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 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 72

Larry Burford

USA
2237 Posts

Posted - 31 Dec 2008 :  09:48:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote

[Jim] Can you say for sure the math is a sure thing in that math 
of that kind has caused most of the confusion in science.

Its not so much the math itself that causes the confusion, but the 
way the math is used. Equations do not cause things to happen - 
things that happen cause equations.
===

[Jim] Observation is good though, so if the subject is seen it 
would prove the math works.


Hmmm. Proving the math is necessary, but not sufficient.
===

[Jim] Maybe proving the math works(in that it really does predict 
nature)would be more important than finding the subject.


In some cases there are several equations that can predict the 
outcome of an observation or experiment. Obviously this means that 
all equations being considered provide the same answer (to within 
some distance of observed numbers), so in a mathematical sense they 
are equivalent even though they are not identical. In other cases 
the same equations are generated by alternate physical explanations, 
so they are not equivalent (to themselves) in the physical sense. 


(Dis)proving the math can eliminate a wrong idea, but proving it 
does not guarantee that you have the right idea. You have to step 
back from the math and look at the bigger picture (physics) in order 
to understand reality.

===


[Jim] And the other way round would be a good thing too.


Finding the subject is always a great thing. But sometimes our 
understanding of nature runs ahead of our ability to measure it. 
This was the case when we knew that the invisible air around us was 
composed of some sort of particle, but we had no natural sense or 
invented mechanism that could actually detect the hypothetical 
particle. 


If we could not detect this particle, why did we even think to look? 
We could use our natural senses to indirectly detect this 
particle (as in when we feel the wind on our face). And we could use 
invented machines to indirectly detect it by detecting various side 
effects (as in when we measure how long it takes a sound to travel a 
given distance through it).


Eventually we developed the mechanisms to directly detect the 
particle. Our theorizing was close. It turned out that the air was 
not made of a particle, but of several different particles. 


NOTE: This process (theorizing about indirectly sensed things) does 
not always lead us in the right direction. 
  • It succeeded in the example above.
  • It is probably failing with things like dark matter.
  • It is probably succeeding with things like the LCM and classical gravitons.
But as we learn to build more sensitive measuring devices, we will develop the ability to sort these things out. Tom has suggested that rather than admit it was wrong, science (IOW scientists) will most likely just adjust things over time to match better and better observations. At some point in this process dark matter will stop being some mysterious, unseeable, mathemagical thing and start being some specific, detectable, physical thing, like elysons or gravitons. === [Jim] It might be better to stop dumping on the powers that be and look at new ways around the stone in the soup. There are two ways to have the tallest building on the block. Sounds like you are about to decide that it is better to stop trying to tear down the ones that are already there and start building a taller one. I applaud you. Regards, LB
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1863 Posts

Posted - 31 Dec 2008 :  14:22:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dr Joe, I don't pretend to understand your presentation but if what you are saying has been observed that proves the math works much better that I believe it does. And if the math you did is correct and the object has not been observed an even better result is made. You seem to be in a win-win space. It seems to me the math is based on Kepler's Laws which require the mass being located at one point and that seems wrong to me. I have been told and shown that the math works even when more than one point has a large fraction of mass but still the math fails because many points of mass cannot perform in he same way as one point of mass does.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 31 Dec 2008 :  19:48:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jim

...many points of mass cannot perform in the same way as one point of mass does.



L1 has been calculated to be an unstable position (see, among others, Cornish's article on Lagrange points, linked to Nasa's website) but the calculation assumes a circular orbit, and negligible third mass. The presumed 1987 (not 1986) position of Frey, is roughly consistent with L4, but in the circular orbit / negligible third mass approximation, L4 also is unstable for m2 / m1 < about 25.

My own numerical simulation, like that of Cornish but in the instantaneous rotating frame for an elliptical orbit, linearized in tiny displacements from the origin at L1, shows that for negligible third mass, L1 is only slightly more unstable for e = 0.24 than for e = 0. Small displacements grow exponentially roughly 30x per radian of the binary orbit.

A few months ago I mentioned on this messageboard thread, that a well-known astrophotographer had published a photo of a mystery object near Jupiter. This might have been a temporary accumulation of material at or near Jupiter's L1. Also I recall that some modern astronomers have seen faint accumulations of dust at some of the Earth/Luna Lagrange points.

Maybe resources should be allocated differently. Tombaugh found Pluto after only a few months of intense observation. Someone like Tombaugh could have found Neptune in a few weeks, without doing any calculus. That's much less costly than requiring hundreds of astronomers to learn calculus so that LeVerrier or Adams could calculate Neptune's position. Telescopes were better in Tombaugh's time than in LeVerrier's, Tombaugh had a better geographical vantage (Arizona), and above all Tombaugh had photographic plates. However if there had been less emphasis on the abstract, and more emphasis on empirical science and industrial arts in European schools, photography might have been developed earlier.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 01 Jan 2009 :  05:27:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Joe, does this system work like a mini solar system, or like a planet and its satellites, in terms of the distribution of angular momentum? I suppose it depends on the exact mechanism of solar system creation. If our system is a failed binary, then, we would have had a fight between the sun and your planet over dumping excess angular momentum. If we accept the idea of electromagnetic braking, then flux tubes can embed themselves much more effectively into the sun's outer layers, than the failed sun's. The tubes can also extend much further out, because we have a failed sun like object so far out in the boonies.

I suppose that when this failed sun reached the radius where it had to sling off half of its mass along its equator, some of that material would have been grabbed by the sun. Maybe some sort of hybrid angular momentum set up?

Changing the subject slightly, I do think you should avoid the temptation to send out e mails to officers of astronomy clubs. Even if you are one hundred percent certain of where this thing is, it's always best to affect an air of belt and braces caution. I thought that that e mail sounded a little too strident in its tone. What you need now is telescope time, and the best way to get it, is not by drawing attention to the failings of professional astronomers. There's no way that amateur astronomers are going to rock the boat, they are grateful just have their feet under the table. Don't plant any seeds of doubt in their heads.

I still dont think that you appreciate just how much of a big deal this could all become. Once Nasas p.r. people move in, you may well find yourself wrapped in a ball of cotton wool. Let's face it, we would be talking about sending ion rockets there. Billions of dollar budgets demand creating a public enthusiasm for things spacelike again. The guys in Armani suits will be given the job of packaging you. They might well allow you the odd acerbic comment, about the state of physics but you will be dressed, scripted and paraded to the tune they set. So just enjoy it! Glad handing the president and eating canapes on the White House lawn can't be all that bad.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 01 Jan 2009 :  17:53:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Instead of allocating resources differently, maybe the government should stop allocating resources at all, in the scientific field. Clear the field with total disinvestiture.

According to Plato, Socrates occasionally let his students pay his necessary expenses (like his ticket for a field trip with his students which he couldn't otherwise afford) but denounced the professional "sophists". Like Socrates, ancient Greek priests were amateurs. What we have now are worse than sophists. Basically one must pay the professors or be killed; it's called income or withholding tax.

People like Steve Fossett or Richard Branson might have undertaken projects like orbiting an additional space telescope, if the government weren't devouring all economic resources. Allegedly King George III said in about 1782, "Now we'll see how they like taxation *with* representation." Hobbes, Aristotle and others theorized that monarchy was better than democracy, because the avarice of one man, a king, is smaller than the avarice of the 51%.
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1863 Posts

Posted - 02 Jan 2009 :  19:30:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
DrJoe, Why would the L points be stable in any sense of the term? Any matter at an L point would be just passing through or in orbit around one of the masses and would not be settling down at the L point would it? Why did you make the statement that they are unstable places? I want to be sure I'm not missing something here.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 02 Jan 2009 :  22:54:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Bradford College (remote 14", Tenerife) took a photo early this morning, a 3 minute red filter exposure "completed" 04:52:45 UTC Jan. 2, 2009. The FITS header lacks the date or time, but they included those in the email notice. So, I'm putting the date and time here for convenience.

