Quantized redshift anomaly

The stablest circular orbit for the Moon would maximize the total kinetic energy change per unit of angular momentum transferred from Earth to Moon. The speed of this orbit would be 2.7125 km/s according to the formula for its radius, r=sqrt(3*I/m) where I is Earth's moment of inertia and m the Moon's mass. This might have been the Moon's original distance. The Moon's mass would have been determined by the need for the stablest orbit to approximate Tifft's speed quantum.

In the calculation, one uses the semimajor axis of the moon today (384,404 km), the current standard estimate of Earth's moment of inertia (8.034*10^44 gm-cm^2), a "reduced" lunar mass of 7.352*10^25 * 81.28/82.28 gm, and a sidereal month of 27.322 d. One multiplies by sqrt(sec(23.45-5.145)), assuming Earth's axial tilt was fixed and that when the Moon formed, the position of its nodes was such that its orbit was as nearly in Earth's equatorial plane as possible.

The first period Tifft discovered, 72.1 km/s, is confirmed to about 1 km/s accuracy, by the redshift of the Large Magellanic Cloud, corrected for the apparent solar motion relative to the galaxy. That the true small Tifft period is 2.7125, not 2.88, is suggested by my theory, because (72.1/2.7125)^1.5=137.04, the reciprocal fine structure constant to five digits.

Europa conforms to the above, but Titan is about twice too massive and Ganymede three times. The gas giant planets might have had larger radii when their moons formed. Jupiter might have formed its moons all in the 2.7 km/s orbit, with the oldest moons now in the innermost degraded orbits. This would imply a temporary re-expansion after forming Europa, to form Ganymede and Callisto.

Disregarding Earth's axial and the Moon's orbital tilts, would have given 2.64 km/s in the above calculation. The average of all five observed values of Tifft's small period (2.88 - galaxies per Tifft; 2.72 - orthogonally directed Milky Way stars of greatest apparent magnitude; 2.36 and 2.59 - orthogonally directed Milky Way CO radio emissions from HII regions; and 2.63 - solar system objects) is 2.64 km/s.

The speed difference between Ganymede and Callisto, 2.68 km/s, is a good compromise, about halfway between 2.64 and 2.7125. Therefore careful observation of these moons near their conjunction is likely to uncover further anomalies. Perhaps the motions of the moons will appear abnormal.

Their next conjunction visible from the Midwestern U.S. will be at about 3:08 AM, March 28. Ganymede will be nearer than Jupiter and Callisto farther. There will be a new moon. Jupiter will be a morning star near opposition.

WW Campbell gave the radial velocity of Altair ("Stellar Motions", 1913) as "-33." km/s. The 1953 Carnegie catalog and the Bright Star Catalog say -26. Was this an error by Campbell or did the RV change? Twelve other stars Campbell listed near the solar apex or antapex, all agreed within 1 km/s with the Bright Star Catalog.

Solar apex speeds determined from RVs (e.g. Campbell, Fehrenbach) are consistently less than those determined from proper motions (e.g. Boss, Hipparcos). As a function of the distance of the star sample, Fehrenbach's result extrapolates parabolically to 17 km/s at the origin. Using the two nearest star samples, the Hipparcos result (Abad et al, Astronomy & Astrophysics, Jan 2003) extrapolates parabolically to 26 km/s at the origin. Maybe neither the proper motions nor RVs signify motion. Both could be aspects of the sinusoidal variation of some parameter of interstellar space.

Campbell, using RVs of stars mainly nearer than 100 pc, found a solar apex speed of 19.9 km/s (sample of 280 stars retaining outliers) or 17.85 (sample of 1034 stars removing outliers)(op. cit., pp. 187,188,193); Fehrenbach found 16.91 (Astronomy & Astrophysics, Apr 2001) almost a century later, using RVs of stars nearer than 100 pc. This agreement contrasts with the disagreement of solar apex speeds from proper motions vs. RVs: the slowest of Hipparcos' four distance bins was 19.6 km/s but the fastest of Fehrenbach's four distance bins was only 16.9. Fehrenbach's slowest distance bin was 11.8 km/s but the slowest of Hipparcos' 27 bins by various criteria, was 15.7.

The explanation for this discrepancy, is that the apparent solar apex motion is due to a plane scalar wave in the ether, with propagation speed c. Suppose this wave causes objects to have an apparent velocity along the wave axis, proportional to the second derivative, in the direction of the object, of the retarded wavefunction. Then for kr<<1, the apparent velocity is proportional to (0.5*r^2)^(-1) times the difference in the cosine term of that retarded wavefunction, between observer and object. This velocity will have radial and tangential components, causing apparent RVs and proper motions, resp. Also there will be aberration of starlight due to source movement, the reverse of aberration due to observer movement. The time derivative of this aberration simulates a virial velocity of the same order of magnitude, again with radial and tangential components. Yet another virial-like velocity term arises analogously from the first derivative of the sine wave term; to preserve Special and General Relativity, this phenomenon is given propagation speed >> c, and the nonretarded wavefunction is employed. By the virial theorem, the latter two, virial, terms affect Doppler shifts only half. The sine/cosine phase is chosen to give, roughly, these convenient and realistic formulas:

parallax motion =(0.5*cos(phi)^2 - 0.5*cos(phi) + 1.5)*x^

Doppler motion =(0.5*cos(phi)^2 + 0.25*cos(phi) + 1)*x^

Averaging over a sphere gives an apparent solar apex motion from RVs that is exactly 13/16=0.81 times that from proper motions; this is close to observational values. Furthermore the predicted positive average residual RV after correction for the presumed apex motion, agrees with Campbell (op. cit., pp. 191 & 192, Table XI). There is agreement with Dibon-Smith's RVs near the apices and the equator. The excess apparent apex speed at the apices, is explained especially well, if a continuity correction (adding a fraction of an outlier) is allowed for Campbell's data, and also the 26 km/s apex speed from Hipparcos' Type G stars is used. Below, it is shown that stellar rotation affects the net galactocentric force, hence orbital speed and apparent apex motion; the true apparent apex motion must be found from stars similar to the sun. The apparent apex motion, when found from Type G stars, is nearly parallel to the Orion arm.

Comparison of Fehrenbach's to Hipparcos' results for 100 pc < d < 300 pc confirms this 13/16 relation. Abad gives two distance bins in that range which I weighted by number of stars (their speeds and directions were almost equal anyway). The apex direction, for proper motion vs. RV, differed less than seven degrees. The ratio of apex speeds was 0.79 (expected: 0.81).

Fehrenbach used only northern hemisphere stars. Abad's table allows a rough correction for this, using hemispheres defined by the UV and VW galactic planes. This correction is small: the direction difference becomes less than six degrees and the speed ratio 0.77.

Although Fehrenbach used all stellar spectral types, the large dependence on spectral type should be corrected statistically. I was able to do this for Bright Star Catalog RV-based solar apex speeds published by Jaschek et al (Astronomy & Astrophysics, Feb 1991, Table 2). Jaschek gives the apex velocities calculated for 59 subtypes of the six main Harvard spectral types; for each main type I averaged the subtypes, weighting the U, V, and W speeds by number of that subtype. Then for both Jaschek's stars and the Hipparcos stars, I averaged the main types, weighting the U, V, and W speeds by the geometric mean of Jaschek's and Hipparcos' numbers of that type. The direction difference was less than six degrees and the speed ratio 0.89 (0.88 before correcting the typographical error in the V0 of B9V stars). (Fehrenbach's and Jaschek's directions differed less than five degrees.)

As for pre-WWII data, Campbell (op. cit.) and Walkey (MNRAS 106:279) used almost the same outlier criterion. Their ratio is 0.87.

So...what does cause redshift? I hear two answers, atomic hydrogen and the second is molecular hydrogen. Over...

---

[JMB]
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The largest redshifts are observed in quasars. The very complex spectrum of the quasars is fully understood using a CREIL effect in atomic hydrogen. Thus, a possible Doppler frequency shift is very small.
The CREIL in atomic hydrogen explains the largest part of the frequency shifts of the "Very Red Objects" (VROs), the frequency shift of the radio signals from Pioneer 10 and 11...
Maybe H2+ produces (or contributes) the redshift corresponding to Hubble law. It would be necessary to search Raman resonances close to 100 MHz in its spectrum (which is complicated !).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

JMB, can you write up a summary? I want to understand it. Do you have a published paper? I would like to see an explanation of CREIL again. What is Raman resonance" I know what resonance is, what is it about Raman resonance that makes it different?
There is no proof of expansion.

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

JMB, can you write up a summary?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The CREIL is a coherent light-matter interaction, that is an interaction in which all interacting molecules play the same role with the beams, particularily concerning the phase relations. Consequently the wave surfaces are clean, there is no blur of the images.
The simplest example of coherent process is the refraction, which is a very strong interaction. Other examples are the multiplication of laser frequencies in crystals, more generally frequency combinations and frequency shifts.
The problem is that it is difficult to obtain the coherence, (except for refraction) because for different frequencies the wavelengths are generally different: Tricks are needed; for instance, for frequency doubling, one uses two indices of refraction of a crystal to obtain the same wavelengths at two frequencies.
The CREIL uses "ultrashort light pulses", a bad name, because it is not a characteristic of light, the ultrashort light pulses being "shorter than all relevant time constants". Femtosecond pulses are ultrashort in any matter, but ordinary light made of nanosecond pulses requires long collisional times, therefore low pressure gases, and a quadrupolar resonance (Raman allowed transition) having long enough a period, in the practice a frequency of the order of 100 MHz. In astrophysics, atomic hydrogen works if it is in states of principal quantum number equal to 2.

The CREIL is a transfer of energy which increases the entropy of a set of beams refracted by a convenient medium, by frequency shifts, Usually the high frequencies are redshifted, the radio frequencies are blueshifted.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I want to understand it. Do you have a published paper?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You can find papers including references in arxiv.org, section "physics" numbers 0503070 and 0507141. An more recent paper is in AIP conference proceedings #822 (in press).
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

I would like to see an explanation of CREIL again. What is Raman resonance" I know what resonance is, what is it about Raman resonance that makes it different?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
In coherent effects, there is generally no excitation of the matter (else doubling crystals would break !), therefore no transition, no quantization. Usually "Raman effect" is relative to an incoherent effect, with transitions. In CREIL, Raman resonance means that it COULD be a Raman (quadrupolar electric, dipolar magnetic...) effect.