Requiem for Relativity

<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 Stoat, excellent post on gravitational shadowing. I totally agree that the effect certainly casts more than a shadow but allows electromagnetic monitoring of graviton radiations. This is far different than looking for gravity waves, I am talking about an instant communications causing local electromagnetic/radio wave interference and this effect registers with in low frequency electronic devices as white noise. I submit that graviton energy is the cause for CMB radiation and that all background noise is instantaneously influenced by the higher spectrum graviton waves that could be heard for instance from a super nova way before the light waves from the explosion ever reached Earth. John
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
John - a few quick notes<ul><li>
"gravity wave" is a meteoroligical phenomenon involving a characteristic wavey cloud pattern. For this reason astronomers use terms like gravitational radiation and gravitational waves.</li>
<li>"graviton wave" is an ambiguous phrase. <ul><li>In a Meta Model context gravitons do not propagate as waves, but as particles. As such they do not have a frequency or wavelength, nor a characteristic (constant, unchanging) speed. Rather they have properties such as mass, speed, average speed, and momentum.</li><li>In the context of other theories a graviton might or might not be a wave phenomenon.</li></li>
</ul></ul>
Where such ambiguity can exist, you owe it to the audience to try to clarify things by stating which theory is providing context for your thoughts.

Regards,
LB

Another Defense of Cruttenden

Drake University's government documents repository has almost all years of the USNO "Astronomical Almanac" from 1881 to 2005. Beginning in 1960, these have planetary orbital elements. Also, the 1881 Almanac has planetary (ascending) nodes. After 1983, J2000.0 coordinates are used for the elements. From 1960 through 1983, the mean equinox & ecliptic of date are used. In 1881, the epoch JD 2405000 (July 25, 1872) was used.

Jupiter & Saturn had perihelia in 1892 & 1885, resp. I found the heliocentric ecliptic longitude of perihelion, by interpolating quadratically the three nearest entries (which are referred to the mean equinox of date). If all digits in the tables are significant, then the error in this is no more than 1/36 deg for Jupiter, and much less than 1/90 deg for Saturn (Saturn was lucky: several nearby entries were symmetrical).

I correct the 1881 nodes to their mean equinox of date, and compare the 1960 to the late 19th century values (1881, 1892 or 1885). This is a purely Earth-based, optical, result. Standish (op. cit.) recently found that USNO ephemerides removed an arcsecond of scatter c. 1911; it might be more accurate to shorten the interval by 30 yr, but my longer interval helps average any actual oscillations of the elements.

Be this as it may, I find that from 1881 to 1960, referred to any *fixed* equinox, the nodes of Jupiter & Saturn both moved retrograde with periods 99,000 & 94,000 yr, resp. The perihelia, on the other hand, followed the equinox of date. Referred to the equinox of date, the perihelia of Jupiter & Saturn moved retrograde with period 233,000 & 77,000 yr, resp.

Now I compare the 2005 to the 1990 values. By 1990, space probe data referred to J2000.0 coordinates, had for several years superseded, Earth-based data referred to the equinox of date.

Again, the nodes move least when referred to a fixed equinox: the periods are 139,000 *prograde* & 99,000 retrograde for Jupiter & Saturn, resp. However, the perihelia move fast: periods, referred to a fixed equinox, 5645 yr retrograde & 3600 yr prograde for Jupiter & Saturn, resp.

Pluto's large inclination & eccentricity help node & apse accuracy. From 1960 to 1983, Pluto's node, referred to a fixed axis using the 1892 precession value 50.26"/yr, had period 166,000 yr retrograde. Pluto's perihelion, referred to the equinox of date, had period 67,000 yr retrograde.

The fast perihelion change between 1990 & 2005 might be short-period fluctuation, or might be due to flawed theoretical assumptions. Elsewhere, two regularities emerge:

1. Nodes of outer planets are anchored to the fixed equinox, but move retrograde with period ~100,000 yr, faster than expected from torque calculations. Despite drastic technical changes between 1881-1960 and 1990-2005, Saturn's node was measured moving retrograde, referred to a fixed equinox, with periods 94,000 & 99,000 yr, resp. During 1881-1960, Jupiter's node was measured moving retrograde, referred to a fixed axis, with period 99,000 yr. The period of Pluto's node, measured during 1960-1983, was less than twice this. Only Jupiter's node 1990-2005 was aberrant.

2. Perihelia of outer planets, at least for Earth-based observations, are anchored to the equinox of date. They move retrograde with period within a factor of 2, of 120,000 yr, usually ~70,000 yr, referred to the equinox of date. This is faster than expected from celestial mechanics.

