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
Previous Page | Next Page
Author  Topic Next Topic
Page: of 72

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 24 Jun 2008 :  16:54:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat

Hi Joe, over in cosmicsurfers thread I give a link to the papers by Consoli, where he re examines all of the aether drift experiments. There's definitely something there, worthy of investigation. I do think though that its unfortunate that this is seen as some sort of slight breeze. It looks as though there's a slight anisotropy in light speed for the vacuum, about 3.45E-9 metres but a larger figure for air, about 72 metres. An entrained aether bubble round any mass object, drops the speed of the aether wind to very low values, depending on the refractive index of the material through which the light of the interferometer passes.

So rather than thinking of it as a breeze, perhaps we should think of it as a very peculiar windshield glass. Using my speed of gravity, where c^2 / b^2 = h (where b is the speed of gravity.) I had to find a scaling factor to fit the measured aether drift, it turned out that the fine structure constant was the best fit.

I'm still trying to make sense of it. The implication is that a diamagnetic material lets say, will have a different "awareness" of its motion than a paramagnetic material. Hmm, pretty bizarre.



Excellent post! Thanks for putting it on this thread!
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 24 Jun 2008 :  17:09:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by cosmicsurfer

Hi Joe and Stoat, In measuring h with a "moving-coil watt balance," electric current generates egual balanced upward motion of magnetic pressures against the downward motion of gravity. What if bulk charge at 4D scale levels much like a stretched rubber band is the graviton negative charged bec from bare electrons that emit virtual photon/positron/electron pairs, while the return wave of antigraviton bulk 4d scale charge is paired with forward motion of positive space. This looped current is conducted across 4D space instantaneously between the positive and negative regions forming the energy carrier wave between bare electrons and bare positrons. It is a chicken or egg scenario which came first? The fact that electric current generates opposing gravito-magnetic forces in the "moving-coil watt balance," in measuring h it is obvious that the two forces are entwined. John



Thanks for posting this. If Barbarossa exists, it is to a first approximation the sun's lone "planet". Most main-sequence stars show a rough proportionality of mass and radius, so, the potential gravitational energy at a main-sequence star's surface is roughly a constant of nature, and of course magnetic phenomena occur on stellar surfaces. Maybe these phenomena could arise from your theory.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 25 Jun 2008 :  03:03:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Joe, I worked out this speed of gravity from the electromagnetic/gravitational couple. I reasoned that there had to be something pretty important about the ratio of the speed of light to the speed of gravity. It took me weeks to discover that the ratio of the squares was equal to h.

Try that speed of gravity in place of c in e = mc^2 The gravitational energy is the same number as the electromagnetic frequency of the mass!

The electromagnetic Lorentzian 1- v^2 / c^2 and the gravitational Lorentzian
1 - c^2 / b^2 are proportionate. The number one in the first equation is c^2 / c^2 and in the second b^2 / b^2 but I think its safe to assume that we are looking for a one to one correspondence here.

I've been trying to think about the aether drift problem in a way thats comprehensible. I thought of it in Star Trek terms. Scotty has to give his annual lecture at the fleet academy. A cadet asks why the inertial dampers aren't perfect. So Scotty calls up an image of his great granddad, who happened to be a chief engineer on a Royal Navy warship.

The image shows a bunch of officers all wearing ear protectors. Scotty then gets the replicator to magic up a pair. He pulls them apart to show a series of foam layers of differing densities. He points out that these layers preferentially knock out certain frequencies but allow the officers to talk to each other.

He then sets the cadets some home work. He asks them to wear a pair of these ear protectors while they look at the famous null result of the MM experiment. Its actually an unexpected result, rather than a null.

The layers in ear protectors are colloids, and this suggests to me that any mass has an atmosphere of its own "space," with an inverse fourth power fall off. A multi layered colloid in keeping with Planck's idea of pairs of resonating particles, that make up the entrained aether. It so happens, that I dont think we need pairs but we have to think of any particle having a dual character.

(Edited) a slight error with that previous post. For air I've given a figure of about, the speed of light plus or minus 72 metres per second. Then I've given the figure for a lab vacuum in terms of a metre run, rather than a run of 2.99792458E 08 metres. So change that 72 to 4.33264313473E-09 for a metre run.

