| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
 Posted - 08 Feb 2009 : 18:12:54
|
(Feb. 8, 2009)
Fourier-Cruttenden, Pioneer 10&11, and the Barbarossa/Frey Binary Orbit
On Jan. 30 (see my first and third Jan. 30, 2009 posts above) I found that the Barbarossa/Frey binary orbit, satisfies Kepler's second law, if the 1954 & 2008 Freys are displaced perpendicular to the orbit, by 0.159 AU each, westward for the 2008 Frey and eastward for the 1954 Frey. Subsequently I tried to make this more accurate, by recognizing that the displacement due to Barbarossa's solar orbit, would be parallel to that orbit, i.e., at a 54-27 = 27deg angle to the 1986-1987-2008 Frey line, not perpendicular to it. Again (calculating now with the accurate cubic interpolation, and trying unequal displacements too) Kepler's second law can be satisfied, by various, not necessarily equal, displacements of about 0.2 AU for the 1954 & 2008 Freys, eastward & westward, resp.; but these displacements bring the 2008 Frey near to the origin, and correspond to a real orbit that is nearly parabolic with large major axis.
It is as if the component of the parallax displacement, parallel to the Frey/Barbarossa orbit, is removed. The binary orbit seems to exist in a synodic, rather than a sidereal, frame.
There is evidence, following the Fourier-Cruttenden concept of a rotating solar system frame, that the Earth/Sun orbit also exists in a rotating frame. The Sun's average acceleration at Earth is 0.593 cm/s^2. Presently the Sun and Barbarossa seem to be orbiting each other with period 3083 yr ( 2*pi / present angular speed). If the Sun/Earth frame were rotating with that period, the centrifugal force at Earth's radius, would be 0.593/3083^2 = 6.24/10^8 cm/s^2; this is near the Pioneer10&11/Ulysses/Galileo anomalous acceleration.
A similar rotating frame at Barbarossa, would convert the expected sidereal orbit into a synodic one, and remove that component of parallax motion, parallel to the binary orbit. The expected displacements needed to satisfy Kepler's second law, would become, for 1954 and 2008 resp., approx. 0.164 AU * sin(54-27) * 33/55 = 0.045 AU, and 0.164 AU * sin(54-27) * 22/55 = 0.030 AU (assuming that the 1954 & 2008 Freys are equally nearer us than the 1986 & 1987 Freys).
(cont. Feb. 9)
Trying this and other combinations, I haven't yet found a binary orbit for Frey/Barbarossa, which perfectly fits. This could be due to rapid precession of the orbit by another Barbarossa moon, Freya, or displacement of Frey by a moon of its own (which I might also call Freya).
I improved the accuracy of the sector angles in my program above, by using the BASIC sine instead of the cosine function. This showed that the center of mass orbit is planar to arcsecond accuracy. The third ("C", 1987 plate) point satisfies two equations (expected RA and Decl for circular orbit) to arcsecond accuracy with only one adjustable parameter (mass ratio).
*****
Uniformly, the many journal editors to whom I have submitted this information during the last month, have showed negligence, malfeasance, and the dereliction of their public, tax-supported trust. Maybe they are more interested in turf than truth. None forwarded my letter to any peer reviewer or to any other knowledgeable person, at least not that I know of. Not one word of intelligent criticism was returned. The editor of Icarus complained that I did not make my letter longer with more documentation, but when I offered to provide him, as a test, with all the documentation I had for any one sentence, of his choice, he did not respond, thereby proving his hypocrisy.
The department chairman says, send it to a journal; the journal says, go away. But try telling the taxman to go away when he comes to take from you, the professor's and the editor's salary.
Meanwhile in three months I have two photos from the U. of Iowa's 15 inch robotic telescope, but the best season is almost over. A professor there told me, basically, that I should quit if I couldn't predict the position within one arcminute on the second photo (although LeVerrier's prediction of Neptune within one degree was considered a great success, and Galle searched visually, equivalent to many photos). I'm also getting a photo a month (seems to be the limit, with their waiting list) from Bradford College's Tenerife telescope, but these are unstacked and it's questionable whether they can be adequate.
The $100 reward I posted, still stands, for anyone who is able to get anyone to look definitively (I'll have to be the judge of that)(one median-stacked photo with a 15 inch telescope in favorable geographic location, might be enough). This reward isn't for looking, it's just for getting someone to look. |
 |
|
|
Stoat
United Kingdom
863 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2009 : 05:30:54
|
| Looking back over a few posts I realized that I've made a tiny little mistake, on what I thought was our true speed through the vacuum. I said about 1.8% of the speed of light, when it should have been 18% Oops, so about three times faster than the new estimate of how fast we are going, due to the discovery that our galaxy is actually a little larger than the Andromeda galaxy. We'd still be talking about the earth's "argument of pericentre" taking ten turns of the solar system's spiral through space but the solar system's bodies have further along the curve to travel. |
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2009 : 14:39:37
|
(email sent this morning)
Hi *********!
Thanks!
The first coordinates I gave him were a few arcminutes off because I was trying to force [Steve Riley's and Joan Genebriera's] 2007 detections into the theory. So [his] first photo, a very good, painstakingly median-stacked one, had Frey but not Barbarossa in the field of view. His second photo, had many hot pixels, and Frey & Barbarossa were out of the field anyway. I then went "back to basics" to revise my prediction, using only the three red sky survey plates, and writing an accurate computer program for the spherical trigonometry. He has the same approximate (arcminute accuracy) prediction that you do, but wants me to give him an arcsecond accuracy prediction so he can use it to "debunk" me. That's what he's waiting for.
