Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - Requiem for Relativity
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Astrophysics
 Gravity & Relativity
 Requiem for Relativity
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page
Author  Topic Next Topic
Page: of 72

Samizdat

USA
99 Posts

Posted - 05 Dec 2005 :  16:29:49  Show Profile  Visit Samizdat's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Has any of you read, or have you preliminary thoughts on the new book by Michael Strauss, "Requiem for Relativity: the Collapse of Special Relativity?"

http://www.relativitycollapse.net/

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 05 Dec 2005 :  20:18:23  Show Profile  Visit tvanflandern's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Samizdat

Has any of you read, or have you preliminary thoughts on the new book by Michael Strauss, "Requiem for Relativity: the Collapse of Special Relativity?"
There are dozens, perhaps now over 100 such books, apparently all of them making the same basic misunderstanding of special relativity. Contrary to what this author says, SR has been proved (in the mathematical sense) to be an internally consistent theory. It simply violates intuition and common sense. But that doesn't make it wrong.

What does falsify SR (in favor of Lorentzian relativity, LR) is experimental evidence that gravity propagates faster than light in forward time. And that is now published in the mainstream, peer-reviewed literature, and remains undisputed in print: “Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions”, T. Van Flandern and J.P. Vigier, Found.Phys. 32(#7), 1031-1068 (2002). Everything else is noise from people who cannot suspend their strong, intuitive belief in a universal instant of "now", the non-existence of which is a prerequisite for understanding SR. -|Tom|-
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 16 Dec 2005 :  17:48:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote

Explanation of Michelson/Morley/Miller Non-Null Ether Drift Results

Introduction. The null ether drift results with Michelson interferometry,
have been radically different experiments from the experiment that
Michelson/Morley, Morley/Miller and Miller did. The null results were
achieved with evacuation and metal shielding, which Michelson/Morley/Miller
did not employ. Other experiments, such as the Global Positioning System,
sometimes cited as null ether drift results, differ in even more ways from
Michelson/Morley/Miller.

Description of Michelson/Morley/Miller results. Using several different
interferometers (some of them nonferromagnetic) with many variations in
configuration, in many different laboratories in very different physical
environs in several geographic locations, at all times and seasons, over 40
years, and with trials to rule out suspected causes of error,
Michelson/Morley/Miller's "ether drift" results were consistent. Ascribing
the results to temperature or to any other kind of "error" is absurd. They
found an "ether drift" equal to the sum of the solar apex motion plus Earth's
orbital motion, with the following differences:

1. The phase shift was opposite in sign from what would be expected from
an "ether drift".

2. Parallel to Earth's axis, Miller's average drift equals the solar apex
motion. Perpendicular to Earth's axis, Miller's average drift is about 1/5 of
the solar apex motion.

3. The seasonal change in the drift is much smaller than expected and about
180 degrees out of phase, for both the perpendicular and the parallel
components.

4. There is a constant eastward or westward drift which varies seasonally as
a second harmonic.

My explanation of the above. Earth, and appurtenances near its field (such as
the interferometer), are FitzGerald contracted. The average parallel
component of the drift is due to contraction of the solid parts of Earth
(mantle and inner core), amounting to 70% of Earth's mass. Using the full
Hipparcos data set (Abad et al, Astronomy & Astrophysics 2002), this would
give contraction equivalent to a drift of 11.3 km/s, vs. 9.5 km/s observed by
Miller.

Contraction must be accompanied by mass migration to maintain Earth's shape.
Due to Earth's rotation, only the inner core can contract in response to the
perpendicular (equatorial plane) motion. The liquid outer core can slide
around it to maintain net roundness despite the inner core's slightly
lenticular shape. With only 1.7% of Earth's mass, the inner core provides an
average contraction for the Earth overall, equivalent to 2.6 km/s, vs. 3.4
km/s observed (276RA for the solar apex, vs. Miller's 254RA).

Miller found seasonal variation of about 1.5 km/s in both the perpendicular
and parallel components, much smaller than expected from the magnitude of
Earth's orbital velocity, and with roughly 180 degree lag. This can be
explained by a damping phenomenon.

The recently (Aug. 2005) reported 0.4 degree/day super-rotation of Earth's
inner core, could be due to the counterclockwise advancing total velocity
vector, when Earth's orbital velocity combines positively with the solar apex
motion. Heating and turbulence of Earth's outer core also would occur.

Finally, Miller found a twisting phenomenon which he called the "unexplained
azimuth variation". This could be due to a twisting of the Earth as the axis-
parallel contraction changes.

-Joseph C. Keller
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 22 Sep 2006 :  22:44:21  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Vol. 2 (1826) of the Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society contains a report by Ramage, Capt. John Ross, & R. Comfield (No. IX in the volume, pp. 87-91, "read Dec. 10, 1824") which seems to refute Special Relativity. With careful drawings, they show anomalies during lunar occultation of Jupiter & Jupiter's moons (on immersion) and Uranus (on both immersion and emersion). These anomalies are of the same order of magnitude as the aberration of starlight. A followup report in the same volume by R. Comfield & J. Wallis (No. XXVIII, pp. 457-458, "read Nov. 11, 1825") shows anomaly of Saturn and its rings also, on emersion from lunar occultation. Comfield reported using three different reflecting telescopes with apertures 7,8, or 9 inches, and mentions that Wallis used a reflector with aperture stopped down to 6 inches.

Specifically, three anomalies were reported:

1. I call the first anomaly "reverse occultation". Jupiter was drawn as overlapping the moon about 1/5 of Jupiter's diameter, early during immersion. The text and drawings imply that Jupiter's moons achieved about 1/2 diam. overlap. Uranus was explicitly stated to achieve 1/3 diam. overlap. Always this was on immersion into Luna's dark side. Also a bright ring appeared between the "reverse occulted" planets and the "cut out" in Luna.

2. I call the second "spreading". Jupiter and its moons appeared to have larger disk radii when almost completely immersed. At an early stage of this, Jupiter appeared spread into a bell shape. Again this was always on immersion into Luna's dark side.

3. I call the third "truncation". On emersion from Luna's bright side, Saturn, and the rings of Saturn, both in turn were chopped off as though by Luna, but separated from Luna by some distance of darkness. Uranus showed a variant of this: the planet was not chopped off, but simply first appeared on emersion with a distance of intervening darkness between itself and the bright side of Luna, equal to about 1/4 the planet's diam.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 26 Sep 2006 :  21:13:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
My perusal of a smattering of other 19th century volumes of Royal Astronomical Society journals, discovered two additional and independent reports of such anomalies during lunar occultation of planets. Vol. 14 (1854) of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society contains a report by Robt. Snow (pp. 183-184, March 12, 1854). Snow's (reversed, thus probably a refractor; 4" aperture) drawing shows "truncation" (as I define it in the previous post; i.e., with a dark gap) on the immersion of Mars into Luna's dark side; his text does not mention that, but does mention a return of "sphericity" after Mars was "more than half hidden". Also, his text mentions a "few seconds" duration of "violet light" to the (telescopic observer's) left of Mars just before immersion. In the same volume, TW Burr, observing the same occultation (aperture not stated), reports (p. 199): "No projection of Mars on the moon's disk was seen or other anomalous appearance."

In vol. 56 (1896) of the MNRAS, "the Director" of the Durham Univ. Obs. gives a report (p. 330) dated Feb. 20, 1893, of a lunar occultation of Jupiter (6" telescope): "Some seconds before [last contact on immersion, about 0300 GMT in Durham, UK] the Moon's limb had the appearance of being bulged in, or a piece cut out." In the previous post I define this as "reverse occultation". The moon was four days old on Feb. 20, 1893, so the occultation, observed at 3AM, must have been on an earlier date. It could have involved a waxing moon low in the west, i.e., immersion into Luna's dark side. Also, Jupiter was an evening star in Feb. 1893. If the date of this occultation were known, it could be confirmed that immersion was into Luna's dark side.

