- Thank you received: 0
Requiem for Relativity
- Joe Keller
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
17 years 9 months ago #16778
by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
A good description of the WMAP scan geometry is on the WMAP website. A good description of the COBE scan geometry is in Smoot et al, Astrophysical Journal 360:685+, p. 686.
From the COBE description, it seems that to first order in Earth's orbital eccentricity, a nearby non-Lambertian emission shell for the CMB would not affect the apparent dipole. However, the article admits that there was enough deviation from the idealized description, that sometimes part of Earth appeared over the edge of the sunshield. So, an effect on the apparent dipole might be seen due to the COBE scan geometry. It likely would be smaller, but of the same sign as, that due to the WMAP geometry.
WMAP, basically, scanned the hemisphere away from the sun. A non-Lambertian emission surface at 52.6 AU (e.g., a sum of rainbows) would give an apparent cross dipole of strength
0.5/52.6^2*(90/theta)^2*8/pi*epsilon
where epsilon is Earth's orbital eccentricity and theta is the angular radius of the "rainbow" (the rainbow is a model of extreme non-Lambertian emission).
By the method of Newton's "Optics", Book I, Part 2, Prop. 9, Problem 4 (pp. 446-447, Britannica Great Books edition) one sees that the index of refraction which gives the largest deflection (39.4deg) for light transmitted through a droplet, is sqrt(2). The light reflected in this droplet gives a rainbow radius of theta = 31.6deg.
Using this as a model or guide, one finds that Earth's orbital eccentricity causes WMAP's apparent CMB dipole to lag 3.0 degrees. The actual lag found above is 3.1 degrees. COBE's smaller lag (0.6 deg) might be due to a lesser amount of the same phenomenon.
From the COBE description, it seems that to first order in Earth's orbital eccentricity, a nearby non-Lambertian emission shell for the CMB would not affect the apparent dipole. However, the article admits that there was enough deviation from the idealized description, that sometimes part of Earth appeared over the edge of the sunshield. So, an effect on the apparent dipole might be seen due to the COBE scan geometry. It likely would be smaller, but of the same sign as, that due to the WMAP geometry.
WMAP, basically, scanned the hemisphere away from the sun. A non-Lambertian emission surface at 52.6 AU (e.g., a sum of rainbows) would give an apparent cross dipole of strength
0.5/52.6^2*(90/theta)^2*8/pi*epsilon
where epsilon is Earth's orbital eccentricity and theta is the angular radius of the "rainbow" (the rainbow is a model of extreme non-Lambertian emission).
By the method of Newton's "Optics", Book I, Part 2, Prop. 9, Problem 4 (pp. 446-447, Britannica Great Books edition) one sees that the index of refraction which gives the largest deflection (39.4deg) for light transmitted through a droplet, is sqrt(2). The light reflected in this droplet gives a rainbow radius of theta = 31.6deg.
Using this as a model or guide, one finds that Earth's orbital eccentricity causes WMAP's apparent CMB dipole to lag 3.0 degrees. The actual lag found above is 3.1 degrees. COBE's smaller lag (0.6 deg) might be due to a lesser amount of the same phenomenon.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Joe Keller
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
17 years 9 months ago #16779
by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />On line discussions are much like face to face discusions. The often move off on tangents that have a life of their own. You would have to go back and start from the beginning to see just how this particular one came into being.
We have a number of participants who use our resources for their own purposes. Without shame or embarassment, aparently. (Many of them are kooky, even to us.)
Some of them we cut off.
Some we don't.
Our reasons vary, but they are confidential.
===
We make an occasional attempt to get them to tie their stuff (either as support or as refutation) into our stuff. Sometimes they try.
===
As you can see, moderation is fairly loose here (but the rules are not especially objective, and are subject to change). The only thing that will always get you into trouble (right now) is shooting at a messenger. Off topic comments (our definition, not yours) are another.
Messages are always fair game.
LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I have something to add to the above incisive, valuable comments: please consider the message, not the messenger. Almost never will one find a person who is a competent heretic in exactly one's own heretical area of choice and no other.
<br />On line discussions are much like face to face discusions. The often move off on tangents that have a life of their own. You would have to go back and start from the beginning to see just how this particular one came into being.
We have a number of participants who use our resources for their own purposes. Without shame or embarassment, aparently. (Many of them are kooky, even to us.)
Some of them we cut off.
Some we don't.
Our reasons vary, but they are confidential.
===
We make an occasional attempt to get them to tie their stuff (either as support or as refutation) into our stuff. Sometimes they try.
===
As you can see, moderation is fairly loose here (but the rules are not especially objective, and are subject to change). The only thing that will always get you into trouble (right now) is shooting at a messenger. Off topic comments (our definition, not yours) are another.
Messages are always fair game.
LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I have something to add to the above incisive, valuable comments: please consider the message, not the messenger. Almost never will one find a person who is a competent heretic in exactly one's own heretical area of choice and no other.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 years 9 months ago #16594
by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Hi Joe, one thing that the image problem could be, is that the images put up here are simple jpg's. You can download them as FIT files from the Bradford. jpg files will only be at 72 dpi, so they won't fit onto the much larger fit files. Do yo think it could be down to that?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Joe Keller
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
17 years 9 months ago #16623
by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />Hi Joe, one thing that the image problem could be, is that the images put up here are simple jpg's. You can download them as FIT files from the Bradford. jpg files will only be at 72 dpi, so they won't fit onto the much larger fit files. Do yo think it could be down to that?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
When I saved the ESO versions of my Object #3 area, as JPG instead of FITS files, they were a little blurrier, but it still was easy to identify the main landmark stars.
<br />Hi Joe, one thing that the image problem could be, is that the images put up here are simple jpg's. You can download them as FIT files from the Bradford. jpg files will only be at 72 dpi, so they won't fit onto the much larger fit files. Do yo think it could be down to that?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
When I saved the ESO versions of my Object #3 area, as JPG instead of FITS files, they were a little blurrier, but it still was easy to identify the main landmark stars.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 years 9 months ago #19490
by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
I just downloaded one of the images as a fits file. My viewer didn't want to know, so i downloaded the other older fits file, not for colour images. One of them opened and after adjusting the intensity I got about three times as many stars. So it looks as though it's best to use the black and white image format on job requests. Should I put up the images again? Or not bother? One good thing I found, my fits viewer has a blink animator to it.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Joe Keller
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
17 years 9 months ago #16626
by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />I just downloaded one of the images as a fits file. My viewer didn't want to know, so i downloaded the other older fits file, not for colour images. One of them opened and after adjusting the intensity I got about three times as many stars. So it looks as though it's best to use the black and white image format on job requests. Should I put up the images again? Or not bother? One good thing I found, my fits viewer has a blink animator to it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Please put up the new improved (B&W) images! With three times as many stars, it should be easy to confirm the region. Also, it will let others know what to expect, even though I no longer think that region is the best bet for finding Barbarossa. It's also good that you have a blink animator now.
<br />I just downloaded one of the images as a fits file. My viewer didn't want to know, so i downloaded the other older fits file, not for colour images. One of them opened and after adjusting the intensity I got about three times as many stars. So it looks as though it's best to use the black and white image format on job requests. Should I put up the images again? Or not bother? One good thing I found, my fits viewer has a blink animator to it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Please put up the new improved (B&W) images! With three times as many stars, it should be easy to confirm the region. Also, it will let others know what to expect, even though I no longer think that region is the best bet for finding Barbarossa. It's also good that you have a blink animator now.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.340 seconds