| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Max Keon" |
| Date: |
15 May 2007 10:18:51 PM |
| Object: |
Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
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
----------------------
<P>And 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/maxkeon/the1-1a.html is the home
of the zero origin concept.
-----
Max Keon
.
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 07:31:59 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 7:52?am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On May 25, 6:25?am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On May 24, 8:54 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
How do you deal with the square root of a negative quantity, Robert?
Do you get an imaginary component?
Well, I don't recall ever having that problem with my equations, Sam.
I have never personally had to take the square root of a negative
number.
Robert B. Winn
Never comes up, I take it?
No. hasn't yet. So one thing puzzles me, Sam. Why were you trying to
tell me that a clock in an orbiting satellite runs faster than a clock
on earth?
Robert B. Winn
Because the gravitational potential is less... and gravitation affects
the time. It is called gravitational time dilation.
Robert, to account for the relativistic affects on satellite clocks,
one needs to use GTR which handles the effects beautifully. Here is an
example calculation for a satellite with a four earth radii orbit.
Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5....- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thank you for sharing, Sam. Well, I can see where you got the idea
that a clock in a satellite was faster than a clock on the ground. So
how do you explain that from the time of Einstein to the present day
scientists have claimed that time on a moving clock was slower than
time on a clock at rest?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 07:39:07 PM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1180139519.639767.224130@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 25, 7:52?am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On May 25, 6:25?am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On May 24, 8:54 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
How do you deal with the square root of a negative quantity,
Robert?
Do you get an imaginary component?
Well, I don't recall ever having that problem with my equations, Sam.
I have never personally had to take the square root of a negative
number.
Robert B. Winn
Never comes up, I take it?
No. hasn't yet. So one thing puzzles me, Sam. Why were you trying to
tell me that a clock in an orbiting satellite runs faster than a clock
on earth?
Robert B. Winn
Because the gravitational potential is less... and gravitation affects
the time. It is called gravitational time dilation.
Robert, to account for the relativistic affects on satellite clocks,
one needs to use GTR which handles the effects beautifully. Here is an
example calculation for a satellite with a four earth radii orbit.
Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5....-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thank you for sharing, Sam. Well, I can see where you got the idea
that a clock in a satellite was faster than a clock on the ground. So
how do you explain that from the time of Einstein to the present day
scientists have claimed that time on a moving clock was slower than
time on a clock at rest?
Robert B. Winn
Is a satellite in geostationary orbit 'moving' compared to us?
Is a satellite in geostationary orbit in a different gravitational potential
compared to us?
2 different questions.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 07:37:48 PM |
|
|
In article <1180139519.639767.224130@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
Thank you for sharing, Sam. Well, I can see where you got the idea
that a clock in a satellite was faster than a clock on the ground. So
how do you explain that from the time of Einstein to the present day
scientists have claimed that time on a moving clock was slower than
time on a clock at rest?
Factor in GR and SR effects separately
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
EF Taylor gives a detailed description and with some calculus you can see for
yourself...
GR says the clock in space runs faster, but then SR (the clock is moving) has
to be taken into account.
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 08:24:22 PM |
|
|
rbwinn wrote:
On May 25, 7:52?am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On May 25, 6:25?am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On May 24, 8:54 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
How do you deal with the square root of a negative quantity, Robert?
Do you get an imaginary component?
Well, I don't recall ever having that problem with my equations, Sam.
I have never personally had to take the square root of a negative
number.
Robert B. Winn
Never comes up, I take it?
No. hasn't yet. So one thing puzzles me, Sam. Why were you trying to
tell me that a clock in an orbiting satellite runs faster than a clock
on earth?
Robert B. Winn
Because the gravitational potential is less... and gravitation affects
the time. It is called gravitational time dilation.
Robert, to account for the relativistic affects on satellite clocks,
one needs to use GTR which handles the effects beautifully. Here is an
example calculation for a satellite with a four earth radii orbit.
Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5....- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thank you for sharing, Sam. Well, I can see where you got the idea
that a clock in a satellite was faster than a clock on the ground. So
how do you explain that from the time of Einstein to the present day
scientists have claimed that time on a moving clock was slower than
time on a clock at rest?
Robert B. Winn
Robert, Let's move this discussion away from the gravitation near
the earth or any other body.
Robert, consider two entities, A and B, experiencing relative motion
such that each measures dv/dt = 0 and c > |dr/dt| >> 0 with respect
to each other.
Consider observer A. A will *measure* B's clock to run slow.
Similarly, B will *measure* A's clock to run slow. And, of course,
this is expected due to the symmetric relationship between A and B.
The degree of *measured* time dilation is exactly as is predicted
by Einstein's special relativity.
Now let's put some numbers to this. Let |dr/dt| equal 10000.0 km/s.