Dawes (same report in both MNRAS v. 5 (1843), p. 121; and Memoirs RAS v. XII, p. 419) reported no "distortion" of Venus on occultation in 1841. He did not state his aperture. He consistently and repeatedly mentioned that viewing was bad. He observed immersion into the bright side of Luna, and emersion from the dark side.
Go to Top of Page

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 26 Sep 2006 :  21:34:58  Show Profile  Visit tvanflandern's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Keller

the Moon's limb had the appearance of being bulged in, or a piece cut out.
That sounds like the same phenomenon as the "black drop effect", as detailed and explained in a "ViewPoint" article on this site at http://metaresearch.org/home/viewpoint/blackdrop.asp -|Tom|-
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 26 Sep 2006 :  21:48:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
They drew Jupiter as overlapping Luna about 1/5 diam.; i.e., mean 36.5 arcsec Jovian diam / 5 = 7 arcsec, although the second article hints that maybe the Jupiter drawing was exaggerated. They stated that it was 1/3 diam. for Uranus. And they drew it as 1/2 diam. for the Jovian moons. An arcsecond would be about 1/1000 the lunar radius.

According to Wikipedia ("Astronomical Seeing"), "The FWHM [Full Width Half Maximum] of the seeing disc (or just Seeing) is usually measured in arcseconds, abbreviated with the symbol ("). A 1.0" seeing is a good one for average astronomical sites." The most accurate observation above seems to be for Uranus. Not only Uranus, but also the Earthlit "dark" side of Luna are spread. So Uranus' ratio spread:actual wasn't 3:1; it was 3:2, or 3.7 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.9 arcsec spread. Assuming that half-maximum determines the apparent spread, this implies 1.8" full-width spread or "Seeing". For Ganymede with 1.4" diam, 1/2 overlap would imply 0.7" spread and 1.4" Seeing. So, Anomaly #1 above is roughly consistent with irradiation spread.

Anomaly #2, "spreading", remains mysterious. It could be physical or physiological.

Anomaly #3, "truncation", seems to be due to irradiation spread plus visual physiology. Irradiation spread is bell-shaped, but roughly, assuming the 0.9" half-width, half-maximum spread calculated above, the surface brightness of Uranus can be calculated by adding 1.8" to its diameter, for the same amount of light. Using 7% for the albedo of Luna's near side and 93% for Uranus' albedo, Uranus' average apparent surface is dimmer than sunlit Luna by 65x. If irradiation spread extends Luna's surface by 0.9" as above, adding this to the observed gap, gives 0.9 + 5.5 / 4 = 2.395"; 2.395 / 0.9 = 2.661 times what I assume is the half-dropoff-radius. 2^(2.661^2) = a factor of 135 in intensity. If, rather than the maria typical of Luna's near side, Uranus emerged from a mountainous edge region with twice the albedo, then the near edge of Uranus, when it appeared to emerge, would be just as bright as the scattered light there from Luna.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 31 Oct 2006 :  00:56:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The "spreading" phenomenon above isn't the "black drop effect". It may be an ether drift effect, caused by a thin layer of ether flowing around the moon. If so, the amount of spreading of a planet at occultation might depend on the lunar phase, because the lunar phase, determines the ether velocity due to Earth's orbital motion.

I found three published photos showing displacement of a lunar peak seen at the moon's edge, but to the accuracy of my measurements (with a mm ruler, sometimes by eye, from a book page) these seem to be explained by libration. I think the peak that I studied, is on the E (farside) or maybe SE rim of the Lyot crater. See Z Kopal, "A New Photographic Atlas of the Moon" (Taplinger; New York, 1971) Plate 148 p. 219; and GL Gutschewski et al, "Atlas & Gazetteer of the Near Side of the Moon" (NASA; 1971) SP-241, Plate 5-3 p. 14, Plate 38-1 p. 22. The peak is at about 50S 88E or maybe 53S 87E. (South of the main peak, is a longer, lower, double, peak, also visible at the moon's edge in Alter's lunar atlas, Plates 40 & 41, but past the edge of the frame in de Callatay. Also someone had sliced out de Callatay's photo of a Soviet moon probe's landing site.)