Now I think that for the spatial vacuum pi metres per second might well be important. Putting that in I get a figure of 8.24874107849E-12 metres per metre run.

I did e mail that italian guy to ask if anyone had tried to construct a slow light interferometer. The crystal might only be a centimetre long but to slowed light the interferometer arms would be any size you like.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 27 Jun 2008 :  04:35:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thinking a bit more about this. We seem to have two sorts of refractive index. An electromagnetic one and a gravitational one. The electromagnetic one.
v^2/ c^2 = 1 /eta^2
In the case of the vacuum,
c^2 / c^2 = 1
The gravitational refractive index is going to be
c^2 / b^2 = 1 / eta^2 = 3.88482813146E 16
(This would differ a good deal if we say that the speed of gravity is 20 billion times c. This is based on my estimate of a speed of gravity of 1.16464217444E 25 metres per second)

To work out an aether drift we take the electromagnetic refractive index of something and multiply it by the fine structure constant, then half that. We get a result in kilometres per second.

Lets take an electron of Compton wavelength radius and stop it stone dead. That will give us an aether drift of minus infinity. But thats an electron with absolutely no angular momentum. I would argue that an electron, at its edge has an angular momentum of h and an angular velocity of c. So, lets stop our electron but allow it to spin. Then we get the speed of light, plus or minus, 1.18E-169 metres per second. Thats down to the leading edge and the trailing edge.

Whats changing in terms of the fine structure constant? My best guess at the moment, is that its the permitivity constant (its not constant) Water and ice for instance will have differing permitivity values, because of their very structure.

As we are looking at refractive index changes, we are looking at changes in wavelength, frequency doesnt change after all. That suggests that frequency and permeability stay the same.

Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 03 Jul 2008 :  04:18:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Joe, lets assume that aether drift is real. Our solar system is moving in the direction of Vega, at about 208 km/s. The other much studied object in that region is the ring nebula. For much of the solar system's journey, we have been moving in the direction of a gas cloud that formed Vega. Its less than half a billion years old.

Is there anything odd about it, that could be explained by an assumed aether drift? I think we have to write off some things as being simply coincidences. Vega was once our pole star, and its pole points almost directly at us.

It's spinning very fast. 93% of its allowed velocity, much more and it would rip apart. So there's gravitational darkening, its hotter at the poles than at the equator. That might be worth taking a look at in terms of aether drift.

It has a very low metalicity. That means it's short of all elements above helium, and not just metals. That could mean that those elements are there but arent showing up, or that Vega formed from a cloud of gas that was low in everything but hydrogen. That might be worth looking at. This has to be the same cloud of dust that formed our sun. Why did the late comer Vega, get such a low metal ratio?

On that refractive index times the fine structure constant thing from my previous post, that has to be wrong, I'm missing something there. I'll have to kick the equations round to make a table of converted refracted indices. My first thoughts are that the r.i. of the vacuum is not quite one.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 03 Jul 2008 :  22:57:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat

Hi Joe, lets assume that aether drift is real. Our solar system is moving in the direction of Vega, at about 208 km/s. ...and its pole points almost directly at us.



Hold that thought! Dayton Miller remarked that the angular momentum vector of our solar system (approximately, that of any of the planets' orbits, or of the sun's rotation) differs only 6deg from Miller's best (i.e., Mt. Wilson) ether drift determination. A few years ago I found that, contrary to some published claims, the orbital axes of binary stars are significantly nonrandom when considered as a function of position on the celestial sphere.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 04 Jul 2008 :  02:26:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Joe, interesting that, Vega's pole points almost directly at us, as I said, five degrees of tilt. So do you think what I remarked on as merely coincidence is something more? Our moving makes the dust cloud that became Vega have its axis pointing at us?