My new prediction, based only on the three red sky surveys, places the 1986, 1987, and 2008 "Freys" on an almost perfectly straight line (the break is < 0.01 radian, equivalent to about an arcsecond position error) relative to the center of mass. That hardly can be random. A segment of that length of the binary orbit viewed in moderately steep perspective easily could be that close to a straight line, though, if the orbit precesses in synchrony with the solar orbit (which is plausible physically).
In addition, for the third sky survey to conform accurately to the circular orbit predicted by the first two, with only one adjustable parameter (the mass ratio), amounts to solving two equations (for RA and Decl) accurately by adjusting only one parameter. So the reality of this is supported by two unlikely but plainly demonstrable coincidences: the constant-speed alignment of the three observed c.o.m.'s, and the alignment of three of the Freys.
Sincerely,
Joe Keller
********
(not part of the email)
Suppose the "three amigos" Freys (1986, 1987, & 2008) lie near perigee of a binary orbit with e = 0.6. (This is the rough situation with my graphical construction posted last week.) The apparent distance of this perigee, from the c.o.m., is 0.144 AU, but the real distance, based on the 75 degree line of sight inclination found in the construction, is 0.56 AU. For a circular orbit, this would be the radius of curvature of the real orbit. At the perigee of an elliptical orbit, the radius of curvature is greater. For a confocal parabola, the curvature is halved; considering the directrix & focus definition of a conic, let's multiply the radius of curvature by 1.6 for e=0.6, i.e. 0.90 AU. Then the apparent radius of curvature is 0.90/cos(75)=3.5 AU. This is almost an apparent straight line, because the apparent length considered is < 0.5 AU, and 0.5/3.5 = 1/7 radian change in direction, or 0.5*(1/7)^2*3.5 = 0.036 AU deviation.
The apparent precession of the orbit due to parallax cancels some of this. The orbit segment is 1.44 AU * 0.4 * sin(75) = 0.56 AU in front of the c.o.m. In 0.112 * 2/5 = 0.045 radians of orbital travel from 1987 to 2008, its parallax is 0.025 AU, of which almost half, 0.011 AU, is perpendicular to the orbit. This cancels a third of the deviation, so the change in direction is only 1/10 radian = 6 degrees. The observed change was even closer to zero than this, but there is little need to assume that the orbit precesses, other than its apparent precession due to Barbarossa's solar orbit.
As noted in my "Do this yourself at home" post last week, the violation of Kepler's second law for the binary orbit between 1986 & 1987, could be due to a dimmer (as observed on 1954 & 1986 sky surveys) but more massive partner for Frey (to which we might shift Frey's name as well) within the modified Jacobi limit of obligate stability. This limit is about 1.6 AU * (0.11/81)^(1/3) = 0.18 AU. If the period is 0.87 * 2 = 1.74 yr, and this Frey/Freyprime orbit coplanar with the Barbarossa/Frey orbit (which implies that it is nearly edge on for us) Freyprime could be 0.18 AU (3 arcminutes) forward of Frey's expected position in 1986 and 0.18 backward in 1987. Correction for this is at least almost enough to repair Kepler's second law, because it would triple the area of the origin-1986-1987 triangle (which needs to be quadrupled, according to my rough graphical estimate above). The error in c.o.m. position would be as much as 180"/9 = 20". The implied mass of Frey (>> "Frey prime", the object we see) would be 0.18^3/1.74^2 = 0.0019 solar masses, which can be brought into agreement with the theoretical 0.0011 by skimping a little on the period, i.e., 150 deg separation instead of 180, is almost as effective at moving Freyprime, and gives 0.18^3/2.088^2 = 0.0013.
The 20" error in the c.o.m. position which this could cause, might be too big, but it plausibly is mostly removed by giving Barbarossa an inner moon, Freya, half as massive as Frey (1/18 as massive as Barbarossa) and close enough to orbit Barbarossa with the same period and sense that Freyprime orbits Frey. Freya would be 9^(1/3) = 2x as far from Barbarossa as Freyprime is from Frey. The distance between Barbarossa and the Freya/Barbarossa c.o.m., would be 1/18 * 2 = 1/9 the distance between Freyprime (let's assume its mass is negligible) and Frey. If Freyprime and Freya are in 0 deg phase (i.e., maximally avoiding each other) then the vector from Freyprime (the apparent mass position) to Frey (the actual mass position) is always -9x the vector from Barbarossa (the apparent mass position) to the Barbarossa/Freya c.o.m. (the actual mass position).
So, this plausible "solar system" for Barbarossa explains the apparent violation of Kepler's second law for the 1986-1987 interval of Frey's orbit. It also preserves the accuracy of the c.o.m. trajectory for the entire system. |
|
|
|
Stoat
United Kingdom
863 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2009 : 03:53:06
|
Hi Joe, You do have to allow for the fact that all of these fits images have been reduced right down to the bone, just to allow people to download them. Not sure but I would think they would be in the 100 meg range in reality. Ask Iowa if they can crop out sections and send the smaller image uncompressed to you.