I drew a line through the northernmost edges of the interior shadows of two reference craters, Fraunhofer V & B. Fraunhofer V prominently straddes the nearside rim of the crater Fraunhofer. Fraunhofer B is a prominent, isolated, simple, round crater about 2/3 the diam. of Fraunhofer; its N shadow edge is at about 42S 67E. See Gutschewski, Plate 52-2 p. 35. See also Plate 523, "Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the Moon", DE Bowker & JK Hughes, NASA SP-206, 1971. A drawn USAF Mercator moon map is reprinted in FM Branley et al's "Astronomy" (1975); and in Kopal, op. cit.

D Alter, ed., "Lunar Atlas" (Dover; New York, 1964) Plate 41, shows the moon at phase 4.59d in 1938. V de Callatay, "Atlas of the Moon" (Macmillan; 1964), Plate 1, p. 98, shows the moon at phase 3.53d on Dec. 30, 1943. Alter gives the libration angles and time of observation; these agreed with the American Ephemeris. For de Callatay, I got the libration angles by assuming a 6PM observation time at Pic du Midi (roughly consistent with the terminator line, i.e. solar colongitude, compared to Alter Plate 40, and with good sky position) & interpolating in the American Ephemeris.

I considered the libration as the sum of infinitesimal rotations called "to/from" (the peak moves toward or away from Earth) and "twirling" (the moon rotates about the axis defined by the peak). Because the peak will be taken to be at 45S latitude (a good approximation for "twirling" because, luckily, the long. & lat. librations are about equal for all three Plates considered), these are easy to calculate from the regular libration angles.

"To/from" libration rapidly changes the identity of the apparent peak, by bringing other parts of the ridge into position, but luckily this libration, whether the peak is taken at 45S or 50S, differs only about a degree between the plates considered. The smallness of the differences in "to/from" libration is confirmed by measurement on the photos, using the NS length of crater Furnerius vs. its distance from the moon's edge. The identity of the peak moves only reluctantly with "twirling" libration. Because the reference craters make a line almost coplanar with the twirling axis and the Earth, to/from libration, to first approximation, doesn't disrupt their collinearity with the peak.

It appears from the 1938 American Ephemeris, that the libration published in Alter, Appendix A, is for Washington D.C. For an observation at 8PM Pacific Standard Time, of a 4.6-day-old moon, the 3000 mile distance across the US would project to half that, i.e., roughly 3/8 degree greater libration in longitude. For de Callatay's presumed 6PM observation of a 3.5-day-old moon, the 5000 mile transatlantic distance would project 1/sqrt(2), i.e., roughly 7/8 degree less libration in longitude.

So we have librations for Lick Plate #2 ( = Alter Plate 41) of long. +5.54, lat. +6.63; and for de Callatay long. +1.21, lat. +2.31. The difference in "twirl" libration is (5.54+6.63-1.21-2.31)/sqrt(2)= 6.12 degrees. (Direct measurement on the photos yielded a corroborating estimate of 5.8 degrees.) Spherical trigonometry approximations gave 33km expected displacement of the peak (northward in Alter Plate 41, vs. deCallatay), along the moon's edge, referred to the line through the reference craters where it intersects the moon's edge. The actual displacement is measured to be 31 km, using 57 km plateau-to-plateau NS diam. of the crater Fraunhofer as a yardstick.

Alter's Plate 40 (Lick Plate #1) requires about +3/4 / sqrt(2) degree geographic correction in long. lib., giving long. lib. +3.93, lat. lib. +3.76. The same peaks appear as on Alter's Plate 41. (3.93+3.76-1.21-2.31)/sqrt(2)= 2.95 degrees, giving 16km expected displacement northward vs. deCallatay, relative to the reference craters' line; measured is 13km.

Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 21 Jan 2007 :  20:40:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Abstract. Pioneer 10 tracking, and stellar occultations by Saturn's rings, reveal violations of Special Relativity, consistent with an ether boundary at about 53 A.U. from the sun.


