Newton's Law

Actually "Big Bang" is the instant of world's creation.

So if the "Big Bang" Expanded forward in time into our universe,there must have been an equal and opposite "Big Bang",

I think that reaction is still going on.....

No, I don't think so, otherwise the whole world will collapse back to nothing (its origin).

'....who that can oppose the power of the creator ??...'

.

The answer depends heavily on which 'creator' mythos is used as context.

.

In the Christian context, the answer is pretty apparent.

.

'...who can oppose the power of the creator....'

.

Well, obviously, God's bookie, for one.

When he coughed up what is purported to be a very substantial payment (being his only begotten son) to pay for all the sins of man, who exactly do you think he paid?

.

Whoever he paid (and I prefer to imagine God in the best possible light in that circumstance, so I prefer 'Bookie', instead of something like 'Pimp' or 'Extort-er' or 'Blackmailer'.... but use whatever you want, this is after all make believe) definitely has power over 'the creator'.

.

Ask a silly question.....

well, one thing for sure, and that is "We're all in this together."

You'll note by the "off topic" responses that these engineers are very insecure in their beliefs and respond badly to anyone who may question them.

I don't think the off topic rating is indicative in any way of people feeling insecure in their belief that the comment was off topic.

Quite the opposite.

Actually it may apply to the complainer of the OT may be more true

That would be the Big Crunch.

Time runs in a forward direction only because we define it so. If indeed there is an antimatter twin universe, the people in it would say that their time was running in a positive direction too.

There are some cultures that consider the past to be in front of them, because they can see it; but the future is behind them, because they can't see it. I don't know about crabs....

No, not everything is symmetrical.

Radioctive decay runs on way.

In particle physics Symmetry Breaking was discovered in the 50s - 60s.

And the universe is expanding forever or not.

Asymmetrical as it can get.

Yep. Keep taking those tablets. It will all come right at the end of the treatment.

It's actually "For every action force, there is an equal and opposite reaction force."

A better question is who or what caused the force in the first place.

"A better question is who or what caused the force in the first place."

That is a good question ?

Since the big bang is based on Quantum physics and not Newtonian physics, I think your question cannot be answered directly. Quantum physics is that weird physics that lets things happen that we are all dumbfounded. Here are some of the weirdness quantum presents. One of those weird things was the creation of anti-matter. Anti-matter is the opposite of matter as one would expect. It has positive charged electrons and negative charged protons. No longer do we call them electrons but positrons. If a atom of matter collided with antimatter say hydrogen with anti-hydrogen, the two would be annihilated So far the problem has been to account for the lack of anti-matter in the universe. Could an anti-matter universe been formed like a mirror at the time of the big bang? The question may better be asked Jorrie (http://www.relativity-4-engineers.com/ ). Maybe that is the equivalent Newtonian reaction to the big bang, but I am a dabbler at best.

So are you saying that there is a time zero, and for every piece of reality that experiences forward motion in time, an equivalent piece is going backward?

I'm not sure I'd buy into that.

But a universe that expands and contracts cyclically, I have an easier time believing.

We are just alive during the expansion phase.

If it was contracting, well, THEN I'd be worried.

The big bang theory followed by the big crunch is now challenged as we have not found enough matter that would suggest a big crunch. Evidence points to the universe expanding and likely will never come to a big crunch. The Hubble shift indicates that the universe is expanding and accelerating in its rate of expansion. It is likely the universe will eventually erode, if that is the correct word, to it base particles, photons. Every star that is burning is throwing off photons and cyclically can crunch in a nova or super nova and form new stars, that then continue to shed photons. I do not have any sense of a time line but perhaps trillions of years.

If (a big if) there is an anti matter universe that formed at the big crunch, I suspect its time is moving backwards but not in the sense of moving to the past. It would be similar to a linear movement of time along the x axis in our universe, except in the anti matter universe, time moves in the opposite direction. If you lived in the anti matter universe time would seem to be the same as we live in our universe. Time would recede twice as fast; however, if we were able to observe such opposing universes. As we move forward on the x axis of time, the anti universe moves the same time in the negative direction of the x axis. All speculation of course.

Black holes could play a role in the collection of the shed photons. But what happens beyond that I do not know.

