Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury.

On May 20, 8:13 pm, rbwinn wrote:
On May 20, 6:03?pm, Eric Gisse wrote: On May 20, 5:49 pm, rbwinn wrote:
[snip junk]

Well, I do not know of any school in existence teaching anything else
but one speed of light. ?They do not discuss Newton's equations used
in this manner. ?If you ever get tired of listening to what they say,
just post this, and they do not answer.

That is because it is crap, you ignorant welder.

Go back to whatever you were doing, because you are most certainly not
wanted in any of the newsgroups you crosspost garbage to.

Not wanted? That is certainly an elitist point of view. Well, since
you have an opinion about what I post, why don't you back up what you
say with some proof that what I say is so wrong that people like you
should not want me posting my ideas?
That seems a little undemocratic, Eric. Have you ever read the
preamble for this newsgroup?
It seems to me that the best thing for you to do would be to post your
proof that there was a mistake in what I said.
Robert B. Winn

No. I'm not wasting anymore time detailing exactly why you are wrong.
People have done it countless times over the previous decade. My time
is more effectively used by watching paint dry, or inhaling paint as
it dries.

Your obsession with classical mechanics is amazingly boring and
uninteresting. You kook out over trivial ****, and ignore a decades
worth of explanations why you are completely and utterly wrong.

Now go away. If you want to read a rebuttal, pick something random
from the ten ****ing years of idiocy you have posted.

On May 20, 9:15�pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 20, 8:13 pm, rbwinn wrote:





On May 20, 6:03?pm, Eric Gisse wrote: On May 20, 5:49 pm, rbwinn wrote:
[snip junk]

Well, I do not know of any school in existence teaching anything else
but one speed of light. ?They do not discuss Newton's equations used
in this manner. ?If you ever get tired of listening to what they say,
just post this, and they do not answer.

That is because it is crap, you ignorant welder.

Go back to whatever you were doing, because you are most certainly not
wanted in any of the newsgroups you crosspost garbage to.

Not wanted? *That is certainly an elitist point of view. *Well, since
you have an opinion about what I post, why don't you back up what you
say with some proof that what I say is so wrong that people like you
should not want me posting my ideas?
That seems a little undemocratic, Eric. *Have you ever read the
preamble for this newsgroup?
It seems to me that the best thing for you to do would be to post your
proof that there was a mistake in what I said.
Robert B. Winn

No. I'm not wasting anymore time detailing exactly why you are wrong.
People have done it countless times over the previous decade. My time
is more effectively used by watching paint dry, or inhaling paint as
it dries.

Your obsession with classical mechanics is amazingly boring and
uninteresting. You kook out over trivial ****, and ignore a decades
worth of explanations why you are completely and utterly wrong.

Now go away. If you want to read a rebuttal, pick something random
from the ten ****ing years of idiocy you have posted.- Hide quoted text -

Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement. I
remember posting that before.
Robert B. Winn

On May 20, 9:23 pm, rbwinn wrote:
On May 20, 9:15?pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 20, 8:13 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 20, 6:03?pm, Eric Gisse wrote: On May 20, 5:49 pm, rbwinn wrote:
[snip junk]

Well, I do not know of any school in existence teaching anything else
but one speed of light. ?They do not discuss Newton's equations used
in this manner. ?If you ever get tired of listening to what they say,
just post this, and they do not answer.

That is because it is crap, you ignorant welder.

Go back to whatever you were doing, because you are most certainly not
wanted in any of the newsgroups you crosspost garbage to.

Not wanted? ?That is certainly an elitist point of view. ?Well, since
you have an opinion about what I post, why don't you back up what you
say with some proof that what I say is so wrong that people like you
should not want me posting my ideas?
That seems a little undemocratic, Eric. ?Have you ever read the
preamble for this newsgroup?
It seems to me that the best thing for you to do would be to post your
proof that there was a mistake in what I said.
Robert B. Winn

No. I'm not wasting anymore time detailing exactly why you are wrong.
People have done it countless times over the previous decade. My time
is more effectively used by watching paint dry, or inhaling paint as
it dries.

Your obsession with classical mechanics is amazingly boring and
uninteresting. You kook out over trivial ****, and ignore a decades
worth of explanations why you are completely and utterly wrong.

Now go away. If you want to read a rebuttal, pick something random
from the ten ****ing years of idiocy you have posted.- Hide quoted text -

Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement. I
remember posting that before.
Robert B. Winn

Waaah. WAAAAAAAH.

I know what I am talking about. Saying "****" doesn't change that.

On May 20, 9:33�pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 20, 9:23 pm, rbwinn wrote:





On May 20, 9:15?pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 20, 8:13 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 20, 6:03?pm, Eric Gisse wrote: On May 20, 5:49 pm, rbwinn wrote:
[snip junk]

Well, I do not know of any school in existence teaching anything else
but one speed of light. ?They do not discuss Newton's equations used
in this manner. ?If you ever get tired of listening to what they say,
just post this, and they do not answer.

That is because it is crap, you ignorant welder.

Go back to whatever you were doing, because you are most certainly not
wanted in any of the newsgroups you crosspost garbage to.

Not wanted? ?That is certainly an elitist point of view. ?Well, since
you have an opinion about what I post, why don't you back up what you
say with some proof that what I say is so wrong that people like you
should not want me posting my ideas?
That seems a little undemocratic, Eric. ?Have you ever read the
preamble for this newsgroup?
It seems to me that the best thing for you to do would be to post your
proof that there was a mistake in what I said.
Robert B. Winn

No. I'm not wasting anymore time detailing exactly why you are wrong.
People have done it countless times over the previous decade. My time
is more effectively used by watching paint dry, or inhaling paint as
it dries.

Your obsession with classical mechanics is amazingly boring and
uninteresting. You kook out over trivial ****, and ignore a decades
worth of explanations why you are completely and utterly wrong.

Now go away. If you want to read a rebuttal, pick something random
from the ten ****ing years of idiocy you have posted.- Hide quoted text -

Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement. *I
remember posting that before.
Robert B. Winn

Waaah. WAAAAAAAH.

I know what I am talking about. Saying "****" doesn't change that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, I don't really think that you do know what you are talking
about. You don't seem to know much about profanity.
Robert B. Winn

On May 20, 10:27 pm, rbwinn wrote:

[...]


Well, I don't really think that you do know what you are talking
about. You don't seem to know much about profanity.
Robert B. Winn

I know plenty about profanity. I simply don't need the full spectrum
of my knowledge to deal with you.

Ditto for physics. You are tripped up over simple ****. Newtonian
gravity is not a valid model for reality, and hasn't been for 150
years - its' faults have been known for _that ****ing long_. Galilean
relativity is not a valid model for reality, either.

Consider getting an education in physics instead of mewling about
stuff you don't understand.

"rbwinn" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 20, 4:47?pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"rbwinn" wrote in message

ups.com...
On May 15, 8:18?pm, "Max Keon" wrote:

This post, along with the pretty pictures, is stored at
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/peri.html
------------------

Mercury's perihelion advance in a zero origin universe.

In the zero origin universe, the entire dimension surrounding
every bit of matter in the universe is shifting inward into its
own gravity well at the rate of (GM/r^2) (times two) 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. As a consequence,
the gravity force on matter moving toward a gravity source will
be decreased, and will be increased for outward moving matter.

The equation representing the anisotropy is v/c(GM/r^2).

The force of gravity is determined by GM/r^2. The altered
gravity force generated by the anisotropy is equivalent to a
variation in the mass of the Sun, and that can be determined
by Ma = (GM/r^2 + an) * r^2 / G . 'an' is the anisotropy.

The velocity required to hold anything in a sustainable
concentric orbit for the normal Sun mass is determined by
(GM/r)^.5, and that becomes (G*Ma/r)^.5 for the updated Sun mass.
So, for an anisotropy of e.g. 8e-7 m/sec^2 and a radius of 5.8e10
meters, v for each is 47838.2691995 and 47838.7541644
respectively. That's a mass increase ratio of 1.000010138 to 1.

