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

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 02 Dec 2008 :  08:49:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Jim, it's not the case that there's the universe and then there is us. The universe by definition is all that there is. Life is a part of it, and life, if it's to survive, needs to learn any possible rules. Actually those rules are embodied in life itself.

A chimp might pick up a twig and get ants from a log, tool use. An aardvark does the same but with its tongue, and that's obviously not tool use. Use of a tool calls for abstract thought but the actual tool is still something from the environment.

The next step up, something emerging from complex biological structures, is the abstract tool. One to one correspondence. In effect our chimp says to its apprentice chips, get your own twig! Getting chimps to understand that the first twig is not some magic twig, takes a long time. The first chimp hasn't thought, oh I can use any similar twig, it probably thinks that it has the one and only magic twig. It's theirs though, and it's not going to part with it.

Lots of quite vicious fights at first but eventually the group learn the new technique and the survivability of the group gives them an advantage. Our clever chimp then learns a new trick. As a teacher its group status has risen. It gestures at a hole in an ant hill and another chimp does the work of getting the ants out. That's a tool, it's as much of a tool as a shifting spanner. This group of chimps have become a society of chimps. Cultural pressure, as an abstract tool, forces the dependance of the group into ever more complex tool use. I suppose we will have to divide thing up into abstract and concrete tool use, and further into implicit and explicit conceptual use. The first machine is the new dynamic of a learnt and shared co-operative survival strategy.

Jump forward in time, next to flint quarries are found balls of indented clay. Inside of them are found other balls of clay. These are contracts! The concept of one to one correspondence has made giant leaps forward. These people are as clever as we are. It can't be said however, that as yet, they have a number concept but they are well on the way to inventing one.

To cut a long story short, our mathematical number concepts are far more explicit than the people's of the past but its the same maths. A maths firmly rooted in sheer survival value. A maths furthermore that's rooted in cultural pressure. The upshot of that is, we get calculus when society has a pressing need for it and not before. We get new theories whenever there's a cultural paradigm shift. We are members of a society first and scientists/mathematicians second. Einstein lived in an epoch of cultural relativistic crisis, emerging global players needed a new concept of international law.

Back to the maths. Hop in a time machine and show Newton the lorentzian. He would recognise it as the equation of an ellipse. If you had written it as 1 - 1 / eta with eta being a very large number, he might have said, oh let's think of that as an exponential compound interest problem. He believed that the speed of gravity was instantaneous, he solves the problem of true compound interest being e, yet he cannot connect the dots.

As soon as we allow for the idea that gravity is faster than light and that we can have such a thing as negative refractive index, then the lorentzian looks as though it bears some relationship to the zeta functions of Riemann. We have a phase transition at the speed of light with a wave that can take on a neg r.i. The phase velocity; which could always go faster than light; suddenly switches into a group velocity and vis versa. We get two anti parallel waves, one goes leftwards slowly the other goes rightwards quickly, and vis versa.

Can we think of Le Sage shadows as wave guides? For the Earth and the Sun, we have a tapered tube which is tiny at the Shwartzchild radius of the earth and comparatively tiny at the centre of the sun. Can such a thing carry a wave that carries information? I would argue that it can. A decoherent signal can be reconstituted.

An exponential gravitational wave then, that carries the electromagnetic wave with it. Would the Riemann harmonics, which carry quantum information, be the factor that decodes such a wave? Our exponential curve now has steps in it. The steps become more and more accurate in terms of Gauss' dice the further we go along the line. A pattern of prime numbers, billions of light years distant, can then influence local quantum states. Pretty wild but I dont see anything wrong with the logic as yet.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 03 Dec 2008 :  22:44:26  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The asteroid belt lies mainly between 2.1 & 3.3 AU. These radii correspond to the 4:1 and 2:1 orbital resonances with Jupiter. The 2:1 resonance seems a likely explanation for the outer, 3.3 AU, boundary. On the other hand, it's not obvious that the 4:1 resonance (rather than the 5:2, 3:1, or 5:1) should be the inner boundary.

Barbarossa's existence, combined with an ether theory, would give an alternative explanation, for the inner asteroid belt boundary at approx. 2.1 AU. With my estimates of approx. 0.0105 solar mass for the Barbarossa system at approx. 200 AU distance, the c.o.m. of the solar system lies approx. 2.1 AU from the sun.

A vortex of force at the solar system's c.o.m., significant for small objects, might have prevented planetary condensation in the asteroid belt (Bode's law --> planet at 2.8 AU). It might also be favorable for the orbits of small objects to have the solar system c.o.m. in their interior (positive "winding number").

In the 19th century, the Astronomical Journal published many asteroid observations, often with ~10 data points for one asteroid. Mostly these are northerly oppositions; most of the long series are from before the U. S. Civil War (War Between the States). The Astronomische Nachrichten published many long series of asteroid observations too, often from South America; most of these are from before World War I.

At Drake Univ. in Des Moines, I found two sets of observations of (9)Metis in 1851, 21 by Graham (who discovered Metis in 1848) and 22 by Ferguson of the USNO (AJ 2:12-13, 2:43-44). Ferguson says he corrected for parallax (i.e., his positions are geocentric) and for atmospheric refraction. Graham also says he corrected for parallax. Presumably Graham corrected for refraction (considering his precision). Graham gives Observed minus Calculated values too.

In these observations, Metis' longitude is near Barbarossa's. Metis and Earth had equal heliocentric longitude (Metis' fastest retrograde motion in geocentric RA) in early February. Barbarossa and Metis would have had equal heliocentric longitude in March.

Metis' perihelion is 2.10 AU, at longitude 74. Its eccentricity is only 0.12; and its inclination only 5.6deg.

Graham's Obs. minus Calc., in both RA and Decl, show Metis lagged significantly in geocentric ecliptic longitude (ecliptic latitude was unaffected) in March. Ferguson's data corroborate this.

Ferguson's March 1 & 2 points are invalid, because his article contradicts itself, regarding the catalog number of the comparison star. The Declination is 15 or 30 arcseconds off, for these two; maybe the wrong comparison star was chosen because its RA (but not Decl) equalled that of the correct star.

Comparing 3rd and 4th degree Lagrangian interpolation, I'm confident that I know Graham's "Calculated" accurately for five of Ferguson's points. For three other Ferguson points, there was enough difference between the 3rd & 4th degree interpolations in RA and/or Decl, to make the 4th degree interpolation doubtful; one of these was an extrapolation.

Ferguson's remaining five useful points within the interval of Graham's observations, show a consistently greater ecliptic longitude than Graham's. However, these points of Ferguson's, do corroborate the March lag in Metis' longitude.

I added a constant adjustment to Ferguson's RA and Decl, so that his five useful points would have, on average, the same Obs-Calc as the immediately following or preceding Graham points. I also added small corrections (<1%) for perspective, to all Obs-Calc values.