Perhaps the universe is in a very long cycle of expansion and contraction.Our time of existence is so short that we can never get the big picture.We could be looking at the expansion side and never know it.It takes several hundred million years for our own galaxy to make one revolution, one galactic year.A G year ago, dinosaurs roamed the earth.We are a recent development.We can only judge by our VISIBLE universe.There are indications of gravitational influences on a large scale that appear to be from outside our visible universe.At the very best our view of the universe is very myopic.

When we look at far away galaxies, we only see how they used to be,not how they are now.And we only see about 5% of what is really there.What is the other 95% doing?Does dark matter follow normal matter around,attached at the hip, so to speak, and is normal matter simply a parasite attached to dark matter by gravity?

Can dark matter exist without any normal matter at all?

Perhaps dark matter is simply a "dent" or dimple in the fabric of our universe caused by mass in a neighboring universe?Normal matter would tend to collect around this "dent" and form black holes then galaxies,especially if the dimples existed before the big bang,and our universe expanded to it's present state.

If we assume that the time lines of the known universe ~13.7 billion years from the big bang and we are in an expansion stage, one still has to ask, "why is the universe accelerating its expansion?" How can we "crunch"? Doesn't the expansion have to slow down? John Baez wrote an interesting essay about the ultimate fate of the universe and it is all speculation of course but fun to read.

I agree that if there are cycles the time lines can indeed be very long. And that there can be a cooling down as all the particles "boil" away leaving dark remnants of stars and atomic particles. Will the cooling to near absolute cause a coalescence of matter that can then reach a mass to "crunch"? Our age as we know it today would indicate that the universe is still very young. It is like the universe has just been impregnated and has yet to become older than any living man ever. Another essay by the same author is also interesting to compare the history of the universe, past and future.

A positron, the antimatter equivalent of the electron, behaves like an electron moving backwards in time. Likewise, the antiproton and antineutron look like a proton and neutron moving backwards in time. So at the instant of the big bang, maybe all the matter came in this direction and all the antimatter went the other way (backward in time), which is why we have more matter.

'...A positron, the antimatter equivalent of the electron, behaves like an electron moving backwards in time.....'

.

Always sounds like a neat beginning to a story when I hear this.... but what exactly does this mean. How does this play into our perspective of causality for instance?

.

If anyone has a good grasp of this, perhaps they could just walk us through something more simple than the big bang.

Maybe just walk us through something we have observed numerous times: Pair production.

.

Pair production has a neat beginning and end. the motion is well defined, and it doesn't even span that much time.....perhaps someone with a good grasp could narrate the scene repleat with the implications to things like causality.

Two equivalent scenarios: Gamma ray generates electron - positron pair. Positron meet another electron and they mutually annihilate. Electron is reversed in time by gamma ray. Electron flies back in time, then reflects back forward in time, emitting a gamma ray. As to causality - I think it is an emergent phenomenon. At the lowest level everything is time reversible. As the system becomes more complex, certain interactions become a lot more probable than their time reversed interactions. Throw a rock in a pond and waves propagate outward until the energy dissipates as heat. The molecular motion is extremely unlikely to generate a converging circle of water waves and finally eject the rock from the pond.

Time reversible, to me suggests action for which determining whether a recording of the action was made the perspective of time moving forward or the reverse of normal, time moving backwards.

.

I don't see the 'rock in the pond' example as reversible. In the reverse, the rock would leave the surface of the water with insufficient speed to reach the apex and return to the thrower's hand. Also the odd vortex streets of gas 'in front' and equally odd resolution to stillness 'behind' the rock both in the air and the water would be a dead give away.

.

I also don't consider pair production to be time reversible. Pair production and pair annihilation are distinct even without reference to the direction of time.

Pair production typically occurs when a strong gamma interacts with a nucleus. Pair annihilation occurs independent of any nucleus in the vicinity.

In pair production, one gamma interacts with a nucleus and creates a particle and its antiparticle.

In pair annihilation, an antiparticle and a particle collide and form two gammas.

.

I don't think that 'at the lowest level everything is time reversible'. There are a multitude of phenomena that are one-way.

.

A thermal neutron will decay into a proton and an electron and an antineutrino.

.

A free protium atom does not decay by electron capture to a free neutron....at least that has never been observed and is not theoretically expected.

.

