Astrophysics at galaxy center counters Relativity

More
17 years 5 months ago #17926 by cosmicsurfer
Replied by cosmicsurfer on topic Reply from John Rickey
Hi Joe,

The key words in your quotation are, 'RAPIDLY MOVING STARS.'

Here is portion of statement: "....Observation of the rapidly moving stars permitted astrophysicists to determine a mass for the galactic center of around 3.6 million solar masses. Time resolved images of the Keplerian motions of these stars has exhibited to date no evidence of distortions in the images due to gravitational light bending effects, as predicted by General Relativity. ..."

I totally agree that under such extreme gravitational conditions, the rotating aether would create the appearance that gravitational light bending effects were not taking place. However, as you stated we are only seeing the effects of the Aether, not true stellar motion. So, in reality we are only seeing an Aether distorted image of the central star systems within this extreme rapid Aether [intervening waves] rotation around galactic center making any true calculations of solar masses in effect distorted values.

In fact we may not be able to see the true picture of the central core [it may be hidden due to zero escaping light/invisible except for relativity jets] because gravitational density may be so extreme all we see is the external flaring from Aether around incoming flux/lines of force.

Have we discounted effects of Aether from the equation/observations?

John

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 5 months ago #19597 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Robert Carrol argued that the deflection angle should be
theta = 2 G M / r C^2 and not theta = 4GM / r C^2 The deflection angle in radians is equal to the ratio of scattered energy to the original energy of the photon.

For Einstein there is no energy loss. Carroll did point out that Einstein's equation is more in acord with measurements made during a solar eclipse but he does point out that there's no way to seperate out the deflection sue to tha solar atmosphere. Black holes don't have atmopheres, that's why one should never drink in a pub on one [8D]

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 5 months ago #17937 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Elsewhere on this messageboard, I've suggested that the red- & blueshifts of Oort's law are due not to galactic rotation but to rotation of the ether. If the curl vector derivative of the ether's velocity is, on the average, constant and perpendicular to the galactic plane, then the ether speed increases linearly with distance from the galactic center: the ether rotates like a wheel, with constant angular speed. This can give Oort's law.

Eddies of ether motion near the galactic center could cause magnification. The orbit of the star "S2" about Sag A* (Schoedel et al, Nature 419:694-696, 2002) might really, with, say, 100x magnification, have a typical binary star semimajor axis, not of 5.5 light days but of 0.055 light days = 9.5 AU. This gives the same 15-yr period, if the mass of Sag A* is reduced 1,000,000x, to 3.6 solar mass. The radio brightness of Sag A* might also appear magnified 100^2 times. Thus the mass-to-luminosity ratio of Sag A* could be as little as 5x that of the sun (Genzel et al, MNRAS 291:219-234, 1997, Sec. 3.5, p. 231). The masses of several stars near Sag A* need not be 15-20 solar masses each, but could be 1.5-2 solar masses (Genzel, op. cit., abstract).

In the gaussian approximation, Maxwell's elongation formula says that longitudinal magnification is the square of lateral magnification. In more general optical systems, either magnification might be much larger than the other. Thus either RV or PM should be preponderant, and this is seen. Stars closest to Sag A* show preponderantly radial velocity (RV) while those somewhat farther out show preponderantly proper motion (PM)(tangential velocity), because of different ether arrangements in different regions (Genzel et al, MNRAS 317:348-374, 2000, Fig. 5, p. 360).

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 5 months ago #17940 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Schoedel, Ott, Genzel et al, Nature 419:694+, 2002, Fig. 2, p. 695, show that, at the time Genzel's 2000 MNRAS paper was received (Feb. 2000), the apparent separation between the star "S2" and Sag A*, was 0.10" = 4 milliparsec. This is about equal to the semimajor axis routinely determined, as for binary stars (Schoedel et al op. cit.), from timed positions of S2. Furthermore Schoedel et al found a moderate inclination of about 45 degrees for the Sag A* - S2 system.

Yet Genzel, MNRAS 317:348+, 2000, p. 361, because of apparent radial velocities, states: "S1, S2...must be on plunging (radial) orbits...with semi-axes >> the current projected separations from Sag A*...". Genzel (op. cit., p. 359) says that the anisotropy of velocity (i.e., the preponderance of radial vs. transverse velocity) near Sag A* is significant at 3.3 standard deviations. The Copernican principle makes this unlikely unless Sag A* et al are merely a multiple star system which happens to be aligned with an ether eddy which causes the system to appear magnified as seen from the sun. The illusory preponderance of radial vs. transverse velocity would be due to Maxwell's elongation formula; the true orbit resembles, in shape but not size, that routinely determined from proper motion (i.e., transverse velocity) alone.

Within 0.8" of Sag A*, 5 of the 17 stars observed (it's thought statistically likely that almost all of these 17 are physically near Sag A*) show "gamma" := cos(2*phi) < -0.8, and 5 show -0.8 < gamma < -0.4 (Genzel, op. cit., Fig. 5, upper right graph, p. 360). Randomly, only 13.4% (~ 2 stars) should have gamma < -0.5. (Phi is analogous to the inclination angle for binary stars.) Cos(phi)= -0.95 implies that radial exceeds transverse velocity by more than 6x. By Maxwell's elongation formula this corresponds to 6x lateral magnification, thus 6.3^3=250x reduction in Sag A* mass, from 3,600,000 solar masses to 14,000 solar masses.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 5 months ago #17942 by ehdowdye
Replied by ehdowdye on topic Reply from Edward Dowdye
Hello Joe:

I commend you on your research. You can see that fundamental priciples are apparently totally ignored by the mainstream, probably out of convenience or for some other unethical reasons.

The effects treated in the mainstream will continue as usual with the same kind of academic sensoring until it is checked.

ehd



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
<br />Hi Joe,

The key words in your quotation are, 'RAPIDLY MOVING STARS.'

Here is portion of statement: "....Observation of the rapidly moving stars permitted astrophysicists to determine a mass for the galactic center of around 3.6 million solar masses. Time resolved images of the Keplerian motions of these stars has exhibited to date no evidence of distortions in the images due to gravitational light bending effects, as predicted by General Relativity. ..."

I totally agree that under such extreme gravitational conditions, the rotating aether would create the appearance that gravitational light bending effects were not taking place. However, as you stated we are only seeing the effects of the Aether, not true stellar motion. So, in reality we are only seeing an Aether distorted image of the central star systems within this extreme rapid Aether [intervening waves] rotation around galactic center making any true calculations of solar masses in effect distorted values.

In fact we may not be able to see the true picture of the central core [it may be hidden due to zero escaping light/invisible except for relativity jets] because gravitational density may be so extreme all we see is the external flaring from Aether around incoming flux/lines of force.

Have we discounted effects of Aether from the equation/observations?

John

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ehd

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 5 months ago #17943 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Thanks for sharing your insights. Thanks also to cosmicsurfer, jimiproton, & Stoat.

- Joe Keller

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.314 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum