Re: Pioneer Anomoly

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 20:01:34 +0100, "George Dishman"
<george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:9kfhb1pf3io1h2tnjafvv21vmrukpkbejv@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:52:39 +0100, "George Dishman"
>> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:8ikeb1trso7rv6j1u34fe4rptfe7vpft23@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:32:43 +0100, "George Dishman"
>>>> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
><snip previous context>
>
>>>> The Schw. metric and time dilation are kluges to make the
>>>> thing go. The equations of space should have nothing to do with xyz at
>>>> all, just the velocities.
>>>
>>>Velocities are merely the derivatives of the
>>>spatial coordinates so we can use either
>>>equivalently.
>>
>> Not to be picky, velocities have nothing to do with coordinates. It is
>> only when a mathematical analytic function exists for x(t), then we
>> can take a derivative.
>
>If you are going to be picky, you need to get
>it right. Velocities are defined as the time
>derivatives of coordinates and if x(t) cannot
>be differentiated then the velocity would be
>undefined.
And x(t) surely CAN be differentiated since you just listed it as
x(t), an mathematical analytic function of time. But derivatives are
mathematical constructs having nothing to do with my diagrams.

I will re-label the horizontal "time" axis as "cosmic velocity" which
is the speed at which our universe is hurtling through time. Both c
and V are "he-man" velocity vectors obviously independent of each
other and necessarily orthogonal.. V can either the relative velocity
for as SR effect, or tghe value of escape velocity for GR. Installing
either one on the diagram enables me to compute the Newton defect
delta c, the 4th side.

>>>> I mis-spoke when I said all relativity is in Fig. 1.
>>>
>>>OK, that is part of the confusion, I thought
>>>you were saying "Fig. 1a is relativity while
>>>Fig. 1c is my alternative". None of the
>>>diagrams represents relativity correctly.
>>
>> No, as I say, relativity has no diagrams.
>
>Check the label on fig 4b. If that is supposed
>to be the relativistic diagram, it is misleading.

Yes 4b tries to be representative of SR, but it's my version, so you
haven't seen it elsewhere so I say SR has no diagrams.
I did mention that I wasn't going to try to picture atanh a in Fig.
4b, as it can't be done. But you can see the radical difference
between the two systems. In DS, cosmic V is simply rotated by asin V/c
retaining its length. Furthermore, the process is extensible to any
number of rotations = c*sum asin(V/c).

I was also pointing out the possibility of a test using some
relativistic data to test SR's formula for the sum of 2 velocities.
The differences would be quite apparent, as my chart shows 16% and
more difference. I don't believe relativity has data of sufficient
accuracy to test for sums of relativistic velocity.

>> What you see is Dual Space
>> diagrams built on the fact of our universe traveling at c on a 4th
>> dimension. There is no attempt to model the Lorentz etc.
>
>Well the label "Actions of Lorentz transform:"
>under the second diagram is very confusing in
>that case.
Should reword: Fig. 1b illustrates clearly the simple projection
geometry that is responsible for the Lorentz transform. It does not
use the LT per se. That's still a matter of vigorous debate for the
relativity student. It is a natural result of my time-arrow diagram
and of our universe moving at velocity of light in time.
..
>>>No, you are drawing velocity perpendicular
>>>to a unit time vector (the "arrow of time")
>>> but in both Newton and relativity a speed
>>>of zero is a vector parallel to that. Your
>>>diagram is a cross between velocity space
>>>with an extra time axis which is why I need
>>>to try to translate it back to the usual
>>>format.
>> No no no. You are trying to make me draw a graph with x the time axis
>> and velocities as slants.
>
>No, you don't need to change, I just need to
>get to grips with your diagrams.

So if x is the Cosmic Velocity and y is Any Velocity is that clearer?
And the hypotenuse is the velocity c again.
I would never mix time and velocity. The cosmic velocity is not a
gimmick. Our universe was launched initially as electrons at the speed
of light and that's exactly what it is doing today.