While a lone Uranium can spontaneously fission, a combination of xenon, zirconium, rubidium and cesium in a flux of neutrons at energies like those given off by spontaneous fission, will not 'unfission' to yield uranium.

.

Those things seem pretty clearly not to be 'time reversible'. Did you mean a smaller scale?

I think you have some good points, pair production and annihilation are different.

None of the formulas of physics have any reference to time's arrow, as far as I know. Yet it is obvious when the movie is being played backwards for most macroscopic phenomena. However, if you could film gas molecules colliding with each other, it would be impossible to tell.

Here's what I think the difference is: Consider the gas molecule collision event. Two particles enter and two particles exit. The probabilities that the trajectories of the two particles intersect is low, but the same for both entering and exiting.

Now consider the example of a neutron decaying into a proton, electron and antineutrino. One particle enters the "event" (the neutron), and three particles exit. In a time reversed scenario, the probability that these three particles would meet at the same place and time to produce the neutron is not zero but exceedingly low. The forward and reverse probabilities in this case are vastly different.

Most "irreversible" macroscopic event involve so many "particles" that the reverse event is so improbable as to likely not happen in the age of the universe.

I think you are right about probabilities playing a big part...specifically when dealing with probabilities or observation/measurement of a specific interaction that are infinitesimally small.

.

That does pretty much take macroscopic phenomena out of the useful realm of consideration for reversible phenomena.

.

It also makes things like whether or not spontaneous fission is reversible difficult to gain insight for based solely on lack of the reverse observation....because bringing the right particles together with the right energy at the same time would be exceedingly difficult/rare.

.

I don't think it reduces the utility of the lack of observed reversals of thermal neutron decay. The reason being it that the reversal doesn't require three particles to interact, only two. And that interaction, inverse beta decay, or electron capture, is a known decay process in other conditions. An antineutrino would not be required to interact with the proton, instead a neutrino would be one of the resulting particles.

.

.

About gas collision events, I think as long as the energies involved aren't extremely high and you can view only very few events in time, or if the system within view were at macroscopic equilibrium, there would be no way to determine the direction of time. Even without equilibrium and being able to view an extended stretch, correctly determining the direction of time might not possible without certain things happening (unhappening?). Given all the qualifications necessary (at least one of which is in the macroscopic realm) I have to agree with you that individual gas molecules colliding is a good example of reversible phenomena.

.

.

I'm curious: you agree that annihilation and pair production are different phenomena (not one being a time reversal of the other), does this lead you to the conclusion that a positron is not a time reversed electron?

It seems like strong evidence to me, but I'm curious if you see it differently.

I'm curious: you agree that annihilation and pair production are different phenomena (not one being a time reversal of the other), does this lead you to the conclusion that a positron is not a time reversed electron?
Maybe in pair creation, the gamma ray creates 2 electrons, sending one forward in time and the other backward (the positron). The electron moving backward in time (positron) meets an electron moving forward and the result is converted to 2 gamma rays. The creation and annihilation events are different.
The reverse time idea originated from Richard Feynman.
Here is a quote from a Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron
"Feynman, and earlier Stueckelberg, proposed an interpretation of the positron as an electron moving backward in time,^[6] reinterpreting the negative-energy solutions of the Dirac equation. Electrons moving backward in time would have a positive electric charge. Wheeler invoked this concept to explain the identical properties shared by all electrons, suggesting that "they are all the same electron" with a complex, self-intersecting worldline.^[7] Yoichiro Nambu later applied it to all production and annihilation of particle-antiparticle pairs, stating that "the eventual creation and annihilation of pairs that may occur now and then is no creation or annihilation, but only a change of direction of moving particles, from past to future, or from future to past."^[8] The backwards in time point of view is nowadays accepted as completely equivalent to other pictures, but it does not have anything to do with the macroscopic terms "cause" and "effect", which do not appear in a microscopic physical description."

Those are certainly some heavyweight opinions.

.

I still have a problem with a positron being a time reversed electron still because of the differences in annihilation and pair production.

.

I understand you are saying these are different events (I tend to agree), but I don't see how that idea is compatible with the idea about time reversed electrons.

.

If I look at annihilation in a forward time perspective, I see an electron and a positron (time reversed electron) coming together yielding two 0.51+ MeV gammas.

.

