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 Stoat</i>
Another thought is that perhaps we could use hdri shop on the images and see if we get better results. An hdri image is a stacked f stop image. Say that you take a picture of the inside of a church. Take a bunch of f stopped shots. On some the windows will e washed out ut the darks will show detail, on others the windows will show detail but the darks will be jet black. hdri shop combines all of the images into one.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi Stoat,
that makes sense only if you have photos with different exposure levels.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Change the subject, have you looked at how the barycentre shift effects the orbit of Mercury?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I was doing exactly that these days. Simulating a binary system and observing the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury, during, let's say 200 years. The effect is very small, much smaller than the actual so called "relativistic effect". Maybe it accounts for the actual unpredicted part(-0.3 arc secs/cy; which is within observational error, btw.) I'll have to check.

It seems that that advance of the perihelion (~43 arc secs/century for Mercury) is definitely non-Newtonian.

I'm not satisfied with the relativistic explanation. Mostly due that I'm not satisfied with Relativity Theory, at all.
More on this later.

Mauro

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Joe Keller</i>
<br />(Feb. 8, 2009)

Fourier-Cruttenden, Pioneer 10&11, and the Barbarossa/Frey Binary Orbit

...
There is evidence, following the Fourier-Cruttenden concept of a rotating solar system frame, that the Earth/Sun orbit also exists in a rotating frame. The Sun's average acceleration at Earth is 0.593 cm/s^2. Presently the Sun and Barbarossa seem to be orbiting each other with period 3083 yr ( 2*pi / present angular speed). If the Sun/Earth frame were rotating with that period, the centrifugal force at Earth's radius, would be 0.593/3083^2 = 6.24/10^8 cm/s^2; this is near the Pioneer10&11/Ulysses/Galileo anomalous acceleration.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi Joe!
What's that evidence? a rotating frame is an abstract construct, and as far as I know, has no physical reality. How on Earth(or how on the Universe, btw) a curved motion through space will (physically) produce a frame rotation? Frame rotations are abstract constructs. If you're talking about so called "frame dragging" effects, those affects are very small and (supposedly) caused by the rotation of the body itself, in its vicinity.

If your "evidence" is Earth axis's precession, that is nonsense, and it has been explained and demonstrated many times. In effect, as the Earth is a big gyroscope, the only way that its rotation axis can be altered, is by way of gravitational forces acting on its oblate form.
The Earth(and the Sun) will follow a curved path, but the direction of Earth's axis of rotation _will not change_ due to that.
Indeed, that is the very reason why these movements are not detected! That curved path will produce _displacement_(translation) rather than (real) precession, and that displacement will manifest as an "apparent precession" over long enough periods of time(i.e. same as any parallax effect). In the mean time, it will be ignored/masked into the dynamics of the so-called "orbits", and into the lenght of the sidereal year.
Indeed, my reflections show, and I think they are correct, that a gentle movement of the Sun will pass mostly undetected. Even if that movement is an accelerated movement, as it is in an "orbit", small corrections from time to time (i.e. leap seconds, to correct for rotational alignments) will keep these changes hidden.
"Orbits"(they are really not orbits, but curved motions in multi dimensional space), or better said, some characteristics of orbits (i.e. perihelion and aphelion position), are very stable, to the contrary of what one would think of so highly dynamical systems. The same happens with the planets's planes of rotation, and their inclination. They are very stable, due to their gyroscopic nature. The points of aphelion and perihelion are very stable, due to the nature of the so called "gravitational propagation", so to speak. And rotational planes are very stable, due to their gyroscopic characteristics.
As far as I've known: In no way these very stable elements can be masked/hidden by frame rotations.

Even smaller effects will be produced by a binary companion, due to well known Newtonian effects, into the advance of the perihelion of the planets, and I'm looking into that now.

This thread of physicsforums can be of your interest:
www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=104694&page=1

And indeed, due to the very fact that GP-B results seem to be _inconsistent_ with the predictions of GR, actually to a one sigma sd(we must patiently wait for a 3-sigma inconsistency to be really happy , there's more room for a binary to step in.

I'm saying the following, a little bit anticipatedly maybe:

<b>The predictions of GR are "mostly correct"(the problems of GR are other than its concordance with observational results. i.e. they are "epistemiological", not experimental.) BUT, as we have a binary companion, its effects are subtly changing the measured GP-B precession, due to "apparent precession" effects(i.e. displacement, i.e. parallax effects.)</b>

In fact, the inconsistency manifested by GP-B gyroscopes could be smaller than the real displacement, because we're seeing only an angle equivalent to the displacement corresponding to the adjacent side of the triangle (i.e. equivalent to the cosine of the full parallax displacement), between the actual direction of the Sun movement, and IM Pegasi.

Mauro

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />...all of these fits images have been reduced right down to the bone, just to allow people to download them. Not sure but I would think they would be in the 100 meg range in reality. Ask Iowa if they can crop out sections and send the smaller image uncompressed to you. ...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks for the valuable information and suggestion.

As I recall, "Stoat" was the first to suggest that Barbarossa is ringed. "Jim" was the first on this thread to suggest that Barbarossa, Frey, etc. are supernova fragments.

Supernova fragments would have only a fraction of solar mass, but likely would be mainly carbon, oxygen and even heavier elements and therefore more prone to gravitational collapse. According to the equations in Stein & Cameron, as applied by me, their collapse, even at 10, 1 or 0.5 Jupiter mass (Barbarossa, Frey & Freya resp.) could be enough to make them invisible even on sky survey plates.

What I have been calling Frey, might really by Freyprime, a submoon of Frey: a body slightly larger than Earth, with typical outer solar system albedo 0.04. Barbarossa's brightness might be due to rings. Because Barbarossa's mass is 30x Saturn's, its tide would shatter moonlets of any given density, at 3x the distance. So, Barbarossa's rings might be 3x as wide as Saturn's: 170,000 * 3 = 500,000 mi, or 6".

Mauro, The fact that relativity expains just about all the stuff being kicked around here and else where on TVFs site is well known and not in doubt. Its very murky but we have many little observations pointing to an acceleration in the approximate range of one nanometer per second per second that seems to be observed and many of these observations are being examined by the author of this thread. This thread might be the cream of the crop which ever way it is decided.

More Defense of Fourier-Cruttenden

The "ether" was considered a liquid. "Frames" can be considered "solid ether with gaps", like the steel frame of a skyscraper, or a crystal lattice. This way more than one frame can be superimposed for various effects.

Suppose most of our physical laws hold really in a solar system-size ball of jello revolving around Barbarossa (and Barbarossa around it) rotating so its same side always faces Barbarossa. Then the celestial or galactic or extragalactic frame of reference is, physically, the rotating frame, because the jello, not the celestial frame, is what determines most physical laws.

In the celestial frame of reference, there is a fictitious "centrifugal" force. Regardless of the center of rotation, the difference in this force, between Earth and Sun, is omega^2 * r, where r = 1 AU.

My best estimate of the present angular speed of revolution around Barbarossa, corresponds to a period of 3084 yr, thus a "centrifugal" acceleration of Earth, relative to Sun, of 6.23/10^8 cm/s^2. Extragalactic light appears to us redshifted as though it had been subject to a "centrifugal" acceleration of 72/km/s/Mpc = 6.99/10^8 cm/s^2 during its entire lightspeed trip.

My best estimate of the average angular speed of revolution around Barbarossa, corresponds to a period of 3084/1.114^2 = 2485 yr, thus a centrifugal acceleration of Earth, of 9.60/10^8 cm/s^2. The Pioneer anomalous acceleration is centripetal and typically given as 8/10^8 cm/s^2. Thus in magnitude, both the Hubble parameter and the Pioneer anomalous acceleration are midway between the present and average centrifugal accelerations which would occur at Earth's orbit if the "ether" or "frame" were rotating synchronously with the Sun's orbit around Barbarossa.

For the outer planets, the precessions of node and perihelion should be very slow. Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto are the best study subjects: J & S because they are nearer, and P because its eccentricity is big. Indeed these three have nodes roughly stationary in the celestial frame. On the other hand, their perihelia move retrograde with period roughly equal to Earth's axial precession period (though one might argue about which data are most reliable). The principal plane of the solar system is inclined about 13deg to the Sun/Barbarossa orbital plane. If the published perihelion precession rate were proportional to 0.5*sin(i), then expected would be 2484/(0.5*sin(13)) = 22,085 yr. The factor 0.5 arises because the Astronomical Almanac orbital elements are derived from the entire interval of observation, so their epoch, roughly, is the midpoint of the interval between the beginning of accurate observations, and the present. This midpoint moves forward only half as fast as the endpoint, i.e., the almanac publication date.

As discussed in an earlier post, I considered Astronomical Almanac data for what seemed to be the most consistently treated and reliable intervals: for Jupiter & Saturn, late 19th century to 1960; 1960-1983 for Pluto. The similarity to Earth's axial precession period might be accidental (this period is lengthening as Earth slows, its bulge greatly decreases, and Luna takes Earth's spin angular momentum and moves away). Jupiter's perihelion precessed retrograde with period 23,214 yr, Saturn's with period 19,301 yr, and Pluto's with period 18,602 yr.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Joe Keller</i>
<br />More Defense of Fourier-Cruttenden

The "ether" was considered a liquid. "Frames" can be considered "solid ether with gaps", like the steel frame of a skyscraper, or a crystal lattice. This way more than one frame can be superimposed for various effects.

Suppose most of our physical laws hold really in a solar system-size ball of jello revolving around Barbarossa (and Barbarossa around it) rotating so its same side always faces Barbarossa. Then the celestial or galactic or extragalactic frame of reference is, physically, the rotating frame, because the jello, not the celestial frame, is what determines most physical laws.

