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
957 Posts

Posted - 05 Mar 2007 :  12:12:31  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Object #4 is missing from the Aladin plate (obtained over the internet from VizierR at Strasbourg). All eight nearby objects with 17.2 < R1,R2 < 20.3 were identifiable near (though often 1-2" N) of catalog position (though three of these might have been parts of the background face-on barred spiral galaxy).

On the Aladin plate for Object #2, the nearest catalog object(s) (excluding another of high, i.e., "999", positional uncertainty) is USNO-B 0824-0279158. There are three catalog objects very close together, which seem from their catalog data to be really one or two objects. Allowing for summed flux, this object(s) has 17.9 < R1,R2 < 18.2, and appears as one object on the Aladin plate very near its catalog position. Almost nothing lies within 40" of the catalog position of Object #2.

Likewise for Object #3, there is USNO-B 0820-0274037 with 17.8 < R1,R2 < 19.0, exactly at catalog position.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 05 Mar 2007 :  12:46:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The Aladin server, formerly quick, now has become too slow to use at all. I suppose that either people who look at this messageboard, or people to whom I immediately emailed my messages posted here, are using it to confirm my claims.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 05 Mar 2007 :  13:45:26  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The Aladin server is fine now. Maybe I missed the plate among the pile of "windows" on my "desktop".

Object #1 also is missing from its Aladin plate. Of the three nearest dim stars having either R1 or R2 < +19.0, one is obvious, one (USNO-B 0827-0286485) is a definite smudge (galaxy?) at its catalog location just S of where Object #1 should be, and one is a fainter smudge.

A nearby Red +16.66/17.29 star (USNO-B 0827-0286507) resembles a nearby R+18.62/18.68. The nearly equal R1 & R2 magnitudes argue against a very variable star, and for obscuration.

The abovementioned USNO-B 0827-0286485 seems to have a vague moon on each side: they are 20" apart on a line 20deg to the equator. Both this line and the one mentioned above for Object #3, slope like Barbarossa's alleged orbit.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 05 Mar 2007 :  18:37:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The Aladin server has been "down" for 3 hrs now, but before then, I confirmed that USNO-B catalog objects with discrepant Red magnitudes such as mine, generally are absent from the plates, or at least displaced. Within 20 arcminutes of Object #1, the USNO-B catalog has 12 other objects with one Red mag <18.99, one Red mag >19.50, both PMs greater than 80 in absolute value, and (for determinacy) uncertainty of position less than "999" in both axes. Before the server went down, I had time to evaluate 10 of these:

One was a typical dim star at exactly the published location. One lay on a point (i.e., streak) of a bright star (much as Object #4 lay on an arm of a spiral galaxy). Two resembled Object #2: there was nothing near their catalog location. One resembled Objects #1 & 3: it lay 10" from a pair of stars or galaxies (the brighter was in the USNO-B catalog - as was the brightest of the three objects near Object #1). Five of the objects, lay about 5" from other, faint and/or blurred, solitary, uncataloged objects. Thus only one of the ten random objects meeting the criteria, was in a complicated situation like Objects #1 & 3 ( p = (6*10 + 4) /(14*13*12/3!) = 0.18 ).

Regarding Object #3, an estimated 40,000 asteroids of more than a few km size, gives only one per square degree of sky; perhaps three per square degree in this part of the ecliptic. Furthermore an asteroid at opposition, even 4 AU from the sun, would get 100x the apparent retrograde angular speed, from Earth's motion, as Barbarossa. Only half this would be canceled by the asteroid's own orbital speed. Even a Kuiper belt object at 34 AU, would get 10x the retrograde speed, as Barbarossa.