If I look at pair production in a time reversed perspective, then what was the electron now looks like the positron, and what was the positron looks like the electron: they come together, but only near a nucleus, usually heavy, and produce just one 1.02+ MeV gamma.

.

To my knowledge in the forward time frame reference, no one ever observes the reverse of pair production occurring when an electron and its anti particle come together, and no one observes the reverse of annihilation creating a particle and its antiparticle. The processes are similar in some ways but not the same.

.

It seems like if an electron and a positron were just time reversed versions of the other, that the interaction of the two meeting would be time direction invariant. I don't see how it could be other wise.

I follow the storyline, and find that it badly strains credibility. In the direction of magical happenings with a lot of verbiage, but no sensible explanation or even plausible (for me) narrative. The current line of logic, that there is no better explanation, accept this magick on faith does not cut it with me. A few examples:

Vacuum fluctuations are tiny, calculable, but unobservable. Still, an Universe can explode that way. Taking on faith, anyone?

To get to the present size, a magic Inflation has to start once and stop another time, iust like that. Why at all, why the start / stop?

Now, lacking explanations on dark this and that and still insisting is similar magical placeholder for "we have not a clue if and what is out there causing these weird readings". I understand that positively researching dark matter gets grant monies. While "I am poking around not knowing for what" is definitely a loser.

Science is falsifiable: hundreds of supporting findings do not matter facing one (repeatable) contrary finding.

Dark matter with its gravity only magical property was deduced by measuring some galaxies globally. Last year I read a single study, that measured a few stars singly, and they behaved according to good old Newton only. No magic was found.

So, what gives?!?

'....No magic was found.

So, what gives?!?...'

.

I am also not a big fan dark matter/energy explanations with their very hand-wave-ish beginnings.

However much we may dislike the proposed explanation (or lack thereof), a number of phenomena exist which do not jive well with out current understanding as per Classical or Relativistic perspectives. These phenomena are not restricted to occurrences on the order of relative movement of galaxies:

-Planetary orbits are widening at a rate faster than can be accounted for merely by the Sun's mass loss (radiated energy).

- Flyby anomalies, whereby spacecraft increase speed by greater than expected.

-Stars in the outer portions of Galaxies travel at velocities far greater than would be expected.

.

I know there are a few other phenomena on scales less than relative movement of galaxies, but I haven't spent enough time to understand how these were realized....

If there is something to these, I must have missed them:

1,. Planetary orbits widening...

2,. Flyby anomalies for spacecrafts. On that one I have read, that good old Newton was verified to unprecedented precision.

3,. Measuring galaxies globally IS what I was referring to in the dilemma.

So unless you know something on 1, 2, I do not know, I still do not know.

1. Planetary orbits are widening as a pace greater than can be accounted for by the mass depletion on the sun via radiated energy.

2. There are many instances for velocity in flybys exceeding expectations somewhere up to 15 mm/s. I have seen nothing that can ties this well to Newton's laws. I can't link an article showing I haven't run across any explanations that fit within Newton's laws. Perhaps you could link the article that says it does fit.

3. My understanding was that you were talking about the accelerating expansion of space as seen by the rates galaxies are moving relative to other galaxies.

This is a distinct phenomena on a much larger scale than the anomaly concerning the velocity distribution of stars inside a given galaxy.

One phenomena can be noted by looking at a portion of a galaxy. The other phenomena requires observing many galaxies. Two distinct phenomena, with a Big different in scale. To which one specifically were you referring?

"1. Planetary orbits are widening as a pace greater than can be accounted for by the mass depletion on the sun via radiated energy."

This single source "abstract" reference isn't very convincing. I question the "G-d Scientists" ability to empirically "measure" such small changes in orbital axis over the extended period of time required for definitive conclusions.

It is possible that if the "evidence" for increasing orbital axis is some type of iterative algorithm based on sun center of mass as the prime focus of planetary orbits - then it is inherently flawed. Planetary Orbits are barycentric, not heliocentric. Iterative Position Algorithms using Sun center of mass as the prime focus would introduce compounding time increment errors and R vector angle/range errors; the same types of errors that could possibly account for the Pioneer Anomaly. In addition, although Jupiter is by far the most influencing body, other than the Sun, in defining solar system barycenter; a reliable algorithm would require, at a minimum, the integration of all major planet system mass.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"2. There are many instances for velocity in flybys exceeding expectations somewhere up to 15 mm/s. I have seen nothing that can ties this well to Newton's laws. I can't link an article showing I haven't run across any explanations that fit within Newton's laws. Perhaps you could link the article that says it does fit."

