[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 21, Issue 11

[cj at mb-soft.com]

You have a number of very interesting insights.  But I disagree with a few.

As to LaGrange (4 or 5) points, and that asteroid we (Earth) has which is 97,000,000 miles ahead of us in our orbit.  The asteroid and the many smaller objects which share the L4 point actually move around in Lissajous orbits, which are NOT "two dimensional", they are rather bizarre three  dimensional paths.  So I disagree with your comment there.

A similar issue is where I totally agree with you that "gravity wells" is a terrible description, but I have an issue there.  You describe gravitation as being two dimensions, where the "gravity wells" are an effort to enable a z-axis visualization of a gravity well.  My Research seems to show something different.  Newton's gravitation is a Vector equation, where all three of x, y, and  z are in play.  My Research seems to indicate that the (alleged) "gravity well" is actually a "fourth dimension effect", where TIME is actually very, very slightly altered (in compliance with General Relativity.  I agree with you that NO "gravity well imagery" is appropriate.  But in a 4d graphic (as of the solar system), there IS a "curvature" present, but NOT in x, y, or z.  The "curvature" seems to exclusively be in the TIME dimension.  It is a REALLY minimal effect for something with minimal mass such as the solar system.  But it EXACTLY complies with the math of the Equivanency Principle and Einstein's GR.

So, yes, I totally agree with much of what you say, but not with your two-dimensional limitations.

As to "complex numbers" and dimensions, you sort of seem to agree with me.  

By the way, I am curious of your thoughts on my Research regarding Mercury's odd orbit.  The math I have done seem to suggest that Einstein had been wrong about that.  That the math does NOT have that two percent error of Einstein.  I used an application of Euler's (three dimensional) differential equations where I feel that the planets perturb each other in not only the usual "two dimensional mutual perturbations" but where the planet Jupiter actually gets a Z-axis perturbation FROM Mercury (and from everything else as well).  As a result, my math finds that Mercury does NOT need GR or any other goofy effects, but the VERY PRECISE effect is due to a three-dimensional mutual perturbation effect which also (slightly) moves Jupiter in the z-dimension.  Mercury seems to have a VERY precise math explanation, and it does NOT have the "two percent errors" that other explanations have always had (including Einstein and his GR)

By the way, I am personally fascinated Trojan asteroids, as well as our own.  There are DEFINITELY "dimensional factors" involved, and I like your thinking.

Oh, Lissajous orbits require three dimensional math.

Thank you for your comments and insightgs.

Carl Johnson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181211/fcd34796/attachment.html>