Then I found the vertex time, for the parabola in time, correlating best with any linear combination of RA & Decl Obs-Calc for the 21+5=26 time points. The best correlation was 0.49, i.e. 2.57 sigma, p=1.0% 2-tailed. Metis' orbit is inclined approx. 15.25deg counterclockwise (ccl) to the positive celestial equator in the observed region; the best correlation is a lag away from the direction 8.3deg ccl to the celestial equator. The maximum lag is March 24.2 (counting March 24.0 as noon), which happens to be the time of Metis' stationarity.

A kind of 90% confidence point, occurs 31 days retrograde (equivalent to 8deg of Metis' orbit) where the statistical significance of the correlation coefficient is p=10%. There was essentially no confidence point prograde, because the correlation coefficient decreased only slightly.

By Lagrange polynomial, I extrapolated the coordinates of the Barbarossa system's c.o.m., from the 1954, 1986, and 2007 photos. Remarkably, Metis' ecliptic longitude at the best-correlated time vertex, differs only 0.15deg from Metis' longitude at closest approach to the solar system's c.o.m. point, assumed to be 2.1 AU from the sun and with the same heliocentric coordinates as Barbarossa. My calculations considered orbital eccentricities and inclinations, to first order or better. Jupiter can alter this c.o.m. longitude as much as 0.14deg, but considering their positions, Jupiter & Saturn affected the c.o.m. longitude by + and - 0.07deg, resp.

So, there was an anomalous apparent rearward displacement of Metis, by a few arcsec (i.e., a few thousand miles) when Metis passed just outside the solar system's center of gravity (assuming Barbarossa's existence). The time of maximum displacement corresponded to a longitude only 0.15deg from Metis' closest approach to the solar system's center of mass.

The Astronomische Nachrichten 186(4450):147,152 at Drake Univ., contain analogous 1910 South American data for (71)Niobe, but for only three weeks, vs. four months for Metis. For Niobe's displacement, the correlation with a parabola in time, is much more significant statistically, but the direction is perpendicular to the orbit, and the longitude of maximum displacement differs 10deg from Barbarossa's. Niobe's time of maximum displacement lies in a statistical interval of only a few days, near Niobe's opposition to Earth.

Niobe passed well behind the theoretical solar system center of mass. Metis passed slightly behind the c.o.m. but well above.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 04 Dec 2008 :  06:26:34  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Joe, I've been thinking about Bode's "law "as well. Is it the case that our solar system is quantised? Let's say that we have an exponential aether that has these odd Riemann bites taken out of it. Then it makes some sort of sense, to me, to think of Bode's "law "as being somehow related to 1 /2 + b i

Now I don't think anybody likes that n = minus infinity for Mercury, let's face it it's a little bit of a cheat. So I thought Id say 1 /2 + 1/ 2 i for the Earth.
sqrt(0.5^2 + 0.5^2) = 0.7071 and the angle is obviously 45 degrees.

The first Riemann harmonic is 14.134725 approximately.
sqrt(025 + 14.134725^2) = 1.41435657041E 01
Now multiply that by 0.707 to get 1.00010112195E 01 Well the Earths orbit isn't one a.u. all the time, so lets call it ten. 10 angle 85.9 degrees.
Go to Top of Page

cosmicsurfer

USA
507 Posts

Posted - 05 Dec 2008 :  04:17:55  Show Profile  Visit cosmicsurfer's Homepage  Send cosmicsurfer a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Hi Stoat, excellent post on gravitational shadowing. I totally agree that the effect certainly casts more than a shadow but allows electromagnetic monitoring of graviton radiations. This is far different than looking for gravity waves, I am talking about an instant communications causing local electromagnetic/radio wave interference and this effect registers with in low frequency electronic devices as white noise. I submit that graviton energy is the cause for CMB radiation and that all background noise is instantaneously influenced by the higher spectrum graviton waves that could be heard for instance from a super nova way before the light waves from the explosion ever reached Earth. John
Go to Top of Page

MarkVitrone

USA
387 Posts

Posted - 07 Dec 2008 :  01:44:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hey Stoat, if Mercury is an escaped moon of another planet or an extra-solar planet that was captured, then Bode's law needn't apply.... just a thought.

Mark
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 07 Dec 2008 :  05:52:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Mark, I suppose this depends on which theory of solar system development you accept. The current favourite is that of catastrophism. Personally I think this smacks of trying to make our solar system something very special, and therefore unlikely to reoccur.

A much bigger Earth is supposed to have been hit by another planet and almost destroyed. This creates the present Earth, Mars and the Moon. Lunacy, excuse the bad pun! Start with bigger planetsbeing formed and as they collapse they spin out smaller planets. Earth , Mars and the Moon are one result, Venus and Mercury another.

So, if we say that the speed of gravity is much, much greater than the speed of light, we can look at the lorentzian in terms of refractive index and get
1 - 1/ infinity, this being the case for Newton's idea of the speed of gravity. Expand it, it's an exponential. But hang about, if it's quantised then we have to draw the exponential curve as a series of vertical lines, each h thick.

One point to make here, if we add the speed of light to the speed of gravity then we are saying, x + dx If we then insist that nothing can go faster than light, we are expanding the lorentzian to simply give us two. Actually that's not bad as an approximation. We would be talking light years to notice the difference. However, they are different curves. I think that we should be talking along the lines of saying that gravity falls off not as an inverse square law but as in the region of 1 / g^2.002 It would be nice if that turned out to be two times the fine structure constant but early days.

Okay, lets now look at the Riemann zeta function. Here we are chopping steps into our exponential curve, which are multiples of h. Any integer is the product of primes and with Riemann we have a solution to Gauss' dice that involves "imaginary" numbers. Looking at the graph, it would strike anyone that's into quantum mechanics that it looks like the profile of an electron's orbit about a proton.

I spent saturday reading John Baez, yep, related to Joan, on 26 dimensional strings, and how they apply to the zeta function. I thought I was going insane for noticing that the zeta function looks horribly like the lorentzian. Especially when John talked about elliptical functions, the lorentzian is an ellipse.

Perhaps it's because they can't have anything going faster than light, or maybe it's because they hate the idea of an aether. But let's suppose that half of the energy of a mass body goes into creating an aether. The sun has its own "space", made up of aether/vacuum particles. Riemann's zeta function simply has to mean that this stuff is a viscolelastic, a non Newtonian liquid. Complex roots are involved, a negative refractive index viscoelastic aether could do some pretty wild stuff. The main one for our talk about Bode's "law", is that we can have quantised regions of space around the sun, which a planet will be created in, or be moved into.

I think we'd have to stress, that such zones, where G varies slightly, would not mean that identical solar systems would be created. It would mean that such zones would exist and would be aids to planetary formation but the distribution of such zones could vary. It may be the case that we are a failed binary star system, and that we should be looking for those.