That part "exceeding expectations" infers the orbiting body has greater orbital speed than expected. In the case of the Pioneer Anomaly position error I do not believe this to be the case.

Could it be, in referencing the "15mm/s" error you quote, depending on semi-major axis; a very slight error in defining eccentricity could account for this small velocity error; even if specific orbital energy, and therefor semi-major axis, was exactly defined; especially at periapsis, and in addition to introduced errors suggested in the first section.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"3. My understanding was that you were talking about the accelerating expansion of space as seen by the rates galaxies are moving relative to other galaxies."

Never have I seen reference to electro-dynamic acceleration as a factor in expansion theory or position anomaly. Perhaps the goo-goo eyed search for the "dark energy" should be undertaken AFTER defining a complete understanding of how the initial and expanding EMP would affect mass acceleration.

Newtonian Physics is pretty cool; but it ignores the resultant force of electro-magnetic induction.

#1, I understand your skepticism. I applaud it actually. I don't know enough about the specifics to defend the research. I'm interested to know more so I'll see what I can dig up over the next few weeks.

.

#2 The Pioneer anomaly is not a flyby anomaly. In fact I don't think what was noticed with Pioneer really qualifies as an anomaly...but that is another subject. Flyby anomaly has occurred with Galileo, NEAR and Rosetta. The increase in velocity was measured via two Doppler bands as well as the satellites own data transmission telemetry equipment (I think). Sure there could be errors. Of course people have been all over trying to pin down possible sources of error. Currently (unlike Pioneer) nothing has been sufficiently convincing to remove this phenomena from the list of anomalies.

.

#3 I also have never seen electro-dynamic acceleration used as a possible explanation for what appears to be an accelerating rate of expansion. I don't understand your reference.

I feel like you have attributed something I did not intend to some of my earlier comments, but it isn't clear.

I also can't tell:

if you are suggesting I have skipped a grasp of the fundamentals and am on a 'g00-goo' eyed search for 'dark energy' (I'm not on any such search whatever may be in my eye at the moment)

.or....

if you are suggesting additional basic research is in order before any more theoretical physicist conjure any additional theories... (I don't think they will stop conjuring as they are 'theoretical physicists' and the subject matter would cease to be theirs if it were removed from the realm of theory)

"If you are suggesting additional basic research is in order before any more theoretical physicist conjure any additional theories..."

That is exactly what I am suggesting.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the flyby velocity errors:

First off the measured velocity error is so small compared to perigee speed in a Earth focused gravity assist maneuver that I find it difficult not to believe that it couldn't result from calculated value error(s) of defining variables such as specific energy or eccentricity.

There is also the possibility that the interaction between planetary magnetic field and spacecraft composition, as it relates to electromagnetic induction and ferromagnetic attraction, is overlooked.

Electromagnetic Induction: Is there magnetic field (Yes), is there conductive material on board the spacecraft (Yes), is the spacecraft cutting the field lines at an angle greater than 0 degrees? If so then there is electromagnetic induction taking place. Yes the scale may be so small that it could be negligible; but it seems that such a fundamental principle in physics would be mentioned outside just specialized literature such as Spacecraft Attitude Determination and Control - Edited by James R. Wertz - Written by Members of the Technical Staff - Attitude Systems Operation - Computer Sciences Corporation; which would give somebody who understands that kind of stuff (which I don't) a good background and history of magnetic torquing as it is used in spacecraft. There might be some extrapolation available there.

See Lentz's Law. - Although the law refers to the interaction of rate changing field and an electrical circuit; the law also describes what happens when you make a pendulum out of Al and allow it to swing between the poles of a horseshoe magnet.

Also; review in detail space based electro-magnetic tether experiments.

Ferromagnetic attraction: Is there ferromagnetic materials onboard the spacecraft - if so then why would there not be accelerating force generated by the planetary field?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An accelerating expansion:

Imagine a "big bang", where just after the initial acceleration of the proto mass, the proto mass is moving as rapidly as the magnetic pulse front.