(Edited) Perhaps our solar system dumped its angular momentum into the cloud that was to become Vega. That could explain why Vega is close to actually tearing itself apart. Is there another star in the southern hemisphere? Dayton Miller did think we were moving in that direction and did name a star but I can't for the life of me remember what it was called.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 05 Jul 2008 :  04:37:21  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I thought I'd put up an image of our solar system heading toward Vega. On the right can be seen the rough position of Joe's planet Barbarossa but I'd stuck it into "Stars in your Backyard" as Nemesis. The image is still good to give people an idea of just how far out this planet is.

I suppose we have to think of how angular momentum is dumped from a "failed" binary system. It cannot be a gradual process, Sudden periodic energy impulses. Transferred to the cloud that would become Vega, It spins up and throws off its heavier content. Then it takes a long time to slow down enough to let star formation kick in.

Now that seems to work with electromagnetic angular momentum transfer but but what about gravitational transfer? Aether particles in Vega's gas cloud are going to be affected by a near instantaneous force. They have to wait years for the electromagnetic angular momentum to arrive.

Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 07 Jul 2008 :  07:13:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I get 1.000000007717000698 for the refractive index of the vacuum.

(Edited) I think what's interesting about this, is that if we pushed the speed of gavity upward, then refractive indexes would bunch up together. WE wouldn't see any aether drift. Conversely, lower the speed of gravity towards that of light and it would be obvious that we are moving through an aether.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 08 Jul 2008 :  22:28:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat

I thought I'd put up an image of our solar system heading toward Vega. On the right can be seen the rough position of Joe's planet Barbarossa...


Thanks for these posts, and for this beautiful chart!
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 08 Jul 2008 :  22:54:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
As Barbarossa shepherds J:S, so the outer planets once shepherded E:M & V:E?


Above, I've attributed the J:S=5:2 orbital resonance discrepancy, to shepherding by Barbarossa. Two other planetary orbital small-integer near-resonances, originally could have been shepherded by one and the same planet near Jupiter's orbit.

The Venus:Earth=5:3 orbital near-resonance, has two resonance points which progress around the ecliptic in 16.40 yr (my data are from an astronomy text published c. 1980). The Earth:Mars=2:1 near-resonance, progresses in 15.81 yr. In the early solar system, these might have been exactly synchronous and shepherded by a planet with period ~16 yr.

Jupiter's period is ~12 yr, but if Saturn once was Jupiter's moon, their period, assuming no gain or loss of energy, would have been ~14 yr. Including Uranus & Neptune in the menage would give ~15 yr. If other members, adding to a few Earth masses, eventually became Edgeworth-Kuiper objects or left the solar system, the result could be exact.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 09 Jul 2008 :  05:26:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Joe, I suppose that this will depend to some extent on how we see the planets forming in the first place. I still like the ideas of Lytleton, that Mercury spins out of a proto Venus, Mars from a proto Earth and Saturn from a proto Jupiter. The most popular view now seems to be that of cataclysmic collisions between proto planets.

On the question of Aether drift, may I ask you a question, as you are much better at maths than I am? Weve got a speed of gravity that is much much greater than the speed of light. We can write it as 1 - h it struck me that it would be a rather interesting cubic equation (1 - h)^3 but I dont want to do it, as cubic equations are horrible animals. Can I get away with saying that this is the distance per second but look at it as the distance over two seconds? That way I can say Ive got very nearly a cube of eight units, minus a very very small amount. So roots of 2, and
(-1+ sqrt (-3)) and (-1- sqrt (-3)) or tidied up a bit (-1 + 1.7321i) and (-1 - 1.7321i)
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 09 Jul 2008 :  10:50:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat

...cubic equation (1 - h)^3 ...


When I took undergraduate statistical mechanics from Dr. Wendell Furry at Harvard, my classmates told me that Furry had testified in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee. I went to Widener Library and looked up his testimony down in the dungeonlike "stacks". As I read Furry's testimony, Furry seemed to have no fear of them at all, had refused compliance or contradicted them with utter impunity. Of course anyone else is invited to read Furry's public-record testimony and disagree with my assessment if they wish.

That was when I realized that maybe McCarthyism was only some kind of show or sham, that McCarthy might have been a mere dupe. A lot of Hollywood actors moaned and groaned about McCarthyism for decades, when really, being asked to appear in front of the Committee, made them heroes of the Left and was the best thing that ever happened to some of those mediocrities. "Oh, his career was ruined, he 'had to' go back to France and make movies there instead for a few years."