Then A will measure B's clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056,
and B will *measure* A's clock to run slow by a factor of 1.00056.
Each measures the other's clock to run slower than her own. Robert,
time dilation can come from relative velocity *and* from gravitation.
Sometime we have to deal with both.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
24 May 2007 01:19:18 AM |
|
|
rbwinn wrote:
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
Robert--The speed of light has been measured in countless experiments
and found to be constant for all inertial observers. It is now
defined as a constant. However, there are many plenty of observations
and experiments that would detect a varying speed of light. No
dectections to date.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
24 May 2007 01:36:58 AM |
|
|
On May 23, 11:19?pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
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
Robert--The speed of light has been measured in countless experiments
and found to be constant for all inertial observers. It is now
defined as a constant. However, there are many plenty of observations
and experiments that would detect a varying speed of light. No
dectections to date.
Well, it depends on how you measure it, Sam. If you measure speed of
light in a moving system S' according to a clock that is not moving,
the result you get will be less than c. That would be the t' in the
Galilean transformation equations. If you measure the speed of light
according to a clock that is moving with S', the system in motion, you
will get c. The variable n' that I use would be the time on the
moving clock. Thank you for your interest in these equations.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
24 May 2007 01:48:42 AM |
|
|
rbwinn wrote:
On May 23, 11:19?pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
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
Robert--The speed of light has been measured in countless experiments
and found to be constant for all inertial observers. It is now
defined as a constant. However, there are many plenty of observations
and experiments that would detect a varying speed of light. No
detections to date.
Well, it depends on how you measure it, Sam. If you measure speed of
light in a moving system S' according to a clock that is not moving,
the result you get will be less than c.
Wrong again Robert! All inertial observers measure the speed of light
as c . Now it's a defined constant.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpeedofLight.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
24 May 2007 07:23:12 AM |
|
|
On May 23, 11:48?pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On May 23, 11:19?pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
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
Robert--The speed of light has been measured in countless experiments
and found to be constant for all inertial observers. It is now
defined as a constant. However, there are many plenty of observations
and experiments that would detect a varying speed of light. No
detections to date.
Well, it depends on how you measure it, Sam. If you measure speed of
light in a moving system S' according to a clock that is not moving,
the result you get will be less than c.
Wrong again Robert! All inertial observers measure the speed of light
as c . Now it's a defined constant.
Well, go ahead and define. I was using Newton's equations, which will
not adapt to your definition. Newton and Galileo were using time
based on the solar day, not scientific time.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
24 May 2007 01:45:34 PM |
|
|
rbwinn wrote:
Well, go ahead and define. I was using Newton's equations, which will
not adapt to your definition. Newton and Galileo were using time
based on the solar day, not scientific time.
Robert B. Winn
Newton's classical mechanics is excellent, Robert. But at relativistic
velocities or high gravitation, one needs the tools of general and
special relativity. Similarly to make progress at the atomic level, one
needs the quantum mechanics.
Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Newton and many others have made tremendous
advances in our understanding of how nature works. We can't stop there.
It is very rewarding to gain understanding of the modern physics. Join
in that discovery, Robert!
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
24 May 2007 10:31:20 PM |
|
|
On May 24, 11:45=EF=BF=BDam, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Well, go ahead and define. =A0I was using Newton's equations, which will
not adapt to your definition. =A0Newton and Galileo were using time
based on the solar day, not scientific time.
Robert B. Winn
=A0 =A0Newton's classical mechanics is excellent, Robert. But at relativi=
stic
=A0 =A0velocities or high gravitation, one needs the tools of general and
=A0 =A0special relativity. Similarly to make progress at the atomic level=
, one
=A0 =A0needs the quantum mechanics.
=A0 =A0Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Newton and many others have made tremendous
=A0 =A0advances in our understanding of how nature works. We can't stop t=
here.
=A0 =A0It is very rewarding to gain understanding of the modern physics. =
Join
=A0 =A0in that discovery, Robert!
OK. Well I doscovered that the time on a moving clock could be
determined from Galileo's transformation equations. Does that count
for anything?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
24 May 2007 10:49:28 PM |
|
|
rbwinn wrote:
On May 24, 11:45�am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Newton's classical mechanics is excellent, Robert. But at relativistic
velocities or high gravitation, one needs the tools of general and
special relativity. Similarly to make progress at the atomic level, one
needs the quantum mechanics.
Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Newton and many others have made tremendous
advances in our understanding of how nature works. We can't stop there.
It is very rewarding to gain understanding of the modern physics. Join
in that discovery, Robert!
OK. Well I doscovered that the time on a moving clock could be
determined from Galileo's transformation equations. Does that count
for anything?