>> The horizontal vector is our speed c through
>> time and cx our speed as reduced by either relative velocity or
>> gravity.
>>
>>>> Relativity's Eq. 6 & 7 are quite obscure and rely on the idea of
>>>> clock slowing due to time dilation. Time is absolute. c varies.
>>>
>>>They become obscure the way you have drawn
>>>the diagrams, normally they are simple
>>>perpendicuar lines.
>>
>> I know of no relativity diagram for Eq. 6 & 7 which are quotients of
>> the time dilation from rel. velocity and "potential energy".
>
>Nor do I and I can't see why they would be
>useful but we were discussing mainly figs 1
>and 4.
Each of Eqs. 6 and 7 could be drawn as two of my diagrams
superimposed. The 1- sqrt part represents that 4th side of the
triangle. No need to go into.
But notice in realtivity's Eqn. 7 V/c is used; but in Eqn. 6, Re/Rw a
ratio of radii, but if you adjust the algebra in 6, you can recast it
as terminal velocities the way I do, so that you could use the same
diagram for both SR&GR. That seems not to have occurred to
relativists. Their Re = 2MG/c^2 divided by Rw becomes Vesc^2/c^2.
Relativity leaves this term as the messy "potential energy".

>>>> Fig. 1 and 2 are velocity diagrams. Observe that these are
>>>> 4-dimensional diagrams in that any real velocity can be collapsed into
>>>> a single vector and the horizontal is our velocity through time, 4th
>>>> dimension.
>>>
>>>Note that velocity is already a derivative
>>>against that same axis.
>> No, in that case the ordinate would be of different dimension,
>> velocity than the abscissa, distance. Fig. 1 and 2 have all legs as
>> velocities.
>
>OK, my mistake, I thought at one point you
>said x was the time axis but it is dt/dt.

The time axis is the velocity vector c, our cosmic velocity.

>> I am not drawing a graph. Our U moves to the right at velocity c, and
>> any 'real' velocity V is at right angles to the 4th dimension.
>
>Yes, it's more like a "sum of vectors" picture.
>
><snip - needs more thought>
>>>> It's from a mass mx of 2x70e21 solar
>>>> masses in the other space. But mx would have a horizon radius of
>>>> 22BLY, so we would be in a black hole. Cut mx in two so it is then the
>>>> antiparticle half or Espace, corresponding to our Uspace half. Now we
>>>> get Ap/2. Now invoke the new term cdc/dr = mG/r^2 Eq, 1 #2, and
>>>> recover another contributor to Ap making a total of Ap. That's how P10
>>>> feels Ap.
>>>
>>>Your words make no sense at all, A_p is a
>>>normal spatial acceleration and has three
>>>components, since you have only one axis,
>>>you are trying to equate a scalar to a
>>>three-vector. All three components of A_p
>>>are perpendicular to the time axis.
>>
>> Nah. Any real vector has 3 components, but only in analytic geometry.
>> In vector analysis it can be a single arrow in Clarendon bold.
>
>Sure but that symbology still represents the
>set of components and dt/dt is still scalar.

dtdt = c vector.
>>>> I will admit that planetary orbits should be likewise affected, but I
>>>> won't abandon the theory for that reason.
>>>
>>>There's no need to abandon your ideas, they
>>>simply won't explain the Pioneer anomaly.
>>>The fact that both craft seem to be drawn
>>>towards the sun but they are on opposite
>>>sides is significant.

