Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #358740 > unrolled thread

Einstein's gravitational constant

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Einstein's gravitational constant Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 15:10 -0400
    Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 21:53 +0200
    Re: Einstein's gravitational constant John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 20:26 -0700
    Re: Einstein's gravitational constant John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 21:11 -0700
    Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 10:15 -0500
    Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 21:07 -0400
      Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 21:11 -0400
        Re: Einstein's gravitational constant pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-07-28 18:43 -0700
          Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 21:52 -0400
          Re: Einstein's gravitational constant "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-07-28 21:01 -0700
    Re: Einstein's gravitational constant John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 18:08 -0700
      Re: Einstein's gravitational constant pbouchard8@gmail.com - 2015-07-28 18:30 -0700
        Re: Einstein's gravitational constant pbouchard8@gmail.com - 2015-07-28 19:56 -0700
          Re: Einstein's gravitational constant pbouchard8@gmail.com - 2015-07-28 20:25 -0700
          Re: Einstein's gravitational constant pbouchard8@gmail.com - 2015-08-01 15:04 -0700
            Cretin Phil Bouchard perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-01 16:45 -0700
            Re: Einstein's gravitational constant pbouchard8@gmail.com - 2015-08-01 17:20 -0700
        Delusional idiot Philippe Bouchard chimes in "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-07-28 21:00 -0700

#358740 — Einstein's gravitational constant

Where is the Einstein's gravitational constant coming from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant

Was this constant tested?  Is it precise?


Regards,
-Phil

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#358747

Dne 26/07/2015 v 21:10 Phil Bouchard napsal(a):
> Where is the Einstein's gravitational constant coming from?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant
> 
> Was this constant tested?  Is it precise?
> 
> 
the constant is defined as -8.pi.G/c^2
for Einstein tensor equation  to converge to Newton equation
as limit case for flat space-time.

Testing of definition does not make sense,
unless you verify formal math correctness .

Its precision is determined by precision of gravitation constant G.
That means - nothing great.
  Relative standard uncertainty 	  4.7 x 10-5
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?bg|search_for=gravitational

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358782

On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 11:01:20 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote:
> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 9:30:30 PM UTC-5, John Heath wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 9:33:39 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > On 07/26/2015 06:11 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > On 07/26/2015 05:45 PM, John Heath wrote:
> > > >> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 3:10:32 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > >>> Where is the Einstein's gravitational constant coming from?
> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Was this constant tested?  Is it precise?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Regards,
> > > >>> -Phil
> > > >>
> > 
> > > >> Hi Phil
> > > >>
> > > >> For a given frame of reference yes. For a cross reference frame of
> > > >> reference measurement no. It is possible the the consistency of the
> > > >> speed of light is a relative concept not absolute therefore it would
> > > >> follow that the gravitational constant is also not absolute but rather
> > > >> a relative concept. By this I mean c , fine structure constant and h
> > > >> could all be relative concepts not absolute. They will be constant
> > > >> from a given FoR but not necessarily from a different cross FoR
> > > >> measurement. We know time dilates in a different FoR . A FoR can be
> > > >> broadened into a gravitational FoR for G constant and voltage FoR for
> > > >> fine structure constant. This was entertained by Uncle Albert for a
> > > >> few years.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> "Das Prinzip der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit kann nur insofern
> > > >> aufrechterhalten werden, als man sich auf für Raum-Zeitliche-Gebiete
> > > >> mit konstantem Gravitationspotential beschränkt."
> > > >>
> > > >> ("The principle of the constancy of the speed of light can be kept
> > > >> only when one restricts oneself to space-time regions of constant
> > > >> gravitational potential.")
> > > >>
> > > >> The quote is from wikipedia
> > > >>
> > > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
> > > >>
> > > >> With this in place you are liberated to proceed with your solution to
> > > >> the outer part of galaxies turning faster than they should. Just
> > > >> change the gravitational constant and write it off as a change in the
> > > >> vacuum therefore gravitational constant is not the same in the outer
> > > >> regions of galaxies. There is no longer a need for mysterious dark
> > > >> matter. I would add that this would not mean that GR is wrong as both
> > > >> light speed and gravitational constant are not stated as absolute.
> > > >> These variables are only absolute from a given FoR be it movement ,
> > > >> gravitational or voltage for fine structure constant.
> > > >
> > > > You got it!
> > > 
> > > What's next?
> > 
> > You are not saying a lot Phil. That's ok as I like to talk. Somehow the world seems right when everyone is sitting quietly hanging on to my every word of wisdom. Its better that way. 
> > 
> > What's next? The outer part of our galaxy is a long long way to go to test for a difference in G constant. However voyager 1 is headed that way and is now confirmed to be in interstellar space. Our sun is just another star. Rumor has it Voyager is moving faster than it should. Current thoughts are the IR radiation from its energy source is pushing voyager somewhat like a photon accelerator. This could be true but my money is on a change in the density of the vacuum , gravity density that sets our G constant. If I were you I would keep an eye on voyager along with some computer simulations , your forte , to see how much of a G constant is required to justify the increase in speed of voyager then project that out to the outer parts of our galaxy to see if there is a correlation.
> 
> I like the term gravity density.

Hi John

Yes I like the term gravity density to. It is a nice way to make a distinction between gradient of gravity and density of gravity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358785

There is a recording of Chuck Berry on the voyager. When intelligent life finds voyager they will assume the random data of Chuck's song has deep meaning. What is the universe , why are we here? They will come to earth from great distances to seek the god of the universe Chuck Berry. I would not want to be in the same room when Chuck picks up his guitar singing Johnny be good to reveal the true meaning of the data. 

On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 11:20:39 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> On 07/26/2015 10:50 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > On 07/26/2015 10:30 PM, John Heath wrote:
> >> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 9:33:39 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> >>> On 07/26/2015 06:11 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> >>>> On 07/26/2015 05:45 PM, John Heath wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 3:10:32 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> >>>>>> Where is the Einstein's gravitational constant coming from?
> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Was this constant tested?  Is it precise?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>> -Phil
> >>>>>
> >>
> >>>>> Hi Phil
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For a given frame of reference yes. For a cross reference frame of
> >>>>> reference measurement no. It is possible the the consistency of the
> >>>>> speed of light is a relative concept not absolute therefore it would
> >>>>> follow that the gravitational constant is also not absolute but rather
> >>>>> a relative concept. By this I mean c , fine structure constant and h
> >>>>> could all be relative concepts not absolute. They will be constant
> >>>>> from a given FoR but not necessarily from a different cross FoR
> >>>>> measurement. We know time dilates in a different FoR . A FoR can be
> >>>>> broadened into a gravitational FoR for G constant and voltage FoR for
> >>>>> fine structure constant. This was entertained by Uncle Albert for a
> >>>>> few years.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Das Prinzip der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit kann nur insofern
> >>>>> aufrechterhalten werden, als man sich auf für Raum-Zeitliche-Gebiete
> >>>>> mit konstantem Gravitationspotential beschränkt."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ("The principle of the constancy of the speed of light can be kept
> >>>>> only when one restricts oneself to space-time regions of constant
> >>>>> gravitational potential.")
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The quote is from wikipedia
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
> >>>>>
> >>>>> With this in place you are liberated to proceed with your solution to
> >>>>> the outer part of galaxies turning faster than they should. Just
> >>>>> change the gravitational constant and write it off as a change in the
> >>>>> vacuum therefore gravitational constant is not the same in the outer
> >>>>> regions of galaxies. There is no longer a need for mysterious dark
> >>>>> matter. I would add that this would not mean that GR is wrong as both
> >>>>> light speed and gravitational constant are not stated as absolute.
> >>>>> These variables are only absolute from a given FoR be it movement ,
> >>>>> gravitational or voltage for fine structure constant.
> >>>>
> >>>> You got it!
> >>>
> >>> What's next?
> >>
> >> You are not saying a lot Phil. That's ok as I like to talk. Somehow
> >> the world seems right when everyone is sitting quietly hanging on to
> >> my every word of wisdom. Its better that way.
> >>
> >> What's next? The outer part of our galaxy is a long long way to go to
> >> test for a difference in G constant. However voyager 1 is headed that
> >> way and is now confirmed to be in interstellar space. Our sun is just
> >> another star. Rumor has it Voyager is moving faster than it should.
> >> Current thoughts are the IR radiation from its energy source is
> >> pushing voyager somewhat like a photon accelerator. This could be true
> >> but my money is on a change in the density of the vacuum , gravity
> >> density that sets our G constant. If I were you I would keep an eye on
> >> voyager along with some computer simulations , your forte , to see how
> >> much of a G constant is required to justify the increase in speed of
> >> voyager then project that out to the outer parts of our galaxy to see
> >> if there is a correlation.
> >
> > Interesting.  Getting away from the Sun definitely will speed up any
> > object according to Finite Theory.  That can be implemented easily.
> >
> > But in terms of technicalities I would have to access NASA's database
> > for Voyager's exact coordinates...
> 
> Here's something I can start with:
> http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/where/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358804

On 7/27/2015 2:05 AM, kefischer wrote:
>          I am trying to watch some GR lectures,
> but I get bored easily, and I'm only half way
> through lecture 1.:-)

This should suggest to you that you are not nearly as interested in 
gravitation as you think. I would think that anyone truly interested in 
the subject would dive headlong into these lectures.

But, as we've discussed, you prefer to half-ass things and have for 
seven decades. Which may explain your job history.

>
>         How do you calculate energy momentum
> of only one object in inertial motion in space?

