| 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. |
24 May 2007 10:16:30 PM |
|
|
On May 24, 9:57=EF=BF=BDam, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddled...@gmail.c=
om>
wrote:
In article <1180010227.201378.323...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
=A0rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
Time is not required to be based on transitions of a cesium isotope
molecule just because you base it on that particular thing. =A0The
Galilean transformation equations base time on rotation of the earth.
That was the way all measurement of time on earth was done until
scientists decided that it all had to be based on atomic time. =A0So Now
if someone decides to measure time the way it used to be measured, you
call it heresy against your religion. =A0The Galilean transformation
equations are very specific, t'=3Dt. =A0That means you cannot be using
scientific time because transitions of a cesium isotope molecule are
different when it is moving from what they are when it is standing
still. =A0Time in the Galillean transformation equations has to be
measured by something common to both frames of reference such as the
rotation of the earth, the rotation of the sun, the rotation of one of
Saturn's moons, or the transitions of one cesium clock in a preferred
frame of reference. =A0I hope this will help you with your studies of
this phenomenon.
If by study of this phenomenon you mean "understand that rbwinn has no id=
ea of
physics" then yes it does help.
--
I certainly do like the way the Galilean transformation equations can
show the time on a moving clock. Would that have anything to do with
physics, Puddle?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
24 May 2007 10:43:37 PM |
|
|
rbwinn wrote:
I certainly do like the way the Galilean transformation equations can
show the time on a moving clock. Would that have anything to do with
physics, Puddle?
Robert B. Winn
What is the time dilation of a satellite clock in a five earth radii
orbit, Robert?
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 12:33:17 AM |
|
|
On May 24, 8:43=EF=BF=BDpm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
I certainly do like the way the Galilean transformation equations can
show the time on a moving clock. =A0Would that have anything to do with
physics, Puddle?
Robert B. Winn
=A0 =A0What is the time dilation of a satellite clock in a five earth rad=
ii
=A0 =A0orbit, Robert?
Well, someone would have to look up the radius of the earth, Sam.
See, the amazing thing is that if you took a clock, a ten ton rock,
and a beebee to the five earth radii altitude and orbited them around
the earth, they would all have the same velocity in their orbits.
That is just a bit of information I thought I would share with you.
So we will call that velocity v. So the clock in orbit would have a
time of
n'=3Dt(1-v/w)
So just look up the radius of the earth and multiply by five, and
you will have your five radius altitude for the clock.
The velocity of the clock in its orbit could be obtained from
Newton's equations for gravitation if you were interested in doing
it. That would also give you the time of an orbit of something at
five radii above the earth. That would be all you would need to
compute n' if you were interested in doing it. But, of course, you
would have to look up the radius of the earth first.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 02:48:05 AM |
|
|
On May 24, 10:33 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[snip stupidity]
Oh look the idiot welder says "use Newtonian gravitation" when asked
about a relativistic effect.
Go back to welding, idiot welder.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 07:31:12 AM |
|
|
On May 25, 12:48?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 10:33 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[snip stupidity]
Oh look the idiot welder says "use Newtonian gravitation" when asked
about a relativistic effect.
Go back to welding, idiot welder.
That was what I said, college graduate. Did you find a mistake
somewhere?
Didn't you say you were going to show the error in this equation?
n'=t(1-v/w)
n' is the time on a moving clock. Did you know that there is no
distance contraction in the Galilean transformation equations?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 03:58:47 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 5:31 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 12:48?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 10:33 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[snip stupidity]
Oh look the idiot welder says "use Newtonian gravitation" when asked
about a relativistic effect.
Go back to welding, idiot welder.
That was what I said, college graduate. Did you find a mistake
somewhere?
Didn't you say you were going to show the error in this equation?
n'=t(1-v/w)
n' is the time on a moving clock. Did you know that there is no
distance contraction in the Galilean transformation equations?
Robert B. Winn
Those are not Galilean transformations, idiot welder.
Go back to welding and leave physics to those who can.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 08:25:36 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 1:58?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 25, 5:31 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 12:48?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 10:33 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[snip stupidity]
Oh look the idiot welder says "use Newtonian gravitation" when asked
about a relativistic effect.
Go back to welding, idiot welder.