I say, "asked to appear", because, contrary to what some lawyers say, Congress isn't a court and has no power to subpoena anybody. That's called "separation of powers". Bills of attainder, i.e., laws saying, "Enacted by Congress: Joe Keller is a communist/ failed to tell us what he should have told us/ whatever/ and shall be punished" are explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. There's no such thing as "contempt of Congress" unless one is an officer of the Executive Branch obligated to enforce their laws. The only way to punish anybody lawfully in the U.S., is to take them to court. If Congress wants me to testify about Communism or anything else, they can sue me.

Thanks to Furry, I understand the concept of "units" as well as "tensors". "Units" and "tensors" are basically the same thing. In both cases, some numerical equations must hold true no matter what the "units of measurement" or "transformation of coordinates". For example, if I say, "beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2)", that's not a tensor equation; it holds true only in units of measurement for which c=1. On the other hand, if I say, "beta=1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)", that's a tensor equation, or put another way, "the units cancel". It holds true no matter what my units of measurement are.

"Units" can be a guide to which equations might or might not be universally true. Einstein used this concept a lot when he sought tensor equations describing gravity. It seems to me that this concept might find application in Mr. Turner's work as it progresses.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 09 Jul 2008 :  18:48:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
(duplicate posted to "Planetary Science...Origin of Solar System...Is the Sun a Binary?" thread, because the search feature currently misses most of my posts, and I want to ensure that I and others can find this one)


quote:
["Nemesis", previous page] This leaves an object that is massive but emits very little electromagnetic radiation.


Dr. Van Flandern response: That is rather contradictory. Massive implies hot, and hot implies radiating abundantly.

quote:
["Nemesis"] Possible candidates could be a brown dwarf, or a collapsed object like a neutron star, a supernova remnant. I favor the latter possibility myself.


Dr. TVF: Doesn't that require that the Sun had a companion that went supernova? That would have wiped out the planets and changed the Sun drastically from a normal G-type star.

quote:
["Nemesis"] The best way to detect it may be through occultation of background stars. This latter method may be the only way to pick up a collapsed object, or maybe gravitational lensing of background objects.


Dr. TVF: The gravitational lensing should indeed be strong and evident. But the whole sky has been surveyed many times, which is how we get proper motions of stars. And region where gravitational lensing was going on would distort all the proper motions in that vicinity. No such region has been seen. So no dark companion with significant gravity exists. (par.) There is now yet another direct test for this, one that I also mentioned to Cruttenden. Pulsar timings allow us to detect any unknown accelerations of the Sun's motion through space, because they would displace the Earth a bit closer to pulsars in some direction, but farther away from pulsars in the opposite direction. So the arrival times of pulsar signals would be changed by a certain predictable pattern across the sky. This has long been known as a test for the possible existence of undiscovered planets of significant mass. No such displacement signal is seen, meaning the Sun is not undergoing any significant acceleration from an unknown cause. -|Tom|-


Joe Keller's comment:

A more detailed version of the following information, was posted piecemeal, subsequent to the above 2006 post by Dr. Van Flandern, by me on the "Requiem for Relativity" thread.

The last statement, about pulsar timing, especially refers to the Oct. 2005 article of Zakamska & Tremaine of Princeton, which to my knowledge has not been superseded in accuracy. They claimed only the ability to detect a Jupiter at 200 AU (or a solar mass at 200*sqrt(1000)=6000AU=0.1 light year). These authors mixed nonparametric and parametric statistics, which might have caused them to overestimate the sensitivity of their test. Also, my own investigation has revealed that millisecond pulsars (commonly a kiloparsec distant, and who knows what is really happening in the vast intervening space?) show a median Pdot/P which happens to equal the Hubble constant. This peculiar and unexplained coincidence of Pdot/P with the so-called "Hubble expansion", casts doubt on the simple model of acceleration which underlies Zakamska and Tremaine's conclusion.