More correctly, it's that both craft seem to lose velocity in time
along their velocity line, regardless of direction. Your version
implies that the sun has something to do with it which is not a
"given".
>
>I think that was my key point regarding your
>claim to have a solution to the Pioneer anomaly.
>
>>>> It is why I suggested that
>>>> another Pioneer experiment should be sure to determine range also by
>>>> round trip time, and not rely solely on increase in Doppler frequency
>>>> over time.
>>>
>>>Both craft had such a system and it was used
>>>to correlate some of the spin effects but that
>>>function on Pioneer 10 was damage during the
>>>Jupiter encounter and Pioneer 11 lost contact
>>>much earlier. I believe it was because they
>>>were then forced to navigate using only Doppler
>>>that the original study was undertaken to
>>>review the performance in that mode.
>>
>> I am suspecting that the Doppler might exist without spatial
>> dislocation
>
>That is a prime concern of the paper but if
>there is no spatial acceleration, how is the
>frequency affected? You haven't explained the
>mechanism which is crucial to an explanation.
>
>> because I am calculating my Ap along the 11Byr time axis
>> of separation since T = 0. The numbers match uncannily, but I did back
>> my way into 10.7 Byr by using Ap = H*c and T = 1/H. And maybe I
>> haven't gotten every last detail nailed. The first version of my
>> theory I printed in 2001. I have modified a fair amount since and
>> anticipate there is more work to be done.
>
>Definitely.
>
>
>>>> I have not seen such a diagram in SR. In SR c stretches into gamma c.
>>>
>>>No, 'c' is invariant in relativity, the
>>>apparent increase on the diagram is solely due
>>>to the limitation of drawing on Euclidean
>>>paper (screen), like the distortion of the
>>>widths of countries in a Mercator Projection.
>>>Again, I had already pointed this out:
>>>
>>>>>No, c is a fundamental constant that does not
>>>>>change in relativity and the axis rotates as
>>>>>you show in 4a except that it rotates the
>>>>>other way from what you have shown.
>>
>> As you can see, c shortens to cx in DS, while SR tries to trim time
>
>No it doesn't, the changes are due to projection
>between the (non-parallel) axes but you have to
>draw it as (x,y,z,t) to make it apparent. Using
>the derivatives as you do will hide the process.

There is no place for derivatives.

>>>>>Your responses show only some significant
>>>>>misapprehensions about relativity. You
>>>>>might try breaking out the textbooks, I have
>>>>>only given hints of where the errors lie so
>>>>>you'll need to work out the details yourself.
>>
>> I think by now you should know that I know enough of relativity to be
>> able poke at its errors from the standpoint of a whole new theory.
>> Sloppy phraseology might mislead you into thinking I am tutoring on
>> relativity, but in fact I want nothing to do with it.
>
>No, the mistakes you keep making when discussing
>relativity show me you need a bit of tutoring
>though you're pretty close on many of the concepts.
>
>> I can't tell you how pleased I am that you consider my schemes and
>> take the time to discuss them and ask that you file off the sharp
>> corners here and there for me.
>
>That's OK though I may not add much more as my
>interest is in Pioneer rather than relativity
>per se. There are a number of problems in your
>paper, mostly to do with the labelling of the
>diagrams.
Well if I've finally made clear what my diagram stands for, maybe some
of your other concerns would be allayed also. Obviously I have to
rewrite and relabel so the intent would be more immediately obvious.
Probably trying to put too much in one diagram is a problem.

As to the planet neutrality, I am harboring the idea that the
satellite is a "Nova" launched by man from Earth and thus might act
differently from the solar system which was initially launched at
creation 11 Byrs ago. Bear in mind, we are not sending 2-way signals
to the moon or mars and studying their possible Doppler drifts, and
that is all we have to study withr the Pioneer.
>
>George
>
John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Pioneer Anomoly
    ... >> doing relativity you have it all wrong. ... No, as I say, relativity has no diagrams. ... >> the 4 SR and GTR corrections in Fig. 2 and the table.The SR velocity ... You are trying to make me draw a graph with x the time axis ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Pioneer Anomoly
    ... be differentiated then the velocity would be ... >>diagrams represents relativity correctly. ... You are trying to make me draw a graph with x the time axis ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Pioneer Anomoly
    ... >>derivatives of coordinates and if xcannot ... V can either the relative velocity ... >>to be the relativistic diagram, ... I don't believe relativity has data of sufficient ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Permittivity and the Poynting vector
    ... >> Dirk, I happen to think your SR abilities are superior to mine! ... >> and though a newbie I quickly recognized the diagrams you ... where physics is concerned I see good ... > infinitely great velocity." ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Permittivity and the Poynting vector
    ... > Dirk, I happen to think your SR abilities are superior to mine! ... > and though a newbie I quickly recognized the diagrams you ... where physics is concerned I see good ... infinitely great velocity." ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)