One possibility here, there is a ion powered rocket in space at the moment, it's doing some grand tour job. Constant thrust means that if it moves through a zone it should have anomalous velocity.

Hi John, suppose we had a cloud of gas and another one a hundred lights years from it. An electron emits a photon, and that has a gravitational information component to it. One electron in the other gas cloud accepts this. Does it take this info and then wait a hundred years for the electromagnetic part of the information signal to arrive? I doubt it, I think that to use a banking analogy, it has a half key code that says it has money in the bank. It then trades with any nearby electron that has the electromagnetic part of the half key. Coded traffic based on a complex prime Riemann zeta function, would look like noise I suppose, to anyone that didn't have the one half key among millions of half keys.

Go to Top of Page

MarkVitrone

USA
387 Posts

Posted - 07 Dec 2008 :  09:56:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Stoat,

Nice response,

I teach the meta model version of earth/lunar consolidation - overspin and the whole lot. There is some evidence to suggest that the earth did get hit by a large planetary body - not that I think that was the cause of the moon. But I was curious if the present orbital calculations could support that hit and if that hit could cause an unbalanced overspin - such a spin I think would be far more likely to shed a molten crustal fragment. Two methods that seem logical would either be just a gross unbalancing of the stable orbit - or a wave of heating so profound that the whole planet were to experience significant melting and then centrifugation of the heaviest elements to the core causing significant overspin and crustal shedding. In either event, evidence should exist in the earth's orbital mechanics to recreate these events in a model - I do not have the math or measurement prowess for that task unfortunately. There should also be physical evidence too. This has puzzled me since reading Dark Matter many years ago. Geologists have assumed that mantle hot spots (the phenomena that caused Hawaii, yellowstone, etc. to form were just hotter spots - no real mechanism for this spot heat is positioned. Seismic data suggests that the mantle is very dense and almost plasticlike in consistency and that there is then a liquid outer core and solid inner core. The nature of the materials in these layers is not really debatable to me since there is no convincing evidence that seems reasonable or testable to me. But if a planetary sized comet (a large fragment from previous planetary explosion perhaps) were to hit the earth, its most dense material would sink to the core level and be amalgamated with earth. The earth's orbit would not like this rapid mass addition and some counter event would have to balance the mass - the equivalent of moving towels around to balance the washing machine.

Consequently, the shock of penetrating the mantle with such large amounts of ferro-magnetic materials could cause heat passage ways and lead to the phenomena of hot spots as we find them today. It may even be possible that the movement of the plates is related to periodic bombardments and mass realignments - put that is pure conjecture.

See what you think...

Mark
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 08 Dec 2008 :  07:59:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Mark, I think there's fashions in solar system modelling. Catastrophism is the model in vogue at the moment, because it looks as though some answers will be forthcoming. People need to keep their hand in, there's grant money up for grabs a few years down the line. I'm not being cynical about it, its simply real politic.

A cosmic billiard game looks sexy on t.v. and it doesn't really commit one to a theory that calls for some regulatory system. The next generation space telescope promises the first pictures of a "proper"solar system. It would never do to have nailed your colours to the mast in terms of some systematic view, if the real data doesn't fit it. Make noises and get noticed now, grab grants later. As I say that's fair enough.

What I think happens is a variant of Tom's views. First let's think a bit about proto planets. We want a model that gives us our six major planets. We leave out Mercury and Mars for now.

In terms of heavier elements the six are much of a muchness. If we could remove the atmosphere of a gas giant we'd end up with an Earth, more or less.

Let's gravitationally collapse a cloud of about one Jupiter mass. Say about 1% heavier element particulates, another 1% heavier elements and the rest hydrogen and helium.

At a certain radius, the collapsing proto planet sheds half of its mass as an equatorial disk. The minor regular satellites will form inside of this radius from the debris. The planet is still contracting however and and at a second critical radius it spits out one body of material, of about one tenth its mass. After that the planet has lost most of its angular momentum. This critical radius has to do with the relative compressibility of the body, for Jupiter its about 1 gramme per cubic centimetre.

However, this depends on the rate of sedimentation of our 2% of heavier elements. These particles can slow as they are moving through lighter material. This in turn depends on just what the angular momentum of the proto planet is.

The upshot of such a model is that we end up with planets of about the right orbital velocity for the proto Earth and proto Jupiter. The Earth then loses its lighter gas envelope due to it being close to the sun.

I'm fairly happy with that. It's a proto Earth that spits out Mars and a lot of little blobs with it, one of which becomes our moon. Venus could have had a moon but because of tidal breaking, its moon crashes down into it. Who knows, that might have been what flipped the planet.

It takes a while for all the excess material of the proto Earth to clear out. There's still piles of junk from the ejection event to really hammer the new Earth and its moon.

Now well shift over to Tom's notion, and where I would modify it a little. The Sun's collapsing in, at the first critical radius it ejects half its mass along the equatorial plane. At the second radius it ejects a percentage of its mass. I would argue that it will be a lot less than 10% due to the fact that, although it has the same percentage composition as Jupiter, tis angular momentum is off the scale and its volume is so much bigger. A ball park figure would be about one hundredth of the Sun's mass.

This thing would, with its little trail of droplets be really shifting but it has to motor through all that mass that was thrown off at the first critical radius. So it slows down and eventually goes into a far orbit, or its flung out completely.

The little droplets are now the starter feed for our proto planets, they can move round the sun and mop up the accretion disk at their leisure.

So back we go to the idea that we could have a quantised space round a star. I have to ask Joe his views on the barycentre of a system which has zones where G could differ slightly.

Anyway, we should know soon enough. That ion rocket is called Dawn. As yet I dont think the motor has fired up. It has to go through some gravitational sling shots to get up to speed, as it has very little thrust. The thing is though, that thrust is constant. If we have a quantised solar system the craft will go off course.
Go to Top of Page

cosmicsurfer

USA
507 Posts

Posted - 08 Dec 2008 :  13:12:41  Show Profile  Visit cosmicsurfer's Homepage  Send cosmicsurfer a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Hi Stoat, I would agree that the electro-magnetic component would accept instantaneous graviton wave functions ontop of the photon stream. Because I believe the magnetic portion of the hidden higher spectrum represents the graviton bandwidth. If everything is caused by a 'flow' of gravitons as a phase conjugated interaction between a forward graviton component and a reverse antigraviton component that causes mass fluctuations to even exist, then we have a virtual communications system. If a super nova event takes place with in the galaxy, that information will be available at an almost instantaneous speed any where else in the galaxy and will cause a ripple in the graviton pond on top of the photon stream as the magnetic component which I think is the part that we can see of the graviton energy. The other part of the graviton energy that we cannot see operates as the greater graviton flow causing mass to exist in the first place---Mass has an outside energy source causing it to exist.