In 2001, I remarked (Aircraft Engineering & Aerospace Technology 74:269, last two pars.) on an unexplained and unnoticed anomaly (besides the anomalous deceleration) in the Pioneer 10 Doppler data. Beginning at about 53 A.U. from the sun, the Doppler shift begins to oscillate sinusoidally with small (roughly 1 cm/s velocity equivalent) amplitude, and period one year. The phase is such, that this apparent oscillation in velocity would occur if, beyond 53 A.U., the time dilation is really the time dilation that exists when the radio signal enters the 53 A.U. boundary (not the time dilation that exists when the radio signal reaches Earth).

The occultation of a star by Saturn's rings, amounts to a test of another special-relativistic effect, the aberration of starlight. Because stars lie more than 53 A.U. away, the aberration of starlight might be expected to result, from the tangential velocity when the light enters the 53 A.U. boundary, not to result from the tangential velocity when the light reaches Earth. On the other hand, light interacts with transparent air (causing the index of refraction to differ considerably from 1) and so might interact with gas or transparent particles in Saturn's rings. So, in most parts of the rings, the aberration of starlight from an occulted star might be expected to result from the tangential velocity when the light reaches Earth, as in Special Relativity theory.

When Saturn is near quadrature with the sun, the difference in the two tangential velocities amounts to about 0.1 arcsecond of aberration. As the star moves between dense and sparse ring regions, especially near the edge of the ring, it might jump back and forth by 0.1". This was observed by Mourao & Mourilhe (A F O'D Alexander, The Planet Saturn, 1962, pp. 442-443):

"As Saturn was then near a station, with apparent motion only 1" of arc per hour...

"By 5h13m13s the immersion seemed to be complete...About 5h20m the star seemed to 'beat', i.e. to move inside, then outside the ring, a phenomenon repeated several times."

This 6.8 minutes of time, between immersion and the onset of 'beating', amounts to 0.1" of movement of the ring edge, i.e., an amplitude of 'beating' of 0.1", assuming the star moved just outside the ring.

Mourao observed from Brazil, in 1960 with an 18-inch refractor, 650 power, with a clear, stable sky. In 1920, from South Africa with a 6-inch refractor, 216 power, W Reid et al (Alexander, op. cit., pp. 346-347)(BAAJ 30:230) observed the oil-drop phenomenon at emersion from a stellar occultation by Saturn, but during immersion into the ring, Reid didn't see the 'beating', only fluctuation, a flicker, and sudden extinction. However, Saturn was only about an hour from opposition.

In 1917 (Alexander, op. cit., pp. 340-341), from Sussex with a 5-inch refractor and 100 to 250 power, J Knight noted that

"...apart from isolated moments when the air was particularly unsteady, [the occulted star] never seemed wholly to disappear." When in the Cassini division, Knight thought the star's image looked elongated. Saturn was about halfway between opposition and quadrature.

The occultation of 28 Sgr in 1989 occurred when Saturn was near opposition; neither 'beating' nor elongation were observed (J Harrington et al, Icarus 103:235). A fault of the modern occultation observations is that they tend to emphasize automated data collection which would seem to miss such unexpected effects.







Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 29 Jan 2007 :  15:51:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Does anyone know where I can find data on the aberration of starlight that might confirm that the direction of it, is "off" roughly 0.3 degree? That is, that the aberration vector depends on the velocity of Earth when the starlight crossed the 53 AU limit?
Go to Top of Page

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 29 Jan 2007 :  17:46:19  Show Profile  Visit tvanflandern's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Keller

Does anyone know where I can find data on the aberration of starlight that might confirm that the direction of it, is "off" roughly 0.2 degree? That is, that the aberration vector depends on the velocity of Earth when the starlight crossed the 53 AU limit?
You have your facts and/or numbers wrong for some reason. Stellar aberration is a function of speed relative to the local gravity field, and rarely exceeds 0.01 degrees in the solar system. And nothing special happens at 53 au, which is also not any kind of limit. -|Tom|-
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 30 Jan 2007 :  05:20:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Do you think that the transmitter.receiver mismatch on the Cassini-Huygens mission might be worth a look, as a possible relativistic error, as I understand it did have something to do with the doppler shift?
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 30 Jan 2007 :  11:33:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat

Do you think that the transmitter.receiver mismatch on the Cassini-Huygens mission might be worth a look, as a possible relativistic error, as I understand it did have something to do with the doppler shift?