Robert B. Winn
Since I don't believe you, what is the time dilation of a satellite
clock in a five earth radii orbit, Robert?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
21 May 2007 07:51:22 AM |
|
|
On 20 May, 23:43, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 15, 8:18?pm, "Max Keon" <maxk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
....
The simplest way to figure the orbit of a planet with Newton's
equations is with the Galillean transformation equations.
Transform change numbers in one frame to the equivalent
numbers in another frame, but since both Max and I are
using the heliocentric frame throughout, there is no
need to use any transforms at all. If they were needed
for some reason, he would probably use the Galillean
Transforms since this is supposed to be an alternative
to GR.
Newton's equations are close but not perfect and Max's
proposal is I think intended as an alternative way to
correct the error. However, his suggestion has
implications which he had not realised so it doesn't
work. Any elliptical orbit would quite quickly become
circular and then the orbit would decay into the Sun
over a longer period, about 1 million years for Mercury.
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
21 May 2007 08:53:51 AM |
|
|
On May 21, 5:51=EF=BF=BDam, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 20 May, 23:43, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 15, 8:18?pm, "Max Keon" <maxk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
...
=A0 The simplest way to figure the orbit of a planet with Newton's
equations is with the Galillean transformation equations. =A0
Transform change numbers in one frame to the equivalent
numbers in another frame, but since both Max and I are
using the heliocentric frame throughout, there is no
need to use any transforms at all. If they were needed
for some reason, he would probably use the Galillean
Transforms since this is supposed to be an alternative
to GR.
Newton's equations are close but not perfect and Max's
proposal is I think intended as an alternative way to
correct the error. However, his suggestion has
implications which he had not realised so it doesn't
work. Any elliptical orbit would quite quickly become
circular and then the orbit would decay into the Sun
over a longer period, about 1 million years for Mercury.
George
Well, I proposed what I proposed here a long time ago, and no one has
ever answered it. If t'=3Dt in the Galillean transformation equations
is takem to refer to a measurement of time common to both frames of
reference, the rotation of the earth on its axis, and n' is the time
shown on a cesium clock in S', then the Galillean transformation
equations describe the difference in time.
x=3Dwt
where w is the velocity of a photon. This means that if a photon is
emitted at the origin of S, then it will arrive at x in a time of t.
x'=3Dwn'
This equation means that if a photon is emitted at the origin of S',
then it will arrive at x' in a time of n'.
wn'=3Dwt-vt
n'=3Dt(1-v/w)
It appears to me that all that needs to be done to increase the
accuracy of Newton's equations is to convert n' to t' before using the
equations. n' is the time on a clock in S'. t' is the same as t.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
21 May 2007 12:48:16 PM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179755631.216686.263800@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 5:51?am, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 20 May, 23:43, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
....
The simplest way to figure the orbit of a planet with Newton's
equations is with the Galillean transformation equations.
Transforms change numbers in one frame to the equivalent
numbers in another frame, but since both Max and I are
using the heliocentric frame throughout, there is no
need to use any transforms at all. ...
Well, I proposed what I proposed here a long time ago, and no one has
ever answered it. If t'=t in the Galillean transformation equations
is takem to refer to a measurement of time common to both frames ...
What are "both frames"? I just told you we are only
using _one_ frame. Try to pay attention Robert.
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
22 May 2007 10:10:55 PM |
|
|
On May 21, 10:48=EF=BF=BDam, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179755631.216686.263800@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 5:51?am, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 20 May, 23:43, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
...
=A0The simplest way to figure the orbit of a planet with Newton's
equations is with the Galillean transformation equations.
Transforms change numbers in one frame to the equivalent
numbers in another frame, but since both Max and I are
using the heliocentric frame throughout, there is no
need to use any transforms at all. ...
Well, I proposed what I proposed here a long time ago, and no one has
ever answered it. =A0If t'=3Dt in the Galillean transformation equations
is takem to refer to a measurement of time common to both frames ...
What are "both frames"? I just told you we are only
using _one_ frame. Try to pay attention Robert.
George
I was using two, George. You must be another college graduate. The
fact that you use one frame of reference does not mean that another
person cannot use two.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
24 May 2007 05:58:18 PM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179889855.585620.61980@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 10:48?am, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179755631.216686.263800@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 5:51?am, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 20 May, 23:43, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
...
The simplest way to figure the orbit of a planet with Newton's
equations is with the Galillean transformation equations.
Transforms change numbers in one frame to the equivalent
numbers in another frame, but since both Max and I are
using the heliocentric frame throughout, there is no
need to use any transforms at all. ...
Well, I proposed what I proposed here a long time ago, and no one has
ever answered it. If t'=t in the Galillean transformation equations
is takem to refer to a measurement of time common to both frames ...
What are "both frames"? I just told you we are only
using _one_ frame. Try to pay attention Robert.
I was using two, George. ...