Another thought is that perhaps we could use hdri shop on the images and see if we get better results. An hdri image is a stacked f stop image. Say that you take a picture of the inside of a church. Take a bunch of f stopped shots. On some the windows will e washed out ut the darks will show detail, on others the windows will show detail but the darks will be jet black. hdri shop combines all of the images into one. The main man in regard to this stuff is called Paul Debevec, he might be worth e mailin as he does a lot of work for nasa, he even did work on the turin shroud.
Change the subject, have you looked at how the barycentre shift effects the orbit of Mercury? |
|
|
|
Maurol
Argentina
37 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2009 : 08:36:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat
Another thought is that perhaps we could use hdri shop on the images and see if we get better results. An hdri image is a stacked f stop image. Say that you take a picture of the inside of a church. Take a bunch of f stopped shots. On some the windows will e washed out ut the darks will show detail, on others the windows will show detail but the darks will be jet black. hdri shop combines all of the images into one.
Hi Stoat,
that makes sense only if you have photos with different exposure levels.
quote:
Change the subject, have you looked at how the barycentre shift effects the orbit of Mercury?
I was doing exactly that these days. Simulating a binary system and observing the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury, during, let's say 200 years. The effect is very small, much smaller than the actual so called "relativistic effect". Maybe it accounts for the actual unpredicted part(-0.3 arc secs/cy; which is within observational error, btw.) I'll have to check.
It seems that that advance of the perihelion (~43 arc secs/century for Mercury) is definitely non-Newtonian.
I'm not satisfied with the relativistic explanation. Mostly due that I'm not satisfied with Relativity Theory, at all.
More on this later.
Mauro |
|
|
|
Maurol
Argentina
37 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2009 : 09:40:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Keller
(Feb. 8, 2009)
Fourier-Cruttenden, Pioneer 10&11, and the Barbarossa/Frey Binary Orbit
...
There is evidence, following the Fourier-Cruttenden concept of a rotating solar system frame, that the Earth/Sun orbit also exists in a rotating frame. The Sun's average acceleration at Earth is 0.593 cm/s^2. Presently the Sun and Barbarossa seem to be orbiting each other with period 3083 yr ( 2*pi / present angular speed). If the Sun/Earth frame were rotating with that period, the centrifugal force at Earth's radius, would be 0.593/3083^2 = 6.24/10^8 cm/s^2; this is near the Pioneer10&11/Ulysses/Galileo anomalous acceleration.
Hi Joe!
What's that evidence? a rotating frame is an abstract construct, and as far as I know, has no physical reality. How on Earth(or how on the Universe, btw) a curved motion through space will (physically) produce a frame rotation? Frame rotations are abstract constructs. If you're talking about so called "frame dragging" effects, those affects are very small and (supposedly) caused by the rotation of the body itself, in its vicinity.
If your "evidence" is Earth axis's precession, that is nonsense, and it has been explained and demonstrated many times. In effect, as the Earth is a big gyroscope, the only way that its rotation axis can be altered, is by way of gravitational forces acting on its oblate form.
The Earth(and the Sun) will follow a curved path, but the direction of Earth's axis of rotation _will not change_ due to that.
Indeed, that is the very reason why these movements are not detected! That curved path will produce _displacement_(translation) rather than (real) precession, and that displacement will manifest as an "apparent precession" over long enough periods of time(i.e. same as any parallax effect). In the mean time, it will be ignored/masked into the dynamics of the so-called "orbits", and into the lenght of the sidereal year.
Indeed, my reflections show, and I think they are correct, that a gentle movement of the Sun will pass mostly undetected. Even if that movement is an accelerated movement, as it is in an "orbit", small corrections from time to time (i.e. leap seconds, to correct for rotational alignments) will keep these changes hidden.
"Orbits"(they are really not orbits, but curved motions in multi dimensional space), or better said, some characteristics of orbits (i.e. perihelion and aphelion position), are very stable, to the contrary of what one would think of so highly dynamical systems. The same happens with the planets's planes of rotation, and their inclination. They are very stable, due to their gyroscopic nature. The points of aphelion and perihelion are very stable, due to the nature of the so called "gravitational propagation", so to speak. And rotational planes are very stable, due to their gyroscopic characteristics.
As far as I've known: In no way these very stable elements can be masked/hidden by frame rotations.
Even smaller effects will be produced by a binary companion, due to well known Newtonian effects, into the advance of the perihelion of the planets, and I'm looking into that now.
This thread of physicsforums can be of your interest:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=104694&page=1
And indeed, due to the very fact that GP-B results seem to be _inconsistent_ with the predictions of GR, actually to a one sigma sd(we must patiently wait for a 3-sigma inconsistency to be really happy :), there's more room for a binary to step in.
I'm saying the following, a little bit anticipatedly maybe:
The predictions of GR are "mostly correct"(the problems of GR are other than its concordance with observational results. i.e. they are "epistemiological", not experimental.) BUT, as we have a binary companion, its effects are subtly changing the measured GP-B precession, due to "apparent precession" effects(i.e. displacement, i.e. parallax effects.)
In fact, the inconsistency manifested by GP-B gyroscopes could be smaller than the real displacement, because we're seeing only an angle equivalent to the displacement corresponding to the adjacent side of the triangle (i.e. equivalent to the cosine of the full parallax displacement), between the actual direction of the Sun movement, and IM Pegasi.
