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 Jim</i>
<br />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.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Indeed. Taking into account many different small anomalies, we can come up with a plausible explanation, and one which does not contradict actual observed phenomena.

Take leap seconds, by example: their mean is 1 second every year and a half, which, if correlated to Earth's rotational speed, amount to an angle of divergence of ~ 9 arc secs/year, towards the direction of Earth's rotation.
That's a clue, but some caveats must be considered:
- leap seconds most probably account for both(Sun displacement, AND Earth's rotational speed slowing down.)
- both effects can be of the same sign, or of different sign(opposed)

So, we have two very different phenomena, accounted for with only one adjustable parameter, and they can even be of opposite sign or not. Depending on to "which side" the Sun is moving.

The same happens with axial precession. In this case, it seems, we should be able to discriminate between both effects with relative ease. And that could prove to be very useful for the advancement of astronomical science.

I will not talk about GR now, except to say that a different model is needed to account for relativistic effects in a convincing (and physically sound!) way. I'm thinking about that, of course, and so must be all who are reading this

Anyays, without considering relativistic effects(yet), we have ample space to speculate about binary orbits, Sun movements, and potential binary companions.

Mauro

Joe, Mauro,

I wonder if you have considered these points? (I have not been following your discussion in in great detail, so perhaps you have.)
<ul><li>If the Sol system is moving along a curved path due to the gravitational influence of an as yet undetected mass (Barbarossa?, or some other mass), that path is not necessarily a closed orbit. It is more likely, in fact, that such an encounter is temporary and may last a mere hundred thousand years or less. Taking enough observations to tell the difference may be a matter of centuries, perhaps longer, depending on how close the encounter is and how long it lasts.</li>
<li>Whether or not the curved path is a closed orbit, it is unlikely to be aligned with our ecliptic.</li>
<li>More than one encounter can be happening at the same time. The odds are lower, but still have to be considered until a long enough period of observation allows us to eliminate it.
</li></ul>
If we are experiencing a gravitational interaction with another mass, it is possible but unlikely that it is permanent.

Orbital disturbances that can be interpreted as non-equinoctial precession are a serious possiblity.

Trying to figure out what it all means based on a few decades of observations ought to generate numerous speculations. A correct speculation might (or might not) lurk within this set of all speculations. Additional observations over time will help to "weed the garden", so to speak.

Regards,
LB

Joe,

Don't forget to consider the possibility that Pushing Gravity is an accurate model of reality. You might want to add some adjustable parameters to your program in order to simulate the effect of a modification of acceleration vs distance (relative to the strict Newtonian calculation of acceleration vs distance). As the separation distance reaches tens or hundreds of AU this modification could become significant to your search for an interloper

Regards,
LB

<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 />Joe,

...the possibility that Pushing Gravity...modification of acceleration vs distance (relative to the strict Newtonian calculation of acceleration vs distance...

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

Hi Larry!

Thanks for the valuable insights in this and your previous post.

- JK

I'm asking for help analyzing the two photos which I think show Frey (or possibly Freyprime) in a position consistent, with the best binary orbit I can draw based on the three Red sky surveys. The two Freys both are starlike and show comparison Visual magnitudes about +19.8.

The first photo is by Prof. Mutel of the U. of Iowa. It was taken Dec. 22, 2008, local AM with the U. of Iowa 15 inch robotic telescope in S. Arizona, and median stacked by Prof. Mutel. The name of the finished product FITS file which I have is "barb-day357"; some readers of this thread already have the file. There is a "disappearing dot" there at RA 11:27:30.17, Decl -9:21:48.6. The expected position cannot be determined from the three sky survey Freys, but I can (from my graphical construction, above) determine that Prof. Mutel's Frey lies only 0.036 - 0.011 AU = 25" from the expected arc.