You weren't using any Robert, you just butted in on our
conversation without even having the manners to find
out what we were discussing before launching onto
your own personal hobbyhorse which is not relevant to
the current discussion.
You must be another college graduate. The fact that
you use one frame of reference does not mean that another
person cannot use two.
OK, so I'll ask again Robert, what two frames do you think
you are using?
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
24 May 2007 10:39:23 PM |
|
|
On May 24, 3:58=EF=BF=BDpm, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179889855.585620.61980@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 10:48?am, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179755631.216686.263800@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 5:51?am, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 20 May, 23:43, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
...
The simplest way to figure the orbit of a planet with Newton's
equations is with the Galillean transformation equations.
Transforms change numbers in one frame to the equivalent
numbers in another frame, but since both Max and I are
using the heliocentric frame throughout, there is no
need to use any transforms at all. ...
Well, I proposed what I proposed here a long time ago, and no one h=
as
ever answered it. If t'=3Dt in the Galillean transformation equatio=
ns
is takem to refer to a measurement of time common to both frames ...
What are "both frames"? I just told you we are only
using _one_ frame. Try to pay attention Robert.
I was using two, George. =A0...
You weren't using any Robert, you just butted in on our
conversation without even having the manners to find
out what we were discussing before launching onto
your own personal hobbyhorse which is not relevant to
the current discussion.
You must be another college graduate. =A0The fact that
you use one frame of reference does not mean that another
person cannot use two.
OK, so I'll ask again Robert, what two frames do you think
you are using?
George- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
S and S', George.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 01:57:12 AM |
|
|
On 25 May, 04:39, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 24, 3:58?pm, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179889855.585620.61980@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 10:48?am, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179755631.216686.263800@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 5:51?am, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 20 May, 23:43, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
...
The simplest way to figure the orbit of a planet with Newton's
equations is with the Galillean transformation equations.
Transforms change numbers in one frame to the equivalent
numbers in another frame, but since both Max and I are
using the heliocentric frame throughout, there is no
need to use any transforms at all. ...
Well, I proposed what I proposed here a long time ago, and no one has
ever answered it. If t'=t in the Galillean transformation equations
is takem to refer to a measurement of time common to both frames ...
What are "both frames"? I just told you we are only
using _one_ frame. Try to pay attention Robert.
I was using two, George. ?...
You weren't using any Robert, you just butted in on our
conversation without even having the manners to find
out what we were discussing before launching onto
your own personal hobbyhorse which is not relevant to
the current discussion.
You must be another college graduate. ?The fact that
you use one frame of reference does not mean that another
person cannot use two.
OK, so I'll ask again Robert, what two frames do you think
you are using?
S and S', George.
Very funny Robert, you don't have a clue, do you. Next
time find out what people are talking about before
pontificating and you might not make such embarrassing
mistakes.
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 07:32:52 AM |
|
|
On May 24, 11:57?pm, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 25 May, 04:39, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 24, 3:58?pm, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179889855.585620.61980@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 10:48?am, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179755631.216686.263800@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 5:51?am, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 20 May, 23:43, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
...
The simplest way to figure the orbit of a planet with Newton's
equations is with the Galillean transformation equations.
Transforms change numbers in one frame to the equivalent
numbers in another frame, but since both Max and I are
using the heliocentric frame throughout, there is no
need to use any transforms at all. ...
Well, I proposed what I proposed here a long time ago, and no one has
ever answered it. If t'=t in the Galillean transformation equations
is takem to refer to a measurement of time common to both frames ...
What are "both frames"? I just told you we are only
using _one_ frame. Try to pay attention Robert.
I was using two, George. ?...
You weren't using any Robert, you just butted in on our
conversation without even having the manners to find
out what we were discussing before launching onto
your own personal hobbyhorse which is not relevant to
the current discussion.
You must be another college graduate. ?The fact that
you use one frame of reference does not mean that another
person cannot use two.
OK, so I'll ask again Robert, what two frames do you think
you are using?
S and S', George.
Very funny Robert, you don't have a clue, do you. Next
time find out what people are talking about before
pontificating and you might not make such embarrassing
mistakes.
So which frame of reference do you think is a mistake, George? S or
S'?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 08:53:00 AM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1180096372.285771.247780@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 24, 11:57?pm, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 25 May, 04:39, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 24, 3:58?pm, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179889855.585620.61980@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 10:48?am, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179755631.216686.263800@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 5:51?am, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
On 20 May, 23:43, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
...
The simplest way to figure the orbit of a planet with
Newton's
equations is with the Galillean transformation equations.
Transforms change numbers in one frame to the equivalent
numbers in another frame, but since both Max and I are
using the heliocentric frame throughout, there is no
need to use any transforms at all. ...
