pioneer anomaly SOLVED (solution)

[nduriri]

I have now solved the pioneer anomaly and also other 5 cosmological
blunders of the last 85 years,

1) The pioneer anomaly (hidden matter, not serious)

2) The galaxy disk shape flatness (no explanation).

3) The spiral form aspiration of matter by the accretion disk (frame
dragging, science fiction).

4) The matter bipolar jets trajectory (hydrodynamic theory, incoherent
theory since the magnetic field cannot deflect neutral matter).

5) Galaxy rotation curve flatness (dark matter, not serious).

6) The source of matter bipolar jets (contradicts event horizon theory,
science fiction)
See the summary-of-gravitomagnetism page 8 and NEW NEWTON LAW in
www.gravitomagnetism.com

[Epsilon=One]

I have now solved the pioneer anomaly and also other 5 cosmological
blunders of the last 85 years,

1) The pioneer anomaly (hidden matter, not serious)

2) The galaxy disk shape flatness (no explanation).

3) The spiral form aspiration of matter by the accretion disk (frame
dragging, science fiction).

4) The matter bipolar jets trajectory (hydrodynamic theory, incoherent
theory since the magnetic field cannot deflect neutral matter).

5) Galaxy rotation curve flatness (dark matter, not serious).

6) The source of matter bipolar jets (contradicts event horizon theory,
science fiction)
See the summary-of-gravitomagnetism page 8 and NEW NEWTON LAW in
www.gravitomagnetism.comYour work is very good. I agree with your basic assessment concerning the state of Theoretical Physics.

With a quick perusal of your work I can find no errors anywhere near the magnitude of conventional Standard Model physics.

Now with that said. I do find some fault that you may be able to alleviate.

First: your concerns seem to be at the Cosmic level or when applied to the subatomic there seems to be an over reliance on "gravity" as a fundamental force; whereas, generally as its phenomenon is interpreted in the Standard Models, I understand it as several different secondary phenomena. Are you equating the strong interaction as a constituent of "gravity"?

Second: it appears with field interactions and your mathematics that you are interpreting your force as "action-at-a-distance." Is this the case? And, if not, can you be a little clearer as to: Why not?

Third: you don't seem to be addressing the fundamental "Why's?" as to where your forces and "fields" come from. I find no definitions of the dimensions that you use. How do you interpret time?

Fourth: How are you proving the mathematics that you are using in light of Kurt Gödel's "Incompleteness Theorem"?

Five: I cannot understand the basic geometry of the "ovals" that you refer to. Is it possible that they are ellipses? Is it possible that the ellipses are classes of ellipses that are defined by an Elliptical Constant?

Six: You seem dismissive of "dark" matter and possibly "dark" energy. Is this your position? Are you using quantums as a form of ether?; or, quantum field theory for a basic quantum? If not, how does your theory explain quintessence?

Seven: Are you attempting to replace QCD; or, does your theory reconcile with it?

Eight: Among your Cosmic solutions, what is the etiology/origin of galaxies?; quasars?; Gamma-ray bursts?

Nine: Despite your protestations concerning the state of current theoretical physics, you seem to overly rely upon many of the very fundamental concepts that you castigate. Don't misunderstand me, I do believe you have greatly furthered an understanding of what, to the present, with today’s tools and observations, has been a ludicrous amalgam of irreconcilability.

I don't expect anything near a complete reply. You can pick, choose, and limit wherever you like. . . . or, of course, ignore me completely.

[nduriri]

Thanks alot for your sharp comments, I'll have to take time to reply U. But I can point out some things
1) The oval lines are not a true representation
of the gravitomagnetic field, U have to use a computer to get the exact form by using bessel integrals.

2) I'm trying to say that if people talk about dark matter and dark energy, then they should define it to a falsifiable theory that can be verified.

3) I think about units U can go down my exposé at the ed, I've determine all the physical constants and determined the units of the physical quantities.

4) I've given a falsifiable approach that can help a rational debate, as U well know many authors give very undefined approaches to avoid being contradicded. I took the risk of proposing a falsifiable approach.

5) I'm not trying to replace any theory, I'm just proposing an approach from accepted mathematical bases and to answer in a coherent way the cosmological blundres without changing my approach any time I meet a new phenomena. My approach is constant, I' not trying to change now and then coz we need a global constnt approach.

I try to answer U in a detailed way because at the moment I've a lot of letters to answer.
Thanks once more for your SHARP comments.
Joseph NDURIRI.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

I have now solved the pioneer anomaly and also other 5 cosmological blunders of the last 85 years,
1) The pioneer anomaly (hidden matter, not serious)
2) The galaxy disk shape flatness (no explanation).
3) The spiral form aspiration of matter by the accretion disk (frame
dragging, science fiction).
4) The matter bipolar jets trajectory (hydrodynamic theory, incoherent
theory since the magnetic field cannot deflect neutral matter).
5) Galaxy rotation curve flatness (dark matter, not serious).
6) The source of matter bipolar jets (contradicts event horizon theory,
science fiction)
See the summary-of-gravitomagnetism page 8 and NEW NEWTON LAW in
www.gravitomagnetism.com
Just so (I) understand this time is it your assertion that frame dragging is science fiction?

Cause that (Frame dragging = Science fiction) would be wrong, provable as wrong, scientifically provable as wrong as experimentation can (Be used to) prove it as correct.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

In accordance with the manner of your titling of this thread, where is/does the proof appear here?

As (I) see nothing in the post that is the solution, other then having to go to your link to read it and that is not quite in accordance with the manner of your title of this thread ...right?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Just so (I) understand this time is it your assertion that frame dragging is science fiction?
Cause that (Frame dragging = Science fiction) would be wrong, provable as wrong, scientifically provable as wrong as experimentation can (Be used to) prove it as correct.Just so (I) keep it correct, it is Frame Shifting that can (could) be proven not Frame dragging as the two are different and Frame Shifting is the Operative method.

[nduriri]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI


Just so (I) understand this time is it your assertion that frame dragging is science fiction?

Cause that (Frame dragging = Science fiction) would be wrong, provable as wrong, scientifically provable as wrong as experimentation can (Be used to) prove it as correct.