Regarding gravitational lensing, Gaudi & Bloom, Astrophysical Journal 635:711+, Dec. 2005, state in their abstract:

"...Gaia (launch date 2011). A Jupiter-mass object at 2000 AU is detectable by Gaia over the whole sky above 5 sigma, with even stronger constraints if it lies near the ecliptic plane. ..."

Until now I've omitted microlensing from my Barbarossa discussion, because I saw this article. Here is a claim that sometime after 2011, a planned satellite better than Hipparcos *will be* able to detect a Jupiter at 2000AU. Surely Gaia will exceed Hipparcos not only in accuracy but in the number of stars observed; and Hipparcos exceeded ground-based astrometry in accuracy. I haven't yet found any article claiming that Hipparcos has ruled out a companion of any mass at any distance in any part of the sky (if anyone knows of one, please tell me!).

Good point about the supernova remnant, Dr. Van Flandern!

Regarding mass and temperature, the state of the art (1990s) calculation in the mainstream literature, is that a 4.6 billion yr old brown dwarf is roughly the same temperature whether it is slightly above or slightly below the critical mass for (brief) nuclear reaction ignition. The present temperature of the brown dwarf is very sensitive to the (very small) theoretical thermal conductivity of the degenerate matter. However, in 4.6 billion years, there's a lot that can go wrong with a theoretical model of bulk physical properties, untestable in the lab. Unexpected mechanisms of convection might occur; or, gravitational energy might be deposited mainly on the surface, not the interior, to begin with, depending on the mechanism of accretion.

Dr. Van Flandern, I'd like to work for Mr. Cruttenden!
Go to Top of Page

nemesis

84 Posts

Posted - 09 Jul 2008 :  22:19:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Joe, in that original thread I remember commenting I wasn't so certain a supernova explosion hundreds or thousands of AUs from the sun would have had such a drastic effect. This would have been very early in the solar system's history, with no life yet (it would certainly have an adverse effect now!) Far from "wiping out" the planets it my have stabilized the young solar system by sweeping it clear of dust and gas. I don't know enough about stellar evolution to comment on it affecting the sun's evolution from a normal G-star.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2008 :  20:48:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
More about gravitational lensing

An Astronomical Almanac says a star in quadrature with the sun, has its position altered gravitationally 0.004". So, starlight grazing Barbarossa (~0.01 solar masses) at 1AU distance (equivalent to ~15' at 200AU) has its position altered 2*0.004"*0.01 = 80 microarcsec. Grazing Barbarossa at 1 solar radius (equivalent to ~5" at 200AU) would give the famous 1.8" * 0.01 = 18 milliarcsec. The former is equivalent to stellar parallax at 12kpc, but the latter is equivalent to parallax at 50pc, and could be measured from the ground, though it would be more difficult than a parallax, because only one night's observation would be obtainable.

Alas, only 2*5/200000*360/40000 = 0.5/10^6 of the sky is within 5" of Barbarossa's entire track, which would be only 0.5 star in the "million star" 11th mag printed catalog, or 0.05 Hipparcos star. Only ~ 0.5/10^6/2780 = 0.2/10^9 of the sky would pass within 5" of Barbarossa *each year*, which would be only 0.2 star in the USNO-B 21st mag billion star catalog. Only rarely would stars as bright as Barbarossa itself, pass near enough Barbarossa to measure gravitational refraction with ground telescopes; and, then, why not look at Barbarossa itself instead?
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2008 :  22:27:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
In Defense of Cruttenden

Howard Carter's "Tomb of Tut" (vols. 1-2, 1923; vol. 3, 1933) was co-authored with "A. C. Mace", which according to ISU's library catalog was the pseudonym of Arthur Cruttenden. Apparently Walter Cruttenden comes from a line of Egyptologists. Mommsen championed the use of monument and inscription data in Roman history. Newcomb, Eckert, Brouwer, Clemence, and Rawlins all carefully studied Lalande's 18th century Neptune positions; Cruttenden, like Mommsen, takes this beyond old papers, to even older stones.

According to Heiskanen & Moritz' "Physical Geodesy" (Freeman, 1967) Sec. 9.6, pp. 349-350, Helmert in 1884 already had determined Earth's quadrupole ("J2") to 0.4% accuracy by considering its torque on the moon's orbit. Essentially repeating Helmert's work with artificial satellites, improved this accuracy to 0.02% or better, already by 1966. Various orbiters now have done similarly for Mars.

