Quantized redshift anomaly

For spectral types A5, F0, F5, G0 and G2, the spin-down (averaged over orientations) is consistent with a Pioneer10 force, multiplied by the fine structure constant to the first power, and antiparallel to the mass element's motion relative to a frame, whose implied speed varies from 125 to 397 km/s for the five types. Type G2 was taken as the sun. The masses and equatorial speeds of the other types were from Inglis, "Planets, Stars & Galaxies", 1972, except that I found the speed for G0 on www.astronomycafe.net . The temperatures were from www.physicsbyu.edu . Type M0 consistently has unmeasurably slow rotation although type M5 sometimes has large rotation (X. Delfosse, A & A, 1998).

L=M^3.7 and the Stefan-Boltzmann law gave the radius. The initial rotation was assumed to give omega^2/density the same as Saturn. The sun's 4.6 billion yr was taken as the median age for G2, and the age of other types was taken as M^(-2.7). Angular momentum transfer to planets, especially likely for the cooler spectral types, would tend to skew the result downward, so I favor the high-end result, 397 km/s for type A5.

Most of the discrepancy in outer planetary ephemerides (especially Uranus) was repaired by Voyager's accurate planetary masses (especially Neptune)(EM Standish, Astronomical Journal 105:2000-2006, 1993, Figs. 6a-b, p. 2003). By counting points above and below Standish's baselines, in 20-yr intervals between 1920 and 2000, and considering their standard deviation, I found that for Uranus, the declination is discrepantly about 0.1" low overall. The discrepant declination bottoms at about 1948 and peaks above the baseline at about 1990. The discrepant R.A. is positive at about 1948 and negative at about 1990.

Uranus was opposite the galactic center in 1948 and has a period of revolution of 84 yr. If the sun were constantly pushed away from the galactic center, by 1/137 times the Pioneer10 force, its galactic orbit would be only moderately affected, because this would be only about 40% of the centripetal gravitational force due to detectable (i.e., non-"dark") matter. At distances beyond 30,000*sqrt(2.5)=48,000 lt yr, the real (i.e., non-"dark") gravitational force is less than Pioneer10 / 137, so beyond this perimeter are only rapidly spinning (see below), or escaping, stars. If Uranus, due to its different composition, were immune to this acceleration, then to get an equal acceleration from the sun, to a first approximation its orbit would have to be translated toward the center of the galaxy by a distance viewed from Earth as 0.08" at 0h & 12h, and 0.16" at 6h & 18h; average decrease in declination, 0.06". The average, is more than enough at 0h & 12h, so there, Uranus accelerates more than the sun; the R.A. increases discrepantly near 0h and decreases discrepantly near 12h, so it is too positive near 6h and too negative near 18h. Also, the orbital plane would tilt more perpendicular to the sun's acceleration vector, like a disk dragged through water. This would make the declination much less at 6h and actually above baseline at 18h.

A centrifugal acceleration acting on the sun, but not on planetoids, also could explain the autumn preference of meteor showers. The most negative potential energy would occur when the long end of the meteor orbit is toward 18h. The typical perihelion distance and eccentricity are 0.5 AU and 0.8, resp. (J Svoren et al, Planetary & Space Sci 48:933-937, Fig. 1, p. 935; 2000). This gives a nighttime (incoming) orbital intersection on about Sept. 14.

Voyager 1, heading roughly toward the solar apex, encountered the solar termination shock at 85 AU. Voyager 2, heading roughly toward the antapex, encountered the shock at 76 AU. Other things equal, the shock should be nearer, in the direction of solar motion. This confirms that the solar apex motion is apparent, not real (see above). Voyager 1 (now in Ophiuchus) is heading roughly forward along our galactic orbit (at about a 60 degree angle to it), and Voyager 2 (now moving toward RA 338, Decl -62) roughly backward (also at about a 60 degree angle). There is evidence (see below, this post) that the net galactic centripetal acceleration of the sun is 40% less than for some other kinds of matter, and that the actual (not apparent) Keplerian galactic motion here is about 100 km/s. If the sun orbits 20 km/s (45,000 miles per hour) more slowly, then the shock spheroid will be compressed posteriorly, as observed. For solar wind of 500,000 mph, the pressure is proportional to the windspeed squared and inversely to the radius squared, so this +/- 5% variation in net windspeed causes a +/- 5% variation in distance.

For planetary matter, it seems that only the mass of the interparticle electric field, m * alpha^2, participates in the Pioneer10 force. For stellar matter, it seems that the self-field of a compressed particle, q^2/(hbar/(mc))/c^2 = m * alpha, participates. For white dwarfs and neutron stars, and for small freefalling objects such as photons and space probes, it seems that the whole mass m participates. If the omega due to circular orbit around the galaxy's non-"dark" matter is subtracted, the residual Oort A and B constants give photons an acceleration which, averaged over galactic longitude, is about 137 times the Pioneer10 acceleration; i.e., the photons receive, on average, about 137 times the Hubble redshift.