That was what I said, college graduate. Did you find a mistake
somewhere?
Didn't you say you were going to show the error in this equation?
n'=t(1-v/w)
n' is the time on a moving clock. Did you know that there is no
distance contraction in the Galilean transformation equations?
Robert B. Winn
Those are not Galilean transformations, idiot welder.
Go back to welding and leave physics to those who can.-
As I remember, you were going to show the mistake in these equations
which you say are not the Galilean transformation equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
x=wt, x'=wn', n'=t(1-v/w), w = velocity of light
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 08:29:52 PM |
|
|
In article <1180142736.773643.12970@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
As I remember, you were going to show the mistake in these equations
which you say are not the Galilean transformation equations.
These are
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
This one you made up from the Doppler effect and mistook it completely
x=wt, x'=wn', n'=t(1-v/w), w = velocity of light
The mistake is this
t' =t = Galillean relativity says there IS NO TIME DILATION. Changing the name
from t to n doesn't fool it, THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE TIME. Hence it doesn't matter
if you call it t, t', n, n' or cheese_and_biscuits....
THERE IS NO DIFFERENTIAL TIME RATE IN GALILLEAN RELATIVITY.
That equation you quote at the end is a doppler effect equation.
f' = (1- v/c) f
Post a single textbook reference that the last equation is Galillean.
--
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 08:45:06 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 6:29?pm, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddled...@gmail.com>
wrote:
In article <1180142736.773643.12...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
As I remember, you were going to show the mistake in these equations
which you say are not the Galilean transformation equations.
These are
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
This one you made up from the Doppler effect and mistook it completely
x=wt, x'=wn', n'=t(1-v/w), w = velocity of light
The mistake is this
t' =t = Galillean relativity says there IS NO TIME DILATION. Changing the name
from t to n doesn't fool it, THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE TIME. Hence it doesn't matter
if you call it t, t', n, n' or cheese_and_biscuits....
THERE IS NO DIFFERENTIAL TIME RATE IN GALILLEAN RELATIVITY.
That equation you quote at the end is a doppler effect equation.
f' = (1- v/c) f
Post a single textbook reference that the last equation is Galillean.
Exactly what I said. There is a preferred frame of reference in the
Galilean transformation equations from which time is measured. That
is why the Galilean transformantion equations do not have a distance
contraction. Time is measured in both frames of reference from a
clock in S.
I do not care what any textbooks say about the Galilean
transformation equations. Scientists and textbook writers are wrong
all the time. I derived the equation for n' the following way:
x=wt w=velocity of light
x'=wn'
wn'=wt-vt
n'=t(1-v/w)
If you are going to try to prove the equation wrong, show the mistake,
not what some textbook says about the Doppler effect.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 08:53:22 PM |
|
|
In article <1180143906.580115.136370@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
Exactly what I said. There is a preferred frame of reference in the
Galilean transformation equations from which time is measured. That
is why the Galilean transformantion equations do not have a distance
contraction. Time is measured in both frames of reference from a
clock in S.
There is no differential time in Galilean transforms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation
NO MENTION OF YOUR MADE UP EQUATION!
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/ltrans.html
See Galillean Transforms there
I do not care what any textbooks say about the Galilean
transformation equations. Scientists and textbook writers are wrong
all the time.
But yet you are 100% all the time so far. This sentence says you are now
trolling as you have NO BACK UP FOR YOUR ASSERTION AT ALL!
I derived the equation for n' the following way:
x=wt w=velocity of light
x'=wn'
wn'=wt-vt
n'=t(1-v/w)
If you are going to try to prove the equation wrong, show the mistake,
not what some textbook says about the Doppler effect.
ITS BECAUSE THE EQUATION IS THE DOPPLER EFFECT YOU HALFWIT... IT IS NOT A
GALILLEAN ONE
Do you want it in 24 point or something?
The mistake is simple. Your equation is NOT a Galillean transform, and there is
NO TIME DILATION in GALILLEAN RELATIVITY. Therefore, your equations are not
Galillean transforms because you say you have a differential time rate.
It's very interesting you say that "I do not care what any textbooks say" - you
are obviously trolling now as you know full well your so called transforms are
a complete load of *****.