1) Yes frame dragging is science fiction, the space is never curved,when astronomers saw spiral galaxies, the thought the space was curved but in reality, it's the trajectory of the matter that is curved by the gravitomagnetic field, if you watch the path of an electron in a magnetic field, U will not say that the space is curvrd. Frame dragging is very misleading.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

1) Yes frame dragging is science fiction, the space is never curved,when astronomers saw spiral galaxies, the thought the space was curved but in reality, it's the trajectory of the matter that is curved by the gravitomagnetic field, if you watch the path of an electron in a magnetic field, U will not say that the space is curvrd. Frame dragging is very misleading.

(I) disagree as some of the planetary bodies demonstrate NO (or little or tiny) magnetic 'field' yet still curve "trajectories" of objects and LIGHT passing them...

[Epsilon=One]

1) Yes frame dragging is science fiction, the space is never curved,when astronomers saw spiral galaxies, the thought the space was curved but in reality, it's the trajectory of the matter that is curved by the gravitomagnetic field, if you watch the path of an electron in a magnetic field, U will not say that the space is curvrd. Frame dragging is very misleading.I agree.

Your term "gravitomagnetic field" interests me.

What is its genesis? Is it possible that the "gravitomagnetic field" can be considered as a quantum?

A quantum that does not expel photons ("dark"/transparent matter) would easily explain the Pioneer anomaly and the galactic retention of stars.

(I) disagree as some of the planetary bodies demonstrate NO (or little or tiny) magnetic 'field' yet still curve "trajectories" of objects and LIGHT passing them...The curved trajectories don't require a "magnetic 'field'"; they are a "gravitational" effect, Confluent Congruence (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CC), much as are the rise and fall of the tides.

[nduriri]

The Allais Effect has been solved

1) The pioneer anomaly (hidden matter)

2) The Allais Effect (gravity shield)

3) The galaxy disk shape flatness (no explanation).

4) The spiral form aspiration of matter by the accretion disk (frame dragging, science fiction).

5) The matter bipolar jets trajectory (magneto hydrodynamics theory, incoherent theory since the magnetic field cannot deflect neutral matter = circumstantial theory = confusion).

6) Galaxy rotation curve flatness (dark matter, MOND theory).

7) The source of matter bipolar jets (contradicts event horizon theory, science fiction)

See summary page 9 and page 1 for New Newton law www.gravitomagnetism.com

[Epsilon=One]

See summary page 9 and page 1 for New Newton law www.gravitomagnetism.comYour analysis is excellent; however, the conclusions are far from fundamental.

What is the source, and evolution therefrom, of gravitomagnetism?

What is the proof of the mathematics that are used in gravitomagnetism theory in light of Gödel (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Go)'s "Incompleteness Theorem" (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/GIT)? (GIT)

Can you reconcile gravitomagnetism to quantum chromodynamics (QCD)?

[nduriri]

Your analysis is excellent; however, the conclusions are far from fundamental.

What is the source, and evolution therefrom, of gravitomagnetism?

What is the proof of the mathematics that are used in gravitomagnetism theory in light of Gödel (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Go)'s "Incompleteness Theorem" (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/GIT)? (GIT)

Can you reconcile gravitomagnetism to quantum chromodynamics (QCD)?
I cannot explain what is gravity but I can explain how gravity behaves.
The basis of the mathematics is the Lorentz force transformation and the invariance of the quadri-vector (r^2 = c^2 t^2 - r^2 ). The other proof is that the approach explains in a constant coherent way the 7 cosmology blunders, no other theory can even explain one blunder (GR attempts to explain frame dragging). A theory that is so coherent cannot be very wrong!

[Epsilon=One]

The Allais Effect has been solved

1) The pioneer anomaly (hidden matter)

2) The Allais Effect (gravity shield)

3) The galaxy disk shape flatness (no explanation).

4) The spiral form aspiration of matter by the accretion disk (frame dragging, science fiction).

5) The matter bipolar jets trajectory (magneto hydrodynamics theory, incoherent theory since the magnetic field cannot deflect neutral matter = circumstantial theory = confusion).

6) Galaxy rotation curve flatness (dark matter, MOND theory).

7) The source of matter bipolar jets (contradicts event horizon theory, science fiction)

See summary page 9 and page 1 for New Newton law www.gravitomagnetism.comThe above quotes are utter nonsense. Gravitomagnitism theory (GT) adds nothing to current, contrived theory other than more contrivances.

Nowhere in GT is there an explanation of "Why?"; or any attempt to explain fundamental phenomena. Everything in GT is based on limited, extrapolated observation and questionable, mathematically manipulated, symbolistic descriptions of Nature that is fundamentally more than a century before current Cosmic and nuclear observations were understood and confirmed.

The work is elegant and brilliant, as mechanical and engineering contrivances go; but, it is not applicable to the "Why?" of fundamental Nature. That so much time can be wasted when the fallacies must be evident from the beginning is truly amazing.

Nothing has been proved, only asserted!!!

Until you can explain the universal entanglement of gravity and understand that its speed must be beyond that of light, while explaining why there is a reactive force other than the Big Bang, I can see no reason to play with the manipulation of mathematics, GT does, that is any different than "working" or developing a crossword puzzle!!!

[nduriri]

I agree.

Your term "gravitomagnetic field" interests me.

What is its genesis? Is it possible that the "gravitomagnetic field" can be considered as a quantum?

A quantum that does not expel photons ("dark"/transparent matter) would easily explain the Pioneer anomaly and the galactic retention of stars.

The curved trajectories don't require a "magnetic 'field'"; they are a "gravitational" effect, Confluent Congruence (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CC), much as are the rise and fall of the tides.

Yes the trajectories don't require a magnetic field, it requires a gravitomagnetic field, the gravitomagnetic is a concept, it is a mathematical tool, in reality this effect is due to relativistic effect of the orthogonal component of the gravitional field to the mouvement.

[Epsilon=One]

Yes the trajectories don't require a magnetic field, it requires a gravitomagnetic field, the gravitomagnetic is a concept, it is a mathematical tool, in reality this effect is due to relativistic effect of the orthogonal component of the gravitional field to the mouvement.Alright, this gives a little more depth.

I like this: "...gravitomagnetic is a concept...due to relativistic effect of the orthogonal component of the gravitional field to the mouvement."

But it is not enough. Now, what is needed is a little more refinement to your definitions to escape the "mathematical tool" and relate to Nature not symbolism and contrived equations.

It appears that you are fitting mathematics to partial observation (brilliantly from what I can ascertain); rather than trying to explain the genesis of either.

