Author 
Message 
George Dishman science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 963

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:56 am Post subject:
Re: Anomalous Acceleration Proves Gravity Anisotropy.



"Max Keon" <maxkeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44bc2741$0$1205$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Quote:  I wrote:
Every point in space is the focal point of the entire mass of the
universe. Its effect is naturally uniformly distributed everywhere
and wouldn't be easy to detect. But it still must have some effect
on anything in motion relative to where the local base of dimension
is set, which is determined by the Sun around here. You probably
won't like that.
George Dishman wrote:
What you are describing could be seen as a sort
of static version of frame dragging but the level
would be much smaller than your equation. However,
I'm not getting into that argument, I merely
pointed out that the consequence of your equation
is an anomaly that would vary with the inverse
square of the heliocentric range and what is
observed is constant.
I wrote:
It's quite irrelevant anyway because the anisotropy generated in
the forward direction would be canceled by that generated in the
trailing direction.
That is not so at all. But the effect is probably insignificant.
And I wrote:
At an easily determined location between Jupiter and Saturn, the
anisotropy generated by Pioneer11's motion away from Jupiter is
canceled by the negative anisotropy generated by its motion toward
Saturn.
Which again is false.
The point in space between Jupiter and Saturn where I assumed the
gravity anisotropies would cancel each other is offset toward Saturn
at .6462786 of the distance between them. Even though they are the
negative of each other, they add together to reinforce the total
anisotropy. One is generated by motion away from Jupiter and the
other through motion toward Saturn, regarless of how they intersect.

Be careful Max, your equation was:
(1 + (v/c)^2) * GM/r^2
but that is just the magnitude.
Since the speed enters as v^2 and (v/c) << 1 it
always produces a small increase in the magnitude
of the force. However that is directed towards
the body so if the craft is between the planets,
their contributions would tend to cancel. However,
you really need to find the vector sum because
the craft is unlikely to be directly on the line
joining the planets so there will also be a net
force perpendicular to that line at the point of
balance.
What you really need to do is plot the sum of
(v/c)^2 * GM/r^2
for the Sun and all the planets as a function of
the distance along the trajectory from 1987
onwards and split it into a component along the
path and one normal to the path. You won't get a
constant acceleration.
As a rough estimate, the Sun dominates so the total
effect will be close to an inverse square.
George 

Back to top 


Max Keon science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 111

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:28 am Post subject:
Re: Anomalous Acceleration Proves Gravity Anisotropy.



"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153137504.221634.167850@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:  Max Keon wrote:
"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e9b23b$1mu$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
What you are describing could be seen as a sort
of static version of frame dragging but the level
would be much smaller than your equation. However,
I'm not getting into that argument, I merely
pointed out that the consequence of your equation
is an anomaly that would vary with the inverse
square of the heliocentric range and what is
observed is constant.
It's quite irrelevant anyway because the anisotropy generated in
the forward direction would be canceled by that generated in the
trailing direction.
Your figures later seem to say there is a net effect.

The realization of my hastily contrived error arrived at about 2am
while I was half asleep.
Quote:  According to the math, the anomalous acceleration remains fairly
constant, but in reality that's not the case at all. Figure 7 in
the rather exceptional link that you previously provided,
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0104064 shows a reasonably
constant curve plot for the anomalous acceleration. But it's only
constant because ***the calculation is in constant error by that
amount***.
The calculations have been repeated independently by
Markwardt as reported in:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0208046
and he finds the same anomaly, it is highly unlikely to
be a maths error.
At an easily determined location between Jupiter and Saturn, the
anisotropy generated by Pioneer11's motion away from Jupiter is
canceled by the negative anisotropy generated by its motion toward
Saturn.
The period studied for the Pioneers started in 1987.
If you look at figure 3 in the Anderson paper you can
see that by that time Pioneer 11 was beyond the orbit
of Uranus and Pioneer 10 was beyond the orbit of
Neptune. Your comment might apply between Uranus
and Neptune for Pioneer 11 but Pioneer 10 was on the
opposite side of the Sun so of no consequence. You
seem to grasp that below though.
Any gravity anisotropy generated in those close range
interactions would be well concealed by the math error anyway,
I don't know where you get the idea of a "math error".