Mauro |
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2009 : 21:21:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat
...all of these fits images have been reduced right down to the bone, just to allow people to download them. Not sure but I would think they would be in the 100 meg range in reality. Ask Iowa if they can crop out sections and send the smaller image uncompressed to you. ...
Thanks for the valuable information and suggestion.
As I recall, "Stoat" was the first to suggest that Barbarossa is ringed. "Jim" was the first on this thread to suggest that Barbarossa, Frey, etc. are supernova fragments.
Supernova fragments would have only a fraction of solar mass, but likely would be mainly carbon, oxygen and even heavier elements and therefore more prone to gravitational collapse. According to the equations in Stein & Cameron, as applied by me, their collapse, even at 10, 1 or 0.5 Jupiter mass (Barbarossa, Frey & Freya resp.) could be enough to make them invisible even on sky survey plates.
What I have been calling Frey, might really by Freyprime, a submoon of Frey: a body slightly larger than Earth, with typical outer solar system albedo 0.04. Barbarossa's brightness might be due to rings. Because Barbarossa's mass is 30x Saturn's, its tide would shatter moonlets of any given density, at 3x the distance. So, Barbarossa's rings might be 3x as wide as Saturn's: 170,000 * 3 = 500,000 mi, or 6". |
|
|
|
Jim
1607 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2009 : 13:44:45
|
| Mauro, The fact that relativity expains just about all the stuff being kicked around here and else where on TVFs site is well known and not in doubt. Its very murky but we have many little observations pointing to an acceleration in the approximate range of one nanometer per second per second that seems to be observed and many of these observations are being examined by the author of this thread. This thread might be the cream of the crop which ever way it is decided. |
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2009 : 16:04:30
|
More Defense of Fourier-Cruttenden
The "ether" was considered a liquid. "Frames" can be considered "solid ether with gaps", like the steel frame of a skyscraper, or a crystal lattice. This way more than one frame can be superimposed for various effects.
Suppose most of our physical laws hold really in a solar system-size ball of jello revolving around Barbarossa (and Barbarossa around it) rotating so its same side always faces Barbarossa. Then the celestial or galactic or extragalactic frame of reference is, physically, the rotating frame, because the jello, not the celestial frame, is what determines most physical laws.
In the celestial frame of reference, there is a fictitious "centrifugal" force. Regardless of the center of rotation, the difference in this force, between Earth and Sun, is omega^2 * r, where r = 1 AU.
My best estimate of the present angular speed of revolution around Barbarossa, corresponds to a period of 3084 yr, thus a "centrifugal" acceleration of Earth, relative to Sun, of 6.23/10^8 cm/s^2. Extragalactic light appears to us redshifted as though it had been subject to a "centrifugal" acceleration of 72/km/s/Mpc = 6.99/10^8 cm/s^2 during its entire lightspeed trip.
My best estimate of the average angular speed of revolution around Barbarossa, corresponds to a period of 3084/1.114^2 = 2485 yr, thus a centrifugal acceleration of Earth, of 9.60/10^8 cm/s^2. The Pioneer anomalous acceleration is centripetal and typically given as 8/10^8 cm/s^2. Thus in magnitude, both the Hubble parameter and the Pioneer anomalous acceleration are midway between the present and average centrifugal accelerations which would occur at Earth's orbit if the "ether" or "frame" were rotating synchronously with the Sun's orbit around Barbarossa.
For the outer planets, the precessions of node and perihelion should be very slow. Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto are the best study subjects: J & S because they are nearer, and P because its eccentricity is big. Indeed these three have nodes roughly stationary in the celestial frame. On the other hand, their perihelia move retrograde with period roughly equal to Earth's axial precession period (though one might argue about which data are most reliable). The principal plane of the solar system is inclined about 13deg to the Sun/Barbarossa orbital plane. If the published perihelion precession rate were proportional to 0.5*sin(i), then expected would be 2484/(0.5*sin(13)) = 22,085 yr. The factor 0.5 arises because the Astronomical Almanac orbital elements are derived from the entire interval of observation, so their epoch, roughly, is the midpoint of the interval between the beginning of accurate observations, and the present. This midpoint moves forward only half as fast as the endpoint, i.e., the almanac publication date.
As discussed in an earlier post, I considered Astronomical Almanac data for what seemed to be the most consistently treated and reliable intervals: for Jupiter & Saturn, late 19th century to 1960; 1960-1983 for Pluto. The similarity to Earth's axial precession period might be accidental (this period is lengthening as Earth slows, its bulge greatly decreases, and Luna takes Earth's spin angular momentum and moves away). Jupiter's perihelion precessed retrograde with period 23,214 yr, Saturn's with period 19,301 yr, and Pluto's with period 18,602 yr. |
|
|
|
Maurol
Argentina
37 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2009 : 10:29:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Keller
More Defense of Fourier-Cruttenden
The "ether" was considered a liquid. "Frames" can be considered "solid ether with gaps", like the steel frame of a skyscraper, or a crystal lattice. This way more than one frame can be superimposed for various effects.
Suppose most of our physical laws hold really in a solar system-size ball of jello revolving around Barbarossa (and Barbarossa around it) rotating so its same side always faces Barbarossa. Then the celestial or galactic or extragalactic frame of reference is, physically, the rotating frame, because the jello, not the celestial frame, is what determines most physical laws.