Alternatively, the streak near Object #3 might be a roughly edge-on spiral galaxy. The Zwicky, Herzog & Wild Catalog of Galaxies (1961) vol. 1, pp. i,36-38, indicates that a few degrees north of Barbarossa (south of -3.5deg Decl was not covered) even the densest clusters have only about 1000 galaxies per sq deg, down to about magnitude +18. The streak south of Object #3 looked like roughly a +18 object. Even in the densest cluster, the chance of finding a +18 galaxy within a 5" radius, would be only 1000*(pi/720^2)= 0.006. Only half of galaxies would be spiral, only half of those sufficiently edge-on, and only 1/3 of of those, aligned within 30deg of Barbarossa's orbital path, so, p < 0.0005, or, for four Objects, p < 0.002. However, a galaxy would give about the magnitude observed: if the 5" length is the bright core analogous to the central 40,000 lt yrs of M31 (which subtends 1 degree at 2.4*10^6 lt yr), then the magnitude would be log(720^2)*2.5 + 3.4 = 17.7.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 06 Mar 2007 :  00:46:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I checked the IRAS infrared source catalog, using overlapping disks of 1deg radius to cover Barbarossa's track from 10h59m to 11h35m. The number of IRAS sources within 10deg of the track's midpoint, implies expectation of 0.50 sources closer than 1' to the track. The number of sources found in the swath of the overlapping disks, extending 0.866-1.000deg to either side of the track, roughly confirmed this.

Two IRAS sources (p=0.09, Poisson test) were found closer than 1' to the track (J2000 celestial coordinates):

Source #1. IRAS 11102-0701 (repeated in the "Faint Source" IRAS catalog, as F11102-0701, with ostensibly slightly more accurate coordinates, which I use), 55" from the segment between Objects #1 & 2; RA 11h12m44.9s Decl -7deg17'50". For the source in the original IRAS catalog (without the "F") the flux in Janskys was 0.633 +/- 12%, 0.657, 0.400 & 1.00 in the 12, 25, 60 & 100 micron bands, resp. (no error bars given for last three values). In the "faint source" IRAS catalog (with the "F") those fluxes were 0.657 +/- 9%, 0.301 +/- 31%, 0.120 +/- 29% & 0.644 +/- 29% (all but the longest wavelength's fluxes, are said to be 94-98.5% reliable in the "F" catalog). The source is 17" from a mag +11 red star, USNO-B1 0827-0286738. The IRAS satellite's field of view perpendicular to the ecliptic was 0.75 to 3' (narrower for shorter wavelengths), and 4.5 to 5' parallel to the ecliptic. The uncertainty of the source's position (in the "F" catalog) is 28" parallel to the ecliptic and 2" perpendicular thereto (due to experimental design, all sources had more uncertainty parallel to the ecliptic, but for this source, the difference was especially great). (In the original catalog, the uncertainties were 70" & 8", resp.)

Source #2. IRAS 11210-0823 (I haven't yet checked the "F" catalog), 33" (perpendicular) from the segment between Objects #3 & 4; RA 11h23m32.1s Decl -8deg39'30". The flux in Janskys was 0.256, 0.250, 1.950 & 4.650 at 12, 25, 60 & 100 microns. This source overlies the same face-on spiral galaxy as does Object #4. The original catalog uncertainties are 40" parallel & 11" perpendicular to the ecliptic.

IRAS, in 1983, mapped the sky four times in ten months. Special software was employed during part of this time to find asteroids (positional discrepancies apparent within hours)(S Green et al, Icarus 64:517+, 1985). Earth's motion would give Barbarossa net apparent motion only 2% that of an asteroid.

I have to leave this public library computer; more to follow.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 06 Mar 2007 :  17:08:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
If the effective observation date of IRAS was 1983.5; if Source #1 (above) was Barbarossa; if Barbarossa's orbital period is 6828 yr; and if the track of Objects #1-8 is that of Barbarossa, then the position of Barbarossa for 2007.25 is:

RA 11h8m14.1s Decl -6deg44'11.5"

Apparently school let out early in Story County due an impending storm, so I have to leave yet another public library computer today; more to follow.

Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 06 Mar 2007 :  18:58:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I asked the librarian: it was a conference afternoon! Now the kids are gone to supper and I'm back on the computer here, after looking up some facts in the Encyclopedia and making some calculations.

I neglected Earth parallax when I could assume that observations always occurred at opposition. If the relevant IRAS observation (launch Jan. 2003: 10-month mission ended before the end of 1983) was made, effectively, June 9, then the correction for Earth parallax and for the aberration of light, changes Barbarossa's "J2000" position for 2007.18 (approx. March 9, when Barbarossa is, approx., at opposition and on the meridian at midnight) to:

RA 11h8m53.6s Decl -6deg49'07.8"


This is based on extrapolation from the most recent sighting, rather than the great circle below.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 06 Mar 2007 :  19:26:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
If the USNO-B catalog plates were made at Barbarossa's opposition +/- 1 month, there would be up to (10.5' Earth parallax + 0.3' aberration of light) * sin(Barbarossa's inclination 26.4 - Earth's inclination (23.45*cos10.5)) * sin30 = 20" deviation to either side of the track. This is roughly what was observed. The corresponding 0.5 * 10.8' * cos(23.45)/cos(8) = (+/-)20s deviation in RA, would be enough to regularize the periods of the Freya sightings (Objects #1, 3-6 & 8).

Graphically, the best great-circle fit to Objects #1-8, gave a root-mean square deviation of 13.4" (perpendicularly) from the line (subsequently confirmed as 13.40" using successive approximations on my IBM 486). I tried undoing the USNO-B catalog's automatic Proper Motion correction to the coordinates: using successive approximations on my IBM 486, the rms deviation became 12.2".

I chose the points by the criterion of closeness to a line. Yet subtraction of the USNO's presumably fictitious Proper Motion correction, removed 20% of the variance.

The likely correction to Barbarossa's predicted present (2007.18) RA, from the uncertainty of IRAS observation dates, is between 0 and -11s, maybe -13s (the corresponding correction to Decl for Barbarossa's track, is approx. -7.5 arcsec Decl per sec RA). Estimating Barbarossa's orbit causes an even bigger uncertainty: the most different likely alternative, is a circular orbit with 4400 yr period, which would alter Barbarossa's predicted present RA by -120s.

So, I give not only estimated present coordinates, but also a search great circle which is known more confidently. (At roughly 10 degrees from the ecliptic, Barbarossa's track appears as almost a perfect great circle now, at opposition.) This is the great circle determined by least-squares successive approximations with Objects #1-8. It passes through the points:

RA 11h 08m 00s Decl -6deg 43' 36.7" &
RA 11h 10m 00s Decl -6deg 58' 37.9"

A straight line segment between these points, on rectilinear coordinate paper, will deviate by less than 3", from great circle to chord.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 06 Mar 2007 :  20:25:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Source #1 (IRAS 11102-0701 or IRAS F11102-0701) indicates that Barbarossa is now devoid of internal heat. Barbarossa is at equilibrium 15K with sunlight, or maybe somewhere between that, and the 30K temperature of interstellar "cold dust" (Enc. Britannica 1998, article "infrared source"). Frey & Freya are, to a first approximation, infrared blackbodies at 55K; or, to a second approximation, slightly warmer: Neptune's effective temperature, 59K, would allow the same energy radiance, but with a 25% albedo for infrared. Frey and Freya have internal heat like Neptune.

On one hand, Source #2 resembles (in its three longest wavelengths) the exponential tail of a Planck radiation curve for the 30K "cold dust" of the distant face-on spiral galaxy superimposed with it. On the other hand, Source #1 in its "F" ("faint source" IRAS catalog) version assessment, resembles (in its three shortest wavelengths) the Rayleigh-Jeans "left foot" of the Planck curve for 250K "warm dust" clouds "warmed by neighboring stars" such as the "red" star nominally 17" away (op. cit.; see also previous post).