The second photo is by Steve Riley, director of the Buena Vista observatory near Sacramento, California. It was taken March 29, 2007, mean epoch 11PM Pacific Daylight Time with Riley's 11 inch telescope, and stacked by Riley from exposures spanning 1.7 hr, first to last. The name of the main finished product JPG file I have is "301E17". There is a "disappearing dot" there at RA 11:25:3.50, Decl -9:00:36.6. The error of this position is ~5" because, unlike Prof. Mutel's file, coordinates are not built in; also, there is some nonconformality as it appears on my screen. The USNO-B catalog lists an object only 8" away, but that lies within a point of the nearby very bright star, as photographed on the sky surveys on which that catalog is based. Riley's Frey is not obvious on any of the available two Red, one Blue or one Optical IR surveys. With the small parallax correction, Riley's Frey is only a permissible 20" from predicted position, based on my theory of the binary orbit (basically my graphical construction, above) which was based on the three sky survey Freys plus Prof. Mutel's Frey.

In Riley's original photos, taken near opposition, I expect daily 18" westward motion parallel to the ecliptic, plus 1" eastward motion at an angle 4deg steeper than the ecliptic (from the solar orbit), plus 3" eastward motion at an angle 31deg steeper than the ecliptic (from the binary orbit). This sum is daily 14" westward, at an angle 6.5deg shallower than the ecliptic: approx. 1" westward parallel to the ecliptic, in 2 hr.

In Prof. Mutel's original photos, taken near stationarity, I expect daily 2" westward parallel to the ecliptic, plus 4" southward perpendicular to the ecliptic (because of Barbarossa's southerly ecliptic latitude), plus the same two eastward terms as Riley's. This sum is daily 2" eastward parallel to the ecliptic + 5.5" southward perpendicular to the ecliptic, that is 6" eastward at an angle 70deg steeper than the ecliptic: approx. 0.5" straight south in celestial coords., in 2 hr.

Anyone who wants to do this, please contact Prof. Mutel or Steve Riley directly for the original files. That would be better, because in Prof. Mutel's case, it would let him know that someone takes this seriously besides me. In Riley's case, it would give him a chance to discuss the issue of his ownership of his photos. (I'd better not send anyone Riley's photos myself; it occurs to me that these are his property in my custody.)

Maybe the position and time of every photon recorded, could be inventoried, within a few arcseconds of the objects. Then you or I could consult Statistics texts like Kendall, to determine the likely motion. No matter how careful the alignment, comparison to surrounding dim stars as controls, will improve accuracy.

With twice the expected drift speed, and probably a longer time interval, Riley's photo is the easiest. Here are the (mouse click) coordinates of five nearby dim stars I see in Riley's photo. These all are easily visible on the 1987 Red sky survey; three are in the USNO-B catalog.

1. 11:25:09.36, -9:01:18.7
USNO-B R2 19.33, B2 19.48

2. 11:25:09.30, -8:59:44.0
R2 18.94, R1 19.64, B2 20.38, B1 20.73, I18.44

3. 11:25:10.19, -8:59:51.0
not cataloged

4. 11:25:02.24, -9:02:04.3
R2 19.22, R1 19.98, B2 20.46, I 18.43

5. 11:24:59.72, -9:02:01.3
not cataloged

Well I prefer to say that the space around matter is composed of black mayonnaise, that's just my perverse sense of humour. This is a none newtonian material, complex in the mathematical sense of the word. If we allow ourselves negative refractive index, then this viscoelastic behaves in rather peculiar ways. Something moving through it will have a low pressure in front and a high pressure behind!!. If we say that a matter particle is an f.m particle, cos of the natural log, and a vacuum aether particle cos e^x then we will have anti parallel wave movement in both. One wave travels very slowly, the other travels fast and getting faster the further it goes.

So, how are vacuum aether particle packed? I thought I'd dig out an old book by Buckmaster Fuller, thinking he'd have some views on the subject. He talks in rather general terms about a 60 degree coordinate system ( a tetrahedron) which avoids the need for complex solutions of equations.

I wonder Joe, if you've come across a more detailed account of this coordinate system? I'm easy with imaginary numbers but most people seem to hate them.