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 - 08 Jan 2010 :  19:41:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Answer from IAU Minor Planet Center:

"We do not deal with lightcurves. I suggest you check out the Minor Planet Bulletin and references therein.

- Garth V. Williams...Associate Director, Minor Planet Center"

(Of course I've already checked out the Minor Planet Bulletin and the references therein, to the extent that any of it is online, or at least is linked to the IAU references. I've also tried emailing the authors, with no response. I'd offer a bribe, but the taxman didn't let me keep enough money.)
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 08 Jan 2010 :  19:57:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jim

Hi Dr Joe, Some times not getting a rapid reply is good. What I find most puzzling is both you and you and your bad astronomers are using the same model that seems to be the cause of most of the confusion and humor that astronomy has generated during the past 80 years or so. But, thats another matter;so-Why not simplify your requests? Ask if any data exists about the objects you want to know about. Ask who might know anything about whatever you are looking for like if you were shopping. Astronomers are people too.



Maybe you know better than I do, how to deal with them. So, why don't you prove that you know better, and get them to provide the information?
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1816 Posts

Posted - 08 Jan 2010 :  20:58:10  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dr Joe, I get the same kind of replies as you have on most questions I have asked over many years. But, I have a different reaction than you have expressed in your posts. My reasoning as to why so little info and data is available has to do with everyone marching to the same drummer(its smart to not rock the boat) and if anyone is out of step is out of line and out period. At this time models are favored over data and data must bend to suit the model so someone like you comes along with a puzzle that makes no sense to model makers and caretakers gets no respect. You therefore grow indignent and prove their point that you are a nut case(not smart to rock the boat). Anyway, I'm still interested in this because it seems to me if your calculations are valid and nothing is found then it indicates the model is faulty as I assume it to be(but I don't have data that proves anything). So, please keep cool and calm while you wade through all the BS that fills every nook and cranny.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 08 Jan 2010 :  22:18:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jim

Dr Joe, ...My reasoning as to why so little info and data is available has to do with everyone marching to the same drummer(it's smart to not rock the boat) and if anyone is out of step is out of line and out period. ...So, please keep cool and calm while you wade through....



Thanks for the post, Jim! As usual, you make some good points!
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 08 Jan 2010 :  22:26:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Keller

Answer from IAU Minor Planet Center:

"We do not deal with lightcurves. I suggest you check out the Minor Planet Bulletin and references therein.

- Garth V. Williams...Associate Director, Minor Planet Center"
...



From the current homepage of the IAU Minor Planet Center:

"Lists and plots
...Minor Planet Lightcurve data [Updated 2006 Mar. 28]"

(This links to another IAU Minor Planet Center page, with a list of lightcurve determinations. I explored that page days ago; it's useful, but, as I said in my earlier post, does not lead to sufficient online information.)

Edited by - Joe Keller on 08 Jan 2010 22:39:48
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 09 Jan 2010 :  13:19:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi *******,

I'm determined to do whatever it takes to find out the spin axes of 947 Monterosa and 1717 Arlon. I have the mathematical skills necessary, to estimate the spin axes from the lightcurve data, if I can get those data in an accessible form, preferably a form that won't require me to make a trip to the computer department at Iowa State Univ. to get them to help me "crack open the files". Since I'll probably end up typing the numbers into a BASIC program, smoothed data, smoothed in some reasonable or standard way at your discretion, might be handier for me than raw data (so I will have a more manageable data entry job).

The library at Iowa State Univ. has most of the journal articles describing the mathematical techniques developed over the years, for estimating spin axes. I've found that the basic methods are not too complicated. I don't want any software. I write my own computer programs, so I know how the numbers are crunched.

I'm irate that the Associate Director of the IAU Minor Planet Center "brushed me off", stating that the IAU Minor Planet Center "does not deal with lightcurves", which required supreme arrogance on his part, since he undoubtedly realized that I had emailed him through the very same IAU Minor Planet Center homepage which lists "Lightcurves" as one of their departments. His arrogance is surpassed only by that of the several European professors all of whom totally ignored my inquiries about their lightcurve data.