The Pioneer10 force has the magnitude needed to explain the speeds of neutron stars and to remove them from the galaxy in about 30 million yr. I found 15 "normal" pulsars with proper motions >30 mas/yr in galactic longitude, within 45 degrees of l=90 or l=270, and d > 0.35 kpc away (distance projected onto the galactic plane):
B1950 series names
0906-17,1953+50,2110+27,2224+65,1322+83,1842+14,0919-06,1919+21,0818-13,1426-66,1451-68,2011+38,2224+65,0628-28,1929+10)(MNRAS vols. 261,286,247,360). P and P' I found in the ATNF pulsar catalog, the "arcor.de" pulsar Tabellen, or Princeton.

If pulsars closer than 0.7 kpc (small velocity) or farther than 8 kpc (too much toward the other side of the galaxy) are excluded, the criterion P'/P > 2.4 * 10^(-15) separates outbound (7) from inbound (2) pulsars 9 of 9 times correctly (p=9!/(7!*2!)=1/36). If only pulsars closer than 0.35 kpc (or farther than 8 kpc) are excluded, it is 11 of 11 (p=11!/(8!*3!)=1/165), if I demand that those more than 30 degrees from a cardinal position and closer than 0.7 kpc, have >60 mas/yr (to overwhelm any small random radial velocity).

Next I considered pulsars 15 < dl/dt < 30 mas/yr, 0.7 < d < 2.8 kpc, and within 30 degrees of l=90 or 270; I found 12, including 4 which slightly missed the distance or angle criterion but met both other criteria well: B1839+56,B1905+39,B2154+40,B2351+61,B0628+28,B0011+47,B0835-41,B1508+55,B2020+28,B2117+47,J2235+1506,B2310+42. Those with decreasing longitude, which could have been due partly to galactic rotation, showed 3 in agreement with the above criterion and 3 in disagreement. However those with increasing longitude (i.e., opposite to galactic rotation) disagreed with the above formula 5 of 6 times; 3 of the 5 had unusually small P'.

The gravitational constant is steady from 1 cm to 10^15 cm, so it's probably steady to 10^22.5 cm (the galactic center). If there is no "dark matter", then for negligibly rotating stars (see above)(e.g., type G) the Pioneer10/137 force reduces the Keplerian "k" by 40%. For fast spinning stars, e.g., type A, with large P'/P, this might be only half as much, which would cause type A to have 16 km/s greater Keplerian speed. Indeed, Hipparcos found that the "V" speed component (galactic U,V,W coords.) is 13 km/s greater for type A than for type G, and that type F is intermediate. The "U" and "W" components of these three types were almost equal. "V" increases again for type B, presumably because these hottest stars are restricted to the spiral arms, where another effect occurs (see above). Type F stars might or might not be spun down yet, so the variance in apparent solar apex speed is greater than for type A despite the larger sample. Type G stars often have planets; the sudden decrease in spin that occurs with planet formation, increases the eccentricity of the galactic orbit, accounting for the much greater variance in apex speed for type G.

On Inflation

The Real World
Originally posted by Tommy
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - Quantized Redshift Anomal

Thomas Van Frandern, an astronomer, hosts the website mentioned above, and in it I found this dialogue between he and I. What I was almost finished reading was Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" in which the culture of science supports a mainstream theory by virtue of attention or non-attention. Afterwards we wrote -

I am almost finished reading it.

---

Good job! It shows you are serious about influencing scientific ideas. Perhaps too you see why this book rose to the best seller list, and has sold nearly a million copies. But I'm guessing that the percentage of readers among active scientists is depressingly small -- which probably explains in part why science is in the shape it is in.


quote:

---

Clearly we need a Science Court which can independantly ascertain what is true and what is not, to determine what ought to be published or not. To ensure that scientists do not practice or condon what we non-scientists are sent to jail for doing.

---

I've often thought a Science Court might be a good idea. The problem is that, while there are lots of written laws that regular courts can try to follow, there are few universally agreed rules for science.

I read a cute anecdote in Science magazine, 14 January 2005 issue, p. 219: “Suppose that Jacob takes his trusty bow and arrow and shoots at a target on the side of a barn, hitting the bull’s-eye. We are duly impressed. Now Jonah steps up to a different barn, pulls back his bow, and shoots his arrow at the barn. Then he walks up to the side of the barn and paints a bull's-eye around his arrow. We would give him rather less credit, for archery anyway. Accommodation [of data by ad hoc theories] is like drawing the bull’s-eye afterwards, whereas in prediction the target is there in advance." Much of modern science draws the bull's-eye after shooting its arrows, and defends that procedure as legitimate. -|Tom|-

On Inflation

The Real World
Originally posted by Tommy
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - Quantized Redshift Anomal

Thomas Van Frandern, an astronomer, hosts the website mentioned above, and in it I found this dialogue between he and I. What I was almost finished reading was Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" in which the culture of science supports a mainstream theory by virtue of attention or non-attention. Afterwards we wrote -

I am almost finished reading it.