--
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 08:37:17 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 6:25 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 1:58?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 25, 5:31 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 12:48?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 10:33 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[snip stupidity]
Oh look the idiot welder says "use Newtonian gravitation" when asked
about a relativistic effect.
Go back to welding, idiot welder.
That was what I said, college graduate. Did you find a mistake
somewhere?
Didn't you say you were going to show the error in this equation?
n'=t(1-v/w)
n' is the time on a moving clock. Did you know that there is no
distance contraction in the Galilean transformation equations?
Robert B. Winn
Those are not Galilean transformations, idiot welder.
Go back to welding and leave physics to those who can.-
As I remember, you were going to show the mistake in these equations
which you say are not the Galilean transformation equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
EVERYTHING AFTER HERE IS NOT GALILEAN, IT IS ***** YOU HAVE MADE UP.
x=wt, x'=wn', n'=t(1-v/w), w = velocity of light
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 09:03:08 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 6:37?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 25, 6:25 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 1:58?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 25, 5:31 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 12:48?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 10:33 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[snip stupidity]
Oh look the idiot welder says "use Newtonian gravitation" when asked
about a relativistic effect.
Go back to welding, idiot welder.
That was what I said, college graduate. Did you find a mistake
somewhere?
Didn't you say you were going to show the error in this equation?
n'=t(1-v/w)
n' is the time on a moving clock. Did you know that there is no
distance contraction in the Galilean transformation equations?
Robert B. Winn
Those are not Galilean transformations, idiot welder.
Go back to welding and leave physics to those who can.-
As I remember, you were going to show the mistake in these equations
which you say are not the Galilean transformation equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
EVERYTHING AFTER HERE IS NOT GALILEAN, IT IS ***** YOU HAVE MADE UP.
x=wt, x'=wn', n'=t(1-v/w), w = velocity of light
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -
Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.
Why don't you post some equations showing what you are trying to
prove, Eric?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 09:08:36 PM |
|
|
In article <1180144988.846702.135330@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.
Why don't you post some equations showing what you are trying to
prove, Eric?
Post a single reference that your equation is a Galilean transform.
--
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 04:08:18 AM |
|
|
On May 25, 7:08?pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
In article <1180144988.846702.135...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.
Why don't you post some equations showing what you are trying to
prove, Eric?
Post a single reference that your equation is a Galilean transform.
--
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.
t'=t
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 12:10:54 PM |
|
|
On May 26, 2:08 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 7:08?pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
In article <1180144988.846702.135...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.
Why don't you post some equations showing what you are trying to
prove, Eric?
Post a single reference that your equation is a Galilean transform.
--
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.
t'=t
THERE you go. That is the relation between t, the time in one
frame, and t', the time in the other frame.
What do YOU think is the definition of t' in this equation?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 07:20:01 PM |
|
|
On May 26, 10:10=EF=BF=BDam, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 26, 2:08 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 7:08?pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
In article <1180144988.846702.135...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
=A0rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.
Why don't you post some equations showing what you are trying to
prove, Eric?
Post a single reference that your equation is a Galilean transform.
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's =
favourite
=A0poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee B=
oy
=A0singularity.
t'=3Dt
THERE you go. That is the relation between t, the time in one
frame, and t', the time in the other frame.
What do YOU think is the definition of t' in this equation?
t
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 04:46:48 AM |
|
|
On May 26, 2:08 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 7:08?pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
In article <1180144988.846702.135...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.
Why don't you post some equations showing what you are trying to
prove, Eric?
Post a single reference that your equation is a Galilean transform.
--
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.
t'=t
Robert B. Winn
Fuckwit canno't even grasp the nature of the argument.
Stop posting to this newsgroup.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 09:06:48 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 7:03 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 6:37?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 25, 6:25 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 1:58?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 25, 5:31 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 12:48?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 10:33 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[snip stupidity]
Oh look the idiot welder says "use Newtonian gravitation" when asked
about a relativistic effect.
Go back to welding, idiot welder.
That was what I said, college graduate. Did you find a mistake
somewhere?
Didn't you say you were going to show the error in this equation?
n'=t(1-v/w)
n' is the time on a moving clock. Did you know that there is no
distance contraction in the Galilean transformation equations?
Robert B. Winn
Those are not Galilean transformations, idiot welder.