Earth's orbit around the sun precesses only 0.1"/yr (Mars' orbit, only a little more)(vs. 20deg/yr for the moon's orbit around the Earth) and almost all of that 0.1", is due to the planets. So, it's impossible to measure directly how much Earth's rotation is torquing Earth's orbit; i.e., how much Earth's orbit really is torquing Earth's rotation, assuming only Newton's third law of motion. However, the measured precessions of Earth and Mars (for Mars, see Edvardsson & Karlsson, AJ 135:1151+, 2008; Bouquillon & Souchay, A&A 345:282+, 1999) conform accurately to Newton's law of gravity, given the quadrupole values measured with satellites.

Cruttenden's first, astronomical, thesis is basically that the sun has a massive, distant, undetected companion. Cruttenden's second, physical, thesis is basically that the phenomenon of planetary precession is yet improperly explained. All I've written above on this messageboard, about a planet Barbarossa near 200 AU, could be used to defend Cruttenden's first thesis. In the remainder of this message, I make four lines of defense for Cruttenden's second thesis:

1. Bouquillon & Souchay, 1999, Table 5, p. 294, say Mars' J2 = 1964/10^6 (IAU value). This is 81% more than Earth's J2 = 1082.63/10^6, as published, inter alia, in Bomford's Geodesy, 4th ed., p. 418. Earth is only 40% denser than Mars; their days are practically equal. In the homogeneous case, Mars' J2 should be only 40% greater than Earth's. The case of a small dense core, gives the same J2 as the homogeneous case. Mars' J2 seems to me to be too big to be consistent with Newton's laws. Even Earth's J2 is suspiciously near the "hydrodynamic" (ball of water, or ball of sand) upper limit, and Mars seems to me to exceed that limit.

Maybe an extra precession, w2, equal for all planets, is imposed externally. If Mars' J2 were, as I calculate it should be, only 1.4x Earth's, then solar (for Mars) and lunisolar (for Earth) precession would impose, I calculate, 15x more precession on Earth than on Mars; call these precessions 15*w1 & w1 for Earth & Mars, resp. Solve the system

15*w1 + w2 = 50288mas/yr
w1 + w2 = 7576mas/yr
(Mars precession from Folkner et al, Science 278:1749+, 1997)

to find w2=4525mas/yr. Perhaps reversing the usual cause and effect, J2 then alters, to that consistent, via Newton's laws, with the total precession. This extra precession corresponds to a period, for the entire solar system, of 286,400 yr, a circular orbit of 4345AU = 0.07 lightyear (somewhat closer than the Type M7 Proxima Centauri is, to its companions), with solar gravitation at that distance, 3.18/10^8 cm/s/s. Mars' orbit is about a degree from the principal plane of the solar system, so suppose w1 & w2 differ in direction by a degree. Then w2 changes Mars' obliquity by as much as 4525*sin(25)*sin(1)=33mas/yr. Folkner (1997) thought the true confidence interval for Mars' obliquity change, is [-15,+17] mas/yr, i.e., 5 sigma, vs. the statistical confidence interval 1 +/- 3 mas/yr. The relative positions of the solar system's principal plane, Mars' orbit, and Mars' axis, multiply 33mas/yr by a sine not quite small enough to bring it into Folkner's confidence interval.

2. Jupiter, Venus, and Mercury have axes nearly perpendicular to their orbits (Mercury & Venus have slow spin-orbit locked rotation). Earth, Mars, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus have greatly tilted axes. As seen from the sun, Mercury's mean angular diameter is slightly less than Earth's; but it is Mercury, Venus, and Jupiter, which have the largest angular diameters at perihelion. Here might be a form of gravity quantization: perhaps the sun "sees" the quadrupole of planets differently, when they subtend small angles. This could affect precession.