---

Good job! It shows you are serious about influencing scientific ideas. Perhaps too you see why this book rose to the best seller list, and has sold nearly a million copies. But I'm guessing that the percentage of readers among active scientists is depressingly small -- which probably explains in part why science is in the shape it is in.


quote:

---

Clearly we need a Science Court which can independantly ascertain what is true and what is not, to determine what ought to be published or not. To ensure that scientists do not practice or condon what we non-scientists are sent to jail for doing.

---

I've often thought a Science Court might be a good idea. The problem is that, while there are lots of written laws that regular courts can try to follow, there are few universally agreed rules for science.

I read a cute anecdote in Science magazine, 14 January 2005 issue, p. 219: “Suppose that Jacob takes his trusty bow and arrow and shoots at a target on the side of a barn, hitting the bull’s-eye. We are duly impressed. Now Jonah steps up to a different barn, pulls back his bow, and shoots his arrow at the barn. Then he walks up to the side of the barn and paints a bull's-eye around his arrow. We would give him rather less credit, for archery anyway. Accommodation [of data by ad hoc theories] is like drawing the bull’s-eye afterwards, whereas in prediction the target is there in advance." Much of modern science draws the bull's-eye after shooting its arrows, and defends that procedure as legitimate. -|Tom|-

On Inflation

The Real World
Originally posted by Tommy
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - Quantized Redshift Anomal

Thomas Van Frandern, an astronomer, hosts the website mentioned above, and in it I found this dialogue between he and I. What I was almost finished reading was Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" in which the culture of science supports a mainstream theory by virtue of attention or non-attention. Afterwards we wrote -

I am almost finished reading it.

---

Good job! It shows you are serious about influencing scientific ideas. Perhaps too you see why this book rose to the best seller list, and has sold nearly a million copies. But I'm guessing that the percentage of readers among active scientists is depressingly small -- which probably explains in part why science is in the shape it is in.


quote:

---

Clearly we need a Science Court which can independantly ascertain what is true and what is not, to determine what ought to be published or not. To ensure that scientists do not practice or condon what we non-scientists are sent to jail for doing.

---

I've often thought a Science Court might be a good idea. The problem is that, while there are lots of written laws that regular courts can try to follow, there are few universally agreed rules for science.

I read a cute anecdote in Science magazine, 14 January 2005 issue, p. 219: “Suppose that Jacob takes his trusty bow and arrow and shoots at a target on the side of a barn, hitting the bull’s-eye. We are duly impressed. Now Jonah steps up to a different barn, pulls back his bow, and shoots his arrow at the barn. Then he walks up to the side of the barn and paints a bull's-eye around his arrow. We would give him rather less credit, for archery anyway. Accommodation [of data by ad hoc theories] is like drawing the bull’s-eye afterwards, whereas in prediction the target is there in advance." Much of modern science draws the bull's-eye after shooting its arrows, and defends that procedure as legitimate. -|Tom|-

I wonder exactly why would something beyond present physics such as Inflation, including the matter along with it, and then it suddenly falls in step just at the right time. I think the CMB, blackbodsy temperature is no more than a measure of blackbody radiation - the temperature of space today.

On Inflation

The Real World
Originally posted by Tommy
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - Quantized Redshift Anomal

Thomas Van Frandern, an astronomer, hosts the website mentioned above, and in it I found this dialogue between he and I. What I was almost finished reading was Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" in which the culture of science supports a mainstream theory by virtue of attention or non-attention. Afterwards we wrote -

I am almost finished reading it.

---

Good job! It shows you are serious about influencing scientific ideas. Perhaps too you see why this book rose to the best seller list, and has sold nearly a million copies. But I'm guessing that the percentage of readers among active scientists is depressingly small -- which probably explains in part why science is in the shape it is in.


quote:

---

Clearly we need a Science Court which can independantly ascertain what is true and what is not, to determine what ought to be published or not. To ensure that scientists do not practice or condon what we non-scientists are sent to jail for doing.

---

I've often thought a Science Court might be a good idea. The problem is that, while there are lots of written laws that regular courts can try to follow, there are few universally agreed rules for science.

I read a cute anecdote in Science magazine, 14 January 2005 issue, p. 219: “Suppose that Jacob takes his trusty bow and arrow and shoots at a target on the side of a barn, hitting the bull’s-eye. We are duly impressed. Now Jonah steps up to a different barn, pulls back his bow, and shoots his arrow at the barn. Then he walks up to the side of the barn and paints a bull's-eye around his arrow. We would give him rather less credit, for archery anyway. Accommodation [of data by ad hoc theories] is like drawing the bull’s-eye afterwards, whereas in prediction the target is there in advance." Much of modern science draws the bull's-eye after shooting its arrows, and defends that procedure as legitimate. -|Tom|-

I wonder exactly why would something beyond present physics such as Inflation, including the matter along with it, and then it suddenly falls in step just at the right time. I think the CMB, blackbodsy temperature is no more than a measure of blackbody radiation - the temperature of space today.

It is necessary that everybody can explain its point of view. It WAS possible on ARXIV, but pollutions from religious points of view were a good pretexts to eliminate criticisms against the big bang and other scientific developments.
The problem is difficult. A good test of serious should be finding the ratio results/hypothesis. But it requires serious readers.