Re: Pioneer Anomoly

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:54:29 +0100, "George Dishman"
<george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:fhvab11tui0d443qm3p2lbnmqvelqbasae@xxxxxxxxxx
>> 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.
>
>That comment seems entirely unrelated to what
>you quote above.
Some perspective. Forget the xyzicT of Einstein.
In D.S. theory there are two universes, the one you see, "Uspace" and
the one it was taken out of, "Espace". The time T I speak of is 11
BYrs. that have elapsed since our Uspace was launched to the speed of
light on the time axis, at creation and of course R = 11 Bn Lt yrs.

The reason why there should be another universe made of antiparticles
is that neither gravity nor EM nor constant c can possibly be
accomplished in a pure vacuum. There is nothing there.

It was the inevitable outcome of trying to determine exactly how
vacuum could at least store electrical energy (by its permittivity
paper #1).
What I found was another space, tantamount to ether since its
mechanical moduli Y/rho gave c^2. Similarly it has the electrical
eps0*mu0*c^2 = 1.

Espace is defined in #1 as simply electron positron pairs dense enough
to be 5 million times as dense as steel. Creation entailed removing
just electrons as needed, leaving positrons behind.

There's no use trying to encapsulate a whole new theory in a half
dozen paragraphs. It's all all new and it all all works.
Relativity is a trap: look at the sort of papers being written in Phys
Rev D for example.


>T is one of the unknowns, the largest part
>of processing the data is to solve find T
>(specifically t_3 - t_1 in the notation used
>by Anderson et al.).
>
>Once you have that, cT does not directly give
>the distance since you have to correct for the
>effect of the Solar plasma and ionosphere. Even
>after that, you get the distance to the sites
>on Earth so if you use that to calculate the
>gravitational attraction of the Sun, you are
>making yet another basic mistake.
>
>>>>>>> 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.
>
>If you want to go back to basics, there are many
>thousands of frequency measurements with the
>time of that measurement, and knowledge of the
>transmitted frequency also as a function of time.
>Whether there is a blue shift or not is for you
>to calculate using your theory.

No no, the blue shift increasing is just another way of denominating
the recorded Doppler drift rate. It's what needs explaining.

>>> All of relativity is in Fig. 1
>> paper#2
>
>You have used normal trig instead of hyperbolic
>so the craft clock appears to run fast instead
>of slow but it is analogous,

In DS time-arrow diagram Fig.1 #2, the horizontal line is along the
4th dimension time axis and every xyz velocity in Uspace is drawn
normal to the time line. Our velocity is at c on the 4th dimension
ever since our launching at creation.

DS does not use time dilation. It's all reduction in c. Look again at
Fig. 1b. The relative velocity V of the craft causes its time arrow to
be rotated by angle a. The craft's time arrow remains the same length
because it's totally equivalent, just a different direction in
space-time:

Craft's clock on the hypotenuse will read slow in our frame being
reduced by cosine a or Lorentz.
Similarly for force F in 1b, which is intended to push the craft,
has a diminishing effect Feff = F cosine a, just like Lorentz. This
differs with relativity by avoiding the use of the odious gamma to
"jack up" m so as to resist the force. This avoids all the
relativistic mass debates.
The little 4th side delta c in Fig. 1c divided by c is z, the
redshift.

>I know what you
>mean. I guess you did the same later too.
No, I did not waver. This same diagram solves general relativity
problems too. We need a velocity V to represent strength of gravity
and it is naturally the terminal velocity or escape velocity from
infinity to that point.
Again,cx/c is the actual slowdown ratio of a clock in the gravity
well, and we can just as well use the 4th side, delta c/c to compute
any deficits. delta c = 0.5(V/c)^2

This is not just geometry. No, a mass at infinity gets "free energy"
by accumulating velocity of 11,180m/s at earth. But this energy comes
from a decrement in c of 0.208m/s.

The immediate application is seen in the 4 corrections in the GPS
system.
This is clearly and numerically illustrated in Fig. 2 and Cols. 3 & 4
in table 1 in #2 paper. Each clock correction comes off as dc/c x
86,400 sec/day. The results are plain and clear, contrasted with the
relativity version in Eq. 6 & 7.

>
>> with total energy never deviating from 1/2mc^2.
>> A hyperbolic 4space is an abomination as you can see from Fig. 4 #2,
>
>The energy seems to be in fig 3 in document 2,
>not fig 4. Even then it is not a style I've
>seen before. Where did you get the diagram?

Yes fig.3. The diagram is a natural embodiment of relativitys total
energy equation 10, TE being the sum of the squares of (already
quadratic) terms. As you can see, in Fig. 3b, we have cx on the
horizontal and real V normal to it. DS uses that same philosophy,
except that in ours, horizontal c is our speed thru the Espace and in
relativity its undefined I guess.
>
>This is a simple version I did some time ago
>but it needs more annotation:
>
> http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/relativity/momenergy.gif
>
>The mass is an invariant scalar and as usual
>the rotation in spacetime known as velocity
>produces the increase we call kinetic energy.
>
>As for your figure 4, the one on the left is
>the relativistic version (if you used the
>hyperbolic trig as above) with 'v' being the
>velocity and alpha being the corresponding
>rapidity. The one on the right is Newtonian
>where R1 and R2 are the velocities. Alpha in
>that diagram has no equivalent in Newtonian
>theory. Did you get the labels the wrong way
>round?

Not at all. Look again. The effect of a real velocity V is to rotate
the original time-arrow c as shown in fig. 4a so that after each
rotation its value remains c. The right hand one is relativistic, c
becoming a larger gamma c.

>> the relativity total energy with its abominable gamma mc^2, resulting
>> from hyperbolic 4space.
>
><snip>
>>>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.
>
>I'm not insisting on anything, you said you
>had done it without any prompting from me:

There's far too much to cover in order to prove my P10 explanation. I
again got trapped into trying to teletype it all to you in a few
breathless paragraphs, but it's plainly not working.
New physics you need, new physics you haven't got, new physics you
have to study.
You seem to have objected to enough stuff in paper #2 to merit a
re-reading based on my responses.

>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:so27b19lnlts1ullo690go18v21aoibp52@xxxxxxxxxx
>> I have the Pioneer 10 anomaly explained in paper #4 on my website.
>
>I'm just asking you to produce the goods.
>
>George
>
John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... >> By thesame tokem since special relativity reduces to newtonian ... 2AB/= c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty ... > interesting to hear why in physics things are what they are, ... > constant c and their dependence of Aether energy density u. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... >> By thesame tokem since special relativity reduces to newtonian ... 2AB/= c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty ... > interesting to hear why in physics things are what they are, ... > constant c and their dependence of Aether energy density u. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • B. Newtonian Micheslon-Morley vs SR-cult fraud and corruption (Rev A)
    ... Michelson-Morley Experiment versus Newtonian-Galilean Physics ... The 'Intrinsic' Energy Model of Light ... of Special Relativity. ... Newtonian-Galilean ideas about light velocity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • B. Newtonian Micheslon-Morley vs SR-cult fraud and corruption (Rev A)
    ... Michelson-Morley Experiment versus Newtonian-Galilean Physics ... The 'Intrinsic' Energy Model of Light ... of Special Relativity. ... Newtonian-Galilean ideas about light velocity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • B. Newtonian Micheslon-Morley vs SR-cult fraud and corruption (Rev A)
    ... Michelson-Morley Experiment versus Newtonian-Galilean Physics ... The 'Intrinsic' Energy Model of Light ... of Special Relativity. ... Newtonian-Galilean ideas about light velocity. ...
    (sci.math)