| 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: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
27 May 2007 03:44:17 PM |
|
|
On May 27, 5:41 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[...]
Freedom. Eric. I am still free to think for myself.
Robert B. Winn
Yet to see any evidence of the thinking.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 08:21:58 PM |
|
|
In article <1180142323.886174.68620@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
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)
That is the DOPPLER EFFECT equation
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 08:22:31 PM |
|
|
In article <1180142323.886174.68620@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
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.
That's because you do not understand the physics
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 08:40:18 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 6:18 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[snip pages and pages of drek]
Stay out of sci.physics.*, you idiot.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 09:04:40 PM |
|
|
rbwinn wrote:
Well, Mercury is in the frame of reference of Mercury. A cesium clock
on Mercury would be in the frame of reference of Mercury.
In relativity, proper time is time measured by a single clock between
events that occur at the same place as the clock. Mercury is a good
place.
Proper Time
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ProperTime.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 04:05:32 AM |
|
|
On May 25, 7:04?pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Well, Mercury is in the frame of reference of Mercury. A cesium clock
on Mercury would be in the frame of reference of Mercury.
In relativity, proper time is time measured by a single clock between
events that occur at the same place as the clock. Mercury is a good
place.
Proper Time
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ProperTime.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time
Well, Mercury might have a little more global warming than earth,
Sam. Most scientists are cold people. You might like Jupiter better.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 02:42:25 PM |
|
|
rbwinn wrote:
On May 25, 7:04?pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
In relativity, proper time is time measured by a single clock between
events that occur at the same place as the clock. Mercury is a good
place.
Proper Time
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ProperTime.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time
Well, Mercury might have a little more global warming than earth,
Sam. Most scientists are cold people. You might like Jupiter better.
Robert B. Winn
Surprise Robert--Mercury gets colder than Jupiter!
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 07:26:24 PM |
|
|
On May 26, 12:42=EF=BF=BDpm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On May 25, 7:04?pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
=A0 =A0In relativity, proper time is time measured by a single clock b=
etween
=A0 =A0events that occur at the same place as the clock. Mercury is a =
good
=A0 =A0place.
=A0 =A0Proper Time
=A0 =A0 =A0http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ProperTime.html
=A0 =A0 =A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time
Well, Mercury might have a little more global warming than earth,
Sam. =A0Most scientists are cold people. =A0You might like Jupiter bett=
er.
Robert B. Winn
=A0 =A0Surprise Robert--Mercury gets colder than Jupiter!
Well, I did not know that. So how cold does it get on Mercury?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 09:12:57 AM |
|
|
In article <1180102029.415033.161990@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
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.
You didn't even read his question
you haven't identified which
frames they denote.
--
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 10:33:42 AM |
|
|
rbwinn wrote:
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.
Why two frames, Robert? Why not three? Why not one? Why are
*you, Robert,* choosing two? Why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 08:22:46 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 8:33?am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
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.
Why two frames, Robert? Why not three? Why not one? Why are
*you, Robert,* choosing two? Why?
Well, I was using two because Einstein used two to describe special
relativity.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 08:39:34 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 6:22 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 8:33?am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
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.
Why two frames, Robert? Why not three? Why not one? Why are
*you, Robert,* choosing two? Why?
Well, I was using two because Einstein used two to describe special
relativity.
Robert B. Winn
Don't talk about special relativity, you don't even understand
classical mechanics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 08:42:58 PM |
|
|
In article <1180143574.689059.93540@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 25, 6:22 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 8:33?am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
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.
Why two frames, Robert? Why not three? Why not one? Why are
*you, Robert,* choosing two? Why?
Well, I was using two because Einstein used two to describe special
relativity.
Robert B. Winn
Don't talk about special relativity, you don't even understand
classical mechanics.
Im waiting for the source of his transforms, particularly his "doppler" one...
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 09:06:00 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 6:39?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 25, 6:22 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 8:33?am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
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.
Why two frames, Robert? Why not three? Why not one? Why are
*you, Robert,* choosing two? Why?
Well, I was using two because Einstein used two to describe special
relativity.
Robert B. Winn
Don't talk about special relativity, you don't even understand
classical mechanics.
Well, then the thing for you to do, Eric, would be to take an equation
I posted and show how it does not comply with classical mechanics. I
cannot understand why you are so reluctant to post any actual
mathematics.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 09:09:55 PM |
|
|
In article <1180145160.432909.70580@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
Well, then the thing for you to do, Eric, would be to take an equation
I posted and show how it does not comply with classical mechanics. I
cannot understand why you are so reluctant to post any actual
mathematics.
You proved you dont understand when you disregarded Maxwell's equations that
Eric posted, that are not Galilean invariant .