Well, I proposed what I proposed here a long time ago, and no
one has
ever answered it. If t'=t in the Galillean transformation
equations
is takem to refer to a measurement of time common to both
frames ...
What are "both frames"? I just told you we are only
using _one_ frame. Try to pay attention Robert.
I was using two, George. ?...
You weren't using any Robert, you just butted in on our
conversation without even having the manners to find
out what we were discussing before launching onto
your own personal hobbyhorse which is not relevant to
the current discussion.
You must be another college graduate. ?The fact that
you use one frame of reference does not mean that another
person cannot use two.
OK, so I'll ask again Robert, what two frames do you think
you are using?
S and S', George.
Very funny Robert, you don't have a clue, do you. Next
time find out what people are talking about before
pontificating and you might not make such embarrassing
mistakes.
So which frame of reference do you think is a mistake, George? S or
S'?
Your mistake was in thinking that a flippant remark
could cover up your inability to answer the question.
"S" and "S'" are just letters that can be used to
label frames Robert, you haven't identified which
frames they denote. Nor are you capable of explaining
why the problem would be simpler if we used two frames
and the "Galillean transformation equations" (sic).
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 09:07:09 AM |
|
|
On May 25, 6:53?am, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1180096372.285771.247780@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 24, 11:57?pm, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 25 May, 04:39, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 24, 3:58?pm, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179889855.585620.61980@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 10:48?am, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179755631.216686.263800@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 5:51?am, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
On 20 May, 23:43, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
...
The simplest way to figure the orbit of a planet with
Newton's
equations is with the Galillean transformation equations.
Transforms change numbers in one frame to the equivalent
numbers in another frame, but since both Max and I are
using the heliocentric frame throughout, there is no
need to use any transforms at all. ...
Well, I proposed what I proposed here a long time ago, and no
one has
ever answered it. If t'=t in the Galillean transformation
equations
is takem to refer to a measurement of time common to both
frames ...
What are "both frames"? I just told you we are only
using _one_ frame. Try to pay attention Robert.
I was using two, George. ?...
You weren't using any Robert, you just butted in on our
conversation without even having the manners to find
out what we were discussing before launching onto
your own personal hobbyhorse which is not relevant to
the current discussion.
You must be another college graduate. ?The fact that
you use one frame of reference does not mean that another
person cannot use two.
OK, so I'll ask again Robert, what two frames do you think
you are using?
S and S', George.
Very funny Robert, you don't have a clue, do you. Next
time find out what people are talking about before
pontificating and you might not make such embarrassing
mistakes.
So which frame of reference do you think is a mistake, George? S or
S'?
Your mistake was in thinking that a flippant remark
could cover up your inability to answer the question.
"S" and "S'" are just letters that can be used to
label frames Robert, you haven't identified which
frames they denote. Nor are you capable of explaining
why the problem would be simpler if we used two frames
and the "Galillean transformation equations" (sic).
George- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No, it was no mistake, George. If you have a valid objection to
denoting two frames of reference S and S', then let's hear them. In
mathematics it would not matter what the two frames of reference
denote. The mathematics would be the same no matter what is denoted
by the frames of reference. The Galilean transformation equations
show two frames of reference.
x,y, and z are coordinates in S. t is time in S. x', y', and z' are
coordinates in S'. t' is time in S'.
So now we find that our clock is running slower in S'.
n'=t(1-v/w)
n' is the time on a clock in S'.
It is wonderful to find a scientist such as yourself who is willing
to find the mistake in these equations. So just go ahead now and show
the mistake.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 09:23:33 AM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1180102029.415033.161990@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On May 25, 6:53?am, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1180096372.285771.247780@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 24, 11:57?pm, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 25 May, 04:39, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 24, 3:58?pm, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179889855.585620.61980@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 10:48?am, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179755631.216686.263800@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 5:51?am, George Dishman
<geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
On 20 May, 23:43, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
...
The simplest way to figure the orbit of a planet with
Newton's
equations is with the Galillean transformation
equations.
Transforms change numbers in one frame to the equivalent
numbers in another frame, but since both Max and I are
using the heliocentric frame throughout, there is no
need to use any transforms at all. ...
Well, I proposed what I proposed here a long time ago, and
no
one has
ever answered it. If t'=t in the Galillean transformation
equations
is takem to refer to a measurement of time common to both
frames ...
What are "both frames"? I just told you we are only
using _one_ frame. Try to pay attention Robert.
I was using two, George. ?...
You weren't using any Robert, you just butted in on our
conversation without even having the manners to find
out what we were discussing before launching onto
your own personal hobbyhorse which is not relevant to
the current discussion.
You must be another college graduate. ?The fact that
you use one frame of reference does not mean that another
person cannot use two.
OK, so I'll ask again Robert, what two frames do you think
you are using?
S and S', George.