In the celestial frame of reference, there is a fictitious "centrifugal" force. Regardless of the center of rotation, the difference in this force, between Earth and Sun, is omega^2 * r, where r = 1 AU.

My best estimate of the present angular speed of revolution around Barbarossa, corresponds to a period of 3083 yr, thus a "centrifugal" acceleration of Earth, relative to Sun, of 6.24/10^8 cm/s^2. Extragalactic light appears to us redshifted as though it had been subject to a "centrifugal" acceleration of 72/km/s/Mpc = 6.99/10^8 cm/s^2 during its entire lightspeed trip.

My best estimate of the average angular speed, corresponds to a period of 3083/1.114^2 = 2484 yr, thus a centrifugal acceleration of Earth, of 9.61/10^8 cm/s^2. The Pioneer anomalous acceleration is centripetal and typically given as 8/10^8 cm/s^2. Thus in magnitude, both the Hubble parameter and the Pioneer anomalous acceleration are midway between the present and average centrifugal accelerations which would occur at Earth's orbit if the "ether" or "frame" were rotating synchronously with the Sun's orbit around Barbarossa.

For the outer planets, the precessions of node and perihelion should be very slow. Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto are the best study subjects: J & S because they are nearer, and P because its eccentricity is big. Indeed these three have nodes roughly stationary in the celestial frame. On the other hand, their perihelia move retrograde with period roughly equal to Earth's axial precession period (though one might argue about which data are most reliable). The principal plane of the solar system is inclined about 13deg to the Sun/Barbarossa orbital plane. If the perihelion precession rate were proportional to 0.5*sin(i), then expected would be 2484/(0.5*sin(13)) = 22,084 yr.

As discussed in an earlier post, I considered Astronomical Almanac data for what seemed to be the most consistently treated and reliable intervals: for Jupiter & Saturn, late 19th century to 1960; 1960-1983 for Pluto.
The similarity to Earth's axial precession period might be accidental (this period is lengthening as Earth slows, its bulge greatly decreases, and Luna takes Earth's spin angular momentum and moves away). Jupiter's perihelion precessed retrograde with period 23,214 yr, Saturn's with period 19,301 yr, and Pluto's with period 18,602 yr.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
That is probably no more than a coincidence.
Both precessions are different. They are both related to conservation of momentum, but axial precession is related to conservation of momentum in rotation, and orbital precession is related to conservation of inertia in translation. And they are mostly due to well known Newtonian factors.

With all due respect, I think your model is "not even wrong". And that it comes from a misunderstanding:
In no way a curved motion can produce axial precession(precisely due to conservation of momentum of rotation). What is possible, though, is for a curved motion to be <b>mistaken</b> as axial precession. And I think that is what Cruttenden is trying to imply.
Now, if we're actually confusing, as he says, the curved path of the Sun with Earth's axial precession, a number of things must happen:
- that "precession" must manifest only along the ecliptic, only related to the Sun. That is, no polar star precession, only equinoctial precession.
- all the planets of the solar system must manifest an equivalent "precession", depending on their distance from the Sun, and again, only in relation to the Sun.
- all the space observatories, not only Earthly ones, must observe this "precession" over the plane of the ecliptic(and again, NOT in the polar directions.)

I find very difficult to believe that phenomena of that magnitude can be ignored by mainstream astronomy and space science. Nevertheless, it is at least _plausible_ to consider that possibility. As with Foucault's pendulum: previously to people actually seeing the Earth rotating under the pendulum, there were people who still denied Earth's rotation.
I wonder if a similar experiment can be mounted, to observe Earth's
precession. It is possible that a similar Foucault's pendulum set up should manifest it, but a much higher degree of accuracy will be required.

If we return to your previous hypothesis(solar system jelly, and physical frame rotations) we will be changing, in the end, the beautiful and completely coherent conservation of momentum laws, by a sometimes solid, sometimes non-solid, "jelly". And even then, things will not add up, if carefully observed and analyzed.

Returning to the more plausible "confused precession", let's assume that a (very small) <b>part</b> of Earth's axial precession is really the effect of apparent precession.
Here is then a very interesting, and relatively simple, experiment: by observing and carefully measuring polar star precession, and comparing it to equinoctial precession, we can be able to discriminate lunisolar precession effects from "apparent precession" ones. This is Kimura phenomena, as you mentioned before, if I'm not mistaken.
This will also be related to leap seconds, and anomalous accelerations in the order of nano meter per second squared; and also to what I've said before: hidden/masked effects. Indeed, we must talk about phenomena in the order of deltas, or changes, of accelerations, because the accelerations themselves are actually hidden/masked into the orbital elements, and we only detect their changes!

When you add a leap second(you let it pass without accounting, really) you're adding it to all the UT seconds, that is, you're effectively "slowing down" the second, and that slowing down is permanent! so, you've effectively adjusted and neutralized divergences for a while(until the next adjustement.)

Now, THAT makes sense.

Mauro