--
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: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 04:09:38 AM |
|
|
On May 25, 7:09?pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
In article <1180145160.432909.70...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
Well, then the thing for you to do, Eric, would be to take an equation
I posted and show how it does not comply with classical mechanics. I
cannot understand why you are so reluctant to post any actual
mathematics.
You proved you dont understand when you disregarded Maxwell's equations that
Eric posted, that are not Galilean invariant .
--
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.
Eric did not post any equations. He just referred to Maxwell's
equations the way you just did.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 04:40:07 AM |
|
|
On May 26, 2:09 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 7:09?pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
In article <1180145160.432909.70...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
Well, then the thing for you to do, Eric, would be to take an equation
I posted and show how it does not comply with classical mechanics. I
cannot understand why you are so reluctant to post any actual
mathematics.
You proved you dont understand when you disregarded Maxwell's equations that
Eric posted, that are not Galilean invariant .
--
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.
Eric did not post any equations. He just referred to Maxwell's
equations the way you just did.
Robert B. Winn
....which are not invariant under Galilean transformations, you piece
of human floatsam.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 08:19:04 AM |
|
|
On May 26, 2:40?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 26, 2:09 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 7:09?pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
In article <1180145160.432909.70...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
Well, then the thing for you to do, Eric, would be to take an equation
I posted and show how it does not comply with classical mechanics. I
cannot understand why you are so reluctant to post any actual
mathematics.
You proved you dont understand when you disregarded Maxwell's equations that
Eric posted, that are not Galilean invariant .
--
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.
Eric did not post any equations. He just referred to Maxwell's
equations the way you just did.
Robert B. Winn
...which are not invariant under Galilean transformations, you piece
of human floatsam.- Hide quoted text -
Well, as I recall, H. A. Lorentz had some equations dealing with
electromagnetic fields. Why don't you use those if you are trying to
describe something to do with Maxwell's equations? Just a suggestion.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 03:16:21 PM |
|
|
On May 26, 6:19 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 26, 2:40?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 26, 2:09 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 7:09?pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
In article <1180145160.432909.70...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
Well, then the thing for you to do, Eric, would be to take an equation
I posted and show how it does not comply with classical mechanics. I
cannot understand why you are so reluctant to post any actual
mathematics.
You proved you dont understand when you disregarded Maxwell's equations that
Eric posted, that are not Galilean invariant .
--
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.
Eric did not post any equations. He just referred to Maxwell's
equations the way you just did.
Robert B. Winn
...which are not invariant under Galilean transformations, you piece
of human floatsam.- Hide quoted text -
Well, as I recall, H. A. Lorentz had some equations dealing with
electromagnetic fields. Why don't you use those if you are trying to
describe something to do with Maxwell's equations? Just a suggestion.
Robert B. Winn
Hey chuckles - I know what I am talking about by virtue of having
studied this subject. You are throwing out random ideas about a
subject you don't have the faintest understanding about.
Lorentz transformations preserve Maxwell's equations. But you don't
know what that means.
The Lorentz force law is another one, which you also don't understand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 07:30:53 PM |
|
|
On May 26, 1:16=EF=BF=BDpm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 26, 6:19 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 26, 2:40?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 26, 2:09 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 7:09?pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
In article <1180145160.432909.70...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
=A0rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
Well, then the thing for you to do, Eric, would be to take an e=
quation
I posted and show how it does not comply with classical mechani=
cs. =A0I
cannot understand why you are so reluctant to post any actual
mathematics.
You proved you dont understand when you disregarded Maxwell's equ=
ations that
Eric posted, that are not Galilean invariant .
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronom=
y's favourite
=A0poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coff=
ee Boy
=A0singularity.
Eric did not post any equations. =A0He just referred to Maxwell's
equations the way you just did.
Robert B. Winn
...which are not invariant under Galilean transformations, you piece
of human floatsam.- Hide quoted text -
Well, as I recall, H. A. Lorentz had some equations dealing with
electromagnetic fields. =A0Why don't you use those if you are trying to
describe something to do with Maxwell's equations? =A0Just a suggestion.
Robert B. Winn
Hey chuckles - I know what I am talking about by virtue of having
studied this subject. You are throwing out random ideas about a
subject you don't have the faintest understanding about.
Lorentz transformations preserve Maxwell's equations. But you don't
know what that means.
The Lorentz force law is another one, which you also don't understand.- H=
ide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Oh. What happens to a person who does not understand these things?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 07:41:02 PM |
|
|
In article <1180225853.548381.117400@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
- Show quoted text -
Oh. What happens to a person who does not understand these things?
They babble on on sci.physics oblivious to their stupidity, whilst other people
laugh.