Very funny Robert, you don't have a clue, do you. Next
time find out what people are talking about before
pontificating and you might not make such embarrassing
mistakes.
So which frame of reference do you think is a mistake, George? S or
S'?
Your mistake was in thinking that a flippant remark
could cover up your inability to answer the question.
"S" and "S'" are just letters that can be used to
label frames Robert, you haven't identified which
frames they denote. Nor are you capable of explaining
why the problem would be simpler if we used two frames
and the "Galillean transformation equations" (sic).
No, it was no mistake, George. If you have a valid objection to
denoting two frames of reference S and S', then let's hear them.
Call them what you like, the question is what two
frames are you suggesting would make it easier to
solve the problem Max and I are discussing and why.
In
mathematics it would not matter what the two frames of reference
denote. ....
Of course, but Max and I are discussing _physics_ in
which we apply the generalities of math to specific
situations. In the situation in question, we only
need one frame and contrary to your uninformed
interjection, using two frames would only make the
problem more complex.
Next time, find out what is being talked about first
or you will just make a fool of yourself again.
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 09:31:43 AM |
|
|
On May 25, 7:23?am, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1180102029.415033.161990@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On May 25, 6:53?am, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1180096372.285771.247780@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 24, 11:57?pm, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 25 May, 04:39, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 24, 3:58?pm, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179889855.585620.61980@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 10:48?am, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179755631.216686.263800@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 5:51?am, George Dishman
<geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
On 20 May, 23:43, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
...
The simplest way to figure the orbit of a planet with
Newton's
equations is with the Galillean transformation
equations.
Transforms change numbers in one frame to the equivalent
numbers in another frame, but since both Max and I are
using the heliocentric frame throughout, there is no
need to use any transforms at all. ...
Well, I proposed what I proposed here a long time ago, and
no
one has
ever answered it. If t'=t in the Galillean transformation
equations
is takem to refer to a measurement of time common to both
frames ...
What are "both frames"? I just told you we are only
using _one_ frame. Try to pay attention Robert.
I was using two, George. ?...
You weren't using any Robert, you just butted in on our
conversation without even having the manners to find
out what we were discussing before launching onto
your own personal hobbyhorse which is not relevant to
the current discussion.
You must be another college graduate. ?The fact that
you use one frame of reference does not mean that another
person cannot use two.
OK, so I'll ask again Robert, what two frames do you think
you are using?
S and S', George.
Very funny Robert, you don't have a clue, do you. Next
time find out what people are talking about before
pontificating and you might not make such embarrassing
mistakes.
So which frame of reference do you think is a mistake, George? S or
S'?
Your mistake was in thinking that a flippant remark
could cover up your inability to answer the question.
"S" and "S'" are just letters that can be used to
label frames Robert, you haven't identified which
frames they denote. Nor are you capable of explaining
why the problem would be simpler if we used two frames
and the "Galillean transformation equations" (sic).
No, it was no mistake, George. If you have a valid objection to
denoting two frames of reference S and S', then let's hear them.
Call them what you like, the question is what two
frames are you suggesting would make it easier to
solve the problem Max and I are discussing and why.
In
mathematics it would not matter what the two frames of reference
denote. ....
Of course, but Max and I are discussing _physics_ in
which we apply the generalities of math to specific
situations. In the situation in question, we only
need one frame and contrary to your uninformed
interjection, using two frames would only make the
problem more complex.
Next time, find out what is being talked about first
or you will just make a fool of yourself again.
George- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, all right, George, suppose we say that S is the sun, and S' is
Mercury. Does that apply to the problem that you said you were
working?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 10:00:50 AM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1180103503.513059.45260@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On May 25, 7:23?am, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1180102029.415033.161990@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On May 25, 6:53?am, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1180096372.285771.247780@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 24, 11:57?pm, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
On 25 May, 04:39, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 24, 3:58?pm, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179889855.585620.61980@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 10:48?am, "George Dishman"
<geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179755631.216686.263800@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 5:51?am, George Dishman
<geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
On 20 May, 23:43, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
...
The simplest way to figure the orbit of a planet with
Newton's
equations is with the Galillean transformation
equations.
Transforms change numbers in one frame to the
equivalent
numbers in another frame, but since both Max and I are
using the heliocentric frame throughout, there is no
need to use any transforms at all. ...
Well, I proposed what I proposed here a long time ago,
and
no
one has
ever answered it. If t'=t in the Galillean transformation
equations
is takem to refer to a measurement of time common to both
frames ...
What are "both frames"? I just told you we are only
using _one_ frame. Try to pay attention Robert.
I was using two, George. ?...
You weren't using any Robert, you just butted in on our
conversation without even having the manners to find
out what we were discussing before launching onto
your own personal hobbyhorse which is not relevant to
the current discussion.