I would also agree that quantization of wave functions exist because the circulations around all objects have above light speed components. Again that is because of a paired phase conjugated exchange taking place at all levels between a graviton forward and antigraviton reverse component. We have a graviton cycle, gravitons are captured, mass fluctuations are part of this process. I think that our solar system most likely is a failed binary star system, that the evidence of catastrophes in our solar system supports an ongoing problem from an entruder. That we have had pole shifts and the most recent event took place around 10,800 B.C. causing the younger dryas. Hapgood suggests that the north pole moved from Hudson Bay to its present location over a 2,000 year period, however evidence suggests from frozen hillocks in Siberia that this event was sudden and catastrophic causing major species extinctions.

Regarding EPH, again the asteroid belt analysis supports from TVF shows that several events took place. I think that we had not only a Fifth planet, but several moons that supported life and one of them was Mars. That the ruins on Mars shows that an advanced humanoid species once existed there, and most likely also had a presence here on Earth in our ancient past. The truth is often stranger than fiction, so yes bodes law does ring true to an extent, and quantization is a function of wave layering around mass---mass exists only because of a greater flow of graviton energy between a forward time component and a reverse time component wave function that is in constant extreme motion. John
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 09 Dec 2008 :  14:40:21  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Today a banker on the U. S. east coast, emailed me his suggestion that Barbarossa's orbit might be such that the solar system c.o.m. approaches planetary orbits and causes rotational and/or magnetic axis instability. He must remain anonymous (his bank isn't broke - yet). Here's my response to him:

"...For the c.o.m. to be at Earth's orbit (1 AU instead of 2 AU), Barbarossa would have to be about half as far from the sun. My best estimate is that Barbarossa's orbit has eccentricity about 0.05, maybe less. Usually, distant brown dwarf companions of other stars, are in low eccentricity orbits, e < 0.2. The minimum eccentricity needed to vary the distance by a factor of two, is the solution of the equation

2 = (1+e)/(1-e)

i.e., e = (2-1)/(2+1) = 0.33.

But, hold the phone! It's often said (e.g., in the refereed journals) that Mars' axis is unstable. Many (e.g., Sir Charles Shults) speculate that occasional Martian axis tilts cause its oceans to melt. Shults was on the George Noory show (a show often, I think, populated by atrocious liars, but which often also uncovers taboo truths like the "wide persistent contrail" mystery) saying that meteor cratering estimates indicate that Mars' latest ocean freezeup was only 5 million yr ago.

With a Barbarossa eccentricity as small as 0.115, the sun-Barbarossa c.o.m. could range from its present distance to Mars' aphelion."
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 09 Dec 2008 :  17:53:17  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Half an hour ago I submitted this to the "Astronomische Nachrichten". First I looked at "Science", but they required my statement that it hasn't been published on the internet (which it essentially has been, on this very messageboard). Then I tried the "Astronomical Journal", but they require an "ms.tex" file, and I'm wary of the Univ. of Chicago anyway. I'll send this to one journal after another and post the list here.


Abstract.

A cold hyperjovian, Barbarossa, causes the "Cosmic" Microwave Background dipole. Barbarossa+Frey+Freya, with a dark nebula, lie at the (+) dipole.

Article.

A cold hyperjovian planet, Barbarossa, causes the "Cosmic" Microwave Background (CMB) dipole. Barbarossa+Frey+Freya, with a dark nebula, lie at the (+) CMB dipole.

Red and blue USNO-B catalog magnitudes change systematically there between c.1954 and c.1985, as does Johnson's bright star photometry c.1964 vs. Harvard magnitude published mostly 1908. Interstellar absorption lines of the two studied nearby stars in this direction, 69 Leonis and Theta Crateris, are exceedingly strong.

My original finding in 2007 was that USNO-B Red1 & Red2 magnitudes, differing enough to be perhaps misidentifications of wanderers, outlined an orbital path there. Dots of magnitude ~ +18, though mostly not of typical starlike appearance, on all relevant red and infrared online survey plate scans, and on prospective photos by Joan Genebriera, Steve Riley, and Robert Turner, lie within arcseconds of an e < 0.1, 198 AU orbit slightly leading the (+) CMB dipole. Frey has a 3-yr, e = 0.65 orbit around Barbarossa with retrograde apsis precession in 24 yr. Freya (not yet identified) is inferred to orbit in 6 yr., perpendicular to the ecliptic, causing Frey's precession and lateral deviation of the Barbarossa-Frey c.o.m. Our solar system resembles Epsilon Indi.

The projection of Barbarossa's orbit onto Jupiter's, follows the mean position of a Jupiter-Saturn conjunction. Claimed COBE & WMAP error bars rule out such a near (~ 2800 yr) orbit. However, only a cause within the solar system, explains the correlation, of the Maxwellian moments of the CMB anisotropy, with the plane of the ecliptic.

At 52.6 AU, the sun's gravitational field equals the maximum achievable by a proton. Barbarossa's gravity distorts the "movie screen" defined by this equation, so that an electron's gravitational potential there, thus the CMB temperature, varies. This ether boundary was revealed by anomalies in Pioneer10's transmission there.

This ether theory, and a Newtonian theory of nodal regression resonances in the outer solar system, give equal estimates of Barbarossa's mass. A mass at Barbarossa's distance gives Neptune, the plutinos, and the classical Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt, 1:2:3 precession resonance. Barbarossa's mass there gives the same torque per degree of inclination, as the rest of the solar system, on the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt.

Subtraction of Barbarossa's tide, makes the Pioneer Anomaly consistent, with gravitation by a smoothly decreasing dark mass density. Barbarossa's angular momentum makes the solar system's J/M^2 value consistent with planets and other astronomical objects (see: Wesson, Physical Review D, 1981).

Observations of the asteroid Metis in 1851 (Graham, also Ferguson, Astronomical Journal), are anomalous near the presumed center of mass of the sun-Barbarossa system. The approach of this center of mass, to Mars, might alter Mars' axis.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 10 Dec 2008 :  05:36:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Joe, what the astronomical journal wants is an ms word document. That's just to let them drop the document into their page palyout program. The designer needs to be able to see any special formatting code and something like appleworks' code might not be available to the layout progam. The other point is that you have NOT published on the web. By published they are refering to something that is in an archive, as a published reviewed paper, with legal rights and such.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 12 Dec 2008 :  15:00:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat

Hi Joe, what the astronomical journal wants is an ms word document. ...The other point is that you have NOT published on the web. By published they are refering to something that is in an archive, as a published reviewed paper, with legal rights and such.