I'm concerned not about something that happens every 600 million years as in the Hollywood thriller, "2012", but rather about a much more moderate but nonetheless lethal event that happens every 6000 yrs: only 100 human lifetimes and therefore, a priori, not too unlikely. Gravity was not understood quantitatively until 400 yrs ago, and pulsars weren't discovered until 40 yrs ago. So, it's undeniable that new kinds of objects and forces remain to be discovered (note to theorists: see, inter alia, the ideas of Robert Turner of England, published on Dr. Van Flandern's messageboard). Objects and forces first reveal themselves through the kinds of "coincidences" I'm discovering, just as Newton's law of gravity first revealed itself through the "coincidence" discovered by Kepler, that all the orbits just happen to be ellipses.

Apparently the excellent Soviet agronomist, Prof. Vavilov, was an honest and courteous man whose only failing was that he lacked the knowhow or the courage to confront Soviet leaders sufficiently, to break through their psychological "denial" about the chaotic situation in the USSR, a situation in which farmers were:

A. Shot because they were capitalist "Kulaks"
B. Had their draft animals confiscated
C. Had their food confiscated so that they were too weak to go into the fields
D. Had their crop confiscated by "police" yelling "Politburo Diktat" who then allowed it to rot by the side of the railway, under heavy guard, waiting for boxcars that never came

To some extent, Prof. Vavilov's failure to speak loudly enough (What was he afraid of, that they'd kill him? They killed him anyway.) was his undoing, when he was scapegoated for the Russian famines and punished by starving him to death in prison.

Modern professional or tax-funded astronomers, even the most virtuous ones, now are in the position of Prof. Vavilov. To survive the coming disaster and its chaotic aftermath, astronomers must choose perception not prejudice, unity not union cards, truth not turf.

Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller, M. D.
B. A., Harvard, cumlaude, Mathematics, 1977

Edited by - Joe Keller on 09 Jan 2010 13:22:35
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 09 Jan 2010 :  21:22:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Posted to several Harvard, Ivy League and Astronomy e-groups (feel free to post widely):

I am doing my own research on climate change, which relates asteroid alignments to the Mayan Long Count, and a 6340 yr cycle of natural disaster (yet-unknown physical forces seem to be involved). At the end of the Mayan Long Count, all four asteroids known to have approximately the critical 5.13hr rotation period, align with a peculiar object in distant solar orbit, which is found on four sky surveys. Two of these asteroids have the same rotation axis. I seek to prove that the other two also have this axis. This overwhelming improbability (four out of four asteroids, with the critical rotation period, align with the object and perhaps even have the same rotation axis, at the end of the Mayan Long Count) might be enough to "break through" the prejudiced resistance of the astronomy bureaucracy, and force them to break their usual protocols, and image the region (i.e., get their heads out of the sand and look with a big telescope). Thus some progress could be made. There are still three years to prepare for the coming "Younger Dryas", or panoceanic megatsunamis, or whatever it turns out to be this time.

To prove that the other two asteroids have the same rotation axis, I need their "lightcurves". It takes several years to get lightcurves at all ecliptic longitudes. The only way to get the job done quickly, is to access the lightcurves that already have been made by various astronomers, mostly at universities in Europe and the U.S. I can do this (it's freshman calculus and many journal articles give the formulas) but all my emails to them, requesting these lightcurves, have gone unanswered, perhaps because I am not a professional astronomer (i.e., don't have a union card). When I sought help from Harvard's Minor Planet Center (the International Astronomical Union Minor Planet Center, which is at Harvard) their associate director told me, "We do not deal with lightcurves." This flies in the face of their own homepage, which advertises a "Lighturves" section which is the most complete bibliography of lightcurves I have found on the internet (though the actual lightcurves remain in the possession of the investigators or, sometimes, published in various obscure newsletters which generally do not seem to be online) . I realized that I had run into typical "Harvard bureaucracy", familiar to all Harvard alumni (for example, my classmate who was told quite seriously by Harvard bureaucrats that he should simply go by another name for four years rather than bother them to correct his erroneous ID card).

Here is how you (Harvard alumni especially, but all help is welcome) can help. Contact the bureaucrats who are asking you to make bequests to Harvard. Tell them you might consider making a bequest, but for the outrageous behavior of Harvard's bureaucracy: for example, the refusal of Harvard's Minor Planets Center to assist a certain Joseph C. Keller in obtaining "Lightcurves" which he needs for the first PRACTICAL use of asteroid data since, perhaps, the Age of Atlantis. Because Harvard is the headquarters of minor planet research, all the researchers in possession of those lightcurves certainly would jump to email me the files, if Harvard said jump.

Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller
B. A., cumlaude, Mathematics, Harvard, 1977
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 10 Jan 2010 :  02:22:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
This site might be able to give you some data Joe. http://www.asteroidoccultation.com/2009_04/0414_947_18705_Summary.txt
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 11 Jan 2010 :  16:42:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat

This site might be able to give you some data Joe. http://www.asteroidoccultation.com/2009_04/0414_947_18705_Summary.txt



Thanks for the information.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 11 Jan 2010 :  18:12:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Monterosa's rotation axis differs ~9deg from Davida's or Laetitia's

Today I made the first estimate in history, of asteroid 947 Monterosa's rotation axis. I had to tailor my method to the data I have. My method is rough, derived by elementary mathematics. I ignore shape, so there is no "inversion problem".

I have the Monterosa lightcurve by Berger, Bosch, Vagnozzi et al (downloaded from Prof. Behrend's website, ref. 34 in the IAU Minor Planet Center online bibliography) from observation March 29.6, 2003. Berger gives the variation as 0.15. Berger's smoothing curve is grossly nonsinusoidal but has almost perfect antisymmetry (i.e., a Fourier series with sine terms only).

I do not have (but expect soon to have) the Monterosa lightcurve by Warner (ref. 119 in the IAU Minor Planet Center online bibliography) but from the online Collaborative Asteroid Lightcurve Link ("CALL"), I find that it is from observations Jan. 1 through Jan. 7, 2007, and that its amplitude is given as 0.23 +/- 0.02.

CALL mentions a "[confirmed] previous unpublished CALL posting" which might be a third extant Monterosa lightcurve. I have no further information about it.

I ignore the asteroid's ecliptic latitude. That is, I assume that the asteroid orbits in the plane of the ecliptic.

The observation of the asteroid, is essentially an interaction between the Sun and the Earth, mediated by the asteroid. The light wave equations governing this interaction are time-reversible. So, the Sun-Earth interaction is symmetrical. To a good approximation, the geocentric and heliocentric ecliptic longitudes of Monterosa (which happen to differ only ~20 deg anyway, at Berger's or Warner's observations), may be replaced by the mean of the two. (I averaged the JPL heliocentric and geocentric celestial coordinates.)

So, I put the asteroid in the plane of the ecliptic, and move both Sun and Earth to the Sun-Earth midpoint.

The amplitude of lightcurve variation is, approximately, maximum (asteroid shapes usually are moderate, and albedo variations usually are slight) when the rotation axis is perpendicular to the observation axis. The amplitude is, in this approximation, zero when the rotation axis is parallel to the observation axis, but the amplitude changes sign and increases rapidly as the axis moves through the parallel position. So:

(minimum amplitude)::(maximum amplitude) = (sine beta)::1 (Equation 1)

where beta is the ecliptic latitude of the axis.

As the asteroid moves around the ecliptic, the amplitude oscillates between its minimum and its maximum, approximately as a sine wave with period 180 deg:

Amplitude = (minimum amplitude) + 2*A*sin^2(theta-lambda) (Equation 2)

where theta is the asteroid's ecliptic longitude, and lambda the longitude of its axis.

To find A, beta, and lambda, I need three data. I've been given two data outright: Berger's and Warner's amplitudes. My third datum is, the antisymmetry of Berger's lightcurve. The symmetry, or rather antisymmetry, of Berger's lightcurve, suggests that Monterosa's rotation axis then was at a cardinal position, either perpendicular to, or maximally slanted toward, the observation axis. Berger's amplitude is smaller than Warner's, so the latter choice must apply.

This gives lambda = 134 (mean of heliocentric and geocentric ecliptic longitudes of Monterosa, at Berger's observation) and, using Eq. 2, 2*A = 0.086. Using Eq. 1, beta = arcsin(0.15/(0.15+0.086)) = +39.5. My method implies fourfold ambiguity of solution: beta can be negative, or 180deg can be added to lambda. So, as good a solution, is, that 947 Monterosa's rotation axis = (lambda, beta) = (314, +39.5) (ecliptic coordinates).