What does Lentz's law tell us about the polarity of the induced field in the proto mass, and therefore the induced force vector, as the field density begins to decline? Would that declining field density and the slowing of the proto mass not be equivalent to a rate changing field?

Is it possible that some "research" can devolve to data entry into existing algorithms; where important historical research is overlooked?

I thing well directed basic research would beneficial. I don't think we can expect any reduction in speculation regardless of whether the additional research is coming or not.

.

.

The difference between the expected values and the measured values is small (so if there is an effect it is pretty weak. so far). It has only been noticed in about 1/2 the cases measured closely enough. Also, the data set is not very big. All these factors suggest an error may be responsible, so error isn't out of the question.

.

In each case it has been noticed the error has been one of greater measured energy than expected. Also in each noticed case, the error has been well over an order of magnitude greater than the calculated uncertainty. Those things would suggest it might not be an error.

.

Effects from electromagnetic induction and related to Lentz's law would lead to a loss of kinetic energy, it seems too me, in this case.

.

I haven't calculated it yet, but I think, dealing with the distances in question, the Earth's magnetic field is not even remotely strong enough for the attraction of ferromagnetic material aboard to be responsible for the increases.

.

.

I don't know anything about how Lentz's law might apply to a proto mass. I'm not even versed on how proto mass differs from 'normal' mass. I am interested in any insight you might provide.

"The error has been well over an order of magnitude greater than the calculated uncertainty."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow - the "True Believers" are really getting that number game down. Over ten times "greater than the calculated uncertainty!!!" Amazing!!!

A WAG on my part would be that the speed at perigee for a gravity assist maneuver by a heliocentric orbiter would exceed 32 KM/s. A 15 mm/s error would represent somewhere around 1 part in 2.13 BILLION; perhaps far too small to be determined by mm wavelength radar measurements; especially given atmospheric diffraction and attenuation? (Are those the right words?)

Your confidence that ferro or dia magnetic acceleration is negligible is way beyond my level of understanding. Would it depend on whether the gravity assist was done as the spacecraft was closing or approaching perihelion?

Also; if both the Earth and the Sun have magnetic poles; how are they orientated to each other?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proto mass? A word I conjured up for lack of a better term known to me. The stuff that existed before the strong forces (nuclear glue) started to hold the elements together.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Dark Energy and Capturing Asteroids: Although this is definitely a flight off topic ---- The human race doesn't have time for us to be spending the collective intellect on goo-goo eyed entertainment science. It may work great for generating funding so that a "True Believer" can purse sky pie or write a pile of gobbldy gook; but there really are hugely more productive topics of relevance that "educational" programming and research direction could address.

Perhaps there is no weaker scientific argument than "the argument of expertise"; the last and all too common resort of "The True Believer" scientific cadre. "Just because the DR. says so, doesn't necessarily mean it's so."

This is a whole topic by itself.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope to be unplugging in about a week to spend my time doing some "volunteer work" in a wilderness area. In the mean time I have other tasks to accomplish. I enjoy the discourse and perhaps we can continue this topic when I return in October; but personally, I don't know what I have to offer.

And remember TINAC - Anybody can make a mistake --- but it takes an expert, especially in groups, to REALLY SCREW THINGS UP.

All I'm saying about the discrepancy exceeding calculated uncertainty by an order of magnitude is that using the assumption that no one is purposefully trying to skew the numbers (and I have a hard time figuring out why then would pick this particular record to screw with and why they would do such a spotty job), people who are more familiar with the experiment have run the numbers multiple times and review the experiment for sources of error and have not arrived at any. This is their full time job.

.

This isn't the same thing as the fallacy normally called an argument from authority. I am not saying I believe an explanation they are providing. I am saying that when they say the measurements are well outside the range they expect inclusive of calculated uncertainty.

.

To the credit of those calculating the uncertainty, other parameters (and the other half of the observed flybys that did not exhibit the anomaly) were within calculated uncertainty, and there is no motive to call their numbers into question and the research is peer reviewed, that adds some credibility that there might be some validity to it.

.

.

My guess about the magnitude of the effects of the earths magnetic field on something in orbit is based mainly on the distances involved and the low intensity of the the earths magnetic field.

.

.