E = gamma*m*c^2
p = sqrt[ E^2 - mc^2 ]/c

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358956

On 07/27/2015 11:55 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> On 07/26/2015 11:20 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>> On 07/26/2015 10:50 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>> On 07/26/2015 10:30 PM, John Heath wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 9:33:39 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>>> On 07/26/2015 06:11 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/26/2015 05:45 PM, John Heath wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 3:10:32 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>>>>>> Where is the Einstein's gravitational constant coming from?
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Was this constant tested?  Is it precise?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> -Phil
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Phil
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For a given frame of reference yes. For a cross reference frame of
>>>>>>> reference measurement no. It is possible the the consistency of the
>>>>>>> speed of light is a relative concept not absolute therefore it would
>>>>>>> follow that the gravitational constant is also not absolute but
>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>> a relative concept. By this I mean c , fine structure constant and h
>>>>>>> could all be relative concepts not absolute. They will be constant
>>>>>>> from a given FoR but not necessarily from a different cross FoR
>>>>>>> measurement. We know time dilates in a different FoR . A FoR can be
>>>>>>> broadened into a gravitational FoR for G constant and voltage FoR
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> fine structure constant. This was entertained by Uncle Albert for a
>>>>>>> few years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Das Prinzip der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit kann nur insofern
>>>>>>> aufrechterhalten werden, als man sich auf für Raum-Zeitliche-Gebiete
>>>>>>> mit konstantem Gravitationspotential beschränkt."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ("The principle of the constancy of the speed of light can be kept
>>>>>>> only when one restricts oneself to space-time regions of constant
>>>>>>> gravitational potential.")
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The quote is from wikipedia
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With this in place you are liberated to proceed with your
>>>>>>> solution to
>>>>>>> the outer part of galaxies turning faster than they should. Just
>>>>>>> change the gravitational constant and write it off as a change in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> vacuum therefore gravitational constant is not the same in the outer
>>>>>>> regions of galaxies. There is no longer a need for mysterious dark
>>>>>>> matter. I would add that this would not mean that GR is wrong as
>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>> light speed and gravitational constant are not stated as absolute.
>>>>>>> These variables are only absolute from a given FoR be it movement ,
>>>>>>> gravitational or voltage for fine structure constant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You got it!
>>>>>
>>>>> What's next?
>>>>
>>>> You are not saying a lot Phil. That's ok as I like to talk. Somehow
>>>> the world seems right when everyone is sitting quietly hanging on to
>>>> my every word of wisdom. Its better that way.
>>>>
>>>> What's next? The outer part of our galaxy is a long long way to go to
>>>> test for a difference in G constant. However voyager 1 is headed that
>>>> way and is now confirmed to be in interstellar space. Our sun is just
>>>> another star. Rumor has it Voyager is moving faster than it should.
>>>> Current thoughts are the IR radiation from its energy source is
>>>> pushing voyager somewhat like a photon accelerator. This could be true
>>>> but my money is on a change in the density of the vacuum , gravity
>>>> density that sets our G constant. If I were you I would keep an eye on
>>>> voyager along with some computer simulations , your forte , to see how
>>>> much of a G constant is required to justify the increase in speed of
>>>> voyager then project that out to the outer parts of our galaxy to see
>>>> if there is a correlation.
>>>
>>> Interesting.  Getting away from the Sun definitely will speed up any
>>> object according to Finite Theory.  That can be implemented easily.
>>>
>>> But in terms of technicalities I would have to access NASA's database
>>> for Voyager's exact coordinates...
>>
>> Here's something I can start with:
>> http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/where/
>
> So I've already added Voyager 1 to my simulator with the following
> settings:
> position = {19763008767000, 0, 0}
> velocity = {17000, 0, 0}
>
> It is decelerating and the difference with what is predicted by Newton
> and Finite Theory in terms of speed is in the order of:
> 1e-7 m/s
>
> Does that match what NASA is currently seeing?

It seems to be of the same order of the Pioneer anomaly (deceleration of 
8.74e-10 m/s^2):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly

How about that?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358959

On 07/28/2015 09:07 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> On 07/27/2015 11:55 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>> On 07/26/2015 11:20 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>> On 07/26/2015 10:50 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>> On 07/26/2015 10:30 PM, John Heath wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 9:33:39 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/26/2015 06:11 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/26/2015 05:45 PM, John Heath wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 3:10:32 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Where is the Einstein's gravitational constant coming from?
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Was this constant tested?  Is it precise?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> -Phil
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Phil
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For a given frame of reference yes. For a cross reference frame of
>>>>>>>> reference measurement no. It is possible the the consistency of the
>>>>>>>> speed of light is a relative concept not absolute therefore it
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> follow that the gravitational constant is also not absolute but
>>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>> a relative concept. By this I mean c , fine structure constant
>>>>>>>> and h
>>>>>>>> could all be relative concepts not absolute. They will be constant
>>>>>>>> from a given FoR but not necessarily from a different cross FoR
>>>>>>>> measurement. We know time dilates in a different FoR . A FoR can be
>>>>>>>> broadened into a gravitational FoR for G constant and voltage FoR
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> fine structure constant. This was entertained by Uncle Albert for a
>>>>>>>> few years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Das Prinzip der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit kann nur
>>>>>>>> insofern
>>>>>>>> aufrechterhalten werden, als man sich auf für
>>>>>>>> Raum-Zeitliche-Gebiete
>>>>>>>> mit konstantem Gravitationspotential beschränkt."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ("The principle of the constancy of the speed of light can be kept
>>>>>>>> only when one restricts oneself to space-time regions of constant
>>>>>>>> gravitational potential.")
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The quote is from wikipedia
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With this in place you are liberated to proceed with your
>>>>>>>> solution to
>>>>>>>> the outer part of galaxies turning faster than they should. Just
>>>>>>>> change the gravitational constant and write it off as a change in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> vacuum therefore gravitational constant is not the same in the
>>>>>>>> outer
>>>>>>>> regions of galaxies. There is no longer a need for mysterious dark
>>>>>>>> matter. I would add that this would not mean that GR is wrong as
>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>> light speed and gravitational constant are not stated as absolute.
>>>>>>>> These variables are only absolute from a given FoR be it movement ,
>>>>>>>> gravitational or voltage for fine structure constant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You got it!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's next?
>>>>>
>>>>> You are not saying a lot Phil. That's ok as I like to talk. Somehow
>>>>> the world seems right when everyone is sitting quietly hanging on to
>>>>> my every word of wisdom. Its better that way.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's next? The outer part of our galaxy is a long long way to go to
>>>>> test for a difference in G constant. However voyager 1 is headed that
>>>>> way and is now confirmed to be in interstellar space. Our sun is just
>>>>> another star. Rumor has it Voyager is moving faster than it should.
>>>>> Current thoughts are the IR radiation from its energy source is
>>>>> pushing voyager somewhat like a photon accelerator. This could be true
>>>>> but my money is on a change in the density of the vacuum , gravity
>>>>> density that sets our G constant. If I were you I would keep an eye on
>>>>> voyager along with some computer simulations , your forte , to see how
>>>>> much of a G constant is required to justify the increase in speed of
>>>>> voyager then project that out to the outer parts of our galaxy to see
>>>>> if there is a correlation.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting.  Getting away from the Sun definitely will speed up any
>>>> object according to Finite Theory.  That can be implemented easily.
>>>>
>>>> But in terms of technicalities I would have to access NASA's database
>>>> for Voyager's exact coordinates...
>>>
>>> Here's something I can start with:
>>> http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/where/
>>
>> So I've already added Voyager 1 to my simulator with the following
>> settings:
>> position = {19763008767000, 0, 0}
>> velocity = {17000, 0, 0}
>>
>> It is decelerating and the difference with what is predicted by Newton
>> and Finite Theory in terms of speed is in the order of:
>> 1e-7 m/s
>>
>> Does that match what NASA is currently seeing?
>
> It seems to be of the same order of the Pioneer anomaly (deceleration of
> 8.74e-10 m/s^2):
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
>
> How about that?

Isn't it great to have a constructive conversation? ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358964