If the normal gravity rate is 3.94569e-02 m/sec^2, adding the
anisotropy to that = 3.94577e-2, then taking the square root of
that result and dividing it by the square root of the normal rate
gives a 1.000010138 to 1 ratio. The reason why it's the same
as the previous ratio should be fairly obvious.

The velocity change from the normal is essential in determining
Mercury's true fall rate due to the anisotropy, and since the
latter method is by far the more convenient, that's the one I've
chosen to use.

The next step is to determine Mercury's fall rate now that it's
traveling too slowly to maintain a stable orbit. Mercury would
fall zero distance to the Sun under the influence of normal
gravity while orbiting at 47838.27 m/sec. The minute added force
is going to change that only _very_ slightly, as is clearly
shown in this graph.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/falrate.jpg

When Mercury arrives at the 180 degree mark from the point of
last perihelion orientation in the Sun's inertial frame, it
arrives 1.19e-3 meters short of the true aphelion radius, and it
will continue to rise until it reaches that radius.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/arc7.jpg

12907 meters is the straight line travel distance from where
Mercury resides at the 180 degree mark, where the aphelion was
to be. The distance to the aphelion radius would be considerably
more than is shown because Mercury's trajectory can't point
directly at the aphelion and then abruptly change course when it
reaches its target. Its rise will slow as it nears the peak.

Mercury's position at the 360 degree mark is 1.058e-3 meters
beyond the perihelion radius. The distance from that point to the
tangent point of the perihelion radius is 9866 meters. That too
is a little short of the true perihelion advance because Mercury
is not falling directly to that point.

12907 + 9866 = 22773 meter perihelion advance per orbit. The
observed shift is 27118 meters. That shortfall can certainly be
accommodated.

The only other apparent contribution of any significance seems
to be the advance caused by Mercury being held at a lesser radius
for a longer time than normal on the rise to the aphelion radius,
and at a greater radius for a longer time than normal on the fall
back. The contribution is fairly insignificant though, only 110
meters per orbit.

This analogy should demonstrate my point.
If the pull of gravity is reduced at aphelion, so that Mercury
is held in a concentric orbit around the Sun, the aphelion will
continue to advance at the current orbit velocity until the pull
of gravity is increased. That will be the updated aphelion. If
the pull of gravity is increased at perihelion so that Mercury
is held in a concentric orbit around the Sun the perihelion will
continue to advance at the current orbit velocity until the pull
of gravity is reduced.

The same will apply proportionally for even the slightest
anomaly in the pull of gravity, anywhere at all during the orbit
cycle.

This is part 1 of the program that generated the numbers I've
been quoting. It can be extended to cover the entire orbit, but
that's not really valid because the anisotropy reduces to zero
when radial motion ceases at turnaround and everything is back
to normal, so Mercury must rise to the aphelion radius before it
begins the return journey.

-------------------

'Mercury's aphelion advance in 1 second steps

DEFDBL A-Z
CLS
c = 299792458#
G = .0000000000667#
M = 1.99D+30
ra = 46000000000#
rb = 70000000000#
r = 55240000000#
pi = 3.1416#
v = (G * M / r) ^ .5#
br = r

aa: aa = SIN(f * pi / 180#)
a = COS(f * pi / 180#)
ovel = a * 10000# + v
b = 58000000000# - a * 12000000000# 'actual radius.
IF f 0 THEN ba = bb - b
bb = b
bc = bc + ba 'must equal -2.4e10 meters at the end.
rvel = -ba

an = rvel / c * (-G * M / b ^ 2#)

grava = G * M / b ^ 2#
gravb = grava + an 'an is negative.
ratio = gravb ^ .5 / grava ^ .5
ovelb = ovel * ratio

fall = (ovelb - ovel) ^ 2 / ovelb ^ 2 * an

ana = ana + fall
anb = anb + ana
anc = anc + ana * ovel

f = f + .00004735#

fa = fa + 1
IF fa = 21120 THEN fa = 0: GOSUB ab
IF f 180 THEN GOSUB ab: END

GOTO aa

ab: PRINT "Ctrl_Break halts the program at any time."
PRINT
PRINT INT(f); "degrees."
PRINT ovel; "m/sec orbit velocity."
PRINT rvel; "m/sec radial velocity."
PRINT b; "meter orbit radius."
PRINT an; "true anisotropy."
PRINT fall; "m/sec^2 actual radius change rate."
PRINT anb; "meter total radius change so far."
'PRINT bc; "meter (radial velocity test. 2.4e10 at end)."
PRINT anc; "meter aphelion advance per velocity."
PRINT
RETURN