What is the "gravitational field"? Does it float? Or, accelerate? Or, pulse? What is it comprised of? What is it within? What is its size? What is its shape? And, most importantly, for all the questions . . . "Why?"

Why is there an orthogonal component? What are the other components?

You state, "...due to...the mouvement." What moves? And, in what manner does "it" move?

[nduriri]

Alright, this gives a little more depth.

I like this: "...gravitomagnetic is a concept...due to relativistic effect of the orthogonal component of the gravitional field to the mouvement."

But it is not enough. Now, what is needed is a little more refinement to your definitions to escape the "mathematical tool" and relate to Nature not symbolism and contrived equations.

It appears that you are fitting mathematics to partial observation (brilliantly from what I can ascertain); rather than trying to explain the genesis of either.

What is the "gravitational field"? Does it float? Or, accelerate? Or, pulse? What is it comprised of? What is it within? What is its size? What is its shape? And, most importantly, for all the questions . . . "Why?"

Why is there an orthogonal component? What are the other components?

You state, "...due to...the mouvement." What moves? And, in what manner does "it" move?
I told you last time that gravitomagnetic field is as concept just like the magnetic field, it helps us in a simple way determine the trajectory of particles. If U fire an electron near the poles of a magnet, it willtake curved path, if by chance U fire a bullet near the pole of a rotating black hole, it will take a curved path. It is simple and clear. With the equation of the black hole, u can see when the speed approaches the speed of light away from the black hole the g tends to zero. As Einstein said, time dilation is a concept, a tool that helps to transform forces from one reference frame to another. People think that if U move fast that time flow changes but that is just relative to an observer, to U on the moving frame the time flow is the same, whether or not some people are in relative motion with otherwise it could mean that your time flow depends on your relative motion to others, this is ridiculous because you have so many people in reletive motion to you, you connot have an infinite series of flow of time. Time dilation is a concept.

[nduriri]

Alright, this gives a little more depth.

I like this: "...gravitomagnetic is a concept...due to relativistic effect of the orthogonal component of the gravitional field to the mouvement."

But it is not enough. Now, what is needed is a little more refinement to your definitions to escape the "mathematical tool" and relate to Nature not symbolism and contrived equations.

It appears that you are fitting mathematics to partial observation (brilliantly from what I can ascertain); rather than trying to explain the genesis of either.

What is the "gravitational field"? Does it float? Or, accelerate? Or, pulse? What is it comprised of? What is it within? What is its size? What is its shape? And, most importantly, for all the questions . . . "Why?"

Why is there an orthogonal component? What are the other components?

You state, "...due to...the mouvement." What moves? And, in what manner does "it" move?
To know what is moving check the Lorentz force transformation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

[Epsilon=One]

To know what is moving check the Lorentz force transformation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformationHow can you possibly rely on such as this to prove current observation anomalies. By today's standards, you are referring to ancient contrivances to describe something Natural that has been shown to contain anomalies.

Do you understand the unending questions that are unanswered by researchers in nuclear physics that quantum chromodynamics (QCD) attempts to resolve.

I cannot see that any of your Cosmic applications apply very well at the subatomic level with regard to what is enigmatic. A clear solution to what you claim must reconcile at all scales.

Your mathematics have no fundamental foundations that justify their application to Natural effects . . . particularly, at the subatomic level, which is intimately tied to the Cosmic. Your work seems to involve little more than manipulating symbolic mathematics; you must reconcile your manipulations to Nature; not more symbolism.

My criticism is not so much applicable to your work as it is to the the unwarranted conclusions that you have arrived at.

You castigate current theory, while relying upon it for your conclusions.

[Epsilon=One]

...gravitomagnetic field is as concept just like the magnetic field...in a simple way (it) determine(s) the trajectory of particles.A concept "in a simple way" is far from what is required to substantiate your claims.

If U fire an electron near the poles of a magnet, it willtake curved path, if by chance U fire a bullet near the pole of a rotating black hole, it will take a curved path. It is simple and clear.Yes, it is simple; no, it is not clear. It is far from clear that a "black hole," as usually defined, even exists; yet alone, that it rotates about a pole. Such a description falls between a non sequitur and an oxymoron.

With the equation of the black hole, u can see when the speed approaches the speed of light away from the black hole the g tends to zero.Nuts! Pseudopedantic gobbledygook!

As Einstein said, time dilation is a concept, a tool that helps to transform forces from one reference frame to another. People think that if U move fast that time flow changes but that is just relative to an observer, to U on the moving frame the time flow is the same, whether or not some people are in relative motion with otherwise it could mean that your time flow depends on your relative motion to others, this is ridiculous because you have so many people in reletive motion to you, you connot have an infinite series of flow of time. Time dilation is a concept.I'm not sure what is applicable in this "flow" of terms; however, Einstein, as you state, was right: time dilation is "a tool"; and as such, is unproven and hardly adequate to substantiate your claims to solving the anomolies that you claim to have solved.

[nduriri]

A concept "in a simple way" is far from what is required to substantiate your claims.

Yes, it is simple; no, it is not clear. It is far from clear that a "black hole," as usually defined, even exists; yet alone, that it rotates about a pole. Such a description falls between a non sequitur and an oxymoron.

Nuts! Pseudopedantic gobbledygook!

I'm not sure what is applicable in this "flow" of terms; however, Einstein, as you state, was right: time dilation is "a tool"; and as such, is unproven and hardly adequate to substantiate your claims to solving the anomolies that you claim to have solved.

Just a question, why is the linear vector gravity capable of explaining 7 cosmological blunders just by using the gravitomagnetic field as a tool while the GR is stuck? Something is very wrong with the GR

[Epsilon=One]

...why is the linear vector gravity capable of explaining 7 cosmological blunders just by using the gravitomagnetic field as a tool while the GR is stuck? Something is very wrong with the GRYou are quite correct. There is much wrong with GR.

But there is much that gravitomagnetic fields (GMF) don't explain to make the extravagant claims that are made. Like GR, GMF is a tool, fundamentally a contrivance. GMF is not complete, though it appears well reasoned as far as it goes; nor, is GMF supported by fundamental explanations of "Why?"

I've asked some questions that you have continued to leave unanswered; and, there are concerns such as:

1.) How does GMF explain Cosmic Inertia: galactic, accelerating recession; which directly relates to your "7 cosmological blunders."

2.) Can GMF stand independent of the counter-structural force to gravity: the Big Bang?

