| 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. |
21 May 2007 07:56:02 AM |
|
|
On May 21, 4:21=EF=BF=BDam, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-=
NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
"Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in messagenews:46517bdd$0$4610$61c65585=
@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wr=
ote in messagenews:f2rta6$i07$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in messagenews:1179721430.266298.296=
80@y2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 9:15?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
Now go away. If you want to read a rebuttal, pick something random
from the ten fucking years of idiocy you have posted.- Hide quoted =
text -
Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement. =
=A0I
remember posting that before.
Robert B. Winn
Saying "Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a
strong statement" is the attempt of an even weaker mind to
make a strong statement.
Actually, saying "Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a
strong statement" is the attempt of an even weaker mind to
make no statement at all.
Sorry, too late:
=A0http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/Profanity.html
Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
We are really seeing a flurry of mathematics out of college graduates
today.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
21 May 2007 05:15:13 PM |
|
|
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179752162.110019.121890@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
We are really seeing a flurry of mathematics out of college graduates
today.
As opposed to the ***** the comes out of rb
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
22 May 2007 10:22:22 PM |
|
|
On May 21, 3:15?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179752162.110019.121890@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
We are really seeing a flurry of mathematics out of college graduates
today.
As opposed to the ***** the comes out of rb
We seem to be getting more profanity than equations out of you
Jeckyl. Did you know that profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to
make a strong statement?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
21 May 2007 11:33:58 AM |
|
|
In article <1179752162.110019.121890@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
We are really seeing a flurry of mathematics out of college graduates
today.
Robert B. Winn
We haven't seen any from you yet.
--
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: "John \C" |
|
| Title: "Coward The Duck" speaks... |
21 May 2007 12:48:26 PM |
|
|
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-EFBB96.17335821052007@snews.octanews.com...
In article <1179752162.110019.121890@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
We are really seeing a flurry of mathematics out of college graduates
today.
Robert B. Winn
We haven't seen any from you yet.
Would you know any math if you saw it, Fraud Phineass T.?
HJ
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
22 May 2007 10:01:51 PM |
|
|
On May 21, 9:33=EF=BF=BDam, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddled...@gmail.c=
om>
wrote:
In article <1179752162.110019.121...@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
=A0rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
We are really seeing a flurry of mathematics out of college graduates
today.
Robert B. Winn
We haven't seen any from you yet.
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favo=
urite
=A0poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
=A0singularity.
Well, here, Puddle.
x'=3Dx-vt
y'=3Dy
z'=3Dz
t'=3Dt
x'=3Dwn', n'=3Dt(1-v/w)
w=3Dx/t=3Dx'/n'=3D(x-vt)/(t-vt/w) =3D (x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/c^2)gamma
Tell us which part of these equations are not mathematics.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
23 May 2007 02:50:34 PM |
|
|
In article <1179889311.638931.48720@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
Well, here, Puddle.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
x'=wn', n'=t(1-v/w)
w=x/t=x'/n'=(x-vt)/(t-vt/w) = (x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/c^2)gamma
Tell us which part of these equations are not mathematics.
Quoted formula's doesn't make mathematics in this case. You have a serious lack
of knowledge of modern physics.
--
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. |
23 May 2007 04:23:18 PM |
|
|
On May 23, 12:50?pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddled...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1179889311.638931.48...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
Well, here, Puddle.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
x'=wn', n'=t(1-v/w)
w=x/t=x'/n'=(x-vt)/(t-vt/w) = (x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/c^2)gamma
Tell us which part of these equations are not mathematics.
Quoted formula's doesn't make mathematics in this case. You have a serious lack
of knowledge of modern physics.
--
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.
Wonderful, Puddle, so now just show where the equations are wrong.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
23 May 2007 04:25:47 PM |
|
|
In article <1179955398.541350.127610@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
Wonderful, Puddle, so now just show where the equations are wrong.
Robert B. Winn
Explain gravitational time dilation.