I heartily agree that someone should look at this! Thanks for your input!
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 30 Jan 2007 :  12:11:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
You have your facts and/or numbers wrong for some reason. Stellar aberration is a function of speed relative to the local gravity field, and rarely exceeds 0.01 degrees in the solar system. And nothing special happens at 53 au, which is also not any kind of limit. -|Tom|-



Thanks for checking, but I think my facts were approximately right. I refer not to the absolute value of stellar aberration ( 20.5" = 0.0057 deg ) but to a hypothetical error, of about 0.3 degrees, in the direction of that aberration (I'd estimated 0.2 but it's really 0.3 so I had to correct that above). That would amount to 0.0052 radians x 20.5" = 0.107". The hypothesis is, that we might be observing the aberration due to what Earth's velocity vector was 53 AU * 8.3 min/AU = 440 min ago.

If many data points on a sinusoid are known, the phase of that sinusoid can be determined to surprisingly high precision. Perhaps Bradley's, or some subsequent, demonstration of stellar aberration would reveal, on careful statistical analysis, that the aberration circle is 0.3 degrees out of phase with expected.

The second point is debatable (see my 2002 article in "Aircraft Engineering & Aerospace Technology" a journal which is unrefereed but does have an editorial board comprised mostly of college professors; and also the article by JD Anderson of Cal Tech cited as a reference therein). Anderson's article shows dramatic apparent speed fluctuations in Pioneer 10 occurring at about 53 AU but hardly anywhere else. I recall that others have suggested somewhat hesitantly that the probe encountered a cluster of comets there, however my estimate of the required number, large mass, and small distance between these alleged comets argued against that. Furthermore, Anderson's article shows that the probe began to have apparent sinusoidal fluctuations in speed, of period one year, then and thereafter. So indeed there is, or at least was, something there at 53 AU, and no one knows what.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 30 Jan 2007 :  12:41:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
My (2nd) Sept. 26 post above: "Anomaly #2, 'spreading', remains mysterious. It could be physical or physiological." (See: Vol. 2, 1826, of the Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society: Ramage, Ross, & Comfield, No. IX in the volume, pp. 87-91, "read Dec. 10, 1824"; followup report in the same volume by Comfield & Wallis, No. XXVIII, pp. 457-458, "read Nov. 11, 1825".)

The *spreading phenomenon* drawn and described in the 1826 Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society, for an occultation of Jupiter by the dark side of Luna, *has been photographed*, for an occultation of Mars by the dark side of Luna, July 2003. The (digitally processed) photo is in Bonnell & Nemiroff, "Astronomy / 365 Days, the best of the 'Astronomy Picture of the Day' website", page "July 24" (it has dates instead of page numbers). I think this book is on the shelf at many large bookstores; also, the Iowa State Univ. library has a copy.

In the next-to-last Mars photo on the right, the radius of curvature of the bright (left) edge of Mars shows decreasing curvature near the edge of Luna. In the last photo, not only does the curvature decrease, but there is an inflection point (i.e., the curvature becomes negative as in the "bell curve"). The authors of the 1826 article said that their drawing was somewhat exaggerated and that the phenomenon was barely perceptible. I think this is consistent with what is seen in the photo (credited to Ron Dantowitz, Clay Center Observatory at Dexter & Southfield Schools).
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 31 Jan 2007 :  04:34:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I found this with a quick google search, I just gave it a quick read, so it might not be what we want but it does question the transmitter mismatch. http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 31 Jan 2007 :  18:31:50  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The error, 0.107", which my "53 AU barrier" theory predicts, was discovered in 1902: it is "Kimura's phenomenon" (H Kimura, The Astronomical Journal 22(517):107-108 (1902); SC Chandler, AJ 23(530):12-14 (1903)). Chandler could not explain Kimura's phenomenon; apparently, it remained unexplained until now (see above).