On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 6:11:27 PM UTC-7, pbouc...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 07/28/2015 09:07 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > On 07/27/2015 11:55 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> >> On 07/26/2015 11:20 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> >>> On 07/26/2015 10:50 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> >>>> On 07/26/2015 10:30 PM, John Heath wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 9:33:39 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> >>>>>> On 07/26/2015 06:11 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 07/26/2015 05:45 PM, John Heath wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 3:10:32 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Where is the Einstein's gravitational constant coming from?
> >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Was this constant tested?  Is it precise?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>> -Phil
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Phil
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For a given frame of reference yes. For a cross reference frame of
> >>>>>>>> reference measurement no. It is possible the the consistency of the
> >>>>>>>> speed of light is a relative concept not absolute therefore it
> >>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>> follow that the gravitational constant is also not absolute but
> >>>>>>>> rather
> >>>>>>>> a relative concept. By this I mean c , fine structure constant
> >>>>>>>> and h
> >>>>>>>> could all be relative concepts not absolute. They will be constant
> >>>>>>>> from a given FoR but not necessarily from a different cross FoR
> >>>>>>>> measurement. We know time dilates in a different FoR . A FoR can be
> >>>>>>>> broadened into a gravitational FoR for G constant and voltage FoR
> >>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>> fine structure constant. This was entertained by Uncle Albert for a
> >>>>>>>> few years.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Das Prinzip der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit kann nur
> >>>>>>>> insofern
> >>>>>>>> aufrechterhalten werden, als man sich auf für
> >>>>>>>> Raum-Zeitliche-Gebiete
> >>>>>>>> mit konstantem Gravitationspotential beschränkt."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ("The principle of the constancy of the speed of light can be kept
> >>>>>>>> only when one restricts oneself to space-time regions of constant
> >>>>>>>> gravitational potential.")
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The quote is from wikipedia
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> With this in place you are liberated to proceed with your
> >>>>>>>> solution to
> >>>>>>>> the outer part of galaxies turning faster than they should. Just
> >>>>>>>> change the gravitational constant and write it off as a change in
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> vacuum therefore gravitational constant is not the same in the
> >>>>>>>> outer
> >>>>>>>> regions of galaxies. There is no longer a need for mysterious dark
> >>>>>>>> matter. I would add that this would not mean that GR is wrong as
> >>>>>>>> both
> >>>>>>>> light speed and gravitational constant are not stated as absolute.
> >>>>>>>> These variables are only absolute from a given FoR be it movement ,
> >>>>>>>> gravitational or voltage for fine structure constant.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You got it!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What's next?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You are not saying a lot Phil. That's ok as I like to talk. Somehow
> >>>>> the world seems right when everyone is sitting quietly hanging on to
> >>>>> my every word of wisdom. Its better that way.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What's next? The outer part of our galaxy is a long long way to go to
> >>>>> test for a difference in G constant. However voyager 1 is headed that
> >>>>> way and is now confirmed to be in interstellar space. Our sun is just
> >>>>> another star. Rumor has it Voyager is moving faster than it should.
> >>>>> Current thoughts are the IR radiation from its energy source is
> >>>>> pushing voyager somewhat like a photon accelerator. This could be true
> >>>>> but my money is on a change in the density of the vacuum , gravity
> >>>>> density that sets our G constant. If I were you I would keep an eye on
> >>>>> voyager along with some computer simulations , your forte , to see how
> >>>>> much of a G constant is required to justify the increase in speed of
> >>>>> voyager then project that out to the outer parts of our galaxy to see
> >>>>> if there is a correlation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Interesting.  Getting away from the Sun definitely will speed up any
> >>>> object according to Finite Theory.  That can be implemented easily.
> >>>>
> >>>> But in terms of technicalities I would have to access NASA's database
> >>>> for Voyager's exact coordinates...
> >>>
> >>> Here's something I can start with:
> >>> http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/where/
> >>
> >> So I've already added Voyager 1 to my simulator with the following
> >> settings:
> >> position = {19763008767000, 0, 0}
> >> velocity = {17000, 0, 0}
> >>
> >> It is decelerating and the difference with what is predicted by Newton
> >> and Finite Theory in terms of speed is in the order of:
> >> 1e-7 m/s
> >>
> >> Does that match what NASA is currently seeing?
> >
> > It seems to be of the same order of the Pioneer anomaly (deceleration of
> > 8.74e-10 m/s^2):
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
> >
> > How about that?
> 
> Isn't it great to have a constructive conversation? ;)

2 pretenders congratulating themselves over bad science...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358967

On 07/28/2015 09:43 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 6:11:27 PM UTC-7, pbouc...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 07/28/2015 09:07 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>> On 07/27/2015 11:55 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>> On 07/26/2015 11:20 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>>> On 07/26/2015 10:50 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/26/2015 10:30 PM, John Heath wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 9:33:39 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 07/26/2015 06:11 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 07/26/2015 05:45 PM, John Heath wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 3:10:32 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Where is the Einstein's gravitational constant coming from?
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Was this constant tested?  Is it precise?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> -Phil
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Phil
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For a given frame of reference yes. For a cross reference frame of
>>>>>>>>>> reference measurement no. It is possible the the consistency of the
>>>>>>>>>> speed of light is a relative concept not absolute therefore it
>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> follow that the gravitational constant is also not absolute but
>>>>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>>>> a relative concept. By this I mean c , fine structure constant
>>>>>>>>>> and h
>>>>>>>>>> could all be relative concepts not absolute. They will be constant
>>>>>>>>>> from a given FoR but not necessarily from a different cross FoR
>>>>>>>>>> measurement. We know time dilates in a different FoR . A FoR can be
>>>>>>>>>> broadened into a gravitational FoR for G constant and voltage FoR
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> fine structure constant. This was entertained by Uncle Albert for a
>>>>>>>>>> few years.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Das Prinzip der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit kann nur
>>>>>>>>>> insofern
>>>>>>>>>> aufrechterhalten werden, als man sich auf für
>>>>>>>>>> Raum-Zeitliche-Gebiete
>>>>>>>>>> mit konstantem Gravitationspotential beschränkt."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ("The principle of the constancy of the speed of light can be kept
>>>>>>>>>> only when one restricts oneself to space-time regions of constant
>>>>>>>>>> gravitational potential.")
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The quote is from wikipedia
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> With this in place you are liberated to proceed with your
>>>>>>>>>> solution to
>>>>>>>>>> the outer part of galaxies turning faster than they should. Just
>>>>>>>>>> change the gravitational constant and write it off as a change in
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> vacuum therefore gravitational constant is not the same in the
>>>>>>>>>> outer
>>>>>>>>>> regions of galaxies. There is no longer a need for mysterious dark
>>>>>>>>>> matter. I would add that this would not mean that GR is wrong as
>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>> light speed and gravitational constant are not stated as absolute.
>>>>>>>>>> These variables are only absolute from a given FoR be it movement ,
>>>>>>>>>> gravitational or voltage for fine structure constant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You got it!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's next?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are not saying a lot Phil. That's ok as I like to talk. Somehow
>>>>>>> the world seems right when everyone is sitting quietly hanging on to
>>>>>>> my every word of wisdom. Its better that way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's next? The outer part of our galaxy is a long long way to go to
>>>>>>> test for a difference in G constant. However voyager 1 is headed that
>>>>>>> way and is now confirmed to be in interstellar space. Our sun is just
>>>>>>> another star. Rumor has it Voyager is moving faster than it should.
>>>>>>> Current thoughts are the IR radiation from its energy source is
>>>>>>> pushing voyager somewhat like a photon accelerator. This could be true
>>>>>>> but my money is on a change in the density of the vacuum , gravity
>>>>>>> density that sets our G constant. If I were you I would keep an eye on
>>>>>>> voyager along with some computer simulations , your forte , to see how
>>>>>>> much of a G constant is required to justify the increase in speed of
>>>>>>> voyager then project that out to the outer parts of our galaxy to see
>>>>>>> if there is a correlation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting.  Getting away from the Sun definitely will speed up any
>>>>>> object according to Finite Theory.  That can be implemented easily.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But in terms of technicalities I would have to access NASA's database
>>>>>> for Voyager's exact coordinates...
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's something I can start with:
>>>>> http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/where/
>>>>
>>>> So I've already added Voyager 1 to my simulator with the following
>>>> settings:
>>>> position = {19763008767000, 0, 0}
>>>> velocity = {17000, 0, 0}
>>>>
>>>> It is decelerating and the difference with what is predicted by Newton
>>>> and Finite Theory in terms of speed is in the order of:
>>>> 1e-7 m/s
>>>>
>>>> Does that match what NASA is currently seeing?
>>>
>>> It seems to be of the same order of the Pioneer anomaly (deceleration of
>>> 8.74e-10 m/s^2):
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
>>>
>>> How about that?
>>
>> Isn't it great to have a constructive conversation? ;)
>
> 2 pretenders congratulating themselves over bad science...

Even you can understand; the value kappa or what's it's based on is not 
constant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358981

On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 6:43:39 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 6:11:27 PM UTC-7, pbouc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On 07/28/2015 09:07 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > On 07/27/2015 11:55 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > >> On 07/26/2015 11:20 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > >>> On 07/26/2015 10:50 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > >>>> On 07/26/2015 10:30 PM, John Heath wrote:
> > >>>>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 9:33:39 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 07/26/2015 06:11 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On 07/26/2015 05:45 PM, John Heath wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 3:10:32 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> Where is the Einstein's gravitational constant coming from?
> > >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Was this constant tested?  Is it precise?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>>>>>> -Phil
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Hi Phil
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> For a given frame of reference yes. For a cross reference frame of
> > >>>>>>>> reference measurement no. It is possible the the consistency of the
> > >>>>>>>> speed of light is a relative concept not absolute therefore it
> > >>>>>>>> would
> > >>>>>>>> follow that the gravitational constant is also not absolute but
> > >>>>>>>> rather
> > >>>>>>>> a relative concept. By this I mean c , fine structure constant
> > >>>>>>>> and h
> > >>>>>>>> could all be relative concepts not absolute. They will be constant
> > >>>>>>>> from a given FoR but not necessarily from a different cross FoR
> > >>>>>>>> measurement. We know time dilates in a different FoR . A FoR can be
> > >>>>>>>> broadened into a gravitational FoR for G constant and voltage FoR
> > >>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>> fine structure constant. This was entertained by Uncle Albert for a
> > >>>>>>>> few years.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> "Das Prinzip der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit kann nur
> > >>>>>>>> insofern
> > >>>>>>>> aufrechterhalten werden, als man sich auf für
> > >>>>>>>> Raum-Zeitliche-Gebiete
> > >>>>>>>> mit konstantem Gravitationspotential beschränkt."
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> ("The principle of the constancy of the speed of light can be kept
> > >>>>>>>> only when one restricts oneself to space-time regions of constant
> > >>>>>>>> gravitational potential.")
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> The quote is from wikipedia
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> With this in place you are liberated to proceed with your
> > >>>>>>>> solution to
> > >>>>>>>> the outer part of galaxies turning faster than they should. Just
> > >>>>>>>> change the gravitational constant and write it off as a change in
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> vacuum therefore gravitational constant is not the same in the
> > >>>>>>>> outer
> > >>>>>>>> regions of galaxies. There is no longer a need for mysterious dark
> > >>>>>>>> matter. I would add that this would not mean that GR is wrong as
> > >>>>>>>> both
> > >>>>>>>> light speed and gravitational constant are not stated as absolute.
> > >>>>>>>> These variables are only absolute from a given FoR be it movement ,
> > >>>>>>>> gravitational or voltage for fine structure constant.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> You got it!
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> What's next?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> You are not saying a lot Phil. That's ok as I like to talk. Somehow
> > >>>>> the world seems right when everyone is sitting quietly hanging on to
> > >>>>> my every word of wisdom. Its better that way.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> What's next? The outer part of our galaxy is a long long way to go to
> > >>>>> test for a difference in G constant. However voyager 1 is headed that
> > >>>>> way and is now confirmed to be in interstellar space. Our sun is just
> > >>>>> another star. Rumor has it Voyager is moving faster than it should.
> > >>>>> Current thoughts are the IR radiation from its energy source is
> > >>>>> pushing voyager somewhat like a photon accelerator. This could be true
> > >>>>> but my money is on a change in the density of the vacuum , gravity
> > >>>>> density that sets our G constant. If I were you I would keep an eye on
> > >>>>> voyager along with some computer simulations , your forte , to see how
> > >>>>> much of a G constant is required to justify the increase in speed of
> > >>>>> voyager then project that out to the outer parts of our galaxy to see
> > >>>>> if there is a correlation.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Interesting.  Getting away from the Sun definitely will speed up any
> > >>>> object according to Finite Theory.  That can be implemented easily.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But in terms of technicalities I would have to access NASA's database
> > >>>> for Voyager's exact coordinates...
> > >>>
> > >>> Here's something I can start with:
> > >>> http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/where/
> > >>
> > >> So I've already added Voyager 1 to my simulator with the following
> > >> settings:
> > >> position = {19763008767000, 0, 0}
> > >> velocity = {17000, 0, 0}
> > >>
> > >> It is decelerating and the difference with what is predicted by Newton
> > >> and Finite Theory in terms of speed is in the order of:
> > >> 1e-7 m/s
> > >>
> > >> Does that match what NASA is currently seeing?
> > >
> > > It seems to be of the same order of the Pioneer anomaly (deceleration of
> > > 8.74e-10 m/s^2):
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
> > >
> > > How about that?
> > 
> > Isn't it great to have a constructive conversation? ;)
> 
> 2 pretenders congratulating themselves over bad science...

You can't fix delusional idiots.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358957

Good work. I guess they need the thrusters to aim voyagers dish directly at our sun for best signal to noise. Ten times thermal acceleration , hmmm. There could still be hope here if they are judging the speed and distance of voyager by pinging. By this I mean ping voyager then wait 36 hours. Ping again 1 month later. If the latter ping is 36 hours 30 seconds than a estimate can be made of both distance and speed of voyager. This assumes constant light speed and gravitational G constant remain unchanged. If this is true then the Doppler shift at 17,000 meters per second velocity of a 2.3 GHz dish should be 130428 Hz off. A HP frequency counter can measure that down to 130428.000 Hz. That is 1 part in 100,000,000. If the NASA ping estimate is not matching the Doppler dish red shift then there is a hint of GR time dilation. As the gradient of gravity is almost flat where Voyager is it would stand to reason that the gravitational G constant must have changed. Main stream physics would be hard pressed to justify this however you are armed with Finite Theory that explains how this is possible. That could get your name in the papers to sell a book or two. Maybe a TV talk show to sell lots of books. Success comes to those who work for success. 

On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 9:10:45 AM UTC-4, pbouc...@gmail.com wrote:
> I've already asked Cosmoquest.org and they said:
> 
> "Both Voyagers are still firing roll stabilisation thrusters every now and then as required, making any such precision speed measurements nearly impossible. This station-keeping is reported as introducing an equivalent noise to these measurements ten times the size of the thermal recoil deceleration of the Pioneer probes."
> 
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 7:46:06 AM UTC-4, John Heath wrote:
> > Hi Phil
> > 
> > Voyager 1 transmitting frequency is 2.3 GHz or 8.4 GHz. Precise measurement of this frequency then again 12 hours later , earth turns , then average those two numbers out for net Doppler offset. Adding to this a minor SR adjustment will reveal Voyagers true speed relative to us. The signal to noise ratio will make this impossible for you to do on your own with a modified satellite receiver. However NASA has large Deep Space Network Channel 18 dish receivers. You may rest assured they are eyeballing Voyagers radio carrier frequency with a magnifying glass looking for anomalies. Maybe if you talk nice to them they will share this information , Doppler frequency offset data. It is public funded so in effect you payed for Voyager through taxes therefore you have rights to this information. Also you need to know if Voyager transmitter frequency is crystal based or did they take the analog road. If it is a analog oscillator for 2.3 GHz then carrier frequency data will be useless. If it turns out to be analog then the people responsible should be shot at sunrise then dug up the next day and shot again for good measure.
> > 
> >  
> > On Monday, July 27, 2015 at 11:55:50 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > On 07/26/2015 11:20 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > On 07/26/2015 10:50 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > >> On 07/26/2015 10:30 PM, John Heath wrote:
> > > >>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 9:33:39 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > >>>> On 07/26/2015 06:11 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > >>>>> On 07/26/2015 05:45 PM, John Heath wrote:
> > > >>>>>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 3:10:32 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> Where is the Einstein's gravitational constant coming from?
> > > >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Was this constant tested?  Is it precise?
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Regards,
> > > >>>>>>> -Phil
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>> Hi Phil
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> For a given frame of reference yes. For a cross reference frame of
> > > >>>>>> reference measurement no. It is possible the the consistency of the
> > > >>>>>> speed of light is a relative concept not absolute therefore it would
> > > >>>>>> follow that the gravitational constant is also not absolute but
> > > >>>>>> rather
> > > >>>>>> a relative concept. By this I mean c , fine structure constant and h
> > > >>>>>> could all be relative concepts not absolute. They will be constant
> > > >>>>>> from a given FoR but not necessarily from a different cross FoR
> > > >>>>>> measurement. We know time dilates in a different FoR . A FoR can be
> > > >>>>>> broadened into a gravitational FoR for G constant and voltage FoR for
> > > >>>>>> fine structure constant. This was entertained by Uncle Albert for a
> > > >>>>>> few years.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> "Das Prinzip der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit kann nur insofern
> > > >>>>>> aufrechterhalten werden, als man sich auf für Raum-Zeitliche-Gebiete
> > > >>>>>> mit konstantem Gravitationspotential beschränkt."
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> ("The principle of the constancy of the speed of light can be kept
> > > >>>>>> only when one restricts oneself to space-time regions of constant
> > > >>>>>> gravitational potential.")
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> The quote is from wikipedia
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> With this in place you are liberated to proceed with your solution to
> > > >>>>>> the outer part of galaxies turning faster than they should. Just
> > > >>>>>> change the gravitational constant and write it off as a change in the
> > > >>>>>> vacuum therefore gravitational constant is not the same in the outer
> > > >>>>>> regions of galaxies. There is no longer a need for mysterious dark
> > > >>>>>> matter. I would add that this would not mean that GR is wrong as both
> > > >>>>>> light speed and gravitational constant are not stated as absolute.
> > > >>>>>> These variables are only absolute from a given FoR be it movement ,
> > > >>>>>> gravitational or voltage for fine structure constant.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> You got it!
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> What's next?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> You are not saying a lot Phil. That's ok as I like to talk. Somehow
> > > >>> the world seems right when everyone is sitting quietly hanging on to
> > > >>> my every word of wisdom. Its better that way.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> What's next? The outer part of our galaxy is a long long way to go to
> > > >>> test for a difference in G constant. However voyager 1 is headed that
> > > >>> way and is now confirmed to be in interstellar space. Our sun is just
> > > >>> another star. Rumor has it Voyager is moving faster than it should.
> > > >>> Current thoughts are the IR radiation from its energy source is
> > > >>> pushing voyager somewhat like a photon accelerator. This could be true
> > > >>> but my money is on a change in the density of the vacuum , gravity
> > > >>> density that sets our G constant. If I were you I would keep an eye on
> > > >>> voyager along with some computer simulations , your forte , to see how
> > > >>> much of a G constant is required to justify the increase in speed of
> > > >>> voyager then project that out to the outer parts of our galaxy to see
> > > >>> if there is a correlation.
> > > >>
> > > >> Interesting.  Getting away from the Sun definitely will speed up any
> > > >> object according to Finite Theory.  That can be implemented easily.
> > > >>
> > > >> But in terms of technicalities I would have to access NASA's database
> > > >> for Voyager's exact coordinates...
> > > >
> > > > Here's something I can start with:
> > > > http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/where/
> > > 
> > > So I've already added Voyager 1 to my simulator with the following settings:
> > > position = {19763008767000, 0, 0}
> > > velocity = {17000, 0, 0}
> > > 
> > > It is decelerating and the difference with what is predicted by Newton 
> > > and Finite Theory in terms of speed is in the order of:
> > > 1e-7 m/s
> > > 
> > > Does that match what NASA is currently seeing?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > -Phil

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358963

Thanks John.  I think now Finite Theory is understood but if I had a chance to pass the torch to more advanced people I will take it without hesitating.  I've been working on this since December 2008 and I am at a point all I care is for humankind to move forward no matter how.