Go back to welding and leave physics to those who can.-
As I remember, you were going to show the mistake in these equations
which you say are not the Galilean transformation equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
EVERYTHING AFTER HERE IS NOT GALILEAN, IT IS ***** YOU HAVE MADE UP.
x=wt, x'=wn', n'=t(1-v/w), w = velocity of light
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -
Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.
Why don't you post some equations showing what you are trying to
prove, Eric?
Robert B. Winn
SHUT UP. Good lord you are clueless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 12:04:30 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 6:25 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 1:58?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 25, 5:31 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 12:48?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 10:33 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[snip stupidity]
Oh look the idiot welder says "use Newtonian gravitation" when asked
about a relativistic effect.
Go back to welding, idiot welder.
That was what I said, college graduate. Did you find a mistake
somewhere?
Didn't you say you were going to show the error in this equation?
n'=t(1-v/w)
n' is the time on a moving clock. Did you know that there is no
distance contraction in the Galilean transformation equations?
Robert B. Winn
Those are not Galilean transformations, idiot welder.
Go back to welding and leave physics to those who can.-
As I remember, you were going to show the mistake in these equations
which you say are not the Galilean transformation equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
When you say "Galilean transform equations", the symbols
have a specific meaning. These are the Galilean transform
equations between coordinates in frame S and frame S' if
(a) S is moving at speed v in the x-direction relative
to S'
(b) (x,y,z,t) are coordinates of an event in the S frame
(c) (x',y',z',t') are coordinates of the same event in
the S' frame.
x=wt, x'=wn', n'=t(1-v/w), w = velocity of light
If you claim n' is the time in the S' frame, then you aren't
using the Galilean transform equations any more. In those
equations, t' is the time in the S'.
If you want to claim n' is something else, you can. But it
has nothing to do with time dilation in the Galilean
transform. In the Galilean transform, t' is the time in
the S' frame. You aren't free to change the meaning of
variables and then claim it's the same transform.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 07:15:34 PM |
|
|
On May 26, 10:04=EF=BF=BDam, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 25, 6:25 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 1:58?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 25, 5:31 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 12:48?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 10:33 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[snip stupidity]
Oh look the idiot welder says "use Newtonian gravitation" when as=
ked
about a relativistic effect.
Go back to welding, idiot welder.
That was what I said, college graduate. =A0Did you find a mistake
somewhere?
=A0 =A0 Didn't you say you were going to show the error in this equ=
ation?
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 n'=3Dt(1-v/w)
=A0 =A0 n' is the time on a moving clock. =A0Did you know that ther=
e is no
distance contraction in the Galilean transformation equations?
Robert B. Winn
Those are not Galilean transformations, idiot welder.
Go back to welding and leave physics to those who can.-
As I remember, you were going to show the mistake in these equations
which you say are not the Galilean transformation equations.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 x'=3Dx-vt
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 y'=3Dy
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 z'=3Dz
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 t'=3Dt
When you say "Galilean transform equations", the symbols
have a specific meaning. These are the Galilean transform
equations between coordinates in frame S and frame S' if
=A0 =A0 (a) S is moving at speed v in the x-direction relative
to S'
=A0 =A0 (b) (x,y,z,t) are coordinates of an event in the S frame
=A0 =A0 (c) (x',y',z',t') are coordinates of the same event in
the S' frame.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 x=3Dwt, x'=3Dwn', n'=3Dt(1-v/w), w =3D velocity of light
If you claim n' is the time in the S' frame, then you aren't
using the Galilean transform equations any more. In those
equations, t' is the time in the S'.
If you want to claim n' is something else, you can. But it
has nothing to do with time dilation in the Galilean
transform. In the Galilean transform, t' is the time in
the S' frame. You aren't free to change the meaning of
variables and then claim it's the same transform.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 - Randy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I am not free? When did that happen? What you need to understand,
Randy, is that time in any frame of reference can be referred to a
single measurement of time. What t'=3Dt means is that S is a preferred
frame of reference, and time in S' is measured by a clock in S, not a
clock in S'. If you think you can prove otherwise, by all means show
the equations. If t'=3Dt, then a clock in S' is running slower than t'
in the equation shows. Sorry, but that is just the way it is.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 08:37:45 PM |
|
|
On May 26, 5:15 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 26, 10:04?am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 25, 6:25 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 1:58?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 25, 5:31 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 12:48?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 10:33 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[snip stupidity]
Oh look the idiot welder says "use Newtonian gravitation" when asked
about a relativistic effect.