Angular Momentum and the Hubble Parameter

The abs(Pdot/P) distribution for Taylor's 1995 catalog (see VizieR) millisecond pulsars (P &lt; 30ms) with known Pdot (N=31), has mode and median at 0.36/10^17/s. If the distribution of abs(Pdot/P) is log normal, there are three outliers, but whether removed or not, the median is the same. It corresponds to a Hubble parameter of 111km/s/Mpc. The rival peak at 0.23/10^17, corresponds to H = 72km/s/Mpc.

The giant planets would cause Earth's axis of rotation to precess with a period (cycles per sec) corresponding to H = 91km/s/Mpc. Therefore the effects quantified by H or H*c (the Hubble redshift, the Pioneer/Galileo/Ulysses anomalous deceleration, & many pulsar decelerations) might be due to tide and torque on Earth by masses in the outer solar system.

Above, I listed Astronomical Almanac node and perihelion retrogression rates for Pluto (1960-1983) and for Jupiter & Saturn (1881 or 1885 or 1892, to 1960; and 1990-2005). Again, let's exclude the large perihelion changes for Jupiter and Saturn 1990-2005. This leaves eight periods, all ~ 100,000 yr if nodes are referred to a fixed equinox and perihelia to the equinox of date. One of these periods is progressive, and the rest retrogressive. The signed harmonic average of these eight net periods is a little more than 100,000 yr, retrogressive. This average net period has about the same ratio to 25,785 yr (Earth's axial precession period in 1892) that Earth-moon orbital angular momentum has to Earth's spin angular momentum.

<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 /><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 Stoat, excellent post on gravitational shadowing. I totally agree that the effect certainly casts more than a shadow but allows electromagnetic monitoring of graviton radiations. This is far different than looking for gravity waves, I am talking about an instant communications causing local electromagnetic/radio wave interference and this effect registers with in low frequency electronic devices as white noise. I submit that graviton energy is the cause for CMB radiation and that all background noise is instantaneously influenced by the higher spectrum graviton waves that could be heard for instance from a super nova way before the light waves from the explosion ever reached Earth. John
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
John - a few quick notes<ul><li>
"gravity wave" is a meteoroligical phenomenon involving a characteristic wavey cloud pattern. For this reason astronomers use terms like gravitational radiation and gravitational waves.</li>
<li>"graviton wave" is an ambiguous phrase. <ul><li>In a Meta Model context gravitons do not propagate as waves, but as particles. As such they do not have a frequency or wavelength, nor a characteristic (constant, unchanging) speed. Rather they have properties such as mass, speed, average speed, and momentum.</li><li>In the context of other theories a graviton might or might not be a wave phenomenon.</li></li>
</ul></ul>
Where such ambiguity can exist, you owe it to the audience to try to clarify things by stating which theory is providing context for your thoughts.

Regards,
LB


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

Hi Larry, I appreciate your comments regarding clarification between waves and particles and thanks for helping me to clarify to the audience comments that might not otherwise be understood. You are correct the meteorological graviton waves which are studied by astronomers are in my opinion not really the true waves generated by circulating gravitons. So in this case what we are observing is electromagnetic signatures or weather patterns at the speed of light that operate as a sub spectrum. We can only indirectly see the effects of gravity, because as point particles which are wave vortex points that have spin and because gravitons travel above the light spectrum these vortex points generate very high spin rates that carry a modulated frequency. This frequency operates with in its own spectrum.

So here is my definition of the GRAVITON:

1. Gravitons originate in reverse time antimatter half of our local large scale circulation.
2. Gravitons are point particles that carry a negative charge and are the beginning of forward time.
3. Gravitons are very small with extremely high spin rates and operate with in their own spectrum that would be what we might refer to as the fourth dimension.
4. Gravitons not only cause mass to exist, but the graviton is the source for the complete power structure of all motion and transfer of momentum, and it is the Graviton that is the precursor point particle that forms the Electron.
5. Gravitons form the larger part of the electric field that circulates around electrons and can be taped as a renewable energy source. Electrons are the visible portion of the graviton field.

There is more to this scenario but for now I would just like to say that the graviton cycle and graviton capture process is the cause for all mass fluctuations and motion in our visible Universe. John

Hi Larry, Regarding my earlier comments about an FTL gravity wave. I think that 'pooled circulating gravitons'[ripple effect like throwing stones on a pond] would act like a BEC and if a super nova exploded the graviton wave would ripple on top of this BEC and should interact at the electric local level as a frequency that is passed instantly from the explosion. So, when technology catches up to theory, we will some day be able to develop deep space monitoring above light frequencies. John

Has anyone here explained why gravity is considered some kind of energy rather than a force? It seems to me gravity has always been a force and how the idea of energy got into the force is not clear. I hope this is not too confusing for this thread or off the main topic.