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

These are interesting and plausible possibilities, but I personally think that something bigger is at stake here.

By example, and (at least) to be completely comprehensive, have any of you considered the possibility that the Sun can be moving in a curved path, and there's no mass out there to be held accountable?
Maybe we(the solar system) are in an curved path <b>without</b> a binary companion. Maybe the fabric of space is curved, and that curvature is not necessarily due to the pressence of matter, but rather to the contrary, matter is, sometimes, under the right circumstances, just accumulated in the "hollows".

Maybe gravity is (in the material side) no more than a geometry, and the macroscopic layout of visible matter the result of an
accumulation, in the same way as, by example, a river produces sandbanks by drag and sedimentation. To attribute gravity
to matter, would be similar to attribute the flowing down of the river to the presence of sandbanks.

Maybe so called black holes are nothing else than vortexes that haven't yet accreted matter, and aren't necessarily those beasts that we usually imagine: The gravitational field strength of these "black holes" can be anything, not only the very intense, that not even light can escape. They are simply vortices wihout actually accreted matter, so they don't emit nor reflect light.

There you have all that "dark matter". It's not matter, but gravitational vortices alone, without actual accretion, because in their surroundings there isn't matter to accrete for the moment.

Planets and stars, on the other side, are vortices with diverse degrees of accreted matter, depending on their "intensity"(their gravitational field strength, so to speak.)

Have you thought about that? We're so used to think in materialistic terms, tan can't conceive of a geometry of space caused by a hyperdimensional element.

There you have: a "novel" theory of gravity. I'm practically sure that I'm not the first one to state all this.

What would be then the real causes of that "drag" called gravity?
That we'll have to look for into the higher dimensions, receiving here only the effects, so to speak, the physical manifestation,
of that.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Orbital disturbances that can be interpreted as non-equinoctial precession are a serious possiblity.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Indeed. And, instead of developing theory after theory to try to quickly coincide or differ with GR results, cosmologists must carefully observe the (diverse) inconsistencies and absurdities(and we can safely say that most or Relativity is no more than an absurd way of thinking about some inconsistencies), then <b>think</b>, and then sit down and write mathematical models and theories. All the steps are important, but the second one is essential.

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

Maybe the Universe that I'm talking about is already mathematically modeled by someone.
Here are some of its