Requiem for Relativity

More
17 years 5 months ago #19513 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
This raises a whole slew of questions. Though, the first one is about the politics of the thing. Talk about it now and it might look as though it's an attempt to fudge the issue of whether we have a brown drawf in our solar system. First we need a couple of very good images of the brute. Then we can look at what the pulsar data tells us.

So, do we talk about the ideas on this board, or just make a note of it for later? Tom must have loads of data on exploding planets but with a pulsar we are talking about an implosion first. Now I think of this aether "atmosphere" as being a sub luminal aether but it will be cantained within, permeated by, the ftl aether. Gravitational collapse must alter the sub light aether, as potential energy becomes kinetic energy.

What happens to this "kick" if a companion "knows," almost instantly, that its partner has imploded? It's orbit must alter hours before the explosion effects hit it.

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

More
17 years 5 months ago #19516 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Barbarossa would torque the angular momentum vectors of J,S,U & apparently somehow Neptune too, as a unit, around Barbarossa's angular momentum vector many times in the life of the solar system. Presumably JSUN began with their average orbital plane as near as possible, in that precession circle, to the sun's equatorial plane (5 deg). Only about 1/12 of the time would JSUN's angular momentum vector be as close to the sun's as it is now (6 deg). Although this is believable, there's another explanation for the near equality of JSUN's plane to the sun's equator.

Companion stars at the distance of, say, Uranus, tend to orbit in the same plane as the primary's equator. Companion stars at the distance of Barbarossa tend to orbit in arbitrary planes. Typically a brown dwarf companion would be, according to the best estimates, somewhat farther away than Barbarossa but also somewhat more massive and at a somewhat steeper inclination, typically giving about the same torque as Barbarossa, overall, and a larger precession circle. Even a stellar companion of 0.7 solar mass at 20 AU would have no more angular momentum than an 0.1 solar mass brown dwarf at 1000 AU. If brown dwarf companions are as common as they seem to be, the correlation of close companion's orbits with the primary's equator might be poorer than it is. So, there might be an unknown mechanism of angular momentum transfer between a star and its planets, which maintains that alignment despite brown dwarf torques.

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

More
17 years 5 months ago #19517 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Requiem for Relativity


Relativity is dead, long live Relativity.


Above, I suggest that there might be a kind of boundary or barrier surrounding the solar system ("ether iceberg"), maybe at 52.6 AU, beyond which the Doppler effect is not orthodoxly relativistic. Suppose a radio signal from Pioneer 10 crosses that barrier and reaches Earth. The redshift might be the sum of the two redshifts produced by: Earth's motion relative to the barrier (i.e., relative to the "iceberg"); and Pioneer 10's motion relative to the interstellar medium. If the barrier is scarcely moving relative to the nearby interstellar medium, then only some small effects, e.g., retardation of Pioneer 10's time dilation (see my 2002 Aircraft Engineering & Aerospace Technology article or its recapitulation on this messageboard) or retardation of stellar aberration (see my discussion of the Kimura phenomenon on this messageboard) remain.

Larger effects are noticed, when the movement of the barrier, relative to the interstellar medium, is not negligible. Pulsar timing fails to detect Earth's gravitational acceleration by Barbarossa, because to first order approximation, Barbarossa equally accelerates the 52.6 AU barrier and everything inside it. Also, interstellar space outside the barrier is so slack over interstellar distances that this term of the redshift doesn't change either. By the same mechanism, pulsar timing fails to detect distant companions of the millisecond pulsars. Above, I argue that the solar system detections around pulsars are better explained by this than by the "kick" theory.

Binary stars sometimes show paradoxical orbital redshifts (AW Irwin et al, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 108:580-590, 1996). The binary star 36 Ophiuchus AB shows a supposed mutual Doppler redshift about 30% larger than consistent with any possible celestial mechanics. This might be because the light from one star passes through the dumbbell-shaped (defined, as above, by critical gravitional field intensity) barrier three times.

(About half of my posts on this subject recently disappeared from one of the largest amateur astronomy messageboards in Australia.)

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

More
17 years 5 months ago #19521 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Let's consider a nearby star with a surrounding spherical barrier or boundary (like the barrier or boundary I hypothesize for the sun at 52.6 AU). Maybe the star can achieve an apparent Doppler acceleration toward us, in two ways. One way, is if a distant companion, outside the star's barrier, accelerates the star and its barrier as a unit toward us.

Another way, is if a close companion, inside the star's barrier, accelerates the star relative to the barrier. There is a wavetrain between us and the star. Part of this wavetrain is within the star's barrier: call that part's length, L. If the first time-derivative of L is negative, blueshift may occur.