Thanks for this help, and also for your other recent posts!
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 12 Dec 2008 :  15:06:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear Prof. *******,

The article I cited yesterday, saying that the Galileo & Ulysses probes also had about the same magnitude & direction of anomalous acceleration, as Pioneer 10 & 11, is:

Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2858 - 2861 (1998)
Indication, from Pioneer 10/11, Galileo, and Ulysses Data, of an Apparent Anomalous, Weak, Long-Range Acceleration
...

primary author: JD Anderson (Turyshev, inter alia, also an author)

Yesterday I mentioned to Prof. *******, that Pdot/P for millisecond pulsars is bimodally distributed, with histogram peaks near +/- H, where H is the Hubble parameter. I don't know whether I've put that information on Dr. Van Flandern's messageboard or not, though I discovered it several months ago. Today I re-examined Taylor's 1995 pulsar catalog (on VizieR). I found 31 pulsars with P < 30ms and Pdot known. The Pdot/P values are:

units, 10^(-17) per sec

62, 53, 7.1, 6.7, 3.8, 3.2, 2.1, 1.1, 1.0, 0.99, 0.79, 0.71, 0.48,
0.36, 0.36, 0.36, 0.33,
0.28, 0.25, 0.23, 0.23, 0.20, 0.19, 0.18,
0.092, 0.070, 0.064,
-0.052, -0.16, -0.87, -220

In the same units, the Hubble parameter (assuming it's 72km/sec/Mpc) is 0.2333. So, for 7 of 31 millisecond pulsars, Pdot/P lies within +/- 25% of the (+) Hubble parameter. For 23 of 31, the absolute value of Pdot/P lies within a factor of 5, of the Hubble parameter. Plotting positive and negative Pdot/P values on separate histograms, with log(abs(Pdot/P)) as abscissa, shows the strong +H and weaker -H peaks. (Many authors have remarked that the anomalous Pioneer/Galileo/Ulysses acceleration also nearly equals the Hubble parameter * c).
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 12 Dec 2008 :  16:27:28  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
After three days (long enough to wait for a receipt from a government bureau) I've received no acknowledgment from that German government bureau, "Astronomische Nachrichten". Bob Turner's comment above, changes my mind about sending this (slightly expanded version) to "Science" as a letter to the editor. I'll warn them and the others that it essentially already appears on this internet messageboard.

updates:
Dec. 19, 2008: rejected by "Science" editors (automatic acknowledgment of submission, received Dec. 12; no other comment)
Dec. 20: submitted as letter to "Nature"
Dec. 23: rejected by "Nature" editor (automatic acknowledgment of submission, received Dec. 20; other comment: "The Editor thanks you for your communication but regrets that he is unable to publish it. He regrets also that he cannot enter into further correspondence on this matter.")
Dec. 23: submitted to Astronomy & Astrophysics (online publication, e.g., "astro-ph", explicitly permitted, but they asked where, and I told them it's on this messageboard; for convenience I registered as a new author but told them I submitted previously).
Dec. 28: revision sent to A&A.
Jan. 2, 2009: rejected with explanation by A&A editor (no peer review):

Dear Mr. Walmsley:
I am quite capable of providing you with any amount of detail that you require. Tell me how long to make the discussion. I can provide you with as much rigorous detail as can be compressed into that length, with a hundred or more citations of refereed journals, and unpublished astrophotographs, if desired. This letter already has been rejected without comment by Science and Nature. The joke is on them, because the objective and quantitative evidence is overwhelming. While I await your reply, I'll submit this letter to another journal.
Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller
(B. A., cumlaude, Mathematics, Harvard)
[no reply from Walmsley as of Jan. 27, 2009]
>Dear Dr Keller,
...After consideration, I regret to inform you that your manuscript cannot be considered for publication in Astronomy and Astrophysics. We require a more detailed discussion than supplied and I would suggest submitting to a journal with a more generalised readership.
Yours sincerely,
Malcolm Walmsley
A&A Letters Chief Editor

Jan. 2, 2009: submitted to Icarus (I told them in two places that it essentially already has been published on this messageboard).
Jan. 17, 2009: status inquiry emailed to Icarus editors:

Dear Icarus editors:
What is the status of my Jan. 2, 2009 submission, which your automated system assigned the tracking number, 090102-0007? Please respond to the email address I gave for correspondence. I have received no email confirmation of any kind, ever, not even when I submitted.
Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller

Jan. 27: rejected with explanation by Icarus editor (no peer review):
Dear Editor of "Icarus": (he never responded to this)
Obviously it is all connected to one conclusion. Therefore it is not "disconnected", as you assert.
I was brief because, as journal editors often say, space is at a premium. The more detail I include, the less cause you have to complain that it is too short, but the more cause you have to complain that it is too long. I would rather write a short paper and be told that it is too short, than waste more time writing a long paper to be told that it is too long.
If you really want to know the truth, I suggest you ask me to elaborate on one sentence, of your choosing, of my submission. You will find that I have abundant data, rigorous calculations and references to offer. While you are thinking about my offer, I will submit this letter to another journal.
Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller, M. D.
>Dear Mr. Keller,
I am sorry to inform you that your submission of January 2 does not meet the minimum standards of a paper in Icarus. It has no Abstract, Introduction, Results, Conclusions, or a proper list of
references. Furthermore, it seems to consist of a series of disconnected speculations or inferences about a hypothetical giant planet in the outer Solar System, which are not backed up by any calculations or even numerical estimates of the claimed effects.
Your paper will therefore not be sent out for review.
Sincerely,
Philip D. Nicholson
Editor-in-Chief
Icarus

Jan. 27: submitted to Serbian Astronomical Journal (with notice that it already has been published here).
Jan. 28: rejected by Serbian Astronomical Journal, with minimal comment by editor (no peer review).
Feb. 7: revised version (version #3, see below) submitted to Journal of the British Interplanetary Society.
Feb. 9: rejected by British Interplanetary Society, as not their job:
Dear Mr Keller
Thank your for submitting your paper on a cold hyperjovian. I regret I must reject this paper as the subject matter is pure astronomy and JBIS is a journal for astronautics, and I am afraid your paper is well outside this remit.
Regards
Mark Hempsell
Editor JBIS

I think I'll take a break from these submissions for awhile. Though online submission is fairly efficient, it still takes much more of my time to submit the article, than it takes the editor to send his silly canned excuse for not sending my article for peer review. Thus the "enemy" (the system) is getting a better than one-to-one trade on resources (time), which I can't afford, because (1) there are many more of them than of me; (2) they're getting paid (from taxes) and I'm not (from anyone); and (3) I'm able to accomplish something significant with my time, but they aren't. If anyone else would like to write about this, and submit the article somewhere, be my guest, as long as you cite me appropriately.

*********

Abstract.

A cold hyperjovian, Barbarossa, causes the "Cosmic" Microwave Background dipole. Barbarossa+Frey+Freya, with a dark nebula, lie at the (+) dipole.

Article. (N.B.: in essence this already has appeared under my name on the messageboard of Dr. Van Flandern at www.metaresearch.org.)

A cold hyperjovian planet, Barbarossa, causes the "Cosmic" Microwave Background (CMB) dipole. Barbarossa+Frey+Freya, with a dark nebula, lie at the (+) CMB dipole.

Red and blue USNO-B catalog magnitudes change systematically there between c.1954 and c.1985, as does Johnson's bright star photometry c.1964 vs. Harvard magnitude published mostly 1908. Interstellar absorption lines of the two studied nearby stars in this direction, 69 Leonis and Theta Crateris, are exceedingly strong.

My original finding in 2007 was that USNO-B Red1 & Red2 magnitudes, differing enough to be perhaps misidentifications of wanderers, outlined an orbital path there. Dots of magnitude ~ +18, though mostly not of typical starlike appearance, on all relevant red and infrared online survey plate scans, and on prospective photos by Joan Genebriera, Steve Riley, and Robert Turner, lie within arcseconds of an e < 0.1, 198 AU orbit slightly leading the (+) CMB dipole. Frey has a 3-yr, e = 0.65 orbit around Barbarossa with retrograde apsis precession in 24 yr. Freya (not yet identified) is inferred to orbit in 6 yr., perpendicular to the ecliptic, causing Frey's precession and lateral deviation of the Barbarossa-Frey c.o.m. Our solar system resembles Epsilon Indi.

The projection of Barbarossa's orbit onto Jupiter's, follows the mean position of a Jupiter-Saturn conjunction. Claimed COBE & WMAP error bars rule out such a near (~ 2800 yr) orbit. However, only a cause within the solar system, explains the correlation, of the Maxwellian moments of the CMB anisotropy, with the plane of the ecliptic.

At 52.6 AU, the sun's gravitational field equals the maximum achievable by a proton. Barbarossa's gravity distorts the "movie screen" defined by this equation, so that an electron's gravitational potential there, thus the CMB temperature, varies. This ether boundary was revealed by anomalies in Pioneer10's transmission there.

This ether theory, and a Newtonian theory of nodal regression resonances in the outer solar system, give equal estimates of Barbarossa's mass. Barbarossa's mass and distance give Neptune, Pluto, and the classical Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt, torque per degree of inclination, respectively equal to 0.33:0.5:1 times the torque on them, per degree, from the remainder of the solar system.

Subtraction of Barbarossa's tide, makes the Pioneer Anomaly consistent, with gravitation by a smoothly decreasing dark mass density. Barbarossa's angular momentum makes the solar system's J/M^2 value consistent with planets and other astronomical objects (see: Paul Wesson, Physical Review D, April 15 1981).

Observations of the asteroid Metis in 1851 (Graham, also Ferguson, Astronomical Journal 2:12-13, 2:43-44), are anomalous near the presumed center of mass of the sun-Barbarossa system. The approach of this center of mass, to Mars, might alter Mars' axis.

Barbarossa might escape detection in infrared, because it might have accreted or convected differently than assumed in published 4.6 billion yr extrapolations of the temperature of hyperjovians; the equilibrium temperature with sunlight at 198 AU, approximates cold interstellar dust. Automated ecliptic searches might reject a double planet with atypical proper motion. The unexplained clustering of Pdot/P, near the value of the Hubble parameter, vitiates the determination of Solar acceleration from pulsar timing.


Revised version Dec. 28, with results of Dec. 22 photo:

(same abstract and notice)

A cold hyperjovian planet, Barbarossa, causes the "Cosmic" Microwave Background (CMB) dipole. Barbarossa+Frey+Freya, with a dark nebula, lie at the (+) CMB dipole.

Red and blue USNO-B catalog magnitudes change systematically there between c.1954 and c.1985, as does Johnson's bright star photometry c.1964 vs. Harvard magnitude published mostly 1908. Interstellar absorption lines of the two studied nearby stars in this direction, 69 Leonis and Theta Crateris, are exceedingly strong.

My original finding in 2007 was that USNO-B Red1 & Red2 magnitudes, differing enough to be perhaps misidentifications of wanderers, outlined an orbital path there. Dots of magnitude ~ +18, though mostly not of typical starlike appearance, on all relevant red and infrared online survey plate scans, and on prospective photos by Joan Genebriera, Steve Riley, and Robert Turner, lie within arcseconds of an e < 0.1, 198 AU orbit slightly leading the (+) CMB dipole.

Our solar system resembles Epsilon Indi. A Dec. 22, 2008 photo shows Barbarossa at RA 11:28:22.08, Decl -9:16:6.4, and Frey at RA 11:29:04.66, Decl -9:07:2.3. With only one adjustable parameter, the four extant photos of the pair allow constancy of areal speed to 0.125%. Frey has a 15.2 yr, a = 0.94 AU, e = 0.24 orbit around Barbarossa. Barbarossa + Frey possess only 1/3 of the total Barbarossa system mass.

The projection of Barbarossa's orbit onto Jupiter's, follows the mean position of a Jupiter-Saturn conjunction. Claimed COBE & WMAP error bars rule out such a near (~ 2800 yr) orbit. However, only a cause within the solar system, explains the correlation, of the Maxwellian moments of the CMB anisotropy, with the plane of the ecliptic.

At 52.6 AU, the sun's gravitational field equals the maximum achievable by a proton. Barbarossa's gravity distorts the "movie screen" defined by this equation, so that an electron's gravitational potential there, thus the CMB temperature, varies. This ether boundary was revealed by anomalies in Pioneer10's transmission there.

This ether theory, and a Newtonian theory of nodal regression resonances in the outer solar system, give equal estimates of Barbarossa's mass. Barbarossa's mass and distance give Neptune, Pluto, and the classical Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt, torque per degree of inclination, respectively equal to 0.33:0.5:1 times the torque on them, per degree, from the remainder of the solar system.

Subtraction of Barbarossa's tide, makes the Pioneer Anomaly consistent, with gravitation by a smoothly decreasing dark mass density. Barbarossa's angular momentum makes the solar system's J/M^2 value consistent with planets and other astronomical objects (see: Paul Wesson, Physical Review D, April 15 1981).

Observations of the asteroid Metis in 1851 (Graham, also Ferguson, Astronomical Journal 2:12-13, 2:43-44), are anomalous near the presumed center of mass of the sun-Barbarossa system. The approach of this center of mass, to Mars, might alter Mars' axis.

Barbarossa might escape detection in infrared, because it might have accreted or convected differently than assumed in published 4.6 billion yr extrapolations of the temperature of hyperjovians; the equilibrium temperature with sunlight at 198 AU, approximates cold interstellar dust. Automated ecliptic searches might reject a double planet with atypical proper motion. The unexplained clustering of Pdot/P, near the value of the Hubble parameter, vitiates the determination of Solar acceleration from pulsar timing.

version #3 (same abstract and notice)

A cold hyperjovian planet, Barbarossa, causes the "Cosmic" Microwave Background (CMB) dipole. Barbarossa+Frey+Freya, with a dark nebula, lie at the (+) CMB dipole.

Red and blue USNO-B catalog magnitudes change systematically there between c.1954 and c.1985, as does Johnson's bright star photometry c.1964 vs. Harvard magnitudes published mostly 1908. Interstellar absorption lines of the two studied nearby stars in this direction, 69 Leonis and Theta Crateris, are exceedingly strong.

My original finding in 2007 was that USNO-B Red1 & Red2 magnitudes, differing enough to be perhaps misidentifications of wanderers, outlined an orbital path there. Dots of magnitude ~ +18.5, on all relevant red online sky survey plate scans, and on a Dec. 22, 2008 photograph taken with the U. of Iowa's robotic telescope, lie within arcseconds of an e = 0.1, 202 AU, 2800 yr orbit slightly leading the (+) CMB dipole.

Our solar system resembles Epsilon Indi. The Dec. 22, 2008 photo shows Barbarossa's moon, Frey at RA 11:27:30.17, Decl -9:21:48.6. The four extant photos of Frey satisfy Kepler's second law on their long arcs, indicate binary eccentricity 0.5, binary period 20.4 or 22 yr, and binary major axis consistent with system 0.01 solar mass.

The projection of Barbarossa's orbit onto Jupiter's, follows the mean position of a Jupiter-Saturn conjunction. Claimed COBE & WMAP error bars rule out such a near (~ 2800 yr) orbit. However, only a cause within the solar system, explains the correlation, of the Maxwellian moments of the CMB anisotropy, with the plane of the ecliptic.

At 52.6 AU, the sun's gravitational field equals the maximum achievable by a proton. Barbarossa's gravity distorts the "movie screen" defined by this equation, so that an electron's gravitational potential there, thus the CMB temperature, varies. This ether boundary was revealed by anomalies in Pioneer10's transmission there.

This ether theory, and a Newtonian theory of nodal regression resonances in the outer solar system, give equal estimates of Barbarossa's mass. Barbarossa's mass/r^3 gives Neptune, Pluto, and the classical Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt, precession periods in the ratios 3::2::1. The torque on the Kuiper belt per degree of inclination, from Barbarossa, equals that from the remainder of the solar system.

Subtraction of Barbarossa's tide, makes the Pioneer Anomaly consistent, with gravitation by a smoothly decreasing dark mass density. Barbarossa's angular momentum makes the solar system's J/M^2 value consistent, with the giant planets' rotation, and other astronomical objects (see: Paul Wesson, Physical Review D, April 15 1981).

Observations of the asteroid Metis in 1851 (Graham, also Ferguson, Astronomical Journal 2:12-13, 2:43-44), are anomalous near the presumed center of mass of the sun-Barbarossa system. The approach of this center of mass, to Mars, might alter Mars' axis.

Barbarossa might escape detection in infrared, because it might have accreted or convected differently than assumed in published 4.6 billion yr extrapolations of the temperature of hyperjovians; the equilibrium temperature with sunlight at 202 AU, approximates cold interstellar dust. Gravitational collapse can begin at lower masses, for bodies composed of heavier elements, and might explain Barbarossa's and Frey's dimness. Other researchers have theorized albedos < 1% for a particluar class of cool brown dwarf.

Automated ecliptic searches might reject a double planet with atypical proper motion. The unexplained clustering of Pdot/P, near the value of the Hubble parameter, vitiates the determination of Solar acceleration from pulsar timing; furthermore my own determinations from small homogeneous millisecond pulsar sets, or from the next higher pulsar period derivative, roughly confirm Barbarossa's mass/r^2, and direction.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 13 Dec 2008 :  06:31:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Joe, I've been thinking about the aether (never a good idea, thinking) We need massive particles stacked very close together. So I thought I'd take a look at the higgs as a possibility.

Now I've got h = c^2 / b^2 as a possible for a speed of gravity but it's only a ratio, so I can write
h = v^2 / c^2 The square root of h times c equals v.

Take the square root of h as a wavelength, then find a mass for it.
Lambda = h / mc
That will give us a mass that is 2.49 times the theoretical mass of the higgs, which is about 117 Gev (Note that if it were about 120 Gev it would be the root of barh though)

Then I thought I've got v = sqrt h *c that's very slow indeed. Can we consider it a sound in some medium? Then we could say
v = x* sqrt (k / m) but with this material, which can have particles very close together, the sqrt of k / m is going to equal c. That would mean that k is simply the mass energy of the particle, from e =mc^2

k = E*x where E is Youngs modulus but x is the wavelength of the particle so in this case wed have E = c


Youngs modulus for iron is about 1.5E 11 pa

That's as far as Ive got so far. One thing to check over, the mass of the nucleus of the iron atom is used to work out the atomic spacing of the metal. They use the proton mass rather than the neutron mass times the atomic number but the mass of a higgs, having a wavelength of the sqrt of h isn't far off that aggregate mass. I haven't checked it though as yet.

Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2220 Posts

Posted - 14 Dec 2008 :  08:19:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by cosmicsurfer

Hi Stoat, excellent post on gravitational shadowing. I totally agree that the effect certainly casts more than a shadow but allows electromagnetic monitoring of graviton radiations. This is far different than looking for gravity waves, I am talking about an instant communications causing local electromagnetic/radio wave interference and this effect registers with in low frequency electronic devices as white noise. I submit that graviton energy is the cause for CMB radiation and that all background noise is instantaneously influenced by the higher spectrum graviton waves that could be heard for instance from a super nova way before the light waves from the explosion ever reached Earth. John


John - a few quick notes

  • "gravity wave" is a meteoroligical phenomenon involving a characteristic wavey cloud pattern. For this reason astronomers use terms like gravitational radiation and gravitational waves.

  • "graviton wave" is an ambiguous phrase.
    • In a Meta Model context gravitons do not propagate as waves, but as particles. As such they do not have a frequency or wavelength, nor a characteristic (constant, unchanging) speed. Rather they have properties such as mass, speed, average speed, and momentum.
    • In the context of other theories a graviton might or might not be a wave phenomenon.


Where such ambiguity can exist, you owe it to the audience to try to clarify things by stating which theory is providing context for your thoughts.

Regards,
LB

Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 14 Dec 2008 :  18:52:04  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Another Defense of Cruttenden

Drake University's government documents repository has almost all years of the USNO "Astronomical Almanac" from 1881 to 2005. Beginning in 1960, these have planetary orbital elements. Also, the 1881 Almanac has planetary (ascending) nodes. After 1983, J2000.0 coordinates are used for the elements. From 1960 through 1983, the mean equinox & ecliptic of date are used. In 1881, the epoch JD 2405000 (July 25, 1872) was used.

Jupiter & Saturn had perihelia in 1892 & 1885, resp. I found the heliocentric ecliptic longitude of perihelion, by interpolating quadratically the three nearest entries (which are referred to the mean equinox of date). If all digits in the tables are significant, then the error in this is no more than 1/36 deg for Jupiter, and much less than 1/90 deg for Saturn (Saturn was lucky: several nearby entries were symmetrical).

