"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:32:43 +0100, "George Dishman"
> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:54:29 +0100, "George Dishman"
>>> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:10:15 +0100, "George Dishman"
>>>>> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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.
> I think we can start here. If you think I've got some jackleg way of
> doing relativity you have it all wrong. I am declaring relativity
Understood, but while your description of
relativity is closer than many in this group,
it still has a significant flaws hence your
opinion is ill founded.
> 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
> 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. In
fact I think your diagrams don't work at all
since velocity is the time derivative of
the spatial coordinates but I'll give that
some more thought, it's sufficiently out of
the ordinary for me to have to ponder it a
> It might sound
> like it's my way of doing relaitivy. I mean my method delivers
> relativity's results entirely but by a method derived independently of
> In Fig. 1 all the 2nd order defects separating relativity from Newton
> are contained in the 4th side of the figure. That should be plain from
> the 4 SR and GTR corrections in Fig. 2 and the table.The SR velocity
> is relative velocity, and for GTR the velocity is escape velocity, so
> both modus' are explained by a single figure.
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
> 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
> 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
Note that velocity is already a derivative
against that same axis.
>>x, y, z and t are all you can measure. Whatever your
>>theory, you have to relate them back to those values.
>>You are still not saying anything relevant to the
>>comment above. Your suggestion of a remote black
>>hole or other large mass cannot explain A_p for
>>the reason you correctly stated yourself.
> Quick summary of Ap:
> The satellite is feeling a faint acceleration 8.4e-10m/ss = Ap from a
> universe that is the twin of ouruniverse located 11 BLyr from here on
> the time axis. (Time axis).
In our future or our past?
That doesn't make sense, acceleration is the
derivative of velocity so since you said
velocity is perpendicular to the time axis,
the acceleration vector must also be
perpendicular to the time axis.
> 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.
>>> There's no use trying to encapsulate a whole new theory in a half
>>> dozen paragraphs.
>>Then stop trying to do so and respond to the
>>objection I raised instead.
> 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.
> 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.
> By now you should see that the x axis is our velocity c or cx as we
> move through the 4th dimension. V is any velocity you care to name
> with respect to our frame.
I don't think that way of drawing it works
but I'll think a little more about it.
>>Relativity also rotates the arrow and keeps it the
> Relativity doesn't have an arrow. Its corpus is an xyzt coordinate
> system whose legs are subject to bending via the Schw. metric. Time is
> welded onto xyz and nothing moves. That's how it differs from Dual
That's complete nonsense.
>>> 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.
>>"Relativistic mass" was a poor attempt to shoehorn
>>relativity into Newtonian equations that causes a
>>lot of misunderstanding. Mass is really invariant
> No you have gamma mc2 and no matter how it is argued, relativity has a
> permanent embarassment that perennially needs exculpation.
gamma mc^2 describes energy, not mass. Mass is
invariant, an arrow of fixed length.
>>In relativity, we plot the mometum on the
>>horizontal and energy on the vertical as shown
>>below. Mass is the hypotenuse and the length is
>>unchanged by rotation though it looks as though
>>it changes because the Euclidean geometry of
>>>>This is a simple version I did some time ago
>>>>but it needs more annotation:
> Call me a puritan but I was revulsed at your diagram above. Firstly
> you are taking the vector sum of momentum p and energy mc2. The units
> are incompatible.
That's what I meant by a bit more annotation,
the appropriate factors are not explicit.
> Worse, the hypotenuse is labeled mass and as we know
> mass is simply a scalar that can transduce acceleration into force,
> again different units. But then worse, your mass will go to infinity
> with increase in momentum.
That's where part of your misunderstanding lies.
On normal Euclidean paper, if I rotate a line
of constant radius, it draws a circle. Because
the geometry in SR has signature (+++-),
rotating a line of constant length produces a
parabola. The word "mass" indicates the length
of the line (not a vector) hence is a scalar as
you say and is of constant length.
What goes to infinity with the momentum is the
total energy, the sum of the rest energy and
the kinetic energy.
> Even if you meant pc on the x axis, the
> diagram is of no tutorial value.
I had hoped you had seen it before but I'll
try to correct the errors when I get time.
>>>>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
>>> 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.
>>That's also true of SR.
> 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.
>>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.
> To repeat, I have used nothing from relativity except to show how I
> get the same values.
> You are probably a pretty quick study but there's no wa;y you will get
> the whole idea without letting go fo SR/GR and study some new
My biggest problem is your unconventional
diagrams, but certainly your ideas about
relativity are a little off the mark. I hope
my comments have gone some way to correct