3.) Your heavy reliance on mathematic symbolism and manipulation that is fundamentally unproved.

Further, I don't like the connotations that "blunders" implies.

[nduriri]

Was the constant of cosmology the only blunder that Einstein has ever had in his search for gravitomagnetism or is it an iceberg of the biggest blunder on Einstein equation of gravity? Why did astronomers gather circumstantial evidence that massive bodies attract light without taking into account the diffraction of light by matter (the Sun for example)? Is science an ideology, a dogma or a huge business? Are some scientists merchants of science fiction? How does it come that the old guards of relativity have not yet presented a global, coherent and falsifiable gravitomagnetism theory and at the same time continue considering themselves as experts in relativity? Are they the old guards of an immovable past or are they experts in freezing science progress? The old guards are spending huge amounts of tax payers’ money, do they know what they are looking for or are they just speculating on what might be measured? The old guards have not yet developed a falsifiable gravitomagnetism theory, how do we expect them to analyse the data? What went wrong with the mission? Is the data crashed? Should the tax payers ask the old guards to give an account on the money spent in space research? Why are the old guards scared about testing the linear vector gravity with the available data or by simulation? What is behind all this strident silence? Are the old guards of relativity stuck? Time will tell.

See

www.gravitomagnetism.com

[Epsilon=One]

Will you never answer any of the questions that I have posed?

Was the constant of cosmology the only blunder that Einstein has ever had in his search for gravitomagnetism or is it an iceberg of the biggest blunder on Einstein equation of gravity?Einstein did not blunder. He was well ahead of his time logically; and, he was without today's tools of direct observation. Einstein misplaced the source and direction of the Cosmological Constant; however, he was correct in that a "negative gravity" was a structural requirement for a complete theory of GR.

Why did astronomers gather circunstantial evidence that massive bodies attract light without taking into account the diffraction of light by matter (the Sun for example)?I'm sure there were many nefarious reasons; as well as honest mistakes . . . combined with great enthusiasm for positive results. Who would remember if the results were negative.

Is science an ideology, a dogma or a huge business?As regards theoretical physics, I would answer: yes!!! . . . three times; and there are more equally dismal conconclusions that can be concluded.

Are some scientists merchants of science fiction? How does it come that the old guards of relativity have not yet presented a global, coherent and falsifiable gravitomagnetism theory and at the same time continue considering themselves as experts in relativity?You'll have to ask them. I suspect that no one wants to replace an accepted SM (that works in many cases) with something that has its own major problems; as, I have been pointing out.

Are they the old guards of an immovable past or are they experts in freezing science progress? The old guards are spending huge amounts of tax payers’ money, do they know what they are looking for or are they just speculating on what might be measured? The old guards have not yet developed a falsifiable gravitomagnetism theory, how do we expect them to analyse the data? What went wrong with the mission? Is the data crashed? Should the tax payers ask the old guards to give an account on the money spent in space research? Why are the old guards scared about testing the linear vector gravity with the available data or by simulation? What is behind all this strident silence? Are the old guards of relativity stuck? Time will tell.For the most part you are generally correct (except the gravitomagnetism theory part, which if nothing else is a horrible collection of discredited, undefined terms). However, "sugar" will, likely, get you further than attitude. You need a lot of help to nudge the status quo of the pomo elite theoretical physicist with only standard model symbolic manipulations.

See

www.gravitomagnetism.comWhy???

[nduriri]

Will you never answer any of the questions that I have posed?

Einstein did not blunder. He was well ahead of his time logically; and, he was without today's tools of direct observation. Einstein misplaced the source and direction of the Cosmological Constant; however, he was correct in that a "negative gravity" was a structural requirement for a complete theory of GR.

I'm sure there were many nefarious reasons; as well as honest mistakes . . . combined with great enthusiasm for positive results. Who would remember if the results were negative.

As regards theoretical physics, I would answer: yes!!! . . . three times; and there are more equally dismal conconclusions that can be concluded.

You'll have to ask them. I suspect that no one wants to replace an accepted SM (that works in many cases) with something that has its own major problems; as, I have been pointing out.

For the most part you are generally correct (except the gravitomagnetism theory part, which if nothing else is a horrible collection of discredited, undefined terms). However, "sugar" will, likely, get you further than attitude. You need a lot of help to nudge the status quo of the pomo elite theoretical physicist with only standard model symbolic manipulations.

Why???
I think your are jelous, why do you waste you time insulting me?
Proposing a theory is not a crime, you have the right not to agree with me but you are scared that people might discover the truth, why are people fight the linear vector gravity with such a force. The are simply scared about the truth.
wwww.gravitmagnetism.com

[Epsilon=One]

I think your are jelous, why do you waste you time insulting me?Jealousy is a nonproductive emotion. I could never be jealous of someone that advances wisdom; they I worship.

Productive life is very short. I try to never waste my time; though, my purpose is often difficult to assess.

I find nothing that I have written, in response to your posts, to be insulting to your person; what you find so, may be my attempt to prod you into clarity and to give you some advice regarding the milieu of academic physics. If so I apologize . . . for what, I know not.

I am; however, critical of the lack of fundamental concepts for your theories and the foundation upon which they rest. Your definitions seem to rely on mathematical symbolism or theoretical assumptions that rely upon said symbolism. That is: the word "cup" is a symbol with connotations; but the word /symbol cannot hold water; as, the object of the symbol can. Your Gravitomagnetism/Linear Vector Gravity theory's definitions rely upon symbols; and, must be expanded to objects that can be visualized and that hold "water."

I find that I have praised your alternative concepts more than most folderal.

You made the unqualified statement of having solved six “cosmological blunders of the last 85 years.” And, then, stating that your approach can “help a rational debate.” Yet, when I join the debate you ignore my salient questions and attack my person and motives.

Proposing a theory is not a crime, you have the right not to agree with me but you are scared that people might discover the truth…I encourage alternative theories; just as I encourage their critiques. I do so in the hope that the layperson will understand the “truth” that is there to be discovered. Discovering “truth” requires asking “Why?”; and, most importantly, dialog until there is a concurrence.

…why are people fight the linear vector gravity with such a force. The are simply scared about the truth.I hope you are not speaking of myself; for, I have faced far greater danger and hardship, for over fifty years, literally, fighting for “truth” than I ever will asking you for foundation and definitions for an alternative physics theory concerning gravity.