The difference between the original version and "F" version assessments of Source #1, is due to infrared radiation from Frey & Freya, which apparently was somehow subtracted to obtain the "F" version. In the original assessment, Frey & Freya had provided half the power in the three longest wavelengths. With four IRAS measurements, the moons must have had four times the power of the stellar "warm dust" source, in those wavelengths (but not in the shortest wavelength). Consideration of this anomalous "fourth measurement" which happened to include the Barbarossa system, would cause, by the simplest calculation, sqr((1+1+1+25 - (1+1+1+5)^2/4)/3)/2 = 100% uncertainty of the result (vs. unreported uncertainty in the original catalog and, in the "F" catalog, 29-31% uncertainty at the each of the three longest wavelengths).

The part due to Frey & Freya (three longest wavelengths) is fairly flat, and it is symmetrical. Such symmetry would be obtained at a Planck temperature of 55K (my estimate by two guesses and then one first-order interpolation). If Barbarossa itself were a blackbody at this effective temperature, it would emit 30x too much radiation (assuming all of the 4 IRAS measurements detected it). Really, it is Frey and Freya (1/8 the surface area) which emit, because Barbarossa is cold. Also, they were only detected in one of the four measurements; the other three measurements of them, not only were irrelevant, but were ignored because they didn't happen to be near another, unmoving, infrared source at those times. Thus 1/8 * 1/4 = 1/32.

Neptune's 30% optical albedo suggests, perhaps, a 25% infrared albedo (not 0% as for a blackbody) for Frey & Freya. To keep the same power output would require adjustment of the temperature upwards to 59K, which happens to be the effective Planck temperature of Neptune.
Go to Top of Page

nemesis

84 Posts

Posted - 07 Mar 2007 :  10:25:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Joe, how do you explain that Barbarossa, being larger, has no internal heat, while its moons Frey and Freya do?
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 07 Mar 2007 :  15:41:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by nemesis

Joe, how do you explain that Barbarossa, being larger, has no internal heat, while its moons Frey and Freya do?



Whatever causes Neptune to have much more internal heat than Uranus, might cause Frey & Freya to have much more internal heat than Barbarossa. Furthermore Barbarossa and its moons might differ much more in composition, than do Neptune & Uranus. Elsewhere on this messageboard, I've speculated that Uranus' lack of internal heat might be due to its rotation axis lying near the solar system's orbital plane.

I was talking with my father about this last night. He commented that the orbital plane of Barbarossa's moons, by analogy with Jupiter, Saturn & Uranus, might reveal Barbarossa's rotational axis.

The long axis of my "PM ellipse" is perpendicular to Barbarossa's sky path. This hints that Barbarossa's aliasing moons' orbits are perpendicular to Barbarossa's orbit.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 07 Mar 2007 :  21:39:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I found another VizieR digitized plate, which does *not* show Barbarossa nor its moon, near Object #3 (see above). I first saw Barbarossa and its moon on this VizieR plate:

SERC.ER.DSS2.713 (label in upper left corner, superimposed on the plate itself)

late the night of March 4, and announced the information (here on Dr. Van Flandern's www.metaresearch.org messageboard, first) March 5. (Today is March 7, now approx 8:39 PM CST.) Barbarossa is the streak SW of the catalog position of Object #3 (USNO-B 0820-0274026); its moon is to the W.

Within the last hour I have obtained another Aladin plate which shows the same main stars, including some of apparent faintness similar to Barbarossa and its moon, but which shows neither Barbarossa nor its moon. That is by far the biggest discrepancy between the two plates. I've already shown the plates side by side, to two undergraduates here at Iowa State Univ. in the downstairs multimedia room (a Black man studying economics sitting to my right and his White friend who had stopped by to chat). It is this VizieR plate:

DSS2.O.POSSI (similar upper left label superimposed on plate)

I obtained the first plate again as I always have, by accessing Aladin directly through VizieR (Strasbourg), entering the exact USNO-B coordinates of Object #3, using the default "0" radius search, and selecting the top choice, "ER (Optical R)". I obtained the second plate by searching USNO-B1.0 for the exact coordinates of Object #3, with a 10" radius, then clicking the instruction in the lower left corner, telling the server to find an Aladin plate of my object.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 08 Mar 2007 :  00:42:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Regarding Object #3, there are three interesting nearby objects which seem to be cataloged:

F1. USNO-B 0820-0274021 (catalog mags R19.3, I17.8, B invalid).