3. The coordinates of the planets' poles are found in, inter alia, the 1984 American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac, p. E87. Uranus, Neptune, & Mars cluster between RA 295 & 318, while Saturn is only 6deg from Earth's pole, and these five lie approximately on a smooth curve. Not only are four planetary tilts curiously similar in magnitude; the spin angular momentum vectors of these planets plus Uranus cluster on a curve (while the other three large planets cluster at the ecliptic pole).

The five planets' spins make what NMR spectroscopists call the "magic angle" ( arccos(1/sqrt(3))=54.7deg ) with WW Campbell's approximate compromise solar apex motion vector (still called the "standard apex" as late as 2003; Drobitko & Vityazev, Astrophysics 46:224+, p. 229, 2003). At the bottom of the curve, Uranus' spin is 51deg from Campbell's apex (RA 270 Decl +30). At the top of the curve, Earth & Saturn are 60 & 63deg, resp. Mars is ~ 43deg. Most solar apex determinations find RA < 270 and Decl > 30, which equalizes the distances even more. Intermittent torque around the solar apex axis might maintain this configuration.

4. The ~ 300,000 yr presumed common precession period, might be the rotation period of an ether island or sphere, like a clear ball of jello centered on the sun, orbiting some body so that its same face always is toward it; or it might rotate in the absence of any such body. A stress in the ether, causing an extra force proportional to 1/sqrt(r), could compensate so that the orbital periods of the planets suffer no net effect.

*********

Mars has the same day as Earth, perhaps because Mars was, until geologically recently, Earth's distant moon. Maybe Luna was a moon of Mars and got cratered by asteroids on the side away from Mars. When Earth lost Mars, Earth took Luna but flipped it sunny side down, so we see the maria. Until the recent Earth/Mars separation, Luna wasn't close enough to Mars or Earth, to change their days much.

The Earth/Mars separation is geologically recent enough that Luna hasn't had time to slow Earth much. The date of the separation can be determined from when Mars froze. Maybe synchronized orbital pumping by Jupiter did it. Maybe benevolent ETs foresaw that primates would wreck Earth, so they put the spare (Mars) in the deep freeze, with our name on it in the form of monuments, so we couldn't reach it until we matured. Cydonia looks like a Planet of the Apes face because that was ET's best guess a few million years ago, or maybe ET was betting on the Planet of the Apes scenario after Homo "sapiens" fails, due to tampering with the nucleus of the atom, or tampering with the nucleus of the cell.

The Jacobi limits of Earth and Mars are just big enough for the foregoing model. It helps a lot, that tidal forces drop off as the cube of distance.

"[Q] values in the range from 10 to 500 are found for the terrestrial planets and satellites of the major planets. On the other hand, Q for the major planets is always larger than 6*10^4."

- Goldreich & Soter, Icarus 5:375, 1966
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1813 Posts

Posted - 11 Jul 2008 :  13:03:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
JK, It might be helpfuf to slow down and look at some of the details in more depth. One of many details that jump out is the precession of the moon being 20 degrees per year. The moon orbits the earth 12.5 times during that period of time and the precession is slower or faster for each of the 12.5 orbits by a lot. How would you explain that observation? In the current dominate belief system it is said the moon is moving away from the Earth at an acceleration rate equal to the mystery motion observed at Pioneer and else where. The sun should show a red shift from two forces, acceleration and gravity. Lots of stuff makes no sense at all.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 13 Jul 2008 :  16:47:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Matese et al, IAU Symposium #229, 2006, calculate that the orbit of Sedna is anomalous according to present knowledge, but could result from an undiscovered Neptune-mass perturbing planet at 2000 AU or nearer. Thanks to the person who reminded me of this!
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1813 Posts

Posted - 14 Jul 2008 :  17:39:50  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
One new idea that might muck up your detailed calculations is the stuff from supernova events. Its not known how much stuff is ejected from a SN event or where it goes but some of that stuff must come our way-don't you think? For every SN event since the get go of the galaxy a very tiny part must have come toward the sun and or coming our way. That stuff would arrive millions or billion of years after the SN event and would better explain comets, meteors and other messy bits that cause problems for modelers. You can only gloss over so much detail by careful calculation and invention. But, why do that when SN events can be part of the cause?
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 72  Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | 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 2.33 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03