Yet, you clearly state that you “cannot explain what gravity is.” If you truly want to know gravity's various manifestations and seek “truth” without personal bias, let’s have a dialog beginning with some of the posed questions. Select any one of them.

Maybe we can both learn something if you will respond to my questions; or, if you critique Pulsoid Theory (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PT) as I have critiqued Gravitomagnetism/Linear Vector Gravity Theory.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI


Please take note: the "YUTZ" Immediately above is on My "Ignore list" so if anything is being stated in reference to me or any of my previous postings, (I) have "not a clue" (can not see it, other then, it lists his name as "there"/{here} ) and (I) DO NOT WANT TO RESPOND OR ENCOURAGE TO SUCH AN ARROGANT INVASIONARY HIDDEN PEACOCK

(Watch out for his FALSE information too)

[Epsilon=One]

Please take note: the "YUTZ" Immediately above is on My "Ignore list" so if anything is being stated in reference to me or any of my previous postings, (I) have "not a clue" (can not see it, other then, it lists his name as "there"/{here} ) and (I) DO NOT WANT TO RESPOND OR ENCOURAGE TO SUCH AN ARROGANT INVASIONARY HIDDEN PEACOCKI believe that I would rather be a “PEACOCK” than an ostrich with its head in the sand.

Hopefully, your above statement can be construed as meaning you no longer will waste my time with your distortions.

Your continuing behavior is beyond the norm for civilized dialogue. Though you don’t seem to understand the Renaissance spirit of this forum, I hope you appreciate that spirit; as nowhere else would such personal, off-topic attacks and diatribe be tolerated.

(Watch out for his FALSE information too)Ad hominem argument is weak; if you are going to make spurious charges, you should be able to back them up. Exactly what statement of mine that I have made concerning physics, math, or philosophy do you find “FALSE”? If such is the case, I would very much like to correct it.

[nduriri]

I have now defined the gravitational radiation in new Newton law.PDF page 8. Rectilinear and circular masse particles motions.
www.gravitomagnetism.com

[Epsilon=One]

See summary page 9 and page 1 for New Newton law www.gravitomagnetism.comIt is difficult to determine what fundamental postulate underlies the mathematics from which you "formulate" your theories. Your theories seem dependent upon "gravitomagnetic waves." What are they? And, why haven't they been directly observed?

How does your theory define dimensions; particularly, time?

Exactly, what is your disagreement with relativity (SR & GR) and quantum field theory (QF)?

[Epsilon=One]

I have now defined the gravitational radiation...You continually comment on the illusion of gravity's attraction as some sort of gravity wave. This is not possible; gravity waves do not exist. Billions of dollars have been spent without a shred of observable evidence that such waves exist. It is such evidence that you state is critical in your below quote.

Is it possible that somehow I am misinterpreting your argument?

You do not seem to understand the Natural origin of the mathematics that you use. Without such an understanding, mathematics is useless when interpreting fundamental phenomena; as you do. The below quote, from your work, seems to understand this; however, the understanding seems to be blithely ignored throughout the arguments presented within gravitomagnetism theory.

Quoted from “Linear Vector Gravity,” by Joseph Nduririe, Paris, France, 31 October 2005

"Frontier Physics Evidence

A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence that is observable by the senses. Such methods are opposed to theoretical ab initio methods which are purely deductive and based on first principles that could lead to incoherent theories, maths is just a tool that helps us to have a rational approach to frontier physics but the approach to frontier physics must be guided by evidence that is observable by the senses, in our case it is the astronomical observations that should guide us.”Nowhere in your work can I find a Natural origin or definition of “time”; or, a fundamental explanation of: How a wave “transports” energy as is stated in “Electrogravitomagnetic wave energy.” To combine three terms such as “electro,” “gravito,” and “magnetic” that, fundamentally, are so little understood, and greatly misunderstood, requires much more detail of definition than I can find within gravitomagnetism theory. What am I missing in your work that covers these lapses?

[nduriri]

You are quite correct. There is much wrong with GR.

But there is much that gravitomagnetic fields (GMF) don't explain to make the extravagant claims that are made. Like GR, GMF is a tool, fundamentally a contrivance. GMF is not complete, though it appears well reasoned as far as it goes; nor, is GMF supported by fundamental explanations of "Why?"

I've asked some questions that you have continued to leave unanswered; and, there are concerns such as:

1.) How does GMF explain Cosmic Inertia: galactic, accelerating recession; which directly relates to your "7 cosmological blunders."

2.) Can GMF stand independent of the counter-structural force to gravity: the Big Bang?

3.) Your heavy reliance on mathematic symbolism and manipulation that is fundamentally unproved.

Further, I don't like the connotations that "blunders" implies.

Epsilon thanks for your comments

You are right GMF is not complete, I elaborated it one year ago and it will take me time to complete it.
1) When a moving masse particle moves it creats a gravitomagnetic field, if you try to stop this particle the gravitomagnetic field induce will tend to colapse thereby by it will try to resist you but so far I cannot explain galatic acceleration
2) I did not really understand you second question but the Big Bang is not unic, it is periodic and happens every where in space, let is talk about local bangs instead of Big Bang.
3) Sincerely sopeaking I invented nothing, first I used the Lorentz force transformation as a tool, then I used Newton calculus, it's is the same maths all over the World.
4) I've been very much critisized because I used the term blunder, I did use this term because nobody has tried to explain these cosmological observations in a rarional way. The GMF could be approxitative but a least it has a coherent way of explaining these cosmolological obsersavation just with one equation of the gravitomatic field. I'm sorry for this connotation "blunders" but no one before me has come out with a rational explaination.

I have now defined the Earth gravitational radiation
www.gravitomagnetism.com

[Epsilon=One]

…GMF is not complete, I elaborated it one year ago and it will take me time to complete it.Until you can fundamentally define your contrived terms; and, fundamentally define the source of time, orthogonal dimensions, the Inverse Square Law, acceleration, gravity and its reactive structural force, mathematics, etc., you have no theory that can boast anything like your first post pronouncement: “I have now solved the pioneer anomaly and also other 5 cosmological blunders of the last 85 years…” Nowhere can I find an explanation for light’s deceleration, inertia’s force, or time’s unit of measurement, which are all central to your claims.

You have solved nothing. Though, you may have provided some alternative thoughts that may spur others to discard some of their metaphysical and mystical standard model concepts.