----------------------
PAnd part 2 (they are two individual programs). /P
----------------------

'Mercury's perihelion advance in 1 second steps

DEFDBL A-Z
CLS
c = 299792458#
G = .0000000000667#
M = 1.99D+30
ra = 46000000000#
rb = 70000000000#
r = 55240000000#
pi = 3.1416#
v = (G * M / r) ^ .5#
br = r

f = 180

aa: aa = SIN(f * pi / 180#)
a = COS(f * pi / 180#)
ovel = a * 10000# + v
b = 58000000000# - a * 12000000000# 'actual radius.
IF f 180 THEN ba = bb - b
bb = b
bc = bc + ba 'must equal 2.4e10 meters at the end.
rvel = -ba

an = rvel / c * (-G * M / b ^ 2#)

grava = G * M / b ^ 2#
gravb = grava + an 'an is positive.
IF f 180 THEN ratio = gravb ^ .5 / grava ^ .5
ovelb = ovel * ratio

IF f 180 THEN fall = (ovelb - ovel) ^ 2 / ovelb ^ 2 * an

IF f 180 THEN ana = ana + fall
anb = anb + ana
anc = anc + ana * ovel

f = f + .00004735#

fa = fa + 1
IF fa = 21120 THEN fa = 0: GOSUB ab
IF f 360 THEN GOSUB ab: END

GOTO aa

ab: PRINT "Ctrl_Break halts the program at any time."
PRINT
PRINT INT(f); "degrees."
PRINT ovel; "m/sec orbit velocity."
PRINT rvel; "m/sec radial velocity."
PRINT b; "meter orbit radius."
PRINT an; "true anisotropy."
PRINT fall; "m/sec^2 actual radius change rate."
PRINT anb; "meter total radius change so far."
'PRINT bc; "meter (radial velocity test. 2.4e10 at end)."
PRINT anc; "meter perihelion advance per velocity."
PRINT
RETURN

------------------------

These are the final results from each program.

0 to 180 degrees.
39018.79377747644 m/sec orbit velocity.
-.06585693359375 m/sec radial velocity.
69999999999.70139 meter orbit radius.
5.950639390486846D-12 true anisotropy.
7.179020689981973D-32 m/sec^2 actual radius change rate.
-1.190269684003358D-03 meter total radius change so far.
-52.05059130021925 meter aphelion advance per velocity.

180 to 360 degrees.
59018.79377619071 m/sec orbit velocity.
.1387176513671875 m/sec radial velocity.
46000000001.24426 meter orbit radius.
-2.90251365219588D-11 true anisotropy.
-1.553589704780447D-30 m/sec^2 actual radius change rate.
1.057712343670121D-03 meter total radius change so far.
58.14226684403394 meter perihelion advance per velocity.

Even though the velocity related advance generated by the first
program carries a negative sign the advance is still positive.
The above analogy should explain why.

Note that the total change to the orbit radii per orbit is
2.25e-3 meters. At that rate, Mercury would fall to the Sun by
only 4 million kilometers in a billion years. But if it was to
do so, it would mean that the process is not elastic, and there
could be no perihelion advance.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxke...1-1a.htmlisthe home
of the zero origin concept.