The expected position of Frey is just off the east edge of the photo. The expected position of Barbarossa is near the center. There is a suspicious cluster of pixels at that position. There is some camera motion artifact (the instructions warn that this is likely for exposures over 2 min.). The long axis of the suspicious pixel group parallels the long axis of the short star tracks due to tracking imperfection. Stars of brightness similar to Barbarossa on the Dec. 22 U. of ******* photo usually show poorly if at all on this unstacked Bradford photo (though it was taken on a moonless night), so I hardly can expect better.

I've ordered another Bradford photo (their limit is one at a time; it's free). Slooh never did get any photos; I think my $15 subscription there is used up.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 03 Jan 2009 :  04:34:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Joe, if I recall, there's a post in this thread somewhere, where I said, should I use a filter? I believe it was an Australian astronomer who said don't. He did look at the fits files and he did know what he was talking about. Can you remember him? I did have his e mail address but I had a system crash and lost my adress book. I think he was called Bill.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 04 Jan 2009 :  07:57:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Joe, here's an image from that robotic telescope. Note that the grid lines are skewed a little. I suspect that's why they have closed it down for repairs. The grids are part of the fits file and not an error in photoshop or fv viewer.

Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 04 Jan 2009 :  09:41:31  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I found a really good photoshop fits filter at spacetelescope.org Much better image. Go to the website and then to projects, it's called liberator.

Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 04 Jan 2009 :  12:33:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Barbarossa's image is now on the U. of Iowa website, astro.physics.uiowa.edu, on the homepage. The photo is labeled "Barbarossa" with the serial number of the photo, and the date. One may click on the thumbnail for the full photo and a detailed FITS header. This isn't quite the same photo I analyzed: it's a 3 minute red filter exposure, apparently not stacked. The U. of Iowa robotic telescope's tracking failed soon after taking this photo, and it's not known when repairs will be completed.

I named it "Barbarossa", from the prolog to a political satire by an author named Fleming, made into a Hollywood movie in 1945. The magnitude is +18 to +19, compared to USNO-B catalog stars. It's a twin planet: amateur photos (Barbarossa by Joan Genebriera on Tenerife with a 16", March 2007; the main moon, Frey, by Steve Riley in California with an 8", April 2007, and later by both Genebriera, and Robert Turner) and 1986 & 1954 online sky surveys, accurately conform to a 198 AU, e<0.05 solar orbit; a 0.94 AU, e=0.24 (real) binary orbit; Barbarossa having 3.3 Jupiter masses and its main satellite Frey 0.46 Jupiter masses. Thus our solar system somewhat resembles that of Epsilon Indi.
Go to Top of Page

nemesis

84 Posts

Posted - 04 Jan 2009 :  15:56:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I saw the U. of Iowa website photo, Joe. An arrow to specify Barbarossa may be helpful.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 04 Jan 2009 :  17:42:31  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by nemesis

I saw the U. of Iowa website photo, Joe. An arrow to specify Barbarossa may be helpful.



Thanks for taking a look, and for posting your comment! The median-stacked U. of Iowa image which I sent to Bob Turner, and which he posted here, is better than the unstacked photo on the U. of Iowa website. Barbarossa's image on the U. of I. website photo is, at best, a statistical pixel density, and not impressive to see.

Though the stacked image file had built-in coordinates, it might not be convenient, to put arrows near the positions of Barbarossa & Frey; arrows might cover important details. One can put an Aladin (through VizieR) photo in another window, and use it to find coordinates. Better, if you like I can email you the file: you can download a free FITS viewer quickly from the NRAO, and I can help with those details via private email (a FITS viewer preserves details of a FITS file which are lost in translation to other versions such as GIF). The quickest, is to follow the instructions below, to find Barbarossa & Frey on the "Liberator" processed version of the stacked U. of Iowa image, which Bob Turner posted above.

The benefit of the photo on the homepage of astro.physics.uiowa.edu, is social. When adminstrators of other government telescopes, see that the U. of Iowa pointed its telescope at "Barbarossa", they'll be more willing to point their own telescopes there. If someone says, "Ha ha, you took a photo of Barbarossa instead of the Big Bang; you lose your grants & tenure," my supporter can say, "The U. of Iowa took a photo too." My academic supporters now have "a bigger dog".

A dot, no matter how starlike, proves little unless one is satisfied that it does not appear on other photos, and that these "disappearing dots" define orbits to significant accuracy. Many wish they could resolve the issue by saying, "Oh, your dot's not very good." That never will resolve the issue. Near the limit of CCD detection, real bodies may appear fragmented or absent.

Even "not very good" dots, if enough of them conform to an orbit with enough accuracy, imply real bodies. If anyone wants to check my math and look at my dots, he may email me privately for all eight (4 Barbarossa & 4 Frey) positions and photos; so far no one has done that.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 04 Jan 2009 :  21:08:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat

I found a really good photoshop fits filter at spacetelescope.org Much better image. Go to the website and then to projects, it's called liberator.



The "Liberator" FITS filter image you posted with this message, shows Barbarossa & Frey plainly, on the messageboard screen as is, though they're better with a magnifying glass.

1. "Barbarossa", the more massive body, is at RA 11:28:22.079, Decl -9:16:6.42. "Frey", the main moon of Barbarossa, is at RA 11:29:4.656, Decl -9:07:2.28 (information copied from my Dec. 23 post).

2. In the previous picture, with the grid, go to Barbarossa's coordinates; near Barbarossa's position, is a small 3:5:6 right triangle standing on its narrowest angle, with its hypotenuse on the left. Now go to the gridless picture; Barbarossa is the brightest star (quite dim, but easily visible) anywhere near the hypotenuse line of this triangle. It's nearer to the brightest (upper left) star of the triangle.

3. Likewise, on the grid picture, find the rather bright star near Frey's position. Now go to the gridless picture; this star is the righthand star of an equilateral triangle standing on its base (the base is somewhat sloped upwards toward the right). The peak star of the triangle is much dimmer than the other two. Frey is the star, much dimmer yet, slightly to the left of this peak star.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 05 Jan 2009 :  04:26:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
A few things about those images. For people with photoshop, I suggest downloading both images. Open the one with the grid lines, then use the ruler tool to follow a grid line. Then go into rotate arbitrary and you will see that the angle to rotate the image has been put in for you by the ruler tool.

As I say, the telescope has been closed down for recalibration because someone has noticed that the image has become slightly skewed. All telescopes can have this problem from time to time. It's a bit of a tricky job even with computer assistance.

Rotate the second image by that amount as well. Now there is a bog standard fits plugin for photoshop but compared to this Nasa/Esa Liberator plugin its rubbish. The first image, I sharpened up in a fits viewer program called fv. Much much better than the raw fits file but again, whats clearly a spiral galaxy, right of centre, still looks like a smudged star in fv.

What I would suggest to anyone that Joe has sent the fits to, is to use the liberator plugin, and get that spiral galaxy to look as good as can be. Then zoom into the area where Joe's proposed planet is and see if we can find anything to be tightened up further. My image was sharpened up after only about two minute's playing with all of the controls of a new filter, it could be better.

Remember that when we see this object, we would be looking at reflected sunlight that's made a near four hundred a.u. trip. So, it might be worthwhile looking for wisps of basic muck around the object. Any sign of a halo should get people's attention. Then the next job would be to get someone to take a spectrum of the offending object. We still need more images to do a blink comparison, and refine its orbit, but the shortcut is to get a spectrum.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 06 Jan 2009 :  19:17:44  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Prof. *******!

The U. of Iowa got a photo for me Dec. 22, 2008. It shows both jovian bodies, Barbarossa and Frey. I now have four time points (albeit two are sky surveys) for this twin planet, showing center of mass progression, accurate to a very few arcsec, consistent with a nearly circular 198 AU orbit. I also now have the binary orbit (real orbit, e=0.24) found by simultaneously equalizing the three areas for Kepler's second law, with one adjustable parameter needed to define the apparent ellipse (because I only had four points). The binary orbit differs from Kepler's law by only an arcsec. I was surprised by the binary orbit, because I'd thought the binary orbit was something much different, when I found these objects on this (median stacked) photo which aren't on the sky survey.

The U. of Iowa website posted the photo for awhile, calling it "Barbarossa", but this week someone ordered the name censored, maybe because they want the IAU to name it, not me. So, now there's no name on the photo at all, only a serial number. The U. of Iowa says their telescope broke soon after this photo, and I don't know when they'll get another. Naturally I'd like anyone and everyone to image this area everyway. The magnitudes are about +18 or +19. Details are on a post I made to the "Requiem for Relativity" thread on Dr. Van Flandern's messageboard at www.metaresearch.org, on Jan. 4 (a good place to start).

Sincerely,
Joe Keller
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 07 Jan 2009 :  05:40:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Joe, it's likely that they changed the title because there is already an asteroid called Barbarossa.

One idea that you might want to consider. The Bradford actually knocks down the size of the fits that can be downloaded. This is because bandwidth costs money. They will have your last image as a file of about ten meg. Ask them to take a look at it, and compare it to the sky survey image, and offer to send them the Iowa image. Personally I'd play down the name, say that it's an interim designation.

With a bit of luck they might take a better shot with one of the bigger telescopes on the site. Remember that the astronomers, on site, have a lot of impressive toys to play with, the robotic telescope is something that they'll only check from time to time.

Have you scaled the sky survey images to fit the Iowa image? A fits viewer should do it automatically but if someone is using the liberator photoshop plugin it would have to be requested at the right size from the sky survey, or have to be scaled by hand in photoshop.

(Edited) I wouldn't mention Frey, as it would be apt to confuse them.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 07 Jan 2009 :  12:01:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat

...there is already an asteroid called Barbarossa. ...



Asteroid #1036 (discovered by Baade in 1924), the biggest of the "Amor" family, is named Ganymed, essentially the same as Ganymede, Jupiter's moon. In Missouri, towns often were named for states. Sometimes one must ask, "Do you mean Louisiana (or California or Nevada) Missouri, or the state?"
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 07 Jan 2009 :  16:01:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Whether or not Frey is at the L1 point of a more distant, unseen, moon, Freya, the Paul Wesson p = J/L^2, is larger for Barbarossa/Frey/(Freya), than for Earth/Luna, but smaller than for Pluto/Charon. These double planets (Earth/Luna isn't quite a double planet; the center of mass is within the Earth) in our solar system have roughly 6-250x larger p, than rapidly rotating individual planets (like Earth), or the solar system (if Barbarossa is included) itself.

Intergalactic light redshifts as if retarded by a deceleration equal in magnitude to the anomalous Pioneer acceleration. Suppose that away from the sun (maybe, beyond 52.6 AU) the anomalous Pioneer acceleration persists but is opposite the motion, rather than heliocentric. Such a friction-like deceleration would confine particles at Frey's position (if Frey is merely a cloud of particles at the L1 of a farther moon, Freya). A rough quadratic estimate, for the acceleration near L1, in the rotating frame, shows that the confined cloud would subtend ~1" as seen from Earth.
Go to Top of Page

Maurol

Argentina
37 Posts

Posted - 09 Jan 2009 :  06:07:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi,
Mi name is Mauro Lacy, I'm a professional computer programmer.

I've checked(using Aladin) the coordinates posted by Joe Keller, and can confirm that the object he refers as Barbarossa is absent from sky catalogs. I've checked many sky catalogs, as Aladin lets you easily consult a lot of them at the same time. I've checked mainly Optical and Infrared catalogs, but also Radio, X-ray and Gamma ray ones, without finding anything.
That leaves us with the possibility that the offending object is an artifact. I've sent an email to the director of University of Córdoba Observatory, here in Argentina, to see if they can take a plate of that region, to definitely rule out artifacts, maybe get a better picture, a better estimate of magnitude, and maybe even detect movement.
I'll post my findings, and any news on this subject here.

Mauro
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 72 Previous Topic 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 3.12 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03