1) When a moving masse particle moves it creats a gravitomagnetic field, if you try to stop this particle the gravitomagnetic field induce will tend to colapse thereby by it will try to resist you but so far I cannot explain galatic accelerationNo! Your theory has the sequence backwards. The quantum “field” creates the resonance that manifests with fermionic properties. When hyper-relativistic motion (energy) is transferred to the resonance there is a momentary non-linear collapse of resonance and “field”; such a phenomenon is referred to as a pulse.

… the Big Bang is not unic, it is periodic and happens every where in space, let is talk about local bangs instead of Big Bang.You are quite correct. Your “local bangs” are observed as quasars and gamma-ray bursts. However, to equate these “local bangs” to a periodic Big Bang is ludicrous and misleading. I would enjoy a discussion, with you, concerning the etiology of these “local bangs.” I have covered the etiology in some detail in Pulsoid Theory (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PTis); what is your theory as to where the material for these “local bangs” comes from; why are they continuous?; and, why are they “banging”?

…I invented nothing, first I used the Lorentz force transformation as a tool, then I used Newton calculus, it's is the same maths all over the World.That may be so; but, it is also unproven “maths all over the World.”

4) I've been very much critisized because I used the term blunder, I did use this term because nobody has tried to explain these cosmological observations in a rarional way.Pulsoid Theory, going back to 1955, rationalizes all salient "cosmological observations"; the forces involved were discussed with Kip Thorne, in his office, in March of 1994 concerning the dynamic, internal separation of spheroids.

I have now defined the Earth gravitational radiation
www.gravitomagnetism.comGravity is NOT radiation; for the most part, cosmologically, it is a direct, secondary force. Billions have been spent seeking such radiation; all to no avail.

And, how does the definition of Earth’s gravitomagnetism “gravitational radiation” explain the: Why? And, what in your theory pertains to the implied difference from that on Mars?

[nduriri]

Thanks for your comments. In a two-body problem system, the angular momentum is not constant as stated by the Newton law. The rate of change of momentum (torque) is alternating but due to gravitational waves radiation energy loss, the torque is not symetrical with respect to the perihelion and aphelion line of axis. This explains the mercury perihelion advance. For more details see topic gravitational waves radiation in www.gravitomagnetism.com

[Epsilon=One]

In a two-body problem system, the angular momentum is not constant as stated by the Newton law. The rate of change of momentum (torque) is alternating but due to gravitational waves radiation energy loss, the torque is not symetrical with respect to the perihelion and aphelion line of axis. This explains the mercury perihelion advance. For more details see topic gravitational waves radiation in www.gravitomagnetism.comThe "two-body problem system" is no more realistic than "gravitational waves radiation." These concepts are not real-world concepts. At best, they are heuristic; and, most likely, with today's technology, any further theorizing that incorporates either, is a waste of constructive time.

Again, your theorizing is near useless unless you can explain: Why?

[OfficeShredder]

Is anybody able to read this whole article by any chance?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17623681.600-gravity-waves-detected-at-last.html

[Epsilon=One]

Is anybody able to read this whole article by any chance?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17623681.600-gravity-waves-detected-at-last.htmlYes. I won't be able to post it on the web until Monday however.

I can e-mail it to you immediately if you Pvt Msg an address. The Pvt Msg won't take the length.

I will excerpt, below, a part of "Gravity waves detected at last?," by Hazel Muir, New Scientist, Nov. 9, 2002.

Gravity waves have not been found to date . . . and, they won't be. I have added the bold.Blair cautions that the result might be a mirage. Fluctuations in power across European electrical grids might trigger signals in both detectors simultaneously, for instance. Despite the team's efforts to cancel vibrations from other sources, the data will still be very noisy, Blair says, making it hard to judge the statistical significance of their results.

Similar findings have been reported before. For instance, the Italian team's founder, Guido Pizzella, reported possible gravitational waves from a supernova in a nearby galaxy in 1987. However, none of these claims was ever confirmed. "But this should definitely not be dismissed out of hand," Blair says. "Many people are quick to criticise others for digging deep into their data. The climate of opinion is such that you have to be rather brave to do it. I applaud the Italians for persisting in these attempts."

Coccia points out that the detectors are 10,000 times as sensitive as they were in 1987. However, he is first to admit that his team and other detectors need to gather more data before they can confirm the result. By the end of next year they hope to have collected enough data to remove any doubt.Many billions have been spent on gravity wave research to no avail. I am persona non grata at a major research university and not permitted to speak with physics majors on campus without the imposition of severe penalties.

[nduriri]

A two-body system is not a closed system, it is an open system that looses energy thru gravitational waves radiation. In that case there is no energy conservation as stated by the Newton law. I'm trying to device an intrument for measuring gravitational waves. The greatest failure in life is to fail to try.
www.gravitomagnetism.com

[Epsilon=One]

I'm trying to device an intrument for measuring gravitational waves. You are on a fool's errand. A moment's logical thought should convince you that "gravitational waves" do not exist. Among fundamental concepts, only fermions, bosons, and Pulsoids (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/P)/"quantum fields" (all of which are comprised of motion) propagate as "waves." Gravitational phenomenon is mostly several secondary direct forces that are not in a clas.s with the various wave phenomena. The speed of gravity is infinite; thus, within Reality there are no waves with measureable speed.

If there were gravity waves they would have been found long ago. Caltech is completing the second phase of a billion dollar project to detect gravity waves. The half billion or more spent trying to date on one project has been an abject failure. Many other researchers have spent, and are spending, millions in the futile quest.

The money would be much better spent attempting to define gravity before searching for it. Those that think otherwise are true fools.

The greatest failure in life is to fail to try.I would contend that a greater failure is “to try” before engaging logic.

[nduriri]

By using relativity, gravity waves have quantitatively been determined during the solar eclipse. The gravity waves are induce at a supersonic speed (1000m/s), they induce gravitomotive force g.m.f. in gases and liquids, thereby creating masse currents which is converted into sound waves; they also induce electromotive force e.m.f. in electric conductors, plasma, ionosphere and metals thereby creating electric currents.
Since the quasi stationary orthodox gravity shield theories do not offer a global and coherent explanation concerning gravity perturbations, can there be a physical science work of more importance than obtaining an understanding of these perturbations and seeking interaction with the remote forces of gravity?
The facts are there, the facts remain the keystone in which the stability of a theory must be tested.
See www.gravitomagnetism.com
Joseph Nduriri, Paris, FRANCE

[Epsilon=One]

By using relativity, gravity waves have quantitatively been determined during the solar eclipse.This is not so. Literally, billions of dollars have been spent on gravity wave research without any success.