Kimura statistically analyzed extant determinations of the aberration constant. Most had been made by measuring the declination of stars as they crossed the highest meridian at different seasons (Struve's method). Ideally the star observed would have declination equal to the latitude of the arctic circle, and its RA would be 18h. Then if aberration were determined, by Earth's velocity when the starlight crossed the barrier at 53 AU, the observed declination would be 0.107" higher than predicted, at the winter solstice, and 0.107" too low, at the summer solstice.

Choosing a star at RA 6h instead, would reduce this amplitude to 0.107 * cos (23.45 * 2) = 0.073" with opposite phase. The articles in the Astronomical Journal show that researchers used stars of all RAs, but they favored 18h vs. 6h, I suppose so that the aberration would be somewhat larger, and the daytime observations would be the winter ones with a low sun. Kimura cites compilations of Th. Albrecht, Astronomische Nachrichten 3734, and again 1898 & 1900 articles by Albrecht, but my library doesn't have that journal, print or online. In the articles I found in the Astronomical Journal vols. 5-19, 1856-1899, the RAs of the 46 stars (including repeated studies) used (there might be a few errors in my tabulation) were such that the average amplitude of the Kimura phenomenon would have been * 0.027" *, if they were all on the arctic circle, which to a good approximation they were. (I excluded a few stars that were used for determinations using Loewy's pair&prism method or the RA method; those I used seemed all to have been used for Struve's declination method described above.)

Kimura's amplitude was "almost" * 0.03" +/- 0.01" *. Furthermore Kimura found this first-order periodic term to be positive near the winter solstice, negative near the summer solstice, and zero near the equinoxes.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 01 Feb 2007 :  05:30:08  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I get an ether energy density, of the Sun at 53 au, of about a two hundredth of what it is at the Earth. Can you explain why you chose that particular number?

(Edited) I get 4.19821189643E 04 Joules / cubic metre at 1 au, and 8.0495163309E 02 Joules / cubic metre at 53 au.

Apropos of nothing, i've just come across an ether theory that suggests the ether is a Bose-Einstein condensate of neutrino / anti neutrino pairs, rather like Cooper pairs.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2071 Posts

Posted - 01 Feb 2007 :  08:38:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Stoat - please double check your calculations and/or your description of them. The joule is a unit of energy, not a unit of energy density. And if I am following Joe correctly, someone else chose the 53 AU distance, based on observational evidence that can be interpreted as something like a refraction event at that distance.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 01 Feb 2007 :  11:57:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat

I get an ether energy density, of the Sun at 53 au, of about a two hundredth of what it is at the Earth. ...
(Edited) I get 4.19821189643E 04 Joules / cubic metre at 1 au, and 8.0495163309E 02 Joules / cubic metre at 53 au.
...



Very exciting! I hardly know anything about that theory, but the ratio is within 1% of: sqrt(2)*137 (fine structure constant = 1/137.036...). That's the best that can be expected, since the best I could estimate the 53 AU distance from JD Anderson's article, was 1% accuracy (the fluctuations in Pioneer 10's speed occurred over considerable time, and I just eyeballed the average). Also accounting for Earth's orbital eccentricity might involve another 1% difference. So there might (or might not) be a connection with the fine structure constant.

Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 01 Feb 2007 :  12:04:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Larry Burford

...the 53 AU distance, based on observational evidence that can be interpreted as something like a refraction event at that distance.



I agree. As you say, it's "something like" refraction, but not refraction in the usual sense. The distance is defined by the cluster of unexplained apparent speed variations of Pioneer 10 according to JD Anderson's article which was cited in my 2002 "Aircraft Engineering & Aerospace Technology" article.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 72  Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated © © 2002-? Meta Research Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.27 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03