I correct the 1881 nodes to their mean equinox of date, and compare the 1960 to the late 19th century values (1881, 1892 or 1885). This is a purely Earth-based, optical, result. Standish (op. cit.) recently found that USNO ephemerides removed an arcsecond of scatter c. 1911; it might be more accurate to shorten the interval by 30 yr, but my longer interval helps average any actual oscillations of the elements.

Be this as it may, I find that from 1881 to 1960, referred to any *fixed* equinox, the nodes of Jupiter & Saturn both moved retrograde with periods 99,000 & 94,000 yr, resp. The perihelia, on the other hand, followed the equinox of date. Referred to the equinox of date, the perihelia of Jupiter & Saturn moved retrograde with period 233,000 & 77,000 yr, resp.

Now I compare the 2005 to the 1990 values. By 1990, space probe data referred to J2000.0 coordinates, had for several years superseded, Earth-based data referred to the equinox of date.

Again, the nodes move least when referred to a fixed equinox: the periods are 139,000 *prograde* & 99,000 retrograde for Jupiter & Saturn, resp. However, the perihelia move fast: periods, referred to a fixed equinox, 5645 yr retrograde & 3600 yr prograde for Jupiter & Saturn, resp.

Pluto's large inclination & eccentricity help node & apse accuracy. From 1960 to 1983, Pluto's node, referred to a fixed axis using the 1892 precession value 50.26"/yr, had period 166,000 yr retrograde. Pluto's perihelion, referred to the equinox of date, had period 67,000 yr retrograde.

The fast perihelion change between 1990 & 2005 might be short-period fluctuation, or might be due to flawed theoretical assumptions. Elsewhere, two regularities emerge:

1. Nodes of outer planets are anchored to the fixed equinox, but move retrograde with period ~100,000 yr, faster than expected from torque calculations. Despite drastic technical changes between 1881-1960 and 1990-2005, Saturn's node was measured moving retrograde, referred to a fixed equinox, with periods 94,000 & 99,000 yr, resp. During 1881-1960, Jupiter's node was measured moving retrograde, referred to a fixed axis, with period 99,000 yr. The period of Pluto's node, measured during 1960-1983, was less than twice this. Only Jupiter's node 1990-2005 was aberrant.

2. Perihelia of outer planets, at least for Earth-based observations, are anchored to the equinox of date. They move retrograde with period within a factor of 2, of 120,000 yr, usually ~70,000 yr, referred to the equinox of date. This is faster than expected from celestial mechanics.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 15 Dec 2008 :  16:55:12  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Angular Momentum and the Hubble Parameter

The abs(Pdot/P) distribution for Taylor's 1995 catalog (see VizieR) millisecond pulsars (P < 30ms) with known Pdot (N=31), has mode and median at 0.36/10^17/s. If the distribution of abs(Pdot/P) is log normal, there are three outliers, but whether removed or not, the median is the same. It corresponds to a Hubble parameter of 111km/s/Mpc. The rival peak at 0.23/10^17, corresponds to H = 72km/s/Mpc.

The giant planets would cause Earth's axis of rotation to precess with a period (cycles per sec) corresponding to H = 91km/s/Mpc. Therefore the effects quantified by H or H*c (the Hubble redshift, the Pioneer/Galileo/Ulysses anomalous deceleration, & many pulsar decelerations) might be due to tide and torque on Earth by masses in the outer solar system.

Above, I listed Astronomical Almanac node and perihelion retrogression rates for Pluto (1960-1983) and for Jupiter & Saturn (1881 or 1885 or 1892, to 1960; and 1990-2005). Again, let's exclude the large perihelion changes for Jupiter and Saturn 1990-2005. This leaves eight periods, all ~ 100,000 yr if nodes are referred to a fixed equinox and perihelia to the equinox of date. One of these periods is progressive, and the rest retrogressive. The signed harmonic average of these eight net periods is a little more than 100,000 yr, retrogressive. This average net period has about the same ratio to 25,785 yr (Earth's axial precession period in 1892) that Earth-moon orbital angular momentum has to Earth's spin angular momentum.
Go to Top of Page

cosmicsurfer

USA
507 Posts

Posted - 16 Dec 2008 :  14:31:50  Show Profile  Visit cosmicsurfer's Homepage  Send cosmicsurfer a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Larry Burford

quote:
Originally posted by cosmicsurfer

Hi Stoat, excellent post on gravitational shadowing. I totally agree that the effect certainly casts more than a shadow but allows electromagnetic monitoring of graviton radiations. This is far different than looking for gravity waves, I am talking about an instant communications causing local electromagnetic/radio wave interference and this effect registers with in low frequency electronic devices as white noise. I submit that graviton energy is the cause for CMB radiation and that all background noise is instantaneously influenced by the higher spectrum graviton waves that could be heard for instance from a super nova way before the light waves from the explosion ever reached Earth. John


John - a few quick notes

  • "gravity wave" is a meteoroligical phenomenon involving a characteristic wavey cloud pattern. For this reason astronomers use terms like gravitational radiation and gravitational waves.

  • "graviton wave" is an ambiguous phrase.
    • In a Meta Model context gravitons do not propagate as waves, but as particles. As such they do not have a frequency or wavelength, nor a characteristic (constant, unchanging) speed. Rather they have properties such as mass, speed, average speed, and momentum.
    • In the context of other theories a graviton might or might not be a wave phenomenon.


Where such ambiguity can exist, you owe it to the audience to try to clarify things by stating which theory is providing context for your thoughts.

Regards,
LB





Hi Larry, I appreciate your comments regarding clarification between waves and particles and thanks for helping me to clarify to the audience comments that might not otherwise be understood. You are correct the meteorological graviton waves which are studied by astronomers are in my opinion not really the true waves generated by circulating gravitons. So in this case what we are observing is electromagnetic signatures or weather patterns at the speed of light that operate as a sub spectrum. We can only indirectly see the effects of gravity, because as point particles which are wave vortex points that have spin and because gravitons travel above the light spectrum these vortex points generate very high spin rates that carry a modulated frequency. This frequency operates with in its own spectrum.

So here is my definition of the GRAVITON:

1. Gravitons originate in reverse time antimatter half of our local large scale circulation.
2. Gravitons are point particles that carry a negative charge and are the beginning of forward time.
3. Gravitons are very small with extremely high spin rates and operate with in their own spectrum that would be what we might refer to as the fourth dimension.
4. Gravitons not only cause mass to exist, but the graviton is the source for the complete power structure of all motion and transfer of momentum, and it is the Graviton that is the precursor point particle that forms the Electron.
5. Gravitons form the larger part of the electric field that circulates around electrons and can be taped as a renewable energy source. Electrons are the visible portion of the graviton field.

There is more to this scenario but for now I would just like to say that the graviton cycle and graviton capture process is the cause for all mass fluctuations and motion in our visible Universe. John
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 2.55 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03