This differs only 9 deg from the average (including 180 degree longitude correction when needed)(weighting Davida and Laetitia equally) of all ten of their axis determinations I found in the literature: (306, +33.6). My average of the seven 39 Laetitia axes was (307, +38), and of the three 511 Davida axes, (302, +22). The chance that any of the fourfold solutions of my method, would lie randomly within 9 deg of the predetermined Laetitia/Davida axis, is p = 2.5%.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 12 Jan 2010 :  11:23:26  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi *******,

The IAU Minor Planet Center bibliography links to a note on *******, that you, or at least the *******, did lightcurves on 947 Monterosa in ***. My Monterosa lightcurve determination is cruder than usually is attempted nowadays, so I want as much lightcurve data as possible in usable form, so I can make a more refined, irrefutable axis determination. I want to say:

"These four asteroids have the same rotation period, the same rotation axis, and lie on the same line at the end of the Mayan Long Count, all lined up with the CMB dipole and also with something I found on the sky surveys. Realize there is a new phenomenon here. Get out your big telescope and look (now). This is like Kepler discovering that the planets' orbits are, inexplicably (then) ellipses. Just because I can't explain it with tensor calculus doesn't mean it isn't real or important."

Meanwhile if anyone else, such as the Nathanael Berger - Jean-Gabriel Bosch - Antonio Vagnozzi group for Monterosa, or that huge Walter Cooney group for 1717 Arlon, or the Federico Manzini - Laurent Bernasconi group for Arlon (their lightcurve is on Prof. Behrend's website, but never downloads properly when I've tried so far) will send me their lightcurves, or do axis determinations themselves, that would be great. I've found a few of their email addresses on the internet but so far those have bounced or gone unanswered.

Sincerely,
Joe Keller
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1816 Posts

Posted - 12 Jan 2010 :  15:10:21  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dr Joe,Palmer Divide Obs has the light curves. I have more info if you need it.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 13 Jan 2010 :  05:31:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Joe, I still think it would be prudent not to mention why you want these light curves. Just say you're looking at asteroid groupings.

did you ever look into those historical writings on the 1006 and Crab supernova events? If I recall correctly, the historical positions given don't correspond to the remnants. This is interpreted as simple error by the ancient chroniclers. What if they were right, or nearly right? I've a vague recollection that there's another nova from about the time of Alexander as well.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 13 Jan 2010 :  14:31:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jim

Dr Joe,Palmer Divide Obs has the light curves. I have more info if you need it.



Brian Warner, one of their leading observers, has sent me his one lightcurve (really three on almost consecutive nights; counts as one for this purpose). I have yet to hear from their listed contact person. I suspect that only one relevant lightcurve was done there, though they might have, on somebody's computer hard drive, lightcurves done by others.

It would be helpful if others besides myself would send emails expressing interest (the names of the relevent observers are in the IAU Minor Planet Center lightcurve bibliography). I've only heard from one of the Europeans (Europeans seem to have done most of the lightcurves) so far; this particular European was, I gather, one of the amateur workers, and might not actually have possession of a lightcurve, though he is rechecking his records.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 13 Jan 2010 :  14:45:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat

Hi Joe, ...those historical writings on the 1006 and Crab supernova events? If I recall correctly, the historical positions given don't correspond to the remnants. ...



I haven't found any coordinates yet. If someone analyzing the old records, estimated a sky position (to the nearest 10 degrees or so) and time (to the nearest century or so), I might be able to make the case that it was a flareup of Barbarossa.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 13 Jan 2010 :  15:08:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Subject: popular press says new space telescope might find Planet X
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 13:19:01 -0600

The fourth paragraph, near the top of this Dec. 11, 2009, Daily Telegraph (U.K.) article by Andrew Hough, is:

"Some scientists [link, which doesn't work] also believe it [the Wise infrared sky-mapping spacecraft] could also identify a huge gas planet in the outer reaches of our own solar system, while it will also catalogue objects posing a danger to Earth."

Since Harrington's death, and the publication of Standish's ephemeris analysis, in 1993, there's been, I think, extreme prejudice against the "Planet X" possibility. Now, apparently, persons a mainstream newspaperman calls "scientists" tell him that there might be a *** "huge gas planet in the outer reaches of our own solar system" ***. Maybe this means desperation for funding, and a need to cultivate popular interest. Maybe it means that the naysayers have lost their dominance, that someone can speak of this possibility now without losing his job or being shouted down.