In the celestial frame of reference, there is a fictitious "centrifugal" force. Regardless of the center of rotation, the difference in this force, between Earth and Sun, is omega^2 * r, where r = 1 AU.
My best estimate of the present angular speed of revolution around Barbarossa, corresponds to a period of 3083 yr, thus a "centrifugal" acceleration of Earth, relative to Sun, of 6.24/10^8 cm/s^2. Extragalactic light appears to us redshifted as though it had been subject to a "centrifugal" acceleration of 72/km/s/Mpc = 6.99/10^8 cm/s^2 during its entire lightspeed trip.
My best estimate of the average angular speed, corresponds to a period of 3083/1.114^2 = 2484 yr, thus a centrifugal acceleration of Earth, of 9.61/10^8 cm/s^2. The Pioneer anomalous acceleration is centripetal and typically given as 8/10^8 cm/s^2. Thus in magnitude, both the Hubble parameter and the Pioneer anomalous acceleration are midway between the present and average centrifugal accelerations which would occur at Earth's orbit if the "ether" or "frame" were rotating synchronously with the Sun's orbit around Barbarossa.
For the outer planets, the precessions of node and perihelion should be very slow. Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto are the best study subjects: J & S because they are nearer, and P because its eccentricity is big. Indeed these three have nodes roughly stationary in the celestial frame. On the other hand, their perihelia move retrograde with period roughly equal to Earth's axial precession period (though one might argue about which data are most reliable). The principal plane of the solar system is inclined about 13deg to the Sun/Barbarossa orbital plane. If the perihelion precession rate were proportional to 0.5*sin(i), then expected would be 2484/(0.5*sin(13)) = 22,084 yr.
As discussed in an earlier post, I considered Astronomical Almanac data for what seemed to be the most consistently treated and reliable intervals: for Jupiter & Saturn, late 19th century to 1960; 1960-1983 for Pluto.
The similarity to Earth's axial precession period might be accidental (this period is lengthening as Earth slows, its bulge greatly decreases, and Luna takes Earth's spin angular momentum and moves away). Jupiter's perihelion precessed retrograde with period 23,214 yr, Saturn's with period 19,301 yr, and Pluto's with period 18,602 yr.
That is probably no more than a coincidence.
Both precessions are different. They are both related to conservation of momentum, but axial precession is related to conservation of momentum in rotation, and orbital precession is related to conservation of inertia in translation. And they are mostly due to well known Newtonian factors.
With all due respect, I think your model is "not even wrong". And that it comes from a misunderstanding:
In no way a curved motion can produce axial precession(precisely due to conservation of momentum of rotation). What is possible, though, is for a curved motion to be mistaken as axial precession. And I think that is what Cruttenden is trying to imply.
Now, if we're actually confusing, as he says, the curved path of the Sun with Earth's axial precession, a number of things must happen:
- that "precession" must manifest only along the ecliptic, only related to the Sun. That is, no polar star precession, only equinoctial precession.
- all the planets of the solar system must manifest an equivalent "precession", depending on their distance from the Sun, and again, only in relation to the Sun.
- all the space observatories, not only Earthly ones, must observe this "precession" over the plane of the ecliptic(and again, NOT in the polar directions.)
I find very difficult to believe that phenomena of that magnitude can be ignored by mainstream astronomy and space science. Nevertheless, it is at least _plausible_ to consider that possibility. As with Foucault's pendulum: previously to people actually seeing the Earth rotating under the pendulum, there were people who still denied Earth's rotation.
I wonder if a similar experiment can be mounted, to observe Earth's
precession. It is possible that a similar Foucault's pendulum set up should manifest it, but a much higher degree of accuracy will be required.
If we return to your previous hypothesis(solar system jelly, and physical frame rotations) we will be changing, in the end, the beautiful and completely coherent conservation of momentum laws, by a sometimes solid, sometimes non-solid, "jelly". And even then, things will not add up, if carefully observed and analyzed.
Returning to the more plausible "confused precession", let's assume that a (very small) part of Earth's axial precession is really the effect of apparent precession.
Here is then a very interesting, and relatively simple, experiment: by observing and carefully measuring polar star precession, and comparing it to equinoctial precession, we can be able to discriminate lunisolar precession effects from "apparent precession" ones. This is Kimura phenomena, as you mentioned before, if I'm not mistaken.
This will also be related to leap seconds, and anomalous accelerations in the order of nano meter per second squared; and also to what I've said before: hidden/masked effects. Indeed, we must talk about phenomena in the order of deltas, or changes, of accelerations, because the accelerations themselves are actually hidden/masked into the orbital elements, and we only detect their changes!
When you add a leap second(you let it pass without accounting, really) you're adding it to all the UT seconds, that is, you're effectively "slowing down" the second, and that slowing down is permanent! so, you've effectively adjusted and neutralized divergences for a while(until the next adjustement.)
Now, THAT makes sense.
Mauro |
|
|
|
Maurol
Argentina
37 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2009 : 11:36:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jim
Mauro, The fact that relativity expains just about all the stuff being kicked around here and else where on TVFs site is well known and not in doubt. Its very murky but we have many little observations pointing to an acceleration in the approximate range of one nanometer per second per second that seems to be observed and many of these observations are being examined by the author of this thread. This thread might be the cream of the crop which ever way it is decided.
Indeed. Taking into account many different small anomalies, we can come up with a plausible explanation, and one which does not contradict actual observed phenomena.