On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 9:08:21 PM UTC-4, John Heath wrote:
> Good work. I guess they need the thrusters to aim voyagers dish directly at our sun for best signal to noise. Ten times thermal acceleration , hmmm. There could still be hope here if they are judging the speed and distance of voyager by pinging. By this I mean ping voyager then wait 36 hours. Ping again 1 month later. If the latter ping is 36 hours 30 seconds than a estimate can be made of both distance and speed of voyager. This assumes constant light speed and gravitational G constant remain unchanged. If this is true then the Doppler shift at 17,000 meters per second velocity of a 2.3 GHz dish should be 130428 Hz off. A HP frequency counter can measure that down to 130428.000 Hz. That is 1 part in 100,000,000. If the NASA ping estimate is not matching the Doppler dish red shift then there is a hint of GR time dilation. As the gradient of gravity is almost flat where Voyager is it would stand to reason that the gravitational G constant must have changed. Main stream physics would be hard pressed to justify this however you are armed with Finite Theory that explains how this is possible. That could get your name in the papers to sell a book or two. Maybe a TV talk show to sell lots of books. Success comes to those who work for success. 
> 
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 9:10:45 AM UTC-4, pbouc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I've already asked Cosmoquest.org and they said:
> > 
> > "Both Voyagers are still firing roll stabilisation thrusters every now and then as required, making any such precision speed measurements nearly impossible. This station-keeping is reported as introducing an equivalent noise to these measurements ten times the size of the thermal recoil deceleration of the Pioneer probes."
> > 
> > On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 7:46:06 AM UTC-4, John Heath wrote:
> > > Hi Phil
> > > 
> > > Voyager 1 transmitting frequency is 2.3 GHz or 8.4 GHz. Precise measurement of this frequency then again 12 hours later , earth turns , then average those two numbers out for net Doppler offset. Adding to this a minor SR adjustment will reveal Voyagers true speed relative to us. The signal to noise ratio will make this impossible for you to do on your own with a modified satellite receiver. However NASA has large Deep Space Network Channel 18 dish receivers. You may rest assured they are eyeballing Voyagers radio carrier frequency with a magnifying glass looking for anomalies. Maybe if you talk nice to them they will share this information , Doppler frequency offset data. It is public funded so in effect you payed for Voyager through taxes therefore you have rights to this information. Also you need to know if Voyager transmitter frequency is crystal based or did they take the analog road. If it is a analog oscillator for 2.3 GHz then carrier frequency data will be useless. If it turns out to be analog then the people responsible should be shot at sunrise then dug up the next day and shot again for good measure.
> > > 
> > >  
> > > On Monday, July 27, 2015 at 11:55:50 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > On 07/26/2015 11:20 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > On 07/26/2015 10:50 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > >> On 07/26/2015 10:30 PM, John Heath wrote:
> > > > >>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 9:33:39 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > >>>> On 07/26/2015 06:11 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > >>>>> On 07/26/2015 05:45 PM, John Heath wrote:
> > > > >>>>>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 3:10:32 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> Where is the Einstein's gravitational constant coming from?
> > > > >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Was this constant tested?  Is it precise?
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > >>>>>>> -Phil
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>> Hi Phil
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> For a given frame of reference yes. For a cross reference frame of
> > > > >>>>>> reference measurement no. It is possible the the consistency of the
> > > > >>>>>> speed of light is a relative concept not absolute therefore it would
> > > > >>>>>> follow that the gravitational constant is also not absolute but
> > > > >>>>>> rather
> > > > >>>>>> a relative concept. By this I mean c , fine structure constant and h
> > > > >>>>>> could all be relative concepts not absolute. They will be constant
> > > > >>>>>> from a given FoR but not necessarily from a different cross FoR
> > > > >>>>>> measurement. We know time dilates in a different FoR . A FoR can be
> > > > >>>>>> broadened into a gravitational FoR for G constant and voltage FoR for
> > > > >>>>>> fine structure constant. This was entertained by Uncle Albert for a
> > > > >>>>>> few years.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> "Das Prinzip der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit kann nur insofern
> > > > >>>>>> aufrechterhalten werden, als man sich auf für Raum-Zeitliche-Gebiete
> > > > >>>>>> mit konstantem Gravitationspotential beschränkt."
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> ("The principle of the constancy of the speed of light can be kept
> > > > >>>>>> only when one restricts oneself to space-time regions of constant
> > > > >>>>>> gravitational potential.")
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> The quote is from wikipedia
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> With this in place you are liberated to proceed with your solution to
> > > > >>>>>> the outer part of galaxies turning faster than they should. Just
> > > > >>>>>> change the gravitational constant and write it off as a change in the
> > > > >>>>>> vacuum therefore gravitational constant is not the same in the outer
> > > > >>>>>> regions of galaxies. There is no longer a need for mysterious dark
> > > > >>>>>> matter. I would add that this would not mean that GR is wrong as both
> > > > >>>>>> light speed and gravitational constant are not stated as absolute.
> > > > >>>>>> These variables are only absolute from a given FoR be it movement ,
> > > > >>>>>> gravitational or voltage for fine structure constant.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> You got it!
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> What's next?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> You are not saying a lot Phil. That's ok as I like to talk. Somehow
> > > > >>> the world seems right when everyone is sitting quietly hanging on to
> > > > >>> my every word of wisdom. Its better that way.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> What's next? The outer part of our galaxy is a long long way to go to
> > > > >>> test for a difference in G constant. However voyager 1 is headed that
> > > > >>> way and is now confirmed to be in interstellar space. Our sun is just
> > > > >>> another star. Rumor has it Voyager is moving faster than it should.
> > > > >>> Current thoughts are the IR radiation from its energy source is
> > > > >>> pushing voyager somewhat like a photon accelerator. This could be true
> > > > >>> but my money is on a change in the density of the vacuum , gravity
> > > > >>> density that sets our G constant. If I were you I would keep an eye on
> > > > >>> voyager along with some computer simulations , your forte , to see how
> > > > >>> much of a G constant is required to justify the increase in speed of
> > > > >>> voyager then project that out to the outer parts of our galaxy to see
> > > > >>> if there is a correlation.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Interesting.  Getting away from the Sun definitely will speed up any
> > > > >> object according to Finite Theory.  That can be implemented easily.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> But in terms of technicalities I would have to access NASA's database
> > > > >> for Voyager's exact coordinates...
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's something I can start with:
> > > > > http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/where/
> > > > 
> > > > So I've already added Voyager 1 to my simulator with the following settings:
> > > > position = {19763008767000, 0, 0}
> > > > velocity = {17000, 0, 0}
> > > > 
> > > > It is decelerating and the difference with what is predicted by Newton 
> > > > and Finite Theory in terms of speed is in the order of:
> > > > 1e-7 m/s
> > > > 
> > > > Does that match what NASA is currently seeing?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Regards,
> > > > -Phil

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358975

I just contacted NASA JPL to let them know about this.  Let's see what they have to say.

On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 9:30:28 PM UTC-4, pbouc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks John.  I think now Finite Theory is understood but if I had a chance to pass the torch to more advanced people I will take it without hesitating.  I've been working on this since December 2008 and I am at a point all I care is for humankind to move forward no matter how.
> 
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 9:08:21 PM UTC-4, John Heath wrote:
> > Good work. I guess they need the thrusters to aim voyagers dish directly at our sun for best signal to noise. Ten times thermal acceleration , hmmm. There could still be hope here if they are judging the speed and distance of voyager by pinging. By this I mean ping voyager then wait 36 hours. Ping again 1 month later. If the latter ping is 36 hours 30 seconds than a estimate can be made of both distance and speed of voyager. This assumes constant light speed and gravitational G constant remain unchanged. If this is true then the Doppler shift at 17,000 meters per second velocity of a 2.3 GHz dish should be 130428 Hz off. A HP frequency counter can measure that down to 130428.000 Hz. That is 1 part in 100,000,000. If the NASA ping estimate is not matching the Doppler dish red shift then there is a hint of GR time dilation. As the gradient of gravity is almost flat where Voyager is it would stand to reason that the gravitational G constant must have changed. Main stream physics would be hard pressed to justify this however you are armed with Finite Theory that explains how this is possible. That could get your name in the papers to sell a book or two. Maybe a TV talk show to sell lots of books. Success comes to those who work for success. 
> > 
> > On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 9:10:45 AM UTC-4, pbouc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I've already asked Cosmoquest.org and they said:
> > > 
> > > "Both Voyagers are still firing roll stabilisation thrusters every now and then as required, making any such precision speed measurements nearly impossible. This station-keeping is reported as introducing an equivalent noise to these measurements ten times the size of the thermal recoil deceleration of the Pioneer probes."
> > > 
> > > On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 7:46:06 AM UTC-4, John Heath wrote:
> > > > Hi Phil
> > > > 
> > > > Voyager 1 transmitting frequency is 2.3 GHz or 8.4 GHz. Precise measurement of this frequency then again 12 hours later , earth turns , then average those two numbers out for net Doppler offset. Adding to this a minor SR adjustment will reveal Voyagers true speed relative to us. The signal to noise ratio will make this impossible for you to do on your own with a modified satellite receiver. However NASA has large Deep Space Network Channel 18 dish receivers. You may rest assured they are eyeballing Voyagers radio carrier frequency with a magnifying glass looking for anomalies. Maybe if you talk nice to them they will share this information , Doppler frequency offset data. It is public funded so in effect you payed for Voyager through taxes therefore you have rights to this information. Also you need to know if Voyager transmitter frequency is crystal based or did they take the analog road. If it is a analog oscillator for 2.3 GHz then carrier frequency data will be useless. If it turns out to be analog then the people responsible should be shot at sunrise then dug up the next day and shot again for good measure.
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > On Monday, July 27, 2015 at 11:55:50 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > On 07/26/2015 11:20 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > > On 07/26/2015 10:50 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > >> On 07/26/2015 10:30 PM, John Heath wrote:
> > > > > >>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 9:33:39 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > >>>> On 07/26/2015 06:11 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> On 07/26/2015 05:45 PM, John Heath wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 3:10:32 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> Where is the Einstein's gravitational constant coming from?
> > > > > >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Was this constant tested?  Is it precise?
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > > >>>>>>> -Phil
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Hi Phil
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> For a given frame of reference yes. For a cross reference frame of
> > > > > >>>>>> reference measurement no. It is possible the the consistency of the
> > > > > >>>>>> speed of light is a relative concept not absolute therefore it would
> > > > > >>>>>> follow that the gravitational constant is also not absolute but
> > > > > >>>>>> rather
> > > > > >>>>>> a relative concept. By this I mean c , fine structure constant and h
> > > > > >>>>>> could all be relative concepts not absolute. They will be constant
> > > > > >>>>>> from a given FoR but not necessarily from a different cross FoR
> > > > > >>>>>> measurement. We know time dilates in a different FoR . A FoR can be
> > > > > >>>>>> broadened into a gravitational FoR for G constant and voltage FoR for
> > > > > >>>>>> fine structure constant. This was entertained by Uncle Albert for a
> > > > > >>>>>> few years.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> "Das Prinzip der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit kann nur insofern
> > > > > >>>>>> aufrechterhalten werden, als man sich auf für Raum-Zeitliche-Gebiete
> > > > > >>>>>> mit konstantem Gravitationspotential beschränkt."
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> ("The principle of the constancy of the speed of light can be kept
> > > > > >>>>>> only when one restricts oneself to space-time regions of constant
> > > > > >>>>>> gravitational potential.")
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> The quote is from wikipedia
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> With this in place you are liberated to proceed with your solution to
> > > > > >>>>>> the outer part of galaxies turning faster than they should. Just
> > > > > >>>>>> change the gravitational constant and write it off as a change in the
> > > > > >>>>>> vacuum therefore gravitational constant is not the same in the outer
> > > > > >>>>>> regions of galaxies. There is no longer a need for mysterious dark
> > > > > >>>>>> matter. I would add that this would not mean that GR is wrong as both
> > > > > >>>>>> light speed and gravitational constant are not stated as absolute.
> > > > > >>>>>> These variables are only absolute from a given FoR be it movement ,
> > > > > >>>>>> gravitational or voltage for fine structure constant.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> You got it!
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> What's next?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> You are not saying a lot Phil. That's ok as I like to talk. Somehow
> > > > > >>> the world seems right when everyone is sitting quietly hanging on to
> > > > > >>> my every word of wisdom. Its better that way.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> What's next? The outer part of our galaxy is a long long way to go to
> > > > > >>> test for a difference in G constant. However voyager 1 is headed that
> > > > > >>> way and is now confirmed to be in interstellar space. Our sun is just
> > > > > >>> another star. Rumor has it Voyager is moving faster than it should.
> > > > > >>> Current thoughts are the IR radiation from its energy source is
> > > > > >>> pushing voyager somewhat like a photon accelerator. This could be true
> > > > > >>> but my money is on a change in the density of the vacuum , gravity
> > > > > >>> density that sets our G constant. If I were you I would keep an eye on
> > > > > >>> voyager along with some computer simulations , your forte , to see how
> > > > > >>> much of a G constant is required to justify the increase in speed of
> > > > > >>> voyager then project that out to the outer parts of our galaxy to see
> > > > > >>> if there is a correlation.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Interesting.  Getting away from the Sun definitely will speed up any
> > > > > >> object according to Finite Theory.  That can be implemented easily.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> But in terms of technicalities I would have to access NASA's database
> > > > > >> for Voyager's exact coordinates...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here's something I can start with:
> > > > > > http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/where/
> > > > > 
> > > > > So I've already added Voyager 1 to my simulator with the following settings:
> > > > > position = {19763008767000, 0, 0}
> > > > > velocity = {17000, 0, 0}
> > > > > 
> > > > > It is decelerating and the difference with what is predicted by Newton 
> > > > > and Finite Theory in terms of speed is in the order of:
> > > > > 1e-7 m/s
> > > > > 
> > > > > Does that match what NASA is currently seeing?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > -Phil