The Pioneer Anomaly is due to the effect of "dark" matter as theororized by Pulsoid Theory (www.CQthus.com/PT/PTis).

The facts are there, the facts remain the keystone in which the stability of a theory must be tested.You are correct concerning facts; however, I can ascertain no new fundamental "truths" in any of the facts as you present them.

As an example: How would you simply define the phenomena of "gravity." Does your definition include a reconciliation with observed accelerating, galactic recession and a reconciliation with the forces of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and super symmetry (SUSY)?

How does your theory explain gamma-ray bursts and high-energy, isotropic, background radiation; phenomena that is observed everywhere it is sought? Such phenomena directly correlates to observed gravitational effects.

You cannot manipulate contrived symbolism and arrive at an explanation for gravitational phenomena.

See www.gravitomagnetism.comGravitomagnatism is such a contrivance without a postulate that is truly fundamental. If this is not so, what is the fundamental postulate?

[nduriri]

By showing that the redshift is a fact misinterpretation, we will put the last nail in the coffin of general relativity and universe expansion, maybe the steady theory is not yet dead.
www.gravitomagnetism.com
Joseph NDURIRI, FRANCE.

[Epsilon=One]

By showing that the redshift is a fact misinterpretation, we will put the last nail in the coffin of general relativity and universe expansion, maybe the steady theory is not yet dead.
www.gravitomagnetism.com
Joseph NDURIRI, FRANCE.The redshift is observed fact. As is, the accelerating rate of galactic recession.

Your theory is somewhat astute in that: the Universe is not expanding and GR suffers as a mathematical contrivance. Though, there is much genius in relativity; such that you should not so easily dismiss it with the expression of "the last nail in the coffin..." Considering, the age when GR was conceived, you should be more respectful.

Some of your conclusions are correct; but, the logic that your conclusions depend upon is in error.

You must explain, fundamentally, why the speed of light is decelerating?; and, why?; and, what the amount of that deceleration is?

Little in your theory reconciles with either observation or logic.

Gravitomagnetism, as a theory, is far from fundamental; it is irreconcilable with observation; and, its terms are ill-defined.

Peruse Pulsoid Theory (www.CQthus.com/PT/PTis) in search of the fundamental concepts that allude your theory.

You have repeatedly failed to address the questions that I have raised; yet, you continue to extend your conclusions from the doubt that has been raised. Such brings the overall integrity of your theories into question.

[nduriri]

By using relativitic Doppler Effect we show that the Big Bang is incoherent, the red shift is necessary but not sufficient to support the Big Bang. Time has come to hammer the last nail in the coffin of Big Bang theory.
www.gravitomagnetism.com
Joseph Nduriri

[Epsilon=One]

By using relativitic Doppler Effect we show that the Big Bang is incoherent, the red shift is necessary but not sufficient to support the Big Bang. Time has come to hammer the last nail in the coffin of Big Bang theory.
www.gravitomagnetism.comGravitomagnetism (GM) is fundamentally flawed and without much merit; however, there is truth to the conclusion that the Big Bang (BB) is an absurdity.

"The last nail" has nothing to do with GM; the BB was finished by observation when the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) in the early 90s confirmed accelerating, galactic recession. The BB theorizes a single "bang" and is the only theoretical force that opposes "gravity"; as such, the BB can not have imparted acceleration to objects moving in opposition to "gravity."

Your theory states:"Gravitomagnetism explains the 9 cosmological blunders of the last 85 years, it gives the gravitodynamics new Newton law, gravitomagnetism defines gravitational waves radiation, gravitomagnetism explains the black hole thermodynamics and the kinetic or collision theory explains light dynamics."GM does not explain, coherently, "9 cosmological blunders of the last 85 years" as claimed. There is no way that GM fundamentally explains "gravitational waves," which have never been observed, such as explaining Cosmic entanglement that is consistent with nuclear entanglement as observed in colliders and theorized by super symmetry (SUSY).

Black Holes have never been proved; they are theoretical, metaphysical, mathematical contrivances that are superceded with much better explainations for the observed phenomena.

"Light dynamics" cannot be explained until you can explain the internal geometry of Light; how it is created from fermionic resonance; and, what the constant is that describes its constant rate of deceleration; that is everywhere observed. None of which I can find in GM.

You mention "Time" as a "hammer"; can GM explain why "Time" is constant . . . without dilation?

I pose question after question concerning GM that you never directly respond to. Why such "ignore-ance"?

[nduriri]

I agree with you about the big bang = local small bang but the fact that I don't understand the real nature of gravity does not prevent me from determining the physical laws that govern the gravitational interaction. Newton did not understand gravity but determined laws that enabled us to walk on the Moon. I've been honest and Cartesian in my exposé by giving concret examples and clear diagrams. It is very easy to falsify the New Newton law by showing a gravitational phenomena that does not obey this law;

1) The Allais Effect

2) The pioneer anomaly

3) The galaxy disk shape flatness

4) The spiral form aspiration of matter by the accretion disk

5) The matter bipolar jets trajectory

6) Galaxy rotation curve flatness, gravitodynamics

7) The source of matter bipolar jets, gravitodynamics

You just have to apply it in a .PDF and prove that I'm wrong, let's not use connotation suggestive words, test the New Newton law. Please write a scientific paper paper with an internet address to falsify the New Newton law by giving concret examples, that is the scientific method.
The facts are there (les faits sont là!), they remain the keystone in which the stability of a theory must be tested.

[Epsilon=One]

I agree with you about the big bang = local small bang but the fact that I don't understand the real nature of gravity does not prevent me from determining the physical laws that govern the gravitational interaction.Not understanding “the real nature of gravity” does prevent you from determining the physical laws that govern the gravitational interaction.” You are accomplishing, at best, another reconciling contrivance as did Newton and Einstein; as, they also did not understand the subtleties of gravitational phenomena. This is fine. Such examination often leads to major breakthroughs in understanding; though, most often it only garbles the truly great progress that beacons such as Newton and Einstein have erected to lead the way.

My objection is the outrageous claims that you make without any fundamental understanding of physical phenomena beyond where unproven mathematical manipulations lead you. And, I also object to your denigration of the great minds of history that did not have the tools that you have readily at hand.