Take leap seconds, by example: their mean is 1 second every year and a half, which, if correlated to Earth's rotational speed, amount to an angle of divergence of ~ 9 arc secs/year, towards the direction of Earth's rotation.
That's a clue, but some caveats must be considered:
- leap seconds most probably account for both(Sun displacement, AND Earth's rotational speed slowing down.)
- both effects can be of the same sign, or of different sign(opposed)
So, we have two very different phenomena, accounted for with only one adjustable parameter, and they can even be of opposite sign or not. Depending on to "which side" the Sun is moving.
The same happens with axial precession. In this case, it seems, we should be able to discriminate between both effects with relative ease. And that could prove to be very useful for the advancement of astronomical science.
I will not talk about GR now, except to say that a different model is needed to account for relativistic effects in a convincing (and physically sound!) way. I'm thinking about that, of course, and so must be all who are reading this :-)
Anyays, without considering relativistic effects(yet), we have ample space to speculate about binary orbits, Sun movements, and potential binary companions.
Mauro |
|
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1355 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2009 : 11:53:37
|
Joe, Mauro,
I wonder if you have considered these points? (I have not been following your discussion in in great detail, so perhaps you have.)
- If the Sol system is moving along a curved path due to the gravitational influence of an as yet undetected mass (Barbarossa?, or some other mass), that path is not necessarily a closed orbit. It is more likely, in fact, that such an encounter is temporary and may last a mere hundred thousand years or less. Taking enough observations to tell the difference may be a matter of centuries, perhaps longer, depending on how close the encounter is and how long it lasts.
- Whether or not the curved path is a closed orbit, it is unlikely to be aligned with our ecliptic.
- More than one encounter can be happening at the same time. The odds are lower, but still have to be considered until a long enough period of observation allows us to eliminate it.
If we are experiencing a gravitational interaction with another mass, it is possible but unlikely that it is permanent.
Orbital disturbances that can be interpreted as non-equinoctial precession are a serious possiblity.
Trying to figure out what it all means based on a few decades of observations ought to generate numerous speculations. A correct speculation might (or might not) lurk within this set of all speculations. Additional observations over time will help to "weed the garden", so to speak.
Regards,
LB |
|
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1355 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2009 : 11:56:34
|
Joe,
Don't forget to consider the possibility that Pushing Gravity is an accurate model of reality. You might want to add some adjustable parameters to your program in order to simulate the effect of a modification of acceleration vs distance (relative to the strict Newtonian calculation of acceleration vs distance). As the separation distance reaches tens or hundreds of AU this modification could become significant to your search for an interloper
Regards,
LB |
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2009 : 13:16:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Larry Burford
Joe,
...the possibility that Pushing Gravity...modification of acceleration vs distance (relative to the strict Newtonian calculation of acceleration vs distance...
Regards,
LB
Hi Larry!
Thanks for the valuable insights in this and your previous post.
- JK |
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2009 : 15:18:01
|
I'm asking for help analyzing the two photos which I think show Frey (or possibly Freyprime) in a position consistent, with the best binary orbit I can draw based on the three Red sky surveys. The two Freys both are starlike and show comparison Visual magnitudes about +19.8.
The first photo is by Prof. Mutel of the U. of Iowa. It was taken Dec. 22, 2008, local AM with the U. of Iowa 15 inch robotic telescope in S. Arizona, and median stacked by Prof. Mutel. The name of the finished product FITS file which I have is "barb-day357"; some readers of this thread already have the file. There is a "disappearing dot" there at RA 11:27:30.17, Decl -9:21:48.6. The expected position cannot be determined from the three sky survey Freys, but I can (from my graphical construction, above) determine that Prof. Mutel's Frey lies only 0.036 - 0.011 AU = 25" from the expected arc.
The second photo is by Steve Riley, director of the Buena Vista observatory near Sacramento, California. It was taken March 29, 2007, mean epoch 11PM Pacific Daylight Time with Riley's 11 inch telescope, and stacked by Riley from exposures spanning 1.7 hr, first to last. The name of the main finished product JPG file I have is "301E17". There is a "disappearing dot" there at RA 11:25:3.50, Decl -9:00:36.6. The error of this position is ~5" because, unlike Prof. Mutel's file, coordinates are not built in; also, there is some nonconformality as it appears on my screen. The USNO-B catalog lists an object only 8" away, but that lies within a point of the nearby very bright star, as photographed on the sky surveys on which that catalog is based. Riley's Frey is not obvious on any of the available two Red, one Blue or one Optical IR surveys. With the small parallax correction, Riley's Frey is only a permissible 20" from predicted position, based on my theory of the binary orbit (basically my graphical construction, above) which was based on the three sky survey Freys plus Prof. Mutel's Frey.
In Riley's original photos, taken near opposition, I expect daily 18" westward motion parallel to the ecliptic, plus 1" eastward motion at an angle 4deg steeper than the ecliptic (from the solar orbit), plus 3" eastward motion at an angle 31deg steeper than the ecliptic (from the binary orbit). This sum is daily 14" westward, at an angle 6.5deg shallower than the ecliptic: approx. 1" westward parallel to the ecliptic, in 2 hr.