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358978

And I just committed the new code here:
https://github.com/philippeb8/finite-theory

The files may downloaded manually or checked out using SVN:
$ svn co https://github.com/philippeb8/finite-theory

Please make sure Qt is installed on your system (I recommend Ubuntu) and then you can simply type:
$ cd finite-theory/trunk
$ qmake
$ make
$ ./ft

On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 10:56:47 PM UTC-4, pbouc...@gmail.com wrote:
> I just contacted NASA JPL to let them know about this.  Let's see what they have to say.
> 
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 9:30:28 PM UTC-4, pbouc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Thanks John.  I think now Finite Theory is understood but if I had a chance to pass the torch to more advanced people I will take it without hesitating.  I've been working on this since December 2008 and I am at a point all I care is for humankind to move forward no matter how.
> > 
> > On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 9:08:21 PM UTC-4, John Heath wrote:
> > > Good work. I guess they need the thrusters to aim voyagers dish directly at our sun for best signal to noise. Ten times thermal acceleration , hmmm. There could still be hope here if they are judging the speed and distance of voyager by pinging. By this I mean ping voyager then wait 36 hours. Ping again 1 month later. If the latter ping is 36 hours 30 seconds than a estimate can be made of both distance and speed of voyager. This assumes constant light speed and gravitational G constant remain unchanged. If this is true then the Doppler shift at 17,000 meters per second velocity of a 2.3 GHz dish should be 130428 Hz off. A HP frequency counter can measure that down to 130428.000 Hz. That is 1 part in 100,000,000. If the NASA ping estimate is not matching the Doppler dish red shift then there is a hint of GR time dilation. As the gradient of gravity is almost flat where Voyager is it would stand to reason that the gravitational G constant must have changed. Main stream physics would be hard pressed to justify this however you are armed with Finite Theory that explains how this is possible. That could get your name in the papers to sell a book or two. Maybe a TV talk show to sell lots of books. Success comes to those who work for success. 
> > > 
> > > On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 9:10:45 AM UTC-4, pbouc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > I've already asked Cosmoquest.org and they said:
> > > > 
> > > > "Both Voyagers are still firing roll stabilisation thrusters every now and then as required, making any such precision speed measurements nearly impossible. This station-keeping is reported as introducing an equivalent noise to these measurements ten times the size of the thermal recoil deceleration of the Pioneer probes."
> > > > 
> > > > On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 7:46:06 AM UTC-4, John Heath wrote:
> > > > > Hi Phil
> > > > > 
> > > > > Voyager 1 transmitting frequency is 2.3 GHz or 8.4 GHz. Precise measurement of this frequency then again 12 hours later , earth turns , then average those two numbers out for net Doppler offset. Adding to this a minor SR adjustment will reveal Voyagers true speed relative to us. The signal to noise ratio will make this impossible for you to do on your own with a modified satellite receiver. However NASA has large Deep Space Network Channel 18 dish receivers. You may rest assured they are eyeballing Voyagers radio carrier frequency with a magnifying glass looking for anomalies. Maybe if you talk nice to them they will share this information , Doppler frequency offset data. It is public funded so in effect you payed for Voyager through taxes therefore you have rights to this information. Also you need to know if Voyager transmitter frequency is crystal based or did they take the analog road. If it is a analog oscillator for 2.3 GHz then carrier frequency data will be useless. If it turns out to be analog then the people responsible should be shot at sunrise then dug up the next day and shot again for good measure.
> > > > > 
> > > > >  
> > > > > On Monday, July 27, 2015 at 11:55:50 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > > On 07/26/2015 11:20 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > > > On 07/26/2015 10:50 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > > >> On 07/26/2015 10:30 PM, John Heath wrote:
> > > > > > >>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 9:33:39 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> On 07/26/2015 06:11 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>> On 07/26/2015 05:45 PM, John Heath wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 3:10:32 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Where is the Einstein's gravitational constant coming from?
> > > > > > >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Was this constant tested?  Is it precise?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > > > >>>>>>> -Phil
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Hi Phil
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> For a given frame of reference yes. For a cross reference frame of
> > > > > > >>>>>> reference measurement no. It is possible the the consistency of the
> > > > > > >>>>>> speed of light is a relative concept not absolute therefore it would
> > > > > > >>>>>> follow that the gravitational constant is also not absolute but
> > > > > > >>>>>> rather
> > > > > > >>>>>> a relative concept. By this I mean c , fine structure constant and h
> > > > > > >>>>>> could all be relative concepts not absolute. They will be constant
> > > > > > >>>>>> from a given FoR but not necessarily from a different cross FoR
> > > > > > >>>>>> measurement. We know time dilates in a different FoR . A FoR can be
> > > > > > >>>>>> broadened into a gravitational FoR for G constant and voltage FoR for
> > > > > > >>>>>> fine structure constant. This was entertained by Uncle Albert for a
> > > > > > >>>>>> few years.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> "Das Prinzip der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit kann nur insofern
> > > > > > >>>>>> aufrechterhalten werden, als man sich auf für Raum-Zeitliche-Gebiete
> > > > > > >>>>>> mit konstantem Gravitationspotential beschränkt."
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> ("The principle of the constancy of the speed of light can be kept
> > > > > > >>>>>> only when one restricts oneself to space-time regions of constant
> > > > > > >>>>>> gravitational potential.")
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> The quote is from wikipedia
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> With this in place you are liberated to proceed with your solution to
> > > > > > >>>>>> the outer part of galaxies turning faster than they should. Just
> > > > > > >>>>>> change the gravitational constant and write it off as a change in the
> > > > > > >>>>>> vacuum therefore gravitational constant is not the same in the outer
> > > > > > >>>>>> regions of galaxies. There is no longer a need for mysterious dark
> > > > > > >>>>>> matter. I would add that this would not mean that GR is wrong as both
> > > > > > >>>>>> light speed and gravitational constant are not stated as absolute.
> > > > > > >>>>>> These variables are only absolute from a given FoR be it movement ,
> > > > > > >>>>>> gravitational or voltage for fine structure constant.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> You got it!
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> What's next?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> You are not saying a lot Phil. That's ok as I like to talk. Somehow
> > > > > > >>> the world seems right when everyone is sitting quietly hanging on to
> > > > > > >>> my every word of wisdom. Its better that way.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> What's next? The outer part of our galaxy is a long long way to go to
> > > > > > >>> test for a difference in G constant. However voyager 1 is headed that
> > > > > > >>> way and is now confirmed to be in interstellar space. Our sun is just
> > > > > > >>> another star. Rumor has it Voyager is moving faster than it should.
> > > > > > >>> Current thoughts are the IR radiation from its energy source is
> > > > > > >>> pushing voyager somewhat like a photon accelerator. This could be true
> > > > > > >>> but my money is on a change in the density of the vacuum , gravity
> > > > > > >>> density that sets our G constant. If I were you I would keep an eye on
> > > > > > >>> voyager along with some computer simulations , your forte , to see how
> > > > > > >>> much of a G constant is required to justify the increase in speed of
> > > > > > >>> voyager then project that out to the outer parts of our galaxy to see
> > > > > > >>> if there is a correlation.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Interesting.  Getting away from the Sun definitely will speed up any
> > > > > > >> object according to Finite Theory.  That can be implemented easily.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> But in terms of technicalities I would have to access NASA's database
> > > > > > >> for Voyager's exact coordinates...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here's something I can start with:
> > > > > > > http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/where/
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So I've already added Voyager 1 to my simulator with the following settings:
> > > > > > position = {19763008767000, 0, 0}
> > > > > > velocity = {17000, 0, 0}
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It is decelerating and the difference with what is predicted by Newton 
> > > > > > and Finite Theory in terms of speed is in the order of:
> > > > > > 1e-7 m/s
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Does that match what NASA is currently seeing?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > -Phil

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#359372

So apparently Pioneer 10 decelerated.  Finite Theory predicts an acceleration unless kappa is changed so I think you're right; it's not only time contraction but kappa is starting to be different outside the solar system.