You must be another college graduate. ?The fact that
you use one frame of reference does not mean that another
person cannot use two.
OK, so I'll ask again Robert, what two frames do you think
you are using?
S and S', George.
Very funny Robert, you don't have a clue, do you. Next
time find out what people are talking about before
pontificating and you might not make such embarrassing
mistakes.
So which frame of reference do you think is a mistake, George? S or
S'?
Your mistake was in thinking that a flippant remark
could cover up your inability to answer the question.
"S" and "S'" are just letters that can be used to
label frames Robert, you haven't identified which
frames they denote. Nor are you capable of explaining
why the problem would be simpler if we used two frames
and the "Galillean transformation equations" (sic).
No, it was no mistake, George. If you have a valid objection to
denoting two frames of reference S and S', then let's hear them.
Call them what you like, the question is what two
frames are you suggesting would make it easier to
solve the problem Max and I are discussing and why.
In
mathematics it would not matter what the two frames of reference
denote. ....
Of course, but Max and I are discussing _physics_ in
which we apply the generalities of math to specific
situations. In the situation in question, we only
need one frame and contrary to your uninformed
interjection, using two frames would only make the
problem more complex.
Next time, find out what is being talked about first
or you will just make a fool of yourself again.
Well, all right, George, suppose we say that S is the sun, and S' is
Mercury.
OK, now you're getting the idea, those would be
perfectly reasonable definitions.
Does that apply to the problem that you said you were
working?
The values x and y are the location of Mercury
relative to the Sun so they are in S.
The values vx and vy are the velocity of Mercury
relative to the Sun so they are in S.
The values ax and ay are the acceleration of Mercury
relative to the Sun so they are in S.
The magnitude of the Newtonian acceleration is
a = -G M / r^2
where r is the distance from Mercury to the Sun.
None of the variables represent measurements relative
to Mercury so nothing is in S'.
I don't see how changing to calculate the motion of
the Sun relative to Mercury as well as calculating
the motion of Mercury relative to the Sun of would
make the writing the program any easier but that's
what you claimed at the start of this.
I don't think you even looked at the code or knew
which frame the variables were in when you butted
in, but go ahead and justify your statement if you
can, I'm all for making the work easier as long as
it still gives an accurate answer.
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 08:18:48 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 8:00?am, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1180103503.513059.45260@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On May 25, 7:23?am, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1180102029.415033.161990@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On May 25, 6:53?am, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1180096372.285771.247780@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 24, 11:57?pm, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
On 25 May, 04:39, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 24, 3:58?pm, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179889855.585620.61980@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 10:48?am, "George Dishman"
<geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179755631.216686.263800@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 5:51?am, George Dishman
<geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
On 20 May, 23:43, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
...
The simplest way to figure the orbit of a planet with
Newton's
equations is with the Galillean transformation
equations.
Transforms change numbers in one frame to the
equivalent
numbers in another frame, but since both Max and I are
using the heliocentric frame throughout, there is no
need to use any transforms at all. ...
Well, I proposed what I proposed here a long time ago,
and
no
one has
ever answered it. If t'=t in the Galillean transformation
equations
is takem to refer to a measurement of time common to both
frames ...
What are "both frames"? I just told you we are only
using _one_ frame. Try to pay attention Robert.
I was using two, George. ?...
You weren't using any Robert, you just butted in on our
conversation without even having the manners to find
out what we were discussing before launching onto
your own personal hobbyhorse which is not relevant to
the current discussion.
You must be another college graduate. ?The fact that
you use one frame of reference does not mean that another
person cannot use two.
OK, so I'll ask again Robert, what two frames do you think
you are using?
S and S', George.
Very funny Robert, you don't have a clue, do you. Next
time find out what people are talking about before
pontificating and you might not make such embarrassing
mistakes.
So which frame of reference do you think is a mistake, George? S or
S'?
Your mistake was in thinking that a flippant remark
could cover up your inability to answer the question.
"S" and "S'" are just letters that can be used to
label frames Robert, you haven't identified which
frames they denote. Nor are you capable of explaining
why the problem would be simpler if we used two frames
and the "Galillean transformation equations" (sic).
No, it was no mistake, George. If you have a valid objection to
denoting two frames of reference S and S', then let's hear them.
Call them what you like, the question is what two
frames are you suggesting would make it easier to
solve the problem Max and I are discussing and why.
In
mathematics it would not matter what the two frames of reference
denote. ....
Of course, but Max and I are discussing _physics_ in
which we apply the generalities of math to specific
situations. In the situation in question, we only
need one frame and contrary to your uninformed
interjection, using two frames would only make the
problem more complex.
Next time, find out what is being talked about first
or you will just make a fool of yourself again.
Well, all right, George, suppose we say that S is the sun, and S' is
Mercury.