--
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: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
31 May 2007 02:36:06 PM |
|
|
Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1179889311.638931.48720@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
Well, here, Puddle.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
x'=wn', n'=t(1-v/w)
w=x/t=x'/n'=(x-vt)/(t-vt/w) = (x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/c^2)gamma
Tell us which part of these equations are not mathematics.
Quoted formula's doesn't make mathematics in this case. You have a serious
lack
of knowledge of modern physics.
But it does give him a leg up on the alt.astronomy saucerheads.
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief
"Of doing Venus in person would obviously incorporate a composite
rigid airship, along with it's internal cache of frozen pizza and
ice cold beer."
-- Brad Guth, bigoted racist
"You really are one of the litsiest people I know, Mr. Deco."
--Kali, quoted endlessly by David Tholen as evidence of "something"
.
|
|
|
| User: "John \C" |
|
| Title: Art Deco fired from new job....Film at 11...... |
31 May 2007 02:53:53 PM |
|
|
"Art Deco" <erfc@caballista.org> wrote in message
news:310520071336068040%erfc@caballista.org...
Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@gmail.com> wrote:
Aren't you working today?
Got fired again because they talked to the Sheriff .
Tooooo Bad!
HJ
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
22 May 2007 10:23:20 PM |
|
|
On May 22, 8:01 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[snip idiocy]
Why does the idiot welder persist? You have been spewing for over a
decade, you are going to change nobody's mind. Ever.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
21 May 2007 03:49:56 PM |
|
|
On May 21, 5:56 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[...]
We are really seeing a flurry of mathematics out of college graduates
today.
Robert B. Winn
What would be the point? You won't understand and there isn't anything
we can say that has not been tried at least once in the past ten
fucking years of you posting your inanities. Go away, idiot welder.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
22 May 2007 10:19:34 PM |
|
|
On May 21, 1:49?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 21, 5:56 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[...]
We are really seeing a flurry of mathematics out of college graduates
today.
Robert B. Winn
What would be the point? You won't understand and there isn't anything
we can say that has not been tried at least once in the past ten
fucking years of you posting your inanities. Go away, idiot welder.
Another attempt at mathematics from a college graduate. This one even
attempted subtraction.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
22 May 2007 11:07:46 PM |
|
|
On May 22, 8:19 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 21, 1:49?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 21, 5:56 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[...]
We are really seeing a flurry of mathematics out of college graduates
today.
Robert B. Winn
What would be the point? You won't understand and there isn't anything
we can say that has not been tried at least once in the past ten
fucking years of you posting your inanities. Go away, idiot welder.
Another attempt at mathematics from a college graduate. This one even
attempted subtraction.
Robert B. Winn
Why do you continue to whine about lack of math? You wouldn't
understand any of it even if I were to present it to you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
23 May 2007 06:30:12 AM |
|
|
On May 22, 9:07=EF=BF=BDpm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 22, 8:19 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 21, 1:49?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 21, 5:56 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[...]
We are really seeing a flurry of mathematics out of college graduat=
es
today.
Robert B. Winn
What would be the point? You won't understand and there isn't anything
we can say that has not been tried at least once in the past ten
fucking years of you posting your inanities. Go away, idiot welder.
Another attempt at mathematics from a college graduate. =A0This one even
attempted subtraction.
Robert B. Winn
Why do you continue to whine about lack of math? You wouldn't
understand any of it even if I were to present it to you.- Hide quoted te=
xt -
- Show quoted text -
Sure I would, Eric. College graduates cannot show any set of
transformation equations using t' not equal to t in which there is not
a distance contraction. Galileo, on the other hand has an equation in
his transformation equations which says t'=3Dt. That means there is no
distance contraction in his transformation equations. I know that
this seems like heresy to you Harry Potter fans, but it happens to
coincide with reality. There is nothing in existence that gets
shorter just because it moves. But I cannot understand your
reluctance to use equations. Why don't you just post a few of your
impressive equations so that you and your fellow college graduates can
talk about how much more you know than Galilleo did? Wouldn't you
feel better if you did that? I think you are a little embarrassed
about the distance contraction.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
23 May 2007 02:57:25 PM |
|
|
In article <1179919812.785107.54870@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
I think you are a little embarrassed
about the distance contraction.