-----

Max Keon

The simplest way to figure the orbit of a planet with Newton's
equations is with the Galillean transformation equations. These
equations along with Newton's equations for gravitation were thrown
out by scientists when it was discovered that a clock in S', the
moving frame of reference, is slower than a clock in S, the system at
rest.
It can now be seen that scientists were a little hasty in their
rejection of these equations.
Scientists used Newton's equations with an idea of absolute time
where time did not vary anywhere regardless of motion or gravitation.
This was represented by the Galillean transformation
equations.

x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t

The fact is that the Galillean transformation equations can be used
to represent relativity of time if t' is not represented to be time on
a clock in S'. Instead of basing time on transitions of a cesium
molecule isotope, we can base time on transitions of something common
to both frames of reference such as the rotation of the earth or
rotation of the sun. Then, obviously, the number of rotations
measuring time in one frame of reference is equal to the same number
of rotations in the other frame of reference, so t'=t. Therefore we
cannot use t' as time on a clock in S' because it is already
representing rotation common to both frames of reference. We have to
use another variable for clock time in S' which we will call n'. We
therefore know that a clock in S will show a time of t for a photon to
go from the origin of S to x. This is represented by the equation

x=wt
where w is the velocity of the photon. If x' is negative, then w = -
c.
A clock in S' will show a time of n' for a photon to go from the
origin of S' to x'.
x'=wn'
Since there is no distance contraction in the Galillean
transformation equations, we can therefore say

wn'=wt-vt
n'=t(1-v/w)

The way this clock time relates to the equations that have been
used since Einstein is

w=x/t=x'/n'= (x-vt)/(t-vt/w)=(x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/c^2)gamma

If this clock time in S' is converted to t'=t before use in Newton's
equations for gravitation, the equations should give an accurate
description of the perihelon of Mercury.
Newton's equations are correct whether scientists choose to use
them or not.
Robert B. Winn

You are confusing "scientist" with "one-speed-of-light-only ****wit"

Well, I do not know of any school in existence teaching anything else
but one speed of light. They do not discuss Newton's equations used
in this manner. If you ever get tired of listening to what they say,
just post this, and they do not answer.
Robert B. Winn


Do you know that biologists, chemists, geologists, etc. etc. are scientists?
You are confusing "scientist" with "one-speed-of-light-only ****wit"

"rbwinn" wrote in message ps.com...
On May 20, 9:15?pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

[snip]

Now go away. If you want to read a rebuttal, pick something random
from the ten ****ing years of idiocy you have posted.- Hide quoted text -

Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement. I
remember posting that before.
Robert B. Winn

Saying "Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a
strong statement" is the attempt of an even weaker mind to
make a strong statement.

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"rbwinn" wrote in message
ps.com...
On May 20, 9:15?pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

[snip]

Now go away. If you want to read a rebuttal, pick something random
from the ten ****ing years of idiocy you have posted.- Hide quoted
text -

Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement. I
remember posting that before.
Robert B. Winn

Saying "Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a
strong statement" is the attempt of an even weaker mind to
make a strong statement.

Actually, saying "Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a
strong statement" is the attempt of an even weaker mind to
make no statement at all.

"Jeckyl" wrote in message ...
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...

"rbwinn" wrote in message ps.com...
On May 20, 9:15?pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

[snip]

Now go away. If you want to read a rebuttal, pick something random
from the ten ****ing years of idiocy you have posted.- Hide quoted text -

Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement. I
remember posting that before.
Robert B. Winn

Saying "Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a
strong statement" is the attempt of an even weaker mind to
make a strong statement.

Actually, saying "Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a
strong statement" is the attempt of an even weaker mind to
make no statement at all.

Sorry, too late:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...Profanity.html

Dirk Vdm

On May 20, 11:02�pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 20, 10:27 pm, rbwinn wrote:

[...]



Well, I don't really think that you do know what you are talking
about. *You don't seem to know much about profanity.
Robert B. Winn

I know plenty about profanity. I simply don't need the full spectrum
of my knowledge to deal with you.

Ditto for physics. You are tripped up over simple ****. Newtonian
gravity is not a valid model for reality, and hasn't been for 150
years - its' faults have been known for _that ****ing long_. Galilean
relativity is not a valid model for reality, either.

Consider getting an education in physics instead of mewling about
stuff you don't understand.

It seems accurate enough to me. What I like about Newton's equations
and the Galillean transformation equations is that they do not have a
distance contraction.
Persistence in profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to become
weaker.
Robert B. Winn