In Prof. Mutel's original photos, taken near stationarity, I expect daily 2" westward parallel to the ecliptic, plus 4" southward perpendicular to the ecliptic (because of Barbarossa's southerly ecliptic latitude), plus the same two eastward terms as Riley's. This sum is daily 2" eastward parallel to the ecliptic + 5.5" southward perpendicular to the ecliptic, that is 6" eastward at an angle 70deg steeper than the ecliptic: approx. 0.5" straight south in celestial coords., in 2 hr.
Anyone who wants to do this, please contact Prof. Mutel or Steve Riley directly for the original files. That would be better, because in Prof. Mutel's case, it would let him know that someone takes this seriously besides me. In Riley's case, it would give him a chance to discuss the issue of his ownership of his photos. (I'd better not send anyone Riley's photos myself; it occurs to me that these are his property in my custody.)
Maybe the position and time of every photon recorded, could be inventoried, within a few arcseconds of the objects. Then you or I could consult Statistics texts like Kendall, to determine the likely motion. No matter how careful the alignment, comparison to surrounding dim stars as controls, will improve accuracy.
With twice the expected drift speed, and probably a longer time interval, Riley's photo is the easiest. Here are the (mouse click) coordinates of five nearby dim stars I see in Riley's photo. These all are easily visible on the 1987 Red sky survey; three are in the USNO-B catalog.
1. 11:25:09.36, -9:01:18.7
USNO-B R2 19.33, B2 19.48
2. 11:25:09.30, -8:59:44.0
R2 18.94, R1 19.64, B2 20.38, B1 20.73, I18.44
3. 11:25:10.19, -8:59:51.0
not cataloged
4. 11:25:02.24, -9:02:04.3
R2 19.22, R1 19.98, B2 20.46, I 18.43
5. 11:24:59.72, -9:02:01.3
not cataloged |
|
|
|
Stoat
United Kingdom
863 Posts |
Posted - 15 Feb 2009 : 03:48:26
|
Well I prefer to say that the space around matter is composed of black mayonnaise, that's just my perverse sense of humour. This is a none newtonian material, complex in the mathematical sense of the word. If we allow ourselves negative refractive index, then this viscoelastic behaves in rather peculiar ways. Something moving through it will have a low pressure in front and a high pressure behind!!. If we say that a matter particle is an f.m particle, cos of the natural log, and a vacuum aether particle cos e^x then we will have anti parallel wave movement in both. One wave travels very slowly, the other travels fast and getting faster the further it goes.
So, how are vacuum aether particle packed? I thought I'd dig out an old book by Buckmaster Fuller, thinking he'd have some views on the subject. He talks in rather general terms about a 60 degree coordinate system ( a tetrahedron) which avoids the need for complex solutions of equations.
I wonder Joe, if you've come across a more detailed account of this coordinate system? I'm easy with imaginary numbers but most people seem to hate them. |
|
|
|
Maurol
Argentina
37 Posts |
Posted - 15 Feb 2009 : 06:47:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Larry Burford
Joe, Mauro,
I wonder if you have considered these points? (I have not been following your discussion in in great detail, so perhaps you have.)
- If the Sol system is moving along a curved path due to the gravitational influence of an as yet undetected mass (Barbarossa?, or some other mass), that path is not necessarily a closed orbit. It is more likely, in fact, that such an encounter is temporary and may last a mere hundred thousand years or less. Taking enough observations to tell the difference may be a matter of centuries, perhaps longer, depending on how close the encounter is and how long it lasts.
- Whether or not the curved path is a closed orbit, it is unlikely to be aligned with our ecliptic.
- More than one encounter can be happening at the same time. The odds are lower, but still have to be considered until a long enough period of observation allows us to eliminate it.
If we are experiencing a gravitational interaction with another mass, it is possible but unlikely that it is permanent.
Hi Larry
These are interesting and plausible possibilities, but I personally think that something bigger is at stake here.
By example, and (at least) to be completely comprehensive, have any of you considered the possibility that the Sun can be moving in a curved path, and there's no mass out there to be held accountable?
Maybe we(the solar system) are in an curved path without a binary companion. Maybe the fabric of space is curved, and that curvature is not necessarily due to the pressence of matter, but rather to the contrary, matter is, sometimes, under the right circumstances, just accumulated in the "hollows".
Maybe gravity is (in the material side) no more than a geometry, and the macroscopic layout of visible matter the result of an
accumulation, in the same way as, by example, a river produces sandbanks by drag and sedimentation. To attribute gravity
to matter, would be similar to attribute the flowing down of the river to the presence of sandbanks.
Maybe so called black holes are nothing else than vortexes that haven't yet accreted matter, and aren't necessarily those beasts that we usually imagine: The gravitational field strength of these "black holes" can be anything, not only the very intense, that not even light can escape. They are simply vortices wihout actually accreted matter, so they don't emit nor reflect light.
There you have all that "dark matter". It's not matter, but gravitational vortices alone, without actual accretion, because in their surroundings there isn't matter to accrete for the moment.
Planets and stars, on the other side, are vortices with diverse degrees of accreted matter, depending on their "intensity"(their gravitational field strength, so to speak.)
Have you thought about that? We're so used to think in materialistic terms, tan can't conceive of a geometry of space caused by a hyperdimensional element.
There you have: a "novel" theory of gravity. I'm practically sure that I'm not the first one to state all this.
What would be then the real causes of that "drag" called gravity?
That we'll have to look for into the higher dimensions, receiving here only the effects, so to speak, the physical manifestation,
of that.
quote:
Orbital disturbances that can be interpreted as non-equinoctial precession are a serious possiblity.
