in little over a million years.

Those obviously haven't happened so, while science may not
have all the answers yet, we know for a fact that your
suggested level of anisotropy does not exist in nature.

In a previous reply, I have repeated the list of tutorials
on basic mechanics that you need to learn if you are to use
the known laws to analyse such proposals in the future.
Good luck with your studies.

George

In article .com,
George Dishman wrote:

On 3 Jun, 01:46, "Max Keon" wrote:

Let me just pick up a point that Phineas noted:

... But my reality
cannot be scientifically faulted. And that reality demands
absolute compliance with the laws of nature on this planet, ...

Your model of reality has certainly been "scientifically
faulted". What we have done is take your revised equation
for the Newtonian force and calculated the resulting
motion. Your attempted method for doing that is grossly
wrong in many ways and is at odds with the laws of nature.


Thank you George.

Although I pointed it out for a different reason, your analysis cuts to the
bone. The act of claiming that "your" way of thinking cannot be faulted is not
science, it is religion...

--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).

Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only).

"George Dishman" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 3 Jun, 01:46, "Max Keon" wrote:

Let me just pick up a point that Phineas noted:

... But my reality
cannot be scientifically faulted. And that reality demands
absolute compliance with the laws of nature on this planet, ...

Your model of reality has certainly been "scientifically
faulted". What we have done is take your revised equation
for the Newtonian force and calculated the resulting
motion. Your attempted method for doing that is grossly
wrong in many ways and is at odds with the laws of nature.

At odds with your laws of physics is more to the point.

Given an acceleration, which is our strating point, the
laws require that velocity is the integral of acceleration
and position is the integral of velocity. You have not done
that and consequently your conclusions are hopelessly
flawed. Correctly applying those laws of nature tells you
that, should your anisotropy exist, Mercury's eccentricity
would fall nearly exponentially to zero within a few
thousand orbits, and the effect of the "mass of the rest of
the universe" which you suggested explained the Pioneer
anomaly would reduce Mercury's mean orbital radius until it
collided with the Sun in little over a million years.

Those obviously haven't happened so, while science may not
have all the answers yet, we know for a fact that your
suggested level of anisotropy does not exist in nature.

I've demonstrated very clearly that the anisotropy does exist
in nature. But I can understand why it's not welcome in physics.

In a previous reply, I have repeated the list of tutorials
on basic mechanics that you need to learn if you are to use
the known laws to analyse such proposals in the future.

Basic mechanics is fine George, but what happens if an unknown
law of nature rears its ugly head and contradicts the very
foundation of your physics? Einstein's theories will be thrown
into the trash can of course. Do you expect anyone to believe
that? The ugly head will more likely be labeled an anomaly, or
paradox, or something. Then it can be business as usual again.

If just one element of reality is postulated, which means that
it cannot be explained as a natural consequence of anything
real, and is introduced as a component of reality, the reality
which is built around it is not reality at all. The whole thing
becomes a virus of faith, with the postulate as the focal point
around which all of the building blocks of reality are firmly
cemented in place. _It becomes the foundation of reality_.

If just one block contradicts the postulate, it _MUST_ be deemed
wrong if the postulate and the entire reality that's built around
it is to survive. Where have we seen that before?

A virus of faith infects every generation that it touches.

-----

Max Keon