On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 8:32:16 PM UTC-4, John Heath wrote:
> If NASA confirms your suspicions you blame it on dark energy or dark matter. Do not bring up Finite theory. Too early for that. 
>  
> I noted you have voyager 1 and 2 in your updated source code and that Mr Photon is already there properties and all. Could you add to your simulator two photons that leave earth bouncing of voyager 1 and 2  then returning to earth. This would be equivalent to the NASA 36 hour ping , method "A" , to know the location and speed of the voyager 1 and 2. Add to this a change in the gravitational constant of 10 % for 50% of the photon's journey. This will guarantee the predicted position is off by 5%.
> 
> With this in place we use clock's on voyager 1 and 2 , dish 2.3 GHz RF carrier frequency , to test for Doppler red shift 130 KHz from earth to know the position and velocity of Voyager 1 and 2. Call this method "B". It must have the same disadvantage of a 10 % change in G constant , photon speed changed by 10 %, for 50% of its journey to duplicate the same conditions as method "A". 
> 
> If all goes well method "A" will be off by 5% and method "B" off by 0%. This will establish proof of principle. Without proof of principle the simulation does not have relevance. In other words all you have at this point is my word that Doppler effect will render the correct position of voyager regardless of G constant. Where is the beef? The beef will come from proof of principle from your software simulator rendering the incorrect answer from method "A" and the correct answer from method "B" for voyager's true position.
> 
> It is necessary to do this first before proceeding to the real test of Voyager's position using methods "A" and "B". A difference between A and B can only be concluded as a difference in G constant between earth and voyager. 
> 
> Now is the time to bring up Finite Theory with the empirical evidence in your back pocket.   
> 
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 10:56:47 PM UTC-4, pbouc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I just contacted NASA JPL to let them know about this.  Let's see what they have to say.
> > 
> > On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 9:30:28 PM UTC-4, pbouc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Thanks John.  I think now Finite Theory is understood but if I had a chance to pass the torch to more advanced people I will take it without hesitating.  I've been working on this since December 2008 and I am at a point all I care is for humankind to move forward no matter how.
> > > 
> > > On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 9:08:21 PM UTC-4, John Heath wrote:
> > > > Good work. I guess they need the thrusters to aim voyagers dish directly at our sun for best signal to noise. Ten times thermal acceleration , hmmm. There could still be hope here if they are judging the speed and distance of voyager by pinging. By this I mean ping voyager then wait 36 hours. Ping again 1 month later. If the latter ping is 36 hours 30 seconds than a estimate can be made of both distance and speed of voyager. This assumes constant light speed and gravitational G constant remain unchanged. If this is true then the Doppler shift at 17,000 meters per second velocity of a 2.3 GHz dish should be 130428 Hz off. A HP frequency counter can measure that down to 130428.000 Hz. That is 1 part in 100,000,000. If the NASA ping estimate is not matching the Doppler dish red shift then there is a hint of GR time dilation. As the gradient of gravity is almost flat where Voyager is it would stand to reason that the gravitational G constant must have changed. Main stream physics would be hard pressed to justify this however you are armed with Finite Theory that explains how this is possible. That could get your name in the papers to sell a book or two. Maybe a TV talk show to sell lots of books. Success comes to those who work for success. 
> > > > 
> > > > On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 9:10:45 AM UTC-4, pbouc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > I've already asked Cosmoquest.org and they said:
> > > > > 
> > > > > "Both Voyagers are still firing roll stabilisation thrusters every now and then as required, making any such precision speed measurements nearly impossible. This station-keeping is reported as introducing an equivalent noise to these measurements ten times the size of the thermal recoil deceleration of the Pioneer probes."
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 7:46:06 AM UTC-4, John Heath wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Phil
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Voyager 1 transmitting frequency is 2.3 GHz or 8.4 GHz. Precise measurement of this frequency then again 12 hours later , earth turns , then average those two numbers out for net Doppler offset. Adding to this a minor SR adjustment will reveal Voyagers true speed relative to us. The signal to noise ratio will make this impossible for you to do on your own with a modified satellite receiver. However NASA has large Deep Space Network Channel 18 dish receivers. You may rest assured they are eyeballing Voyagers radio carrier frequency with a magnifying glass looking for anomalies. Maybe if you talk nice to them they will share this information , Doppler frequency offset data. It is public funded so in effect you payed for Voyager through taxes therefore you have rights to this information. Also you need to know if Voyager transmitter frequency is crystal based or did they take the analog road. If it is a analog oscillator for 2.3 GHz then carrier frequency data will be useless. If it turns out to be analog then the people responsible should be shot at sunrise then dug up the next day and shot again for good measure.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > On Monday, July 27, 2015 at 11:55:50 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > > > On 07/26/2015 11:20 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 07/26/2015 10:50 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > > > >> On 07/26/2015 10:30 PM, John Heath wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 9:33:39 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>> On 07/26/2015 06:11 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>> On 07/26/2015 05:45 PM, John Heath wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 3:10:32 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Where is the Einstein's gravitational constant coming from?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Was this constant tested?  Is it precise?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> -Phil
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi Phil
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> For a given frame of reference yes. For a cross reference frame of
> > > > > > > >>>>>> reference measurement no. It is possible the the consistency of the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> speed of light is a relative concept not absolute therefore it would
> > > > > > > >>>>>> follow that the gravitational constant is also not absolute but
> > > > > > > >>>>>> rather
> > > > > > > >>>>>> a relative concept. By this I mean c , fine structure constant and h
> > > > > > > >>>>>> could all be relative concepts not absolute. They will be constant
> > > > > > > >>>>>> from a given FoR but not necessarily from a different cross FoR
> > > > > > > >>>>>> measurement. We know time dilates in a different FoR . A FoR can be
> > > > > > > >>>>>> broadened into a gravitational FoR for G constant and voltage FoR for
> > > > > > > >>>>>> fine structure constant. This was entertained by Uncle Albert for a
> > > > > > > >>>>>> few years.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> "Das Prinzip der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit kann nur insofern
> > > > > > > >>>>>> aufrechterhalten werden, als man sich auf für Raum-Zeitliche-Gebiete
> > > > > > > >>>>>> mit konstantem Gravitationspotential beschränkt."
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> ("The principle of the constancy of the speed of light can be kept
> > > > > > > >>>>>> only when one restricts oneself to space-time regions of constant
> > > > > > > >>>>>> gravitational potential.")
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> The quote is from wikipedia
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> With this in place you are liberated to proceed with your solution to
> > > > > > > >>>>>> the outer part of galaxies turning faster than they should. Just
> > > > > > > >>>>>> change the gravitational constant and write it off as a change in the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> vacuum therefore gravitational constant is not the same in the outer
> > > > > > > >>>>>> regions of galaxies. There is no longer a need for mysterious dark
> > > > > > > >>>>>> matter. I would add that this would not mean that GR is wrong as both
> > > > > > > >>>>>> light speed and gravitational constant are not stated as absolute.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> These variables are only absolute from a given FoR be it movement ,
> > > > > > > >>>>>> gravitational or voltage for fine structure constant.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> You got it!
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> What's next?
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> You are not saying a lot Phil. That's ok as I like to talk. Somehow
> > > > > > > >>> the world seems right when everyone is sitting quietly hanging on to
> > > > > > > >>> my every word of wisdom. Its better that way.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> What's next? The outer part of our galaxy is a long long way to go to
> > > > > > > >>> test for a difference in G constant. However voyager 1 is headed that
> > > > > > > >>> way and is now confirmed to be in interstellar space. Our sun is just
> > > > > > > >>> another star. Rumor has it Voyager is moving faster than it should.
> > > > > > > >>> Current thoughts are the IR radiation from its energy source is
> > > > > > > >>> pushing voyager somewhat like a photon accelerator. This could be true
> > > > > > > >>> but my money is on a change in the density of the vacuum , gravity
> > > > > > > >>> density that sets our G constant. If I were you I would keep an eye on
> > > > > > > >>> voyager along with some computer simulations , your forte , to see how
> > > > > > > >>> much of a G constant is required to justify the increase in speed of
> > > > > > > >>> voyager then project that out to the outer parts of our galaxy to see
> > > > > > > >>> if there is a correlation.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Interesting.  Getting away from the Sun definitely will speed up any
> > > > > > > >> object according to Finite Theory.  That can be implemented easily.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> But in terms of technicalities I would have to access NASA's database
> > > > > > > >> for Voyager's exact coordinates...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Here's something I can start with:
> > > > > > > > http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/where/
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So I've already added Voyager 1 to my simulator with the following settings:
> > > > > > > position = {19763008767000, 0, 0}
> > > > > > > velocity = {17000, 0, 0}
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > It is decelerating and the difference with what is predicted by Newton 
> > > > > > > and Finite Theory in terms of speed is in the order of:
> > > > > > > 1e-7 m/s
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Does that match what NASA is currently seeing?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > -Phil

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#359436 — Cretin Phil Bouchard perseveres

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 3:04:26 PM UTC-7, pbouc...@gmail.com wrote:
> So apparently Pioneer 10 decelerated.  Finite Theory predicts an acceleration unless kappa is changed so I think you're right; it's not only time contraction but kappa is starting to be different outside the solar system.


take comfort in the fact that your imbecility isn't curable. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#359437

No sorry that's the effect of time dilation that is not accounted for by NASA.