I think more like you don't understand modern physics.
--
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. |
23 May 2007 04:42:24 PM |
|
|
On May 23, 12:57?pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddled...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1179919812.785107.54...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
I think you are a little embarrassed
about the distance contraction.
I think more like you don't understand modern physics.
--
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.
I understand that you cannot have t' less than t without having a
distance contraction. What I like about the Galilean transformation
equations is that they do not have a distance contraction.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
23 May 2007 04:45:57 PM |
|
|
In article <1179956544.043709.43090@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
I understand that you cannot have t' less than t without having a
distance contraction. What I like about the Galilean transformation
equations is that they do not have a distance contraction.
But yet they are only useful in low-energy situations.
Time dilation is an OBSERVED EFFECT!
--
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. |
23 May 2007 08:04:02 PM |
|
|
On May 23, 2:45?pm, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddled...@gmail.com>
wrote:
In article <1179956544.043709.43...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
I understand that you cannot have t' less than t without having a
distance contraction. What I like about the Galilean transformation
equations is that they do not have a distance contraction.
But yet they are only useful in low-energy situations.
Time dilation is an OBSERVED EFFECT!
--
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.
Well, I explained time dilation to you using the Galilean
transformation equations. Time dilation is cause by the transitions
of the cesium molecules in a cesium clock slowing down because of the
motion of the clock. That does not affect the rotation of the earth,
which is the time being shown by the equation t'=t. The orbit of a
satellite around the earth does not change the rotation of the
earth.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
These equations describe times and distances in two frames of
reference as described by the time of the earth's rotation. Notice
that there is no distance contraction and that the earth rotates the
same number of times in S and S'.
x=wt
x'=wn'
n'=t(1-v/w)
These equations compare the time on a moving cesium clock to time
as measured by the rotation of the earth. n' is the time on the
cesium clock, and t is the time as measured by the rotation of the
earth.
So in what way do these equation not describe the time dilation?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
23 May 2007 08:08:19 PM |
|
|
In article <1179968642.847138.154160@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
Well, I explained time dilation to you using the Galilean
transformation equations. Time dilation is cause by the transitions
of the cesium molecules in a cesium clock slowing down because of the
motion of the clock.
Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. How then do you explain
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#TD
This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of the
redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days
to decay when observed at redshift z=1. The time dilation has been observed,
with 5 different published measurements of this effect in supernova light
curves.
--
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: "John \C" |
|
| Title: "Coward The Duck" Kwacked with a lisp #16 |
23 May 2007 08:24:02 PM |
|
|
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@gmail.com> wrote in message
Nonsense.
Yes you are!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
24 May 2007 05:40:43 AM |
|
|
On May 23, 4:30 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 22, 9:07?pm, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 22, 8:19 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 21, 1:49?pm, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 21, 5:56 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[...]
We are really seeing a flurry of mathematics out of college graduates
today.
Robert B. Winn
What would be the point? You won't understand and there isn't anything
we can say that has not been tried at least once in the past ten
fucking years of you posting your inanities. Go away, idiot welder.
Another attempt at mathematics from a college graduate. This one even
attempted subtraction.
Robert B. Winn
Why do you continue to whine about lack of math? You wouldn't
understand any of it even if I were to present it to you.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Sure I would, Eric.
[...]
Ok.
div.B = 0
div.E = rho/epsilon_0
curl x E = -@B/@t
curl x B = mu_0 * J - 1/c^2 * @E/@t
Show me how these equations remain invariant under your coordinate
transformations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
24 May 2007 07:43:58 AM |
|
|
On May 24, 3:40?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 23, 4:30 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 22, 9:07?pm, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 22, 8:19 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 21, 1:49?pm, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 21, 5:56 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[...]
We are really seeing a flurry of mathematics out of college graduates
today.
Robert B. Winn
What would be the point? You won't understand and there isn't anything
we can say that has not been tried at least once in the past ten
fucking years of you posting your inanities. Go away, idiot welder.