Newton did not understand gravity but determined laws that enabled us to walk on the Moon. I've been honest and Cartesian in my exposé by giving concret examples and clear diagrams. Because it is now easily apparent that Newton and Einstein were not absolutely correct does not make you any more correct. Certainly, when you do not understand “the real nature of gravity,” you should be cautious in your claims.

It is very easy to falsify the New Newton law by showing a gravitational phenomena that does not obey this law…Falsifying a theory does not warrant your outrageous claims. And, certainly, you (or Newton and Einstein) have not “solved” the Pioneer anomaly without understanding “gravity.”

You just have to apply it in a .PDF and prove that I'm wrong, let's not use connotation suggestive words, test the New Newton law.A “.PDF” has no bearing on a proof.

Please write a scientific paper paper with an internet address to falsify the New Newton law by giving concret examples, that is the scientific method.There is no need for a “scientific paper” (whatever that may be?) to refute nonsense. I have, I believe, adequately exposed the weakness of your theory throughout this thread. I have 80+ internet domain addresses. I post one of them on everything that I post.

If you study Pulsoid Theory (www.CQthus.com/PT/PTis) there is much that you may learn about the fundamental concepts of gravitational attraction that should help you answer many of the questions that I have asked you.

The facts are there (les faits sont là!), they remain the keystone in which the stability of a theory must be tested.You are welcome to the theory. It is fundamental truths and laws that interest me. Until you can address the questions that I have posed, I don’t believe your principles are more than contrivances, which do not further the sorry mess that such thinking has created in today’s academic, theoretical physics and cosmology.

[nduriri]

It is true that I do not understand the true nature of gravity but let us take a very massive spinning body, calculate the gravitomagnetic field around it using the field law that I determined, imagine a masse particle moving at a velocity near the speed of light in any direction, apply this in a computer, you will find the bipolar jets. Aply the same approach on rotating galaxies you will find that the stars are pushed near the equitorial orbit and you will find the galaxy rotation curve flatness, you will find that if a body falls toward the massive spinning body it will inspiral. The formula is approximative but all physical formula are not exact but with time they are refined. That what I did in refining the old quasi-stationary (gravitostatics) Newton law by the new gravitodynamic Newton law by taking into account the influence of relativistic velocities in the interaction of masse particles, you find that the force of interaction is not radial as it is stated by the old Newton law. The new Newton law works in classical physics and at the same time works in relativity. It is exploitable since it is a linear vector gravity contrary to GR. There is no contractiction (apart from the semantic difference of Einstein space curvature) with general relativity. The advantage of Linear Vector Gravity is that it can be used even in high school and can be fed in a computer to simulate the bipolar jets. I'm designing a simulator in C++ for the Linaer Vector Gravity, it will be free of charge and the language source of the simulator will be available to allow people to critisize and falsify it.
www.gravitomagnetism.com
Joseph Nduriri, France

[Epsilon=One]

It is true that I do not understand the true nature of gravity but let us take a very massive spinning body, calculate the gravitomagnetic field around it using the field law that I determined, imagine a masse particle moving at a velocity near the speed of light in any direction, apply this in a computer, you will find the bipolar jets. Aply the same approach on rotating galaxies you will find that the stars are pushed near the equitorial orbit and you will find the galaxy rotation curve flatness, you will find that if a body falls toward the massive spinning body it will inspiral. The formula is approximative but all physical formula are not exact but with time they are refined. That what I did in refining the old quasi-stationary (gravitostatics) Newton law by the new gravitodynamic Newton law by taking into account the influence of relativistic velocities in the interaction of masse particles, you find that the force of interaction is not radial as it is stated by the old Newton law. The new Newton law works in classical physics and at the same time works in relativity. It is exploitable since it is a linear vector gravity contrary to GR. There is no contractiction (apart from the semantic difference of Einstein space curvature) with general relativity. The advantage of Linear Vector Gravity is that it can be used even in high school and can be fed in a computer to simulate the bipolar jets. I'm designing a simulator in C++ for the Linaer Vector Gravity, it will be free of charge and the language source of the simulator will be available to allow people to critisize and falsify it.
www.gravitomagnetism.comNow, I can applaud and appreciate the explanation of what you have accomplished.

I do believe you are on to some practical applications of the gravitational phenomena.

My argument was with your general claims and that you had a fundamental explanation of the gravitational phenomena.

I do believe that you have uncovered some original, contrived, mathematical principles that are derived from gravitational phenomena; as have Newton and Einstein before you.

Good luck with presenting your research.

[nduriri]

Now, I can applaud and appreciate the explanation of what you have accomplished.

I do believe you are on to some practical applications of the gravitational phenomena.

My argument was with your general claims and that you had a fundamental explanation of the gravitational phenomena.

I do believe that you have uncovered some original, contrived, mathematical principles that are derived from gravitational phenomena; as have Newton and Einstein before you.

Good luck with presenting your research.
Thanks for your encouragement, I did appreciate your challenging discussion that helped me review my approach. You can synthesizer your critics positive or negative, I will add it in my front page of www.gravitomagnetism.com, It would be important for readers to see the weak points of my approach
www.gravitomagnetism.com
Joseph Nduriri, France

[Epsilon=One]

...It would be important for readers to see the weak points of my approachHow wise you are. It is unfortunate that other scientists, and science writers, that write for the public, are seldom as honest as is your approach.

With such proper caveats, I'm sure that laypersons, as well as many scientists, would not be so factually apathetic from confusion that results from the enervation of secular faith.

[nduriri]

How wise you are. It is unfortunate that other scientists, and science writers, that write for the public, are seldom as honest as is your approach.

With such proper caveats, I'm sure that laypersons, as well as many scientists, would not be so factually apathetic from confusion that results from the enervation of secular faith.
I would like to put your remarques on my site tomorrow. Can I do it?

[Epsilon=One]

I would like to put your remarques on my site tomorrow. Can I do it?Yes, I gladly provide your permission; providing that you use the comment in its entirety, as stated in your request herein, and properly attribute it to either Brunardot or Epsilon=One at www.PhysicsMathForums.com, 2007.

If possible, I would like a copy or link to where you use the comment.

Thanks for your consideration!

[Bjarne Lorenzen]

Mathematically Breakthrough

Both the cause of the Pioneer as well as the Fly-by anomalies are now solved....

www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html


Mathematically Prove here : www.science27.com/english/Culcu3.htm