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 6:04:26 PM UTC-4, pbouc...@gmail.com wrote:
> So apparently Pioneer 10 decelerated.  Finite Theory predicts an acceleration unless kappa is changed so I think you're right; it's not only time contraction but kappa is starting to be different outside the solar system.
> 
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 8:32:16 PM UTC-4, John Heath wrote:
> > If NASA confirms your suspicions you blame it on dark energy or dark matter. Do not bring up Finite theory. Too early for that. 
> >  
> > I noted you have voyager 1 and 2 in your updated source code and that Mr Photon is already there properties and all. Could you add to your simulator two photons that leave earth bouncing of voyager 1 and 2  then returning to earth. This would be equivalent to the NASA 36 hour ping , method "A" , to know the location and speed of the voyager 1 and 2. Add to this a change in the gravitational constant of 10 % for 50% of the photon's journey. This will guarantee the predicted position is off by 5%.
> > 
> > With this in place we use clock's on voyager 1 and 2 , dish 2.3 GHz RF carrier frequency , to test for Doppler red shift 130 KHz from earth to know the position and velocity of Voyager 1 and 2. Call this method "B". It must have the same disadvantage of a 10 % change in G constant , photon speed changed by 10 %, for 50% of its journey to duplicate the same conditions as method "A". 
> > 
> > If all goes well method "A" will be off by 5% and method "B" off by 0%. This will establish proof of principle. Without proof of principle the simulation does not have relevance. In other words all you have at this point is my word that Doppler effect will render the correct position of voyager regardless of G constant. Where is the beef? The beef will come from proof of principle from your software simulator rendering the incorrect answer from method "A" and the correct answer from method "B" for voyager's true position.
> > 
> > It is necessary to do this first before proceeding to the real test of Voyager's position using methods "A" and "B". A difference between A and B can only be concluded as a difference in G constant between earth and voyager. 
> > 
> > Now is the time to bring up Finite Theory with the empirical evidence in your back pocket.   
> > 
> > On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 10:56:47 PM UTC-4, pbouc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I just contacted NASA JPL to let them know about this.  Let's see what they have to say.
> > > 
> > > On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 9:30:28 PM UTC-4, pbouc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Thanks John.  I think now Finite Theory is understood but if I had a chance to pass the torch to more advanced people I will take it without hesitating.  I've been working on this since December 2008 and I am at a point all I care is for humankind to move forward no matter how.
> > > > 
> > > > On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 9:08:21 PM UTC-4, John Heath wrote:
> > > > > Good work. I guess they need the thrusters to aim voyagers dish directly at our sun for best signal to noise. Ten times thermal acceleration , hmmm. There could still be hope here if they are judging the speed and distance of voyager by pinging. By this I mean ping voyager then wait 36 hours. Ping again 1 month later. If the latter ping is 36 hours 30 seconds than a estimate can be made of both distance and speed of voyager. This assumes constant light speed and gravitational G constant remain unchanged. If this is true then the Doppler shift at 17,000 meters per second velocity of a 2.3 GHz dish should be 130428 Hz off. A HP frequency counter can measure that down to 130428.000 Hz. That is 1 part in 100,000,000. If the NASA ping estimate is not matching the Doppler dish red shift then there is a hint of GR time dilation. As the gradient of gravity is almost flat where Voyager is it would stand to reason that the gravitational G constant must have changed. Main stream physics would be hard pressed to justify this however you are armed with Finite Theory that explains how this is possible. That could get your name in the papers to sell a book or two. Maybe a TV talk show to sell lots of books. Success comes to those who work for success. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 9:10:45 AM UTC-4, pbouc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > I've already asked Cosmoquest.org and they said:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > "Both Voyagers are still firing roll stabilisation thrusters every now and then as required, making any such precision speed measurements nearly impossible. This station-keeping is reported as introducing an equivalent noise to these measurements ten times the size of the thermal recoil deceleration of the Pioneer probes."
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 7:46:06 AM UTC-4, John Heath wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Phil
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Voyager 1 transmitting frequency is 2.3 GHz or 8.4 GHz. Precise measurement of this frequency then again 12 hours later , earth turns , then average those two numbers out for net Doppler offset. Adding to this a minor SR adjustment will reveal Voyagers true speed relative to us. The signal to noise ratio will make this impossible for you to do on your own with a modified satellite receiver. However NASA has large Deep Space Network Channel 18 dish receivers. You may rest assured they are eyeballing Voyagers radio carrier frequency with a magnifying glass looking for anomalies. Maybe if you talk nice to them they will share this information , Doppler frequency offset data. It is public funded so in effect you payed for Voyager through taxes therefore you have rights to this information. Also you need to know if Voyager transmitter frequency is crystal based or did they take the analog road. If it is a analog oscillator for 2.3 GHz then carrier frequency data will be useless. If it turns out to be analog then the people responsible should be shot at sunrise then dug up the next day and shot again for good measure.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > On Monday, July 27, 2015 at 11:55:50 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 07/26/2015 11:20 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 07/26/2015 10:50 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> On 07/26/2015 10:30 PM, John Heath wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 9:33:39 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> On 07/26/2015 06:11 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>> On 07/26/2015 05:45 PM, John Heath wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 3:10:32 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Where is the Einstein's gravitational constant coming from?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Was this constant tested?  Is it precise?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -Phil
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi Phil
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> For a given frame of reference yes. For a cross reference frame of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> reference measurement no. It is possible the the consistency of the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> speed of light is a relative concept not absolute therefore it would
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> follow that the gravitational constant is also not absolute but
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> rather
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> a relative concept. By this I mean c , fine structure constant and h
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> could all be relative concepts not absolute. They will be constant
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> from a given FoR but not necessarily from a different cross FoR
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> measurement. We know time dilates in a different FoR . A FoR can be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> broadened into a gravitational FoR for G constant and voltage FoR for
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> fine structure constant. This was entertained by Uncle Albert for a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> few years.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> "Das Prinzip der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit kann nur insofern
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> aufrechterhalten werden, als man sich auf für Raum-Zeitliche-Gebiete
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> mit konstantem Gravitationspotential beschränkt."
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> ("The principle of the constancy of the speed of light can be kept
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> only when one restricts oneself to space-time regions of constant
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> gravitational potential.")
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> The quote is from wikipedia
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> With this in place you are liberated to proceed with your solution to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> the outer part of galaxies turning faster than they should. Just
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> change the gravitational constant and write it off as a change in the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> vacuum therefore gravitational constant is not the same in the outer
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> regions of galaxies. There is no longer a need for mysterious dark
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> matter. I would add that this would not mean that GR is wrong as both
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> light speed and gravitational constant are not stated as absolute.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> These variables are only absolute from a given FoR be it movement ,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> gravitational or voltage for fine structure constant.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> You got it!
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> What's next?
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> You are not saying a lot Phil. That's ok as I like to talk. Somehow
> > > > > > > > >>> the world seems right when everyone is sitting quietly hanging on to
> > > > > > > > >>> my every word of wisdom. Its better that way.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> What's next? The outer part of our galaxy is a long long way to go to
> > > > > > > > >>> test for a difference in G constant. However voyager 1 is headed that
> > > > > > > > >>> way and is now confirmed to be in interstellar space. Our sun is just
> > > > > > > > >>> another star. Rumor has it Voyager is moving faster than it should.
> > > > > > > > >>> Current thoughts are the IR radiation from its energy source is
> > > > > > > > >>> pushing voyager somewhat like a photon accelerator. This could be true
> > > > > > > > >>> but my money is on a change in the density of the vacuum , gravity
> > > > > > > > >>> density that sets our G constant. If I were you I would keep an eye on
> > > > > > > > >>> voyager along with some computer simulations , your forte , to see how
> > > > > > > > >>> much of a G constant is required to justify the increase in speed of
> > > > > > > > >>> voyager then project that out to the outer parts of our galaxy to see
> > > > > > > > >>> if there is a correlation.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Interesting.  Getting away from the Sun definitely will speed up any
> > > > > > > > >> object according to Finite Theory.  That can be implemented easily.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> But in terms of technicalities I would have to access NASA's database
> > > > > > > > >> for Voyager's exact coordinates...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Here's something I can start with:
> > > > > > > > > http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/where/
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > So I've already added Voyager 1 to my simulator with the following settings:
> > > > > > > > position = {19763008767000, 0, 0}
> > > > > > > > velocity = {17000, 0, 0}
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > It is decelerating and the difference with what is predicted by Newton 
> > > > > > > > and Finite Theory in terms of speed is in the order of:
> > > > > > > > 1e-7 m/s
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Does that match what NASA is currently seeing?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > -Phil

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358980 — Delusional idiot Philippe Bouchard chimes in

On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 6:30:28 PM UTC-7, pbouc...@gmail.com wrote:
  I've been working on this since December 2008 and I am at a point all I care is for humankind to move forward no matter how.
> 
Idiot. Delusional. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web