Another attempt at mathematics from a college graduate. This one even
attempted subtraction.
Robert B. Winn
Why do you continue to whine about lack of math? You wouldn't
understand any of it even if I were to present it to you.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Sure I would, Eric.
[...]
Ok.
div.B = 0
div.E = rho/epsilon_0
curl x E = -@B/@t
curl x B = mu_0 * J - 1/c^2 * @E/@t
Show me how these equations remain invariant under your coordinate
transformations.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, you have not defined them, but I suspect that they do not exist
in the Galileian transformation equation mathematics. I think that
they come from equations in which t' in a frame of reference in motion
does not equal t in a frame of reference at rest. They would be
meaningless with regard to the Galilean transformation equations.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
24 May 2007 11:58:01 AM |
|
|
In article <1180010638.758297.14420@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
Well, you have not defined them, but I suspect that they do not exist
in the Galileian transformation equation mathematics. I think that
they come from equations in which t' in a frame of reference in motion
does not equal t in a frame of reference at rest. They would be
meaningless with regard to the Galilean transformation equations.
Congratulatons - according to you EM doesn't exist.
--
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. |
24 May 2007 10:18:34 PM |
|
|
On May 24, 9:58=EF=BF=BDam, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddled...@gmail.c=
om>
wrote:
In article <1180010638.758297.14...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
=A0rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
Well, you have not defined them, but I suspect that they do not exist
in the Galileian transformation equation mathematics. =A0I think that
they come from equations in which t' in a frame of reference in motion
does not equal t in a frame of reference at rest. =A0They would be
meaningless with regard to the Galilean transformation equations.
Congratulatons - according to you EM doesn't exist.
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favo=
urite
=A0poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
=A0singularity.
EM doesn't exist? I do not remember ever saying that. Didn't H.A.
Lorentz have some equations describing electromagnetic fields?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
24 May 2007 03:10:23 PM |
|
|
On May 24, 5:43 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 24, 3:40?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 23, 4:30 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 22, 9:07?pm, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 22, 8:19 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 21, 1:49?pm, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 21, 5:56 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[...]
We are really seeing a flurry of mathematics out of college graduates
today.
Robert B. Winn
What would be the point? You won't understand and there isn't anything
we can say that has not been tried at least once in the past ten
fucking years of you posting your inanities. Go away, idiot welder.
Another attempt at mathematics from a college graduate. This one even
attempted subtraction.
Robert B. Winn
Why do you continue to whine about lack of math? You wouldn't
understand any of it even if I were to present it to you.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Sure I would, Eric.
[...]
Ok.
div.B = 0
div.E = rho/epsilon_0
curl x E = -@B/@t
curl x B = mu_0 * J - 1/c^2 * @E/@t
Show me how these equations remain invariant under your coordinate
transformations.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, you have not defined them, but I suspect that they do not exist
in the Galileian transformation equation mathematics. I think that
they come from equations in which t' in a frame of reference in motion
does not equal t in a frame of reference at rest. They would be
meaningless with regard to the Galilean transformation equations.
Robert B. Winn
Wrong answer, chuckles.
You just denied Maxwell's equations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
24 May 2007 10:35:59 PM |
|
|
On May 24, 1:10=EF=BF=BDpm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 5:43 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 24, 3:40?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 23, 4:30 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 22, 9:07?pm, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 22, 8:19 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 21, 1:49?pm, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 21, 5:56 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[...]
We are really seeing a flurry of mathematics out of college=
graduates
today.
Robert B. Winn
What would be the point? You won't understand and there isn't=
anything
we can say that has not been tried at least once in the past =
ten
fucking years of you posting your inanities. Go away, idiot w=
elder.
Another attempt at mathematics from a college graduate. =A0This=
one even
attempted subtraction.
Robert B. Winn
Why do you continue to whine about lack of math? You wouldn't
understand any of it even if I were to present it to you.- Hide q=
uoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Sure I would, Eric.
[...]