I've been announcing since Feb. 2007, that there is a massive planet, or rather, cold brown dwarf ("Barbarossa"), in distant solar orbit, which I've identified on sky surveys. I've been announcing for about two years that "Barbarossa" has a nebula, which I've identified from "interstellar" absorption of starlight, and from USNO-B star catalog statistics.

Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller

" > Depending on your email program, you may be able to click on the link in the email. Alternatively, you may have to open a web browser, such as Firefox or Internet Explorer, and copy the link over into the address bar.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6786176/New-NASA-telescope-will-allow-astronomers-to-see-previously-invisible-stars.html

> ... visit www.telegraph.co.uk "
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 13 Jan 2010 :  15:26:08  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Joe, they don't have to have been a flare up of barbarrosa but genuine supernova. Your planet will have shifted the barycentre of the solar system. Of course there will be errors in the Chinese, Japanese and Korean records but those can be allowed for.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1977MNRAS.180..567S
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 14 Jan 2010 :  06:07:31  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Oopsslight mistake there on the date of one supernova, not a b.c. date but and a.d. date. Here's a link to an article on it. Note the paragraphs on a revision of spin rates being called for.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/01_releases/press_011001.html

Another nova that should interest people on this board is this one, recently discovered. 200 times the mass of our sun, it goes bang but doesn't produce a black hole.
http://www.bigislandvideonews.com/2009/12december/20091202supernovae.htm
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 14 Jan 2010 :  09:56:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Just spent a few hours drinking tea and thinking about this nova. n other threads I've mentioned a graviton and a photon sitting on a planet, talking about stuff. Let's park them in orbit round this super massive sun. The photon will point to where the sun had been, the graviton will point to where it is. The graviton will do a spot of calculus and give the photon a pet lip by casually throwing the photon's universe into the bin. The speed of light is a little bit of the speed of gravity. The graviton is right to dump it. Then the photon says that he/she sees a big glowing ball, the graviton shakes his head in utter disbelief. He sees only the Swartchild radius of the star. Pretty small, about 2000 km diameter.

Now, if we say that any bit of mass gives over half its energy to creating its own space; energy that we can't see; so we double the mass of the particle. Now that's the e.m mass, the particle spins at the speed of light and has an angular momentum of h but we can have a gravitational mass, where the particle spins at the speed of gravity, with an angular momentum of one. This thing is not in our space it's in a phase changed space. In its space it behaves like whatever particle it is in e.m space. However, any interactions it has with e.m space are going to be negative refractive index interactions. It would be like looking in a reversed mirror and seeing that the guy facing you wears his wedding band on the left hand, just like you do. Note that this isn't reverse time, or negative mass. I grant you it's pretty weird though.

Righto, the asteroid belt. It's differentiated, so it looks very much like it was a planet that exploded. I did say to Larry that the only way that I could see the core of a gas giant being totally destroyed is if the force of gravity just switched off. Then the planet would explode like a fizzy pop bottle. Well, we now have a nova where the core has exploded. Gamma rays collide and produce electron/positron pairs, that's effectively switching off gravity.

Consider a soft gamma ray as a particle which has a rest mass of about 6E-64 kg Then it's gravitational mass will be the electron mass. A huge amount of energy packed into a tiny Swartchild radius. Two gamma rays hardly ever collide core to core.

In a planet, even a massive one, the Swartchild radius is tiny. Suppose it could alter slightly, then electrons in gravitational space would find themselves in e.m space and have to dump their energy. We're talking centimetres here. The planet vapourises, wow! The wow is because a super massive tiny core could still be out there.

One thing to note, this star nova has to be very low on heavier elements, metal stops gamma ray production presumably. Though I contend, gravitons don't see anything in e.m space, if they have to give up any of their energy into e.m space it's in little packets of h, to it, but pretty big stuff to us in em. space.

Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 14 Jan 2010 :  10:31:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
After another cup of tea, I had to think, "what the hell is this thing then?" It's not a black hole, they would have a V shaped energy profile, it's not a bec particle either, they would have a W shaped energy profile. It would have to be an e.m planetary equivalent graitational mass spinning in "imaginary" space. A pure bit of gravitational space totally denuded of e.m. properties. I've no idea what that could do, almost a Kantian thing in itself!

Edited by - Stoat on 14 Jan 2010 10:33:34
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 1.24 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03