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 09:23:14 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 7:06 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 6:39?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 25, 6:22 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 8:33?am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
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.
Why two frames, Robert? Why not three? Why not one? Why are
*you, Robert,* choosing two? Why?
Well, I was using two because Einstein used two to describe special
relativity.
Robert B. Winn
Don't talk about special relativity, you don't even understand
classical mechanics.
Well, then the thing for you to do, Eric, would be to take an equation
I posted and show how it does not comply with classical mechanics. I
cannot understand why you are so reluctant to post any actual
mathematics.
Robert B. Winn
Clueless little man.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5446afe1780ae71a?dmode=source
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 09:17:29 PM |
|
|
rbwinn wrote:
On May 25, 8:33?am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
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.
Why two frames, Robert? Why not three? Why not one? Why are
*you, Robert,* choosing two? Why?
Well, I was using two because Einstein used two to describe special
relativity.
Robert B. Winn
Poor excuse, Robert... eventually we will tire of trying to help
you and put you in our kill files, never to be heard from again.
It's pretty lonely in the kill files Robert... no feedback from
your trolling... lonely, Robert!
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 04:21:36 AM |
|
|
On May 25, 7:17?pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On May 25, 8:33?am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
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.
Why two frames, Robert? Why not three? Why not one? Why are
*you, Robert,* choosing two? Why?
Well, I was using two because Einstein used two to describe special
relativity.
Robert B. Winn
Poor excuse, Robert... eventually we will tire of trying to help
you and put you in our kill files, never to be heard from again.
It's pretty lonely in the kill files Robert... no feedback from
your trolling... lonely, Robert!
I have never had that problem except when I figure out a mistake I
have been making. When I started using velocity of light instead of
speed of light scientists went dead silent. When I was using speed of
light, some scientists were complaining that over half of the posts in
sci.physics.relativity were directed to me. Of the two conditions, I
like it better when scientists are dead silent. That tells me that I
am on the right track.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 04:42:26 AM |
|
|
On May 26, 2:21 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 7:17?pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On May 25, 8:33?am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
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.
Why two frames, Robert? Why not three? Why not one? Why are
*you, Robert,* choosing two? Why?
Well, I was using two because Einstein used two to describe special
relativity.
Robert B. Winn
Poor excuse, Robert... eventually we will tire of trying to help
you and put you in our kill files, never to be heard from again.
It's pretty lonely in the kill files Robert... no feedback from
your trolling... lonely, Robert!
I have never had that problem except when I figure out a mistake I
have been making. When I started using velocity of light instead of
speed of light scientists went dead silent. When I was using speed of
light, some scientists were complaining that over half of the posts in
sci.physics.relativity were directed to me. Of the two conditions, I
like it better when scientists are dead silent. That tells me that I
am on the right track.
Robert B. Winn
Hey, prolific fucktard, when half a newsgroup's entire output is
dedicated to pointing out how wrong you are...TAKE THE HINT.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 08:22:09 AM |
|
|
On May 26, 2:42?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 26, 2:21 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 7:17?pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On May 25, 8:33?am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
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.
Why two frames, Robert? Why not three? Why not one? Why are
*you, Robert,* choosing two? Why?
Well, I was using two because Einstein used two to describe special
relativity.
Robert B. Winn
Poor excuse, Robert... eventually we will tire of trying to help
you and put you in our kill files, never to be heard from again.
It's pretty lonely in the kill files Robert... no feedback from
your trolling... lonely, Robert!
I have never had that problem except when I figure out a mistake I
have been making. When I started using velocity of light instead of
speed of light scientists went dead silent. When I was using speed of
light, some scientists were complaining that over half of the posts in
sci.physics.relativity were directed to me. Of the two conditions, I
like it better when scientists are dead silent. That tells me that I
am on the right track.
Robert B. Winn
Hey, prolific fucktard, when half a newsgroup's entire output is
dedicated to pointing out how wrong you are...TAKE THE HINT.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, Eric, my idea was that in a discussion about science, hints in
the form of profanity should just be disregarded.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 03:18:51 PM |
|
|
On May 26, 6:22 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 26, 2:42?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 26, 2:21 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 7:17?pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On May 25, 8:33?am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
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.
Why two frames, Robert? Why not three? Why not one? Why are
*you, Robert,* choosing two? Why?
Well, I was using two because Einstein used two to describe special
relativity.
Robert B. Winn
Poor excuse, Robert... eventually we will tire of trying to help
you and put you in our kill files, never to be heard from again.
It's pretty lonely in the kill files Robert... no feedback from
your trolling... lonely, Robert!