Ok.
div.B =3D 0
div.E =3D rho/epsilon_0
curl x E =3D -@B/@t
curl x B =3D mu_0 * J - 1/c^2 * @E/@t
Show me how these equations remain invariant under your coordinate
transformations.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, you have not defined them, but I suspect that they do not exist
in the Galileian transformation equation mathematics. =A0I think that
they come from equations in which t' in a frame of reference in motion
does not equal t in a frame of reference at rest. =A0They would be
meaningless with regard to the Galilean transformation equations.
Robert B. Winn
Wrong answer, chuckles.
You just denied Maxwell's equations.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I just denied Maxwell's equations? Well, why don't you show how I
denied Maxwell's equations?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 04:44:39 AM |
|
|
On May 24, 8:35 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 24, 1:10?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 5:43 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 24, 3:40?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 23, 4:30 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 22, 9:07?pm, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 22, 8:19 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 21, 1:49?pm, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 21, 5:56 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[...]
We are really seeing a flurry of mathematics out of college graduates
today.
Robert B. Winn
What would be the point? You won't understand and there isn't anything
we can say that has not been tried at least once in the past ten
fucking years of you posting your inanities. Go away, idiot welder.
Another attempt at mathematics from a college graduate. ?This one even
attempted subtraction.
Robert B. Winn
Why do you continue to whine about lack of math? You wouldn't
understand any of it even if I were to present it to you.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Sure I would, Eric.
[...]
Ok.
div.B = 0
div.E = rho/epsilon_0
curl x E = -@B/@t
curl x B = mu_0 * J - 1/c^2 * @E/@t
Show me how these equations remain invariant under your coordinate
transformations.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, you have not defined them, but I suspect that they do not exist
in the Galileian transformation equation mathematics. ?I think that
they come from equations in which t' in a frame of reference in motion
does not equal t in a frame of reference at rest. ?They would be
meaningless with regard to the Galilean transformation equations.
Robert B. Winn
Wrong answer, chuckles.
You just denied Maxwell's equations.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I just denied Maxwell's equations? Well, why don't you show how I
denied Maxwell's equations?
Robert B. Winn
Why don't you show me how you would understand even the most
rudimentary discussion of Maxwell's equations?
Why don't you start when explaining what is meant when I say
"Maxwell's equations are not invariant under Galilean transforms"?
Or why don't you just get the ***** out?
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 08:25:23 AM |
|
|
On May 26, 2:44?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 8:35 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 24, 1:10?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 5:43 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 24, 3:40?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 23, 4:30 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 22, 9:07?pm, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 22, 8:19 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 21, 1:49?pm, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 21, 5:56 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[...]
We are really seeing a flurry of mathematics out of college graduates
today.
Robert B. Winn
What would be the point? You won't understand and there isn't anything
we can say that has not been tried at least once in the past ten
fucking years of you posting your inanities. Go away, idiot welder.
Another attempt at mathematics from a college graduate. ?This one even
attempted subtraction.
Robert B. Winn
Why do you continue to whine about lack of math? You wouldn't
understand any of it even if I were to present it to you.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Sure I would, Eric.
[...]
Ok.
div.B = 0
div.E = rho/epsilon_0
curl x E = -@B/@t
curl x B = mu_0 * J - 1/c^2 * @E/@t
Show me how these equations remain invariant under your coordinate
transformations.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, you have not defined them, but I suspect that they do not exist
in the Galileian transformation equation mathematics. ?I think that
they come from equations in which t' in a frame of reference in motion
does not equal t in a frame of reference at rest. ?They would be
meaningless with regard to the Galilean transformation equations.
Robert B. Winn
Wrong answer, chuckles.
You just denied Maxwell's equations.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I just denied Maxwell's equations? Well, why don't you show how I
denied Maxwell's equations?
Robert B. Winn
Why don't you show me how you would understand even the most
rudimentary discussion of Maxwell's equations?
Why don't you start when explaining what is meant when I say
"Maxwell's equations are not invariant under Galilean transforms"?
Or why don't you just get the ***** out?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, I don't really care if Maxwell's equations are invariant or not
under Galilean transforms. Maybe you would want to discuss it with
someone who does care.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
