sci.physics.relativity

"George Dishman" wrote in message
news:a4Sdnblx9c-t3FDbRVnyjwA@ ...
> Max Keon wrote:
>> George Dishman wrote:
>>> Max Keon wrote:

>>>> How can "every source" possibly say anything relating to a
>>>> gravity anisotropy when a gravity anisotropy has never been
>>>> represented in mathematics?
>>>
>>> Because you have expressed that anisotropy as an
>>> acceleration and the relationship between acceleration,
>>> velocity and location are fixed by their definitions.
>>>
>>>> You alone have chosen the maths to suit the outcome you want.
>>>
>>> There is no possible choce to make Max, acceleration
>>> is DEFINED and the rate of change of velocity
>>
>> Well why do you have such a problem understanding why you are
>> wrongly applying the anisotropy?

> I am applying as your equation dictates - I have
> no choice.

You profess to know all about the consequences of a gravity
anisotropy when you obviously can't. You have never had reason
to address such a thing in the past, and the course you've chosen
is the one that gives the best result for your purpose. But your
method of applying the anisotropic acceleration is totally wrong.
You are adding it to the naturally flowing acceleration in a
naturally occurring eccentric orbit. Which is of course nothing
more than a circular orbit that has been knocked off center.

Can you not see that?

One thing that you have never given a satisfactory explanation
for is why Mercury's fall to its previous perihelion radius is
prematurely halted as a consequence of a gravity anisotropy.
Perhaps if you try demonstrating that mathematically, it will
help you to understand why you are wrong. You will come to
realize that Mercury's orbital speed cannot be fast enough to
generate the required centrifugal force to prematurely halt its
fall and whiz it back out toward the aphelion because the
anisotropy has caused it to be drawn more slowly to the Sun
throughout the inward journey, so by the time Mercury reaches
the point of last perihelion, it has obviously fallen less
distance than normal and is traveling at a lesser speed than
normal. So how on earth does it turn around and go back out
again.

You will open up a whole new universe for me if you can prove
that it does, where nothing is impossible, or predictable.

>> The rate of change of velocity
>> in the direction along which the force is applied, being directly
>> toward the Sun, _and only directly toward the Sun,_ is exactly
>> what it should be. Your own _personal_ assumption that the force
>> points in other directions as well is completely false.

> I am applying it exactly towards the Sun. A long
> time ago I spent several weeks trying to get you
> to clarify the direction and eventually I gathered
> that was what you meant though you were never
> entirely clear on the point.
>
> The program calculates the _magnitude_ of the
> anisotropy using (v_r/c) times the Newtonian value
> and assumes the direction is the same as the
> Newtonian force, . directly towards the Sun.

Yes, and that's probably why you are confused. Your program is
designed _only_ to plot a natural orbit path, _even circular_.
The Newtonian acceleration is no doubt pointing directly at the
Sun throughout the entire orbit, but directly adding the
anisotropy in the way you have done is still wrong.

My method may not yet be precise, but you are millions of meters
away from your claim of precision within 1 meter.
---

>>> All I will suggest is that you break your program at the
>>> one quarter and three quarter orbit points and check
>>> for yourself whether the anisotropy is increasing or
>>> decreasing the Newtonian acceleration. I think you
>>> will find it is the same in both cases when they should
>>> differ. Don't take my word for it, check.
>>
>> There's no doubt about it George.

> Then do the test I suggest and find out.

I recently made the mistake of not doing such a test before
jumping to conclusions and I'm not about to do it again just
yet. But thanks anyway.

>> The physical sign manipulation
>> is essential because the required equations always give a
>> positive result even when the anisotropy becomes negative.
>>
>> Just in case you've forgotten;
>>
>> dt = 1
>> ana = 1
>> # = (ana^2 * dt)^.5 is always 1.

> This is just another example of your problems with
> simple maths. You are again taking the root of a
> square
>
> # = (ana^2 * dt)^.5
>
> is the same as
>
> # = ana * sqrt(dt)

(ana^2 * dt)^.5 is only part of the equation. The proper
equation is derived from a^2 + b^2 = c^2. It becomes
s = (v^2 + ana^2)^.5 if dt is removed (s is the updated orbital
speed).

> But why are you calculating that in the first place?

I'm trying to determine the orbital speed changes according to
the path taken when the anisotropy is included as compared with
the unaffected path. I've used Pythagoras to do that.

Previous orbital speed
______________________
- _ l Anomalous
New orbital speed - l acceleration


I don't need you to tell me that I'm wrong either, only that
it's not the way you would do it. But we already know that.

I've included the program that was designed to demonstrate the
true effect of an anomalous change in gravity, and it does so
exceptionally well. It demonstrates that the orbiting mass
behaves exactly as it should according to the forces acting on
it, with centrifugal force rising to twice the anomalous force
before the falling mass can be halted and sent back out again.

You will notice that I've treated the "previous orbital speed"
as if it was tangential to the gravity source, but that is of
virtually no consequence. The largest error is an adjacent length
of instead of 48000. The hypotenuse length
change due to the anomalous acceleration is not going to change
much if I use the extended length, is it.

This program justifies the method I'm now using to include the
anisotropy in your program.