g' = (GM / r^2)6.669e9v (v is velocity) accommodates the gravity
anisotropy. The velocity multiplier 6.669e9 times the 11000m/sec
Pioneer velocity = 7.3359e5. The result of SQR(1v^2/c^2)/v
= 9.091e5. I know that's a SR equation, but I also know that the
velocity component is accommodated in GR. I would say that the math
error is in the GR corrections.
The problem is that anything which cancels the gravity anisotropy
for the near Sun case will also cancel it for all distances. I can
find all sorts of little variations that will do the job for the
local case, but none follow any logical reason whatever. The
anomalous acceleration peak intersects the gravity anisotropy curve
very closely, so whatever is going on, a gravity anisotropy could
well have something to do with it.
I don't know whether or not you are aware of the zero origin
concept or of one of its predictions, which is that the Sun and
its satellites determine how dimension is set locally. Meaning
that the motion of the planets carry the base of dimension on which
light and gravity "propagate" along with them. If that is so, as
Pioneer moves into the outer reaches of the solar system, it's
going to encounter a zone where the universe begins to assume some
control. Pioneer then has a sideways component relative to the
universe, which is going to set up a gravity anisotropy that is not
camouflaged in a math loop which is necessarily designed to be self
consistent according to the rules of relativity.
But the now apparent anisotropy won't point at the sun, it will
point in the direction of motion in the universe's frame. The
reaction to this new force will tend to push Pioneer in the
direction of least resistance, back into the sun's frame. And that
force will remain fairly constant as Pioneer pushes further into
the frame of the universe.
If you were living at the center of mass of a hollow earth, with
your eyes closed, you would have no indication whatever of the
relatively enormous mass which surrounds you. But if you move in
any direction, you are moving relative to the center of mass of the
entire group, and you are moving relative to the individual masses,
and that will generate an anisotropy.
Even though the universe doesn't have a defined center of mass,
everything still resides at its center of mass. The CMBR arrives
here from everywhere, and as a consequence, so does the mass
"presence" that created the radiation. The entire mass within the
13 billion year radius of the visible big bang universe is, and has
always been, surrounding and affecting our existence. The amount of
matter through any solid angle of space remains constant, regardless
of its temperature. Its "presence" is not diminished just because
the universe has evolved. Well, not in the zero origin universe
anyway. What you see is exactly as it was, right back to the
eternally distant origin.
The "presence" of matter reduces at exactly the same rate per
distance as does gravity and E/M radiation.
That sets up a whole new ball game. The outer edges of a galaxy,
especially the arms of a spiral galaxy, will be most affected by the
tangential velocity of its components as they interact with the
frame of the universe. They will be pushed back toward the galaxy
center to a location where their tangential velocities counteract
the new force. As the whole outer region is shifted inward, the
universe again closes in, and the operation is repeated over and
over again until a balance is found. Not in discrete stages of
course.

Max Keon 

Back to top 


George Dishman science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 963

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:19 pm Post subject:
Re: Anomalous Acceleration Proves Gravity Anisotropy.



"Max Keon" <maxkeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44bedc46$0$25284$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Quote: 
"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153137504.221634.167850@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e9b23b$1mu$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
What you are describing could be seen as a sort
of static version of frame dragging but the level
would be much smaller than your equation. However,
I'm not getting into that argument, I merely
pointed out that the consequence of your equation
is an anomaly that would vary with the inverse
square of the heliocentric range and what is
observed is constant.
It's quite irrelevant anyway because the anisotropy generated in
the forward direction would be canceled by that generated in the
trailing direction.
Your figures later seem to say there is a net effect.
The realization of my hastily contrived error arrived at about 2am
while I was half asleep.
According to the math, the anomalous acceleration remains fairly
constant, but in reality that's not the case at all. Figure 7 in
the rather exceptional link that you previously provided,
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0104064 shows a reasonably
constant curve plot for the anomalous acceleration. But it's only
constant because ***the calculation is in constant error by that
amount***.
The calculations have been repeated independently by
Markwardt as reported in:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0208046
and he finds the same anomaly, it is highly unlikely to
be a maths error.
At an easily determined location between Jupiter and Saturn, the
anisotropy generated by Pioneer11's motion away from Jupiter is
canceled by the negative anisotropy generated by its motion toward
Saturn.
The period studied for the Pioneers started in 1987.
If you look at figure 3 in the Anderson paper you can
see that by that time Pioneer 11 was beyond the orbit
of Uranus and Pioneer 10 was beyond the orbit of
Neptune. Your comment might apply between Uranus
and Neptune for Pioneer 11 but Pioneer 10 was on the
opposite side of the Sun so of no consequence. You
seem to grasp that below though.
Any gravity anisotropy generated in those close range
interactions would be well concealed by the math error anyway,
I don't know where you get the idea of a "math error".
g' = (GM / r^2)6.669e9v (v is velocity) accommodates the gravity
anisotropy.

