- Thank you received: 0
Requiem for Relativity
- Joe Keller
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
17 years 10 months ago #18867
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 get an ether energy density, of the Sun at 53 au, of about a two hundredth of what it is at the Earth. ...
(Edited) I get 4.19821189643E 04 Joules / cubic metre at 1 au, and 8.0495163309E 02 Joules / cubic metre at 53 au.
...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Very exciting! I hardly know anything about that theory, but the ratio is within 1% of: sqrt(2)*137 (fine structure constant = 1/137.036...). That's the best that can be expected, since the best I could estimate the 53 AU distance from JD Anderson's article, was 1% accuracy (the fluctuations in Pioneer 10's speed occurred over considerable time, and I just eyeballed the average). Also accounting for Earth's orbital eccentricity might involve another 1% difference. So there might (or might not) be a connection with the fine structure constant.
<br />I get an ether energy density, of the Sun at 53 au, of about a two hundredth of what it is at the Earth. ...
(Edited) I get 4.19821189643E 04 Joules / cubic metre at 1 au, and 8.0495163309E 02 Joules / cubic metre at 53 au.
...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Very exciting! I hardly know anything about that theory, but the ratio is within 1% of: sqrt(2)*137 (fine structure constant = 1/137.036...). That's the best that can be expected, since the best I could estimate the 53 AU distance from JD Anderson's article, was 1% accuracy (the fluctuations in Pioneer 10's speed occurred over considerable time, and I just eyeballed the average). Also accounting for Earth's orbital eccentricity might involve another 1% difference. So there might (or might not) be a connection with the fine structure constant.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Joe Keller
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
17 years 10 months ago #18868
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 />...the 53 AU distance, based on observational evidence that can be interpreted as something like a refraction event at that distance.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I agree. As you say, it's "something like" refraction, but not refraction in the usual sense. The distance is defined by the cluster of unexplained apparent speed variations of Pioneer 10 according to JD Anderson's article which was cited in my 2002 "Aircraft Engineering & Aerospace Technology" article.
<br />...the 53 AU distance, based on observational evidence that can be interpreted as something like a refraction event at that distance.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I agree. As you say, it's "something like" refraction, but not refraction in the usual sense. The distance is defined by the cluster of unexplained apparent speed variations of Pioneer 10 according to JD Anderson's article which was cited in my 2002 "Aircraft Engineering & Aerospace Technology" article.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Joe Keller
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
17 years 10 months ago #15052
by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Let m * v^2 = k * T, where m is the electron mass, k is Boltzmann's constant, and T is the cosmic background temperature = 2.73K. Then v = escape velocity (velocity of escape from the sun) at 42.9 AU. One obtains the above formula by modifying the Maxwell distribution formula for the root-mean-square speed, to give the (r.m.s.) velocity component in one direction only, e.g., parallel to the solar system's magnetic field lines (because the two components perpendicular to the field lines would be ineffectual in helping the electron escape). Because the states are so uncrowded, the Maxwell distribution doesn't need to be modified for fermion statistics.
Let the speed parallel to the field line be "vx". Another estimate would use mean(abs(vx)) because a group of electrons, once agitated by the background temperature and moving in the same direction along the field line, might then tend to equalize their speeds with each other. This would correspond to a distance of pi/2 * 42.9 AU = 67.4 AU. Solar radiation pressure and solar wind would tend to reduce the effective escape velocity and thereby reduce the 67.4 AU figure.
Yuri Galaev's recent experiments indicate that the "ether", whatever it is, travels, in a sense, at the same speed as the dominant transparent physical medium such as air. In the above, free electrons are treated as the physical medium.