Go back to welding, idiot welder.
That was what I said, college graduate. ?Did you find a mistake
somewhere?
? ? Didn't you say you were going to show the error in this equation?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? n'=t(1-v/w)
? ? n' is the time on a moving clock. ?Did you know that there is no
distance contraction in the Galilean transformation equations?
Robert B. Winn
Those are not Galilean transformations, idiot welder.
Go back to welding and leave physics to those who can.-
As I remember, you were going to show the mistake in these equations
which you say are not the Galilean transformation equations.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? x'=x-vt
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? y'=y
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? z'=z
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? t'=t
When you say "Galilean transform equations", the symbols
have a specific meaning. These are the Galilean transform
equations between coordinates in frame S and frame S' if
? ? (a) S is moving at speed v in the x-direction relative
to S'
? ? (b) (x,y,z,t) are coordinates of an event in the S frame
? ? (c) (x',y',z',t') are coordinates of the same event in
the S' frame.
? ? ? ? x=wt, x'=wn', n'=t(1-v/w), w = velocity of light
If you claim n' is the time in the S' frame, then you aren't
using the Galilean transform equations any more. In those
equations, t' is the time in the S'.
If you want to claim n' is something else, you can. But it
has nothing to do with time dilation in the Galilean
transform. In the Galilean transform, t' is the time in
the S' frame. You aren't free to change the meaning of
variables and then claim it's the same transform.
? ? ? ? ? ? - Randy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I am not free? When did that happen?
When you stated "this is the Galilean transform". If what you want
to state after those words is actually the Galilean transform, then
you are not free to state something which is NOT the Galilean
transform.
You are free in the sense that you can make up anything you
want, as you have been doing. But then you can't expect that
people will accept the words "this is the Galilean transform" as
true.
What you need to understand,
Randy, is that time in any frame of reference can be referred to a
single measurement of time. What t'=t means is that S is a preferred
frame of reference, and time in S' is measured by a clock in S, not a
clock in S'.
No, that is not what it means. You are making stuff up again,
so once again what you are talking about is not the Gailiean
transform.
What does it even mean that "time in S' is measured by a clock
in S"? How is it doing that?
prove otherwise, by all means show
the equations.
No need, you keep posting them. The relevant one is this:
t' = t
If t'=t, then a clock in S' is running slower than t'
in the equation shows.
t' is the clock in S'. Are you saying
t' < t' ?
Sorry, but that is just the way it is.
No, nothing in the Galilean transform says t' < t'.
You added that.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 09:00:51 PM |
|
|
rbwinn wrote:
On May 25, 1:58?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 25, 5:31 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 12:48?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 10:33 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[snip stupidity]
Oh look the idiot welder says "use Newtonian gravitation" when asked
about a relativistic effect.
Go back to welding, idiot welder.
That was what I said, college graduate. Did you find a mistake
somewhere?
Didn't you say you were going to show the error in this equation?
n'=t(1-v/w)
n' is the time on a moving clock. Did you know that there is no
distance contraction in the Galilean transformation equations?
Robert B. Winn
Those are not Galilean transformations, idiot welder.
Go back to welding and leave physics to those who can.-
As I remember, you were going to show the mistake in these equations
which you say are not the Galilean transformation equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
x=wt, x'=wn', n'=t(1-v/w), w = velocity of light
Robert B. Winn
Robert--Your equations are the *wrong* equations for relativistic effects.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 04:02:16 AM |
|
|
On May 25, 7:00?pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On May 25, 1:58?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 25, 5:31 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
On May 25, 12:48?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 10:33 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
[snip stupidity]
Oh look the idiot welder says "use Newtonian gravitation" when asked
about a relativistic effect.
Go back to welding, idiot welder.
That was what I said, college graduate. Did you find a mistake
somewhere?
Didn't you say you were going to show the error in this equation?
n'=t(1-v/w)
n' is the time on a moving clock. Did you know that there is no
distance contraction in the Galilean transformation equations?
Robert B. Winn
Those are not Galilean transformations, idiot welder.
Go back to welding and leave physics to those who can.-
As I remember, you were going to show the mistake in these equations
which you say are not the Galilean transformation equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
x=wt, x'=wn', n'=t(1-v/w), w = velocity of light
Robert B. Winn
Robert--Your equations are the *wrong* equations for relativistic effects.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, if that is true, Sam, an educated person such as you should be
able to just ignore them. I do not see that happening.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
26 May 2007 02:35:51 PM |
|
|
rbwinn wrote:
On May 25, 7:00?pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
As I remember, you were going to show the mistake in these equations
which you say are not the Galilean transformation equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
x=wt, x'=wn', n'=t(1-v/w), w = velocity of light
Robert B. Winn
Robert--Your equations are the *wrong* equations for relativistic effects.
Well, if that is true, Sam, an educated person such as you should be
able to just ignore them. I do not see that happening.
Robert B. Winn
I ignored your equations for the first posting as not germane.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 08:22:18 AM |
|
|
rbwinn wrote:
On May 25, 12:48?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
That was what I said, college graduate. Did you find a mistake
somewhere?
Didn't you say you were going to show the error in this equation?
n'=t(1-v/w)
n' is the time on a moving clock. Did you know that there is no
distance contraction in the Galilean transformation equations?
Robert B. Winn
Christ, Robert, n'=t(1-v/w) doesn't have anything to do with
the problem, nor does orbital speed!
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbwinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 08:47:21 AM |
|
|
On May 25, 6:22?am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On May 25, 12:48?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
That was what I said, college graduate. Did you find a mistake
somewhere?
Didn't you say you were going to show the error in this equation?
n'=t(1-v/w)
n' is the time on a moving clock. Did you know that there is no
distance contraction in the Galilean transformation equations?
Robert B. Winn
Christ, Robert, n'=t(1-v/w) doesn't have anything to do with
the problem, nor does orbital speed!
We were not discussing religion here, Sam. Orbital speed seems to me
to have a lot to do with the problem. What speed were you planning to
use?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 08:52:27 AM |
|
|
In article <1180100841.760457.74460@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
We were not discussing religion here, Sam. Orbital speed seems to me
to have a lot to do with the problem. What speed were you planning to
use?
You haven't explained time dilation seen outside the solar system yet, which
has nothing to do with the earths rotation.
--
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. |
25 May 2007 09:10:51 AM |
|
|
On May 25, 6:52?am, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddled...@gmail.com>
wrote:
In article <1180100841.760457.74...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
We were not discussing religion here, Sam. Orbital speed seems to me
to have a lot to do with the problem. What speed were you planning to
use?
You haven't explained time dilation seen outside the solar system yet, which
has nothing to do with the earths rotation.
--
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, why would being outside the solar system have anything to do
with it? If we are using the Galilean transformation equations and
rotation of the earth as our measurement of time, the earth would
rotate once on its axis every rotation on its axis whether something
was outside the solar system or not. What are you trying to say, that
something outside the solar system changes the rotation of the earth?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury. |
25 May 2007 09:20:43 AM |
|
|
In article <1180102251.843723.42270@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
Well, why would being outside the solar system have anything to do
with it? If we are using the Galilean transformation equations and
rotation of the earth as our measurement of time, the earth would
rotate once on its axis every rotation on its axis whether something
was outside the solar system or not. What are you trying to say, that
something outside the solar system changes the rotation of the earth?
You don't understand the question at all do you... you're too hung up on your
new geocentrism.
--
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. |
25 May 2007 09:29:18 AM |
|
|
On May 25, 7:20?am, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddled...@gmail.com>
wrote:
In article <1180102251.843723.42...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
Well, why would being outside the solar system have anything to do
with it? If we are using the Galilean transformation equations and
rotation of the earth as our measurement of time, the earth would
rotate once on its axis every rotation on its axis whether something
was outside the solar system or not. What are you trying to say, that
something outside the solar system changes the rotation of the earth?
You don't understand the question at all do you... you're too hung up on your
new geocentrism.
--
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 the question. You think that by increasing distance you
can create confusion. You forgot that there is no distance
contraction in the Galilean transformation equations.
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
|
|
|