Have a good time out in the wilderness.

"Exceeding calculated uncertainty by an order of magnitude" - so it is not 1 part in 2.3 BILLION - its one part in 23 Billion. Wow!!! How impressive indeed.

Again; I have very low confidence that the primary variables - specific orbital energy, eccentricity, or even turn angle can be so closely defined as to predict an instantaneous speed to within 15 mm/s of a heliocentric orbiter in an Earth Gravity Assist Maneuver; but then again those guys are really good.

If the algorithm uses time iteration to define position; then there is compounding error that is proportional to the time increment value. The larger the time increment value and total process time - the greater the error.

Ciao

I overstated the ratio of the velocity error to the WAG flyby velocity by 3 orders of magnitude. I stated 1 part in 2.3 Billion when it was 1 part in 2.3 million; a much more realistic figure.

I am very embarrassed.

So I shall eat this bite of crow and make final preparations to move on to my volunteer role as a caretaker of public property; hopefully I'll be better at that.

We all make mistakes. Even the people calculating flyby velocities.

.

That you took the time to verify your calculations, and exposed your own mistake before anyone else caught it says a lot about you. Even with the error, your points are valid and well taken.

.

Enjoy your time unplugged.

'...Newtonian Physics is pretty cool; but it ignores the resultant force of electro-magnetic induction....'

.

Do you mind providing a real world example?

I'd say we're seeing the effects of Newton's law with the observation that everything in our universe is expanding. Everything is moving away from everything else.

This might even lend to the idea of the universe expanding and contracting over time.

Since the "Big Bang" went outward in all directions at once, wouldn't Newton's Law apply to the inward force that obliterated the core of the matter that was at the center?

'....inward force that obliterated the core of the matter that was at the center?....'

.

.....go on. Please.

.

I'm hoping additional material will make your comment more clear (as a consolation prize, I'd be happy knowing just the intent of the comment to which you responded).

.

What inward matter destroying force are you referencing? Was matter even around at the very beginning of the big bang?

I'm just saying that at the moment of the big bang, forces were most likely traveling in an equal and opposite direction, therefore, not negating Newton's Law. Anything more complicated than that, is above my pay grade.

I was just giving you a hard time seeing as how...

....in reference to the very first moment of the big bang, concepts like motion, direction, momentum, and force (or at least current understand thereof) probably don't apply well, if at all.

The origin of life is one of those things best left alone. There is NO answer, at least not one that everyone agrees on. There are a lot more important and pressing things to contemplate and solve, like what's for lunch?

'...The origin of life...'

.

Wait. When did we... Did the conversation.... I believe I missed at least a transition somewhere along the way.

.

'...There is NO answer, ...'

.

There are lots of hypotheses. Anyway, isn't having 'no answer' one of those universal qualities for things about which we might be seeking answers?

.

'....at least not one that everyone agrees on....'

.

You have really set the bar too high here. There isn't anything that 'everyone agrees on'. If you think you know something that everyone does agree on, you just haven't asked the right people....You haven't asked everyone already, have you?

.

.

And, what IS for lunch. Lunch is also not something best left alone; it should be pursued; even though I can guarantee everyone will not agree about 'what's for lunch'. (Which is a corollary of Fig Newtons 1st Law of Luncheon)

...what's for lunch?

Milliways anyone?

I don't think that it's right to make such assumptions concerning the universe as a whole. Don't forget that the Big Bang itself was the "begining of all". Before, that there was absolute nothing. There was neither space nor time. I suppose that we agree on the fact that the action-reaction concept takes place in an existing Universe, i.e. an existing space-time structure. I suppose that such a concept (and, in fact, any other concept) cannot take place if there isn't any kind of space-time structure.

Since we really don't know what caused the big bang,or if there really was something before it, like in the multi-verse/M Brane theories,it is an assumption to profess to know the universe as a whole.

We may never know the whole truth about our universe, but we do know that nature exploits that which works,and action/reaction works as far as we know.

'....Don't forget that the Big Bang itself was the "begining of all".....'

.

Hmmmm. I could be persuaded to agree with this admonition, on the condition that the idea is never originally committed to memory.

.

We have no information about what may or may not have occurred prior to the Big Bang, but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

.

The Big Bang might more accurately be described as the beginning of the record currently accessible.