OK, now you're getting the idea, those would be
perfectly reasonable definitions.
Does that apply to the problem that you said you were
working?
The values x and y are the location of Mercury
relative to the Sun so they are in S.
The values vx and vy are the velocity of Mercury
relative to the Sun so they are in S.
The values ax and ay are the acceleration of Mercury
relative to the Sun so they are in S.
The magnitude of the Newtonian acceleration is
a = -G M / r^2
where r is the distance from Mercury to the Sun.
None of the variables represent measurements relative
to Mercury so nothing is in S'.
I don't see how changing to calculate the motion of
the Sun relative to Mercury as well as calculating
the motion of Mercury relative to the Sun of would
make the writing the program any easier but that's
what you claimed at the start of this.
I don't think you even looked at the code or knew
which frame the variables were in when you butted
in, but go ahead and justify your statement if you
can, I'm all for making the work easier as long as
it still gives an accurate answer.
George- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, Mercury is in the frame of reference of Mercury. A cesium clock
on Mercury would be in the frame of reference of Mercury. So an
observer on Mercury would look at a clock on Mercury and say, This
clock shows time in the frame of reference of Mercury. That is one
way to look at the time on Mercury. Another way to look at the time
on Mercury is the way the Galilean transformation equations say time
takes place on Mercury. Since we agree that the sun is frame of
reference S, we can agree that it takes a certain amount of time for
the sun to rotate on its axis, measuring this rotation at the equator
of the sun, as the sun rotates more slowly at its poles. According to
scientists, it takes 24.5 days for the sun to rotate once. The fact
remains that if an observer is on Mercury or on earth, in the frame of
reference of the sun, the sun rotates once on its axis every 24.5
days. Consequently, measurement of time as specified in the Galilean
transformation equations does not refer to the time on a clock on
Mercury because time on that clock will not coincide with a clock
which is at rest relative to the sun. The Galilean transformation
equations are saying, t'=t, or in other words, the sun rotates the
same number of degrees if we compensate for Mercury's orbit around the
sun, as observed from Mercury as it does from the sun. Time on
Mercury can be the same as time on earth. It does not have to be the
time on a clock on Mercury. If we measure time on Mercury by a solar
day instead of by a clock on Mercury, the Galilean transformation
equations are valid.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
Now scientists may believe this too inconvenient, etc., but it is
nevertheless true. Now if we take a clock such as Einstein described
in motion in the x direction relative to S, The Galilean equations
tell us this:
x=wt where w is the velocity of light.
This means that a photon emitted at the origin of S will be at x
at a time of t. Einstein used this equation in the form of x=ct to
prove that the Lorentz equations satisfied the results of the
Michelson-Morley experiment. Then Einstein used the equation x'=ct'
to show that the Lorentz equations satisfied the results of the
Michelson-Morley experiment in S'. We cannot do that if we are using
the Galilean transformation equations because t' is already defined as
t. We need a new variable to show time on a clock in S'.
x'=wn'
This equation says that a photon emitted at the origin of S' will
be at x' at a time of n'.
x'=x-vt
wn'=wt-vt
n'=t(1-v/w)
So if you are using a clock on Mercury to calculate the velocity of
Mercury, the planet will have a different velocity than if you
calculate the velocity using solar time as shown in the Galilean
transformation equations. Newton and Galileo both assumed that time
was absolute. What I have been wondering for many years is how n' as
calculated from the Galilean transformation equations compares with
experimental data. For a long time until about a month ago I tried to
call n' by t' until I finally realized that I was using the Galilean
transformation equations, which scientists said they had discarded 150
years ago, to get n'.
Scientists use a distance contraction to keep the velocity the
same with two different times. I use t'=t, meaning that S is a
preferred frame of reference and clock time on Mercury is not given by
t', but by n'.
Newton's equations came from Kepler's equation for orbits of
planets which did not exactly describe those orbits to start with, but
was close enough that Newton did not hesitate to substitute it into
his equation for centripetal force.
I find it easier to believe that an observer on Mercury calculates
a different velocity for Mercury than an observer on earth than I do
to believe that the orbit of Mercury is shortened by a distance
contraction because of the movement of Mercury.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 05:12:18 AM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1180142323.886174.68620@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 25, 8:00?am, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1180103503.513059.45260@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On May 25, 7:23?am, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1180102029.415033.161990@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On May 25, 6:53?am, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1180096372.285771.247780@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 24, 11:57?pm, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
On 25 May, 04:39, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 24, 3:58?pm, George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179889855.585620.61980@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 10:48?am, "George Dishman"
<geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179755631.216686.263800@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 5:51?am, George Dishman
<geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 20 May, 23:43, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
...
The simplest way to figure the orbit of a planet
with Newton's
equations is with the Galillean transformation
equations.
....
What | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