I have never had that problem except when I figure out a mistake I
have been making. When I started using velocity of light instead of
speed of light scientists went dead silent. When I was using speed of
light, some scientists were complaining that over half of the posts in
sci.physics.relativity were directed to me. Of the two conditions, I
like it better when scientists are dead silent. That tells me that I
am on the right track.
Robert B. Winn
Hey, prolific fucktard, when half a newsgroup's entire output is
dedicated to pointing out how wrong you are...TAKE THE HINT.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, Eric, my idea was that in a discussion about science, hints in
the form of profanity should just be disregarded.
Robert B. Winn
Great, why don't you start a discussion about science instead of your
decades-long personal misconceptions about science?
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 07:32:29 PM |
|
|
On May 26, 1:18=EF=BF=BDpm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 26, 6:22 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 26, 2:42?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 26, 2:21 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 7:17?pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On May 25, 8:33?am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
No, it was no mistake, George. =A0If you have a valid objecti=
on to
denoting two frames of reference S and S', then let's hear th=
em. =A0In
mathematics it would not matter what the two frames of refere=
nce
denote.
=A0 =A0Why two frames, Robert? Why not three? Why not one? Why=
are
=A0 =A0*you, Robert,* choosing two? Why?
Well, I was using two because Einstein used two to describe spe=
cial
relativity.
Robert B. Winn
=A0 =A0Poor excuse, Robert... eventually we will tire of trying t=
o help
=A0 =A0you and put you in our kill files, never to be heard from =
again.
=A0 =A0It's pretty lonely in the kill files Robert... no feedback=
from
=A0 =A0your trolling... lonely, Robert!
I have never had that problem except when I figure out a mistake I
have been making. =A0When I started using velocity of light instead=
of
speed of light scientists went dead silent. =A0When I was using spe=
ed of
light, some scientists were complaining that over half of the posts=
in
sci.physics.relativity were directed to me. =A0Of the two condition=
s, I
like it better when scientists are dead silent. =A0That tells me th=
at I
am on the right track.
Robert B. Winn
Hey, prolific fucktard, when half a newsgroup's entire output is
dedicated to pointing out how wrong you are...TAKE THE HINT.- Hide qu=
oted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, Eric, my idea was that in a discussion about science, hints in
the form of profanity should just be disregarded.
Robert B. Winn
Great, why don't you start a discussion about science instead of your
decades-long personal misconceptions about science?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, if I do not know anything about science the way you claim, then
my personal misconceptions would be all I would have to discuss.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 07:41:29 PM |
|
|
In article <1180225949.836270.178370@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
Well, if I do not know anything about science the way you claim, then
my personal misconceptions would be all I would have to discuss.
Then go to college and learn the rules before trying to break them.
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 09:26:23 PM |
|
|
On May 26, 5:32 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 26, 1:18?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 26, 6:22 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 26, 2:42?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 26, 2:21 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 7:17?pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On May 25, 8:33?am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
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.
? ?Why two frames, Robert? Why not three? Why not one? Why are
? ?*you, Robert,* choosing two? Why?
Well, I was using two because Einstein used two to describe special
relativity.
Robert B. Winn
? ?Poor excuse, Robert... eventually we will tire of trying to help
? ?you and put you in our kill files, never to be heard from again.
? ?It's pretty lonely in the kill files Robert... no feedback from
? ?your trolling... lonely, Robert!
I have never had that problem except when I figure out a mistake I
have been making. ?When I started using velocity of light instead of
speed of light scientists went dead silent. ?When I was using speed of
light, some scientists were complaining that over half of the posts in
sci.physics.relativity were directed to me. ?Of the two conditions, I
like it better when scientists are dead silent. ?That tells me that I
am on the right track.
Robert B. Winn
Hey, prolific fucktard, when half a newsgroup's entire output is
dedicated to pointing out how wrong you are...TAKE THE HINT.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, Eric, my idea was that in a discussion about science, hints in
the form of profanity should just be disregarded.
Robert B. Winn
Great, why don't you start a discussion about science instead of your
decades-long personal misconceptions about science?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, if I do not know anything about science the way you claim, then
my personal misconceptions would be all I would have to discuss.
Robert B. Winn
Except you aren't even doing that. You are proclaiming the correctness
of your misconceptions without the faintest understanding of what's
what.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury.
Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury.
Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury.
Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury.
Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury.
Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury.
Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury.
Re: Photon Mass, Measuring Distance, and Mercury's orbit
| Re: Mercury Vapor Lamp--Danger?
Anisotropy and Mercury (2)
Mercury Vapor Lamp--Danger?
LeSagian drag and the advance of Mercury's perihelion
The force of mercury
Re: Photon Mass, Measuring Distance, and Mercury's orbit
Re: Photon Mass, Measuring Distance, and Mercury's orbit
|
|
|