The solar system would seem to sit in a spherical block of ether of radius 53 AU. Pioneer 10 tracking indicates that special-relativistic time dilation depends on whether the source is inside or outside this block: if outside the block, then the operative relative velocity of source and observer, for the time dilation calculation, is that which pertains when the light enters the block, not when the light reaches Earth. Two star occultations by Saturn's rings, reported in Alexander, showed flickering position (or fused flickering) of the order of 0.1 arcsecond, as if the aberration of light is analogously affected, by whether the light arrives directly from the star (operative relative velocity is that when the light enters the block) or interacts with transparent gas in Saturn's rings (operative relative velocity is that when the light reaches Earth). Both Pioneer 10 and Saturn lie near the ecliptic; also for sources away from the ecliptic, the Kimura (1902) phenomenon confirms, to 30% accuracy, similarly altered aberration due to the 53 AU barrier.
At 53 AU, the equilibrium temperature of solar radiation is much higher than the cosmic background temperature. If the solar radiation temperature isn't involved, then Earth should have a barrier at 67.4 AU / 333,400 = 18,790 mi. from its center. The electron maximum of the outer Van Allen electron belt (Enc. Americana 1998) is, in Earth's equatorial plane, 17,630 miles from Earth's center.
For Mars, the barrier would be at 2010 mi; Mars' radius is 2110 mi. Apparently a solar system body has a strong magnetic field if, and only if, it rotates rapidly and is more massive than Mars.
Let the speed parallel to the field line be "vx". Another estimate would use mean(abs(vx)) because a group of electrons, once agitated by the background temperature and moving in the same direction along the field line, might then tend to equalize their speeds with each other. This would correspond to a distance of pi/2 * 42.9 AU = 67.4 AU. Solar radiation pressure and solar wind would tend to reduce the effective escape velocity and thereby reduce the 67.4 AU figure.
Yuri Galaev's recent experiments indicate that the "ether", whatever it is, travels, in a sense, at the same speed as the dominant transparent physical medium such as air. In the above, free electrons are treated as the physical medium.
The solar system would seem to sit in a spherical block of ether of radius 53 AU. Pioneer 10 tracking indicates that special-relativistic time dilation depends on whether the source is inside or outside this block: if outside the block, then the operative relative velocity of source and observer, for the time dilation calculation, is that which pertains when the light enters the block, not when the light reaches Earth. Two star occultations by Saturn's rings, reported in Alexander, showed flickering position (or fused flickering) of the order of 0.1 arcsecond, as if the aberration of light is analogously affected, by whether the light arrives directly from the star (operative relative velocity is that when the light enters the block) or interacts with transparent gas in Saturn's rings (operative relative velocity is that when the light reaches Earth). Both Pioneer 10 and Saturn lie near the ecliptic; also for sources away from the ecliptic, the Kimura (1902) phenomenon confirms, to 30% accuracy, similarly altered aberration due to the 53 AU barrier.
At 53 AU, the equilibrium temperature of solar radiation is much higher than the cosmic background temperature. If the solar radiation temperature isn't involved, then Earth should have a barrier at 67.4 AU / 333,400 = 18,790 mi. from its center. The electron maximum of the outer Van Allen electron belt (Enc. Americana 1998) is, in Earth's equatorial plane, 17,630 miles from Earth's center.
For Mars, the barrier would be at 2010 mi; Mars' radius is 2110 mi. Apparently a solar system body has a strong magnetic field if, and only if, it rotates rapidly and is more massive than Mars.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 years 10 months ago #18784
by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Here's that energy density formula and the values I put in, in case you want to alter it for the Earth orbit.
E = GM ^ 2 / (4 pi ) r ^ 4
M = Sun's mass of 1.99E 30
One au = 149.6E 09 metres.
This is from Robert Carroll, and I think we need to also look at his formula for light bending as opposed to Einstein's.
theta = 2 G M / r C ^ 2
As opposed to Einstein's, theta = 4 G M / r C ^ 2
Theta is in radians and "r" is the closest approach of a photon.
Carroll does point out that Einstein's formula is claimed to be more nearly in accord with measurements made during a total eclipse of the sun. He then points out that there is no way to separate the deflection due to the atmosphere of the sun from that due to the gravitational field only.
The two formula differ, because Einstein uses a constant velocity for light, in the contracted space of the sun.
E = GM ^ 2 / (4 pi ) r ^ 4
M = Sun's mass of 1.99E 30
One au = 149.6E 09 metres.