The analysis done by Anderson et al already includes
all relevant relativistic effects, the full equation
they use is given at the bottom of page 12 as Eqn (3)
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0104064
As you can see, this is much more comprehensive than
your use of gamma to multiply the Newtonian force.
Quote:  The velocity multiplier 6.669e9 times the 11000m/sec
Pioneer velocity = 7.3359e5. The result of SQR(1v^2/c^2)/v
= 9.091e5.

You are using v too often, the units will not match.
Your previous posts said:
g' = ((c + v)^2 / c^2) * g
where g is the Newtonian acceleration due to the
Sun, or simplifying:
g' = g * (1 + (v/c)^2)
that gives an anomaly of
a_P/g = g'/g  1 = (v/c)^2
This time you seem to be saying
g' = g * sqrt(1 + (v/c)^2)
hence
a_P/g = g'/g  1 = sqrt(1+(v/c)^2)  1
In Jan 1987, at 40AU, v = 13.14 km/s so
(v/c)^2 = 1.92e9 while
sqrt(1+(v/c)^2)1 = 9.61e10
In Dec 1994, at 61AU, v = 12.53 km/s so
(v/c)^2 = 1.75e9 while
sqrt(1+(v/c)^2)1 = 8.73e10
The choice of equation makes a difference of a
factor of 2 which isn't too important.
In both cases, there is about a 10% change
due to the change of speed. On the other
hand the value of g falls from 3.71e4 m/s^2
to 1.65e4 m/s^2. That factor is much to large
a change and is ruled out by the constancy of
the anomaly.
Whichever equation you use, they predict an
anomaly around 2*10^13 at 61AU which is
4000 times less than is observed.
Quote:  I know that's a SR equation, but I also know that the
velocity component is accommodated in GR. I would say that the math
error is in the GR corrections.

Well the equation is in the paper where I indicated
above so you can check it for yourself but your use
of SR is certainly not adequate and still gives a
value three orders of magnitude to small.
Quote:  The problem is that anything which cancels the gravity anisotropy
for the near Sun case will also cancel it for all distances.

No, your real problem is that there is no significant
anisotropy in relativistic gravity in the weak field
regime that applies here. There is no "math error",
instead you are suggesting some new physics that would
produce anisotropy but even than it is too small and
varies too much with range.
Quote:  I can
find all sorts of little variations that will do the job for the
local case, but none follow any logical reason whatever. The
anomalous acceleration peak intersects the gravity anisotropy curve
very closely, so whatever is going on, a gravity anisotropy could
well have something to do with it.
I don't know whether or not you are aware of the zero origin
concept or of one of its predictions,

I have seen you use the phrase but words mean little.
What matters here is that you need to apply the
equations produced by your idea to the values for
Pioneer and get a prediction. Just trying to pull
equations out of SR isn't going to get you anywhere.
Quote:  which is that the Sun and
its satellites determine how dimension is set locally. Meaning
that the motion of the planets carry the base of dimension on which
light and gravity "propagate" along with them. If that is so, as
Pioneer moves into the outer reaches of the solar system, it's
going to encounter a zone where the universe begins to assume some
control. Pioneer then has a sideways component relative to the
universe, which is going to set up a gravity anisotropy that is not
camouflaged in a math loop which is necessarily designed to be self
consistent according to the rules of relativity.
But the now apparent anisotropy won't point at the sun, it will
point in the direction of motion in the universe's frame.

That would be a problem since the craft are on opposite
sides of the Sun while the system as a whole is moving
rapidly in orbit round the galaxy. Both craft should
accelerate in the same direction but they don't.
Quote:  The
reaction to this new force will tend to push Pioneer in the
direction of least resistance, back into the sun's frame. And that
force will remain fairly constant as Pioneer pushes further into
the frame of the universe.
If you were living at the center of mass of a hollow earth, with
your eyes closed, you would have no indication whatever of the
relatively enormous mass which surrounds you. But if you move in
any direction, you are moving relative to the center of mass of the
entire group, and you are moving relative to the individual masses,
and that will generate an anisotropy.
Even though the universe doesn't have a defined center of mass,
everything still resides at its center of mass. The CMBR arrives
here from everywhere, and as a consequence, so does the mass
"presence" that created the radiation. The entire mass within the
13 billion year radius of the visible big bang universe is, and has
always been, surrounding and affecting our existence. The amount of
matter through any solid angle of space remains constant, regardless
of its temperature. Its "presence" is not diminished just because
the universe has evolved.

I think basically that is just a statement of Mach's
Principle. Anyway I'm not concerned with your philosophy
at all, check the derivation of your equation (since you
aren't being consistent) then just apply it and see what
you get. It is obvious to me that the variation of g with
range rules out this idea and the value you are currently
predicting is far too small.
George 

Back to top 


Google


Back to top 



The time now is Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:03 am  All times are GMT