Indeed. And, instead of developing theory after theory to try to quickly coincide or differ with GR results, cosmologists must carefully observe the (diverse) inconsistencies and absurdities(and we can safely say that most or Relativity is no more than an absurd way of thinking about some inconsistencies), then think, and then sit down and write mathematical models and theories. All the steps are important, but the second one is essential.
quote:
Trying to figure out what it all means based on a few decades of observations ought to generate numerous speculations. A correct speculation might (or might not) lurk within this set of all speculations. Additional observations over time will help to "weed the garden", so to speak.
Regards,
LB
Maybe the Universe that I'm talking about is already mathematically modeled by someone.
Here are some of its characteristics:
- A purely geometrical(non mechanical), hyperdimensional ether, that accounts for no less than gravity.
- Absolute time. Time is not a reality in itself (in mechanical terms), but an abstraction(a result of the derivation of formulae). Time has no intrinsic reality at the mechanical level, so we can think of(and then, we must think of, to be taken seriously as physicists) absolute time.
- We must take into account the precession of the perihelion of the orbits of the planets, actually attributed to "relativistic effects"(whatever that means) as a signature and also as an effect of this geometry.
- Light (its front plane) moves at a given velocity, but in no sense that velocity can be "the maximum velocity of everything". Another relativistic absurdity.
- Light leaves a trace behind, and consequently, it is not mechanical(it is not a discrete object). So, we cannot apply ordinary mechanical formulas to light.
- No more leap seconds! That means: a unit of time that has real physical(in the "classical" sense, if you like) meaning.
At the observational/experimental level:
- We should observe gravitational grag without matter! (by example: binary orbits without visible companion). This effect should be relatively common.
- The different degrees of planetary orbital precessions must nicely concide with the curved path.
- The same for axial precession. There must be a (very small) component of axial precession that is in reality effect of this curvature. That axial precession must be present in all the planets, in differing degrees according to its distance to the center of curvature.
- More anomalies can be explained: Pioneer 10 anomaly, Kimura effect, etc.
Best regards, and have a nice Sunday,
Mauro |
|
|
|
Jim
1607 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2009 : 14:11:57
|
| Maurol, Dumping this stuff here just makes a big mess. You know your stuff but miss the point the author is making. |
|
|
|
Maurol
Argentina
37 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2009 : 14:35:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jim
Maurol, Dumping this stuff here just makes a big mess. You know your stuff but miss the point the author is making.
Hi Jim,
as this thread is called "Requiem for Relativity", my previous post is more than appropiate to it.
Regarding other issues that we've been discussing privately, I'll refrain to publish them here.
Let's say, just for reasons of clarity and pertinence.
Anyways, I want to mention that, unrelated as they may seem, they are related; moreover: their profound interrelation is deliberately ignored, ridiculed, or kept in the dark most of the times.
This is something that must change, and we must strive to change it in the best and prolific ways. And as soon as possible.
Mauro |
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2009 : 15:26:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maurol
...this thread is called "Requiem for Relativity", my previous post is more than appropiate to it. ...
Mauro
Yes, Mauro, I like your posts! Though the theory of relativity contains much truth, bringing down the rigid dogmas of academic "relativity" is what this thread is about, to a large extent! My planetary discovery, because of its proximity to the "cosmic" microwave background dipole, is part of that larger picture: an important part, because it might be confirmed photographically soon.
I also value Jim's candid comments and support.
On Feb. 12, 2009 (postmarked Feb. 13) I mailed, at a post office, predictions of the Barbarossa/Frey positions, to three astronomers. There was no new infomation in that one-page letter. I gave them the geocentric center of mass position, from the computer program posted here, for three different dates in Feb., so they could interpolate. I gave them the positions of Barbarossa & Frey relative to the c.o.m., based on the (most recently discovered and, I think, best, in this photo) Frey observation in the Dec. 22, 2008 U. of Iowa photo. I gave them the estimated Frey (and thus, Barbarossa) position, relative to the c.o.m., for Feb. 19, from a linear binary orbit extrapolation formula according to my graphical model of the orbit, described here.
The position predicted for Frey for 0h Feb. 19, was
RA 11:26:41.76 c.o.m. +13.48s (Dec. 22 photo) + 6.85s (binary orbit extrapolation) = 11:27:02.09
Decl -9:20:17.15 c.o.m. -56.3" (Dec. 22 photo) - 145" (extrapolation) = -9:23:38.45
(Get the Barbarossa position from the same c.o.m., but multiply the Frey corrections by the mass ratio, 0.1102/0.8898.)
I've asked Prof. Mutel and Steve Riley both for the raw data files that were stacked to make their relevant photos. Riley has started working on this already.
I've now redone the photometry for the three sky survey Frey detections plus the U. of Iowa Frey detection. This gives Red magnitudes (estimated according to Straizys' charts and Wickramasinghe & Hoyle's color, for the U. of Iowa detection):
1954: +18.3; 1986: +19.4; 1987: +18.55; 2008: +19.0
All these were based on a nearby USNO-B catalog star of very similar appearance. The exception is 1987, which because of its elongated appearance was equated to twice the luminosity of a nearby star resembling half of it (not the way I estimated before; the previous estimation method had given ~ +17.8 for 1987). |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Requiem for Relativity