This is from Robert Carroll, and I think we need to also look at his formula for light bending as opposed to Einstein's.
theta = 2 G M / r C ^ 2
As opposed to Einstein's, theta = 4 G M / r C ^ 2
Theta is in radians and "r" is the closest approach of a photon.
Carroll does point out that Einstein's formula is claimed to be more nearly in accord with measurements made during a total eclipse of the sun. He then points out that there is no way to separate the deflection due to the atmosphere of the sun from that due to the gravitational field only.
The two formula differ, because Einstein uses a constant velocity for light, in the contracted space of the sun.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Joe Keller
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
17 years 10 months ago #18820
by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
"Recently, astronomers found that the [Kuiper] belt has an unexpected sharp outer edge at 50 AU."
- MA Garlick, "An Illustrated Atlas of the Universe", 2006
"[Kuiper belt] objects beyond 41 AU tend to have eccentricities less than 0.1 and are not, in general, in resonances."
- PR Weissman & HF Levison, in: Stern & Tholen, eds., "Pluto & Charon" (1997), p. 592
If orbits are circular and unperturbed, a sharp Kuiper belt boundary is possible. The minimum density of Kuiper belt objects (a tenth as many objects as at 10 AU closer to the sun; there is a modest increase farther out) occurs at 52 +/- 1 AU by my interpolation of either Fig. 2 or 3, in CA Trujillo & ME Brown, "The Radial Distribution of the Kuiper Belt", Astrophysical Journal 554:L95-L98 (2001).
"...we likely have zero detection of objects beyond 53 AU...If planetary perturbations are solely responsible for the structure of the Kuiper Belt, a dense primordial disk would be expected beyond [about] 50 AU where these perturbations are insignificant."
- RL Allen et al, "The Edge of the Solar System", Astrophysical Journal 549:L241-244 (2001), pp. L242, L244.
Allen et al (op cit, Table 2) found 24 new objects, in a survey designed to find any objects between 30 and 80 AU which were in bound orbits (op cit, p. L242). One of these was at 20.9 +/- 0.3 AU; the other 23 ranged from 31.7 +/- 4.2, to 52.6 +/- 0.1 AU.
- MA Garlick, "An Illustrated Atlas of the Universe", 2006
"[Kuiper belt] objects beyond 41 AU tend to have eccentricities less than 0.1 and are not, in general, in resonances."
- PR Weissman & HF Levison, in: Stern & Tholen, eds., "Pluto & Charon" (1997), p. 592
If orbits are circular and unperturbed, a sharp Kuiper belt boundary is possible. The minimum density of Kuiper belt objects (a tenth as many objects as at 10 AU closer to the sun; there is a modest increase farther out) occurs at 52 +/- 1 AU by my interpolation of either Fig. 2 or 3, in CA Trujillo & ME Brown, "The Radial Distribution of the Kuiper Belt", Astrophysical Journal 554:L95-L98 (2001).
"...we likely have zero detection of objects beyond 53 AU...If planetary perturbations are solely responsible for the structure of the Kuiper Belt, a dense primordial disk would be expected beyond [about] 50 AU where these perturbations are insignificant."
- RL Allen et al, "The Edge of the Solar System", Astrophysical Journal 549:L241-244 (2001), pp. L242, L244.
Allen et al (op cit, Table 2) found 24 new objects, in a survey designed to find any objects between 30 and 80 AU which were in bound orbits (op cit, p. L242). One of these was at 20.9 +/- 0.3 AU; the other 23 ranged from 31.7 +/- 4.2, to 52.6 +/- 0.1 AU.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 years 10 months ago #15055
by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Suppose that there is something in the idea from Milikan that isolated systems ingest their electrons via a k capture process. Then at, let's say, 100 a.u. atoms are imploding as gamma rays. These would be travelling at above laboratory light speed in the r. i. of space at that distance. Could these gamma rays "herd" outer Kuiper belt objects at the 50 a.u. range?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.446 seconds