I've added comments within the program. Feel free to reply to
them.

'-------------
' Control_break halts the program at any time.

' The program plots the natural oscillation of a mass that was
' in a stable circular orbit prior to the application of a sudden
' anomalous change in the pull of gravity. The program ends after
' a complete orbit cycle.

' The same oscillation would not be set up by a gravity
' anisotropy because it's applied in a sine wave fashion.
' The fall distance would follow the same sine wave but would
' always lag behind.

' The inward moving mass overshoots the balance point between
' centrifugal force and the inward force by twice the current
' fall distance. Centrifugal force needs to be, and is, double
' the anomalous inward force that drives it before it has gained
' the required force to halt the moving mass and send it back
' from whence it came. It's an entirely elastic operation.

DEFDBL A-Z
SCREEN 12
CLS : COLOR 7
'-----------
LINE (176, 280)-(261, 280), 8 ' Shows the scale distortion.
LINE (261, 280)-(261, 358), 8
LINE (176, 280)-(261, 358), 8
LINE (150, 240)-(185, 284), 10
LINE (200, 360)-(200, 450), 8
LOCATE 20, 30: PRINT "313000"
LOCATE 18, 26: PRINT " "
LOCATE 15, 10: PRINT " degrees"
'-----------
r = 58000000000# ' Orbit radius.
g = .04# ' Gravity per Newton.
v = 48000#
vv = v ' vv holds the original orbital speed.

an = .0000008# ' Anomalous gravity change (m/sec^2).
' -.0000008# gives the negative result.

dt = 100 ' Set dt as required.

aa:
f = f + 1 ' Program cycle count.
ana = ana + dt * cfx ' Stores the current fall rate.
' cfx is later defined.
anb = anb + dt * ana ' Stores the total fall distance.

'-------The physical sign manipulation is necessary because the
' result of (ana)^2 is always positive, whatever the sign on ana,
' and orbital speed continues to increase regardless of the true
' value stored in ana.

IF anc >= anb THEN s = (v ^ 2# - ((ana) ^ 2 * dt)) ^ .5#
IF anc < anb THEN s = (v ^ 2# + (ana ^ 2 * dt)) ^ .5#
' s is updated orbital speed.
' The manner in which dt is included gives exactly the same result
' for all values of dt, including dt = 1. Remove dt from the
' equations altogether if it causes confusion.

' The point is that it can't be wrong because it always gives the
' same result as with no dt at all.

anc = anb
'-------------------

v = s
' v holds the updated orbital speed for the next cycle.

cf = v ^ 2# / vv ^ 2# * g ' cf is centrifugal force.

cfx = g + an - cf ' Compares the inward force including
' the anomalous acceleration, with the current centrifugal force
' value. The result gives the true acceleration rate, which is
' added to ana, above.

CIRCLE (10 + f * dt / 16000, 280 + anb / 4000), 0, 14
' 16000 and 4000 are multipliers for the graphics.

IF f * dt > 7603200 THEN GOSUB ab: END
fa = fa + 1: IF fa * dt > 10000 THEN GOSUB ab: fa = 0

GOTO aa

ab: LOCATE 4, 1
PRINT f * dt; "seconds elapsed time. "
PRINT ana; "meter fall per"; dt; "second batch. "
PRINT anb; "meter total fall so far. "
PRINT s - vv; "m/sec orbital speed change from the normal. "
PRINT cf; "m/sec^2 centrifugal force. "
LOCATE 24, 18
PRINT r - anb; "radius. "
RETURN

'---------------------

/maxkeon/
has been updated slightly.
---

>>> Dark matter is non-baryonic so new physics would not
>>> be surprising, it is an exciting prospect indeed. The best
>>> handle we have so far seems to be the Bullet Cluster
>>> where the two clumps of dark matter associatated with
>>> the galaxies have passed through each other.
>>
>> And the latest evidence doesn't comply with that.

> Cite the paper please.

/pub_releases/2007-08/
seems to indicate that the Abell 520 system "train wreck" is not
as previously noted, as in the Bullet Cluster where the "dark
matter" and galaxies have stayed together.

>>>> Einstein's theories cannot explain what nature is clearly
>>>> demonstrating, so they break down if some reason for the anomaly
>>>> is not forthcoming.
>>>
>>> You seem confused. It is the gravitational lensing of
>>> Einsein's theory that provides the tool we use to
>>> investigate dark matter. Lensing of more distant
>>> objects allows us the map the distribution of the
>>> dark matter.
>>
>> How can a fact of nature be taken aside and labeled "Einstein's
>> theory" ?

> What I labelled "Einstein's theory" gives us the maths
> that describes that aspect of Nature.

>> Such lensing was obviously going to be present long
>> before Einstein came along. It _is_ a fact of nature you know.

> Of course.

>> Anyway, what makes you think the lensing is causes by dark
>> matter?

> Dark matter just means something that has mass but
> doesn't interact with light, it is a 'catch all'
> generic term and deliberately vague.

>> Why not something that nature predicts, like a black
>> hole(s)?

> Because microlensing surveys should detect them.
> The find some events but not enough.

How do you differentiate between dark matter and black holes?

-----

Max Keon