F2. USNO-B 0820-0274037 (catalog mags R17.8-19.0, I18.2)

F3. USNO-B 0820-0274036 (catalog mags R19.3, I18.7, B invalid)

The "Optical R" plate on which Barbarossa appears, shows these with F2 somewhat dimmer than Barbarossa. F3 is dimmer yet. F3 is similar in brightness, to the above "moon" of Barbarossa which I henceforth call F1.

On the Aladin "Optical B" plate option, F1-3 all are visible though F1, at least, has moved, to about 0.08s (1") W. Also, F1 is faint. Barbarossa, formerly brighter than any of F1-3, is absent from this plate.

On "Optical I", Barbarossa is gone. F2 & F3 are definite though faint. F1 is stronger than it is on "Optical R".

On "IRJ", all are gone except F1, which is as strong as ever. "IRH" & "IRK" also show only F1, which is relatively bright on these and rivals nearby brighter stars.

Only Barbarossa makes a streak. Only Barbarossa is limited to only one of the seven plates I've viewed tonight (F1-F3 appear on at least the Optical R, Optical B, and Optical I plates).

I also viewed the IRAS 12, 25, 60 & 100 micron plates. On these, nothing immediately relevant was obvious.

The longest of these IR wavebands, "IRK", corresponds to 1250-1500K. Since F1 appears on six of the seven plates viewed, it's probably outside our solar system, perhaps a star with much "warm dust".

Barbarossa, found near the coordinates of Object #3 (USNO-B 0820-0274026) must be either an asteroid, a Kuiper belt object, or something stranger within our solar system (no nebula or external galaxy would be relatively strong in Red yet very weak in Blue and in optical and all other IR). Its short track argues for c. 330 AU distance, assuming an all-night exposure of a sky patch near opposition.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 08 Mar 2007 :  11:45:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The elliptical orbits which the "PM ellipse" suggests for Barbarossa's true moons, would bias sightings toward the parts of their orbits where they spend more time and make shorter photographic trails. In any case, the PM ellipse suggests that Frey's and Freya's orbital speeds around Barbarossa are faster than Barbarossa's orbital speed around the sun. This would make Frey & Freya difficult to detect on time exposures.
Go to Top of Page

nemesis

84 Posts

Posted - 08 Mar 2007 :  12:10:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"Barbarossa, found near the coordinates of Object #3 (USNO-B 0820-0274026) must be either an asteroid, a Kuiper belt object, or something stranger within our solar system (no nebula or external galaxy would be relatively strong in Red yet very weak in Blue and in optical and all other IR)."
Joe, how can Barbarossa be an "asteroid" in the commonly accepted meaning of the term, but have moons large enough to generate internal heat? From your earlier posts, I thought you felt evidence indicated it was a giant planet or brown dwarf.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 08 Mar 2007 :  12:57:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I estimate from the Aladin SERC.ER.DSS2.713 "Optical Red" plate, that Barbarossa's track is 2" to 5" long, likeliest 3". This would correspond to a seven-hour exposure, for this 330 AU - distant object's apparent angular speed at opposition.

The expected 26-degree track slope isn't obvious, but part of the slope could be obscured by limited resolution, and part by the appearance of the bright red side (beard) of Barbarossa, as Barbarossa rotates left-handed, with period roughly one Earth day, with rotation axis parallel to its orbital progression. Barbarossa's apparent diameter of 0.4" would allow Barbarossa's rotation to mask up to arctan(0.4/2) = 11 degrees of the slope of its track. If Barbarossa progressed from "no beard" to "half beard" during the exposure, then it would average "quarter beard", consistent with the relatively faint Red magnitude of Object #3 vs. the other Objects (+18.57, vs. range 17.41 to 18.84 for Objects #1-8).

Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 08 Mar 2007 :  13:51:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by nemesis

"Barbarossa, found near the coordinates of Object #3 (USNO-B 0820-0274026) must be either an asteroid, a Kuiper belt object, or something stranger within our solar system (no nebula or external galaxy would be relatively strong in Red yet very weak in Blue and in optical and all other IR)."
Joe, how can Barbarossa be an "asteroid" in the commonly accepted meaning of the term, but have moons large enough to generate internal heat? From your earlier posts, I thought you felt evidence indicated it was a giant planet or brown dwarf.




"...or something stranger within our solar system..."
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 08 Mar 2007 :  16:26:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I've looked at the Aladin plates for Objects #5-8. Object #8 almost overlies an arm of a face-on spiral galaxy (like that of Object #4, but much smaller). The galaxy is seen about equally well in Optical R and Optical B. It is sketchier in Optical I, but both of its apparent twin nuclei remain visible. It becomes vague but definite smudges in all of the IR J, K & H plates (I looked at all three plates available of each, for this region).

The dimness of this galaxy in Optical I, gives a caution about misidentifying highly redshifted (face or edge-on) spiral galaxies which might be visible only on the Optical R plate. On the other hand, the face-on spiral galaxy near Object #4, which has much greater apparent diameter (8s = 120", vs. 12"), also easily is visible with detail, though smaller & fainter, on the Optical I, and J, K, & H plates. A distant, apparently small, highly redshifted galaxy would have further advantage on Optical I.

The spot near the catalog position of Object #3, which I identify as Barbarossa, is brighter than F1-3 in Red yet, unlike any of F1-3, disappears in Blue and in Optical Infrared. Barbarossa's spot is about the same size as the spots made by F1-3. A photon is a photon. If the spot is a nebula or external galaxy, the only way it could disappear when the three stars don't, would be if its spectrum somehow were much narrower than that of the three stars, i.e., narrower than a Planck spectrum.

If the spot is an edge-on full-size spiral whose 100,000 lt yr diameter subtends 5", it would be 4 billion lt yr distant with a Hubble redshift of about 30%. This makes it even less likely to disappear from the Optical I plate.

Spiral galaxies usually are fairly symmetrical. Even a barred spiral, if symmetrical, will have its bright bar centered along either the major or minor axis of its apparent ellipse. The asymmetry of Barbarossa's light distribution, argues against its being an edge-on barred spiral galaxy.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 08 Mar 2007 :  18:54:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Help!

What is the date of the "Aladin" plate which shows Barbarossa? (In my earlier post, I tell how to find this plate.) It is labeled:

"SERC.ER.DSS2.713"

Some Aladin plates (usually IR plates) are labeled, on the menu or description, with the day they were made, but others aren't. This must be a plate on file somewhere, maybe at Palomar (Cal Tech and UMass are mentioned).

Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller, M. D.

Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 09 Mar 2007 :  13:15:44  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The USNO-B catalog coordinates for Objects #1-8 (see above) have rms deviation 13.40" from the best-fitting great circle track. Let's consider the deviation, to either side, to be a coordinate in 8-dimensional Euclidean space. The r.m.s. catalog proper motion perpendicular to Barbarossa's track, is roughly 400mas/yr; x 30 yrs for the typical epoch, = 12". If regaining the originally observed positions, by undoing the catalog's automatic Proper Motion correction, merely adds random error to the points which I had selected to be near some line, then the radius of the error ball in 8-dimensional space, should increase to sqrt(13.40^2 + 12^2) = 18". The actual 12.16" r.m.s. deviation error ball obtained, is only p = (12.16/18)^8 = 0.043 times that volume.
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 6.35 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03