Let the star have a small distant companion whose distance is twice the barrer radius. If the "barrier" occurs at that surface in space where the magnitude of the gravitational field vector is such-and-such, then a distant companion causes the barrier to be indented, like a "flat tire", a small distance proportional to the mass of the small companion. Let the small companion be seen in inferior conjunction. As the small companion slowly orbits at inferior conjunction, the star and barrier are accelerated toward us. Also, we see the star's light through a part of the "tire" that is less and less indented. The first and second time-derivatives of L (see previous par.) are positive. There is accelerating positive "apparent radial velocity" due to the asphericity of the rotating barrier. The barrier's indentation is proportional to the mass of the small companion. So, the distortion of the barrier commonly could appear to cancel up to about half, of the entire barrier's acceleration toward us.

Now let's consider an equal-mass binary near conjunction, both sunlike, separated by a distance of order 50 AU. The barrier in such a binary might be a dumb-bell or it might be two flattened spheres which are not connected (dumb-bell with no handle). Either way, light from the more distant star passes twice through the barrier of the nearer one. Plausibly, the apparent (from apparent radial velocity, "RV", red/blueshift measurement) acceleration, of the farther partner, inferred from the progessive blueshifting of its light, is the sum of five terms:

1. The acceleration of its own barrier toward us.

2. The acceleration of its partner's barrier away from us (#1 & #2 cancel, because the light passes through both these equal but oppositely accelerated "icebergs").

3. The second time derivative of L1, the length of wavetrain within its own barrier (zero for a spherical barrier).

4A. The second derivative of L2, the length of the farther partner's wavetrain, within the nearer partner's barrier, but only that part due to the shortening at the surface nearest us.

4B. This term is the same as 4A except that it is that part due to shortening at the surface farthest from us, and has sign opposite the sign of 4A. That is, shortening at the surface nearest us simulates movement toward us, and shortening at the surface farthest from us simulates movement away from us.

The orbital elements (see Aitken, "Binary Stars" for clear definitions of these symbols) of 36 Ophiuchus AB (Irwin et al, 1996, op. cit.) make it relatively easy to calculate what the apparent "RV"-based acceleration of the farther partner toward us, should be if the foregoing theory is correct. With a slide rule, trigonometry and careful approximation (considering, to first order, the distortion of the barriers), I found that the "RV"-based apparent acceleration toward us should be 1.64 times the celestial mechanics prediction. Irwin et al found 1.64 times.

"Web of science" (the online Science Citation Index) shows only six papers citing Irwin's. None of these measure binaries like Irwin's. 36 Ophiuchus AB is special because the stars are far enough apart to be outside each other's barriers, yet close enough to conjunction that the farther partner's light must pass through the "barrier" hypothetically surrounding the nearer partner. The nearer partner's hypothetical "barrier" eclipses the farther partner.

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

More
17 years 5 months ago #19525 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Open letter to professional binary star experts:


Dear Dr. Fletcher, Dr. Marcy, Dr. Butler, Dr. Yang, Dr. Campbell, Dr. McArthur & Dr. Cochran:

Alan W. Irwin, et al (Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 108:580-590, 1996) discovered that the Doppler-derived radial velocity ("RV") of the farther partner in the binary star, 36 Ophiuchus AB, is anomalous by a factor of 1.64. This did not seem to the authors to be plausibly due to any other companion, nor to motion of the star's surface.

Within 1% error, this 36 Ophiuchus AB anomaly in RV, is consistent with my theory of solar system (our solar system and others) light propagation. This theory deviates somewhat from the standard textbook interpretation of Special Relativity, but might nonetheless be valid. No physical theory, much less any standard textbook interpretation, has lasted forever. The evidence for the high accuracy of the standard textbook interpretation of Special Relativity, has been gathered from particle physics experiments and might be not always exactly applicable at solar system distances.

The unexplained Kimura phenomenon (Astronomical Journal, 1902), which is, basically, that the aberration of starlight, corresponds to Earth's velocity retarded by about seven hours, is encompassed by my theory. My theory also encompasses the apparent sinusoidal variation in the Pioneer anomalous acceleration, which sinusoidal variation began at about 53 AU and is plainly discernible on at least one of JD Anderson's graphs published on ArXiv.org.

I'd like to discuss my theory with any or all of you. It might apply to other binary stars such as gamma Cephei. Please give me a call at **********.

Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller, M. D.

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

More
17 years 5 months ago #19526 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
For anyone who wants to put some figures in for doppler shifts, using the contracted form. Note that the square root will alter any assessments of mass.

<font size="4">f = f</font id="size4"><font size="1">0</font id="size1"> <font size="4">sqrt (1 - v^2 / c^2) c / c + or - v cos theta </font id="size4">

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

Time to create page: 0.358 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum