Re: Pioneer Anomoly

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:10:15 +0100, "George Dishman"
<george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:8dd8b1dt8rrcade7ph486esrjivbrq29ih@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:29:28 +0100, "George Dishman"
>> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
>>>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 14:08:02 +0100, "George Dishman"
>>>> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
>>>>>OK, I have it now. There are some obvious problems
>>>>>without getting into the detail yet. The first you
>>>>>point out yourself: the effect of a large distant
>>>>>mass would apply to all the bodies in the solar
>>>>>system hence we would not detect anything. In fact
>>>>>this is currently happening both because the Milky
>>>>>Way galaxy is bound in the Local Group. You might
>>>>>also find it interesting to look up the "Great
>>>>>Attractor":
Any point in our universe of particles is located at x y z cT. There
is image in Dual Space of antiparticles located at x y z 0. (Espace
is the dual to our vaccum). The range I used for the Newton
acceleration is R = cT. It is not a distance xyz w/re to the Sun e.g.

>>>>> http://cow.physics.wisc.edu/~ogelman/guide/gr8a/
>>>>>
>>>>>The second problem is that both Pioneer 10 and 11
>>>>>are attracted towards the Sun, but they are on
>>>>>opposite sides of the Solar System. Your large mass
>>>>>would need to be in two places at once.
Let's restate that. There is an apparent blue-shift that is increasing
WITH TIME *irrespective of direction*. To say it's toward the sun is
over-reaching.
><snip>
>
>>>... I'll be quite happy if
>>>you explain how you work out the direction of
>>>A_p using your theory and show that it is
>>>directed towards the Sun for _both_ craft.
>>>After all, you are the one claiming to have
>>>an explanation and this is one of the key
>>>points. The other is the constancy of course.
>>>
>> Firstly, don't get the impression that the solution to P10 is my big
>> paper, It is a mere natural secondary consequence from Ch. 13 of my
>> book using the Dual Space gravity law.
>>
>> Everybody wants to know in 30 seconds what the theory is, but it's a
>> BIG theory with 240 pages dense with equations.
>
>I don't want to know all the details of your
>ideas but I have done quite a lot of work on the
>Pioneer anomaly myself and that is what I am
>interested in. You claimed to have a solution,
>I just want to see it. Your document (#4) has
>fundamental problems as noted above.
>
>...
>> After long cooking, it's our universe moving at c IN TIME. This
>> unhooks us from Minknowski's 4space ..
>
>No it doesn't:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-velocity
Yes it does. Dual Space is cartesian. All of relativity is in Fig. 1
paper#2 with total energy never deviating from 1/2mc^2.
A hyperbolic 4space is an abomination as you can see from Fig. 4 #2,
the relativity total energy with its abominable gamma mc^2, resulting
from hyperbolic 4space.
>> .. and automatically gives the same
>> results as relativity. ...
>
>Since the pioneer anomaly is adevaition from
>the relativistic prediction, that implies your
>ideas won't explain it. Of course if it did
>deviate then you would have to show you can
>still predict the orbits of the planets.
>That's one aspect that suggests there is a
>more mundane answer as a general modification
>to gravity at sufficient level to explain the
>craft motion should show up in planetary
>motion as well.
>
>> In DS we say our universe goes at c on the 4th dimension of TIME. The
>> separation R used in #2 is cT, distance on the time axis and is
>> therefore a universal separation, neither/both toward/away from the
>> Sun.
>
>Then unless you have a way to turn that
>general result into a direction and show
>that it will be within 1.5 degrees of a
>line towards the Sun, you don't have an
>explanation, sorry.
>
>George
It's new physics, there's 12 chapters ahead of chapter 13, and you
seem to insist on my solving it with what we already know, and so far,
it can't be done. See paper #5 where Wilczek and company are surmising
that new physics may be needed. They (it?) are.

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net


.

Relevant Pages

  • Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativitys gravity
    ... Century" to show how gravity works in Dual Space. ... Remember that relativity got its start trying to ... permittivity could exist in a vacuum and found another universe. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativitys gravity
    ... Century" to show how gravity works in Dual Space. ... Remember that relativity got its start trying to ... permittivity could exist in a vacuum and found another universe. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Dual Space theory offers replacement for relativitys gravity
    ... Century" to show how gravity works in Dual Space. ... Remember that relativity got its start trying to ... permittivity could exist in a vacuum and found another universe. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
    ... You don't get that Dual Space completely ... >| Dual Space has our 3D universe whizzing through time at c. ... >| Vacuum permittivity forces a new space, Espace, in which it takes ... >| My density, independently derived, using my model mass M derived from ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
    ... |>|>> Dual Space is the name I attach to the fact that our universe is ... |>|>> John Polasek ... |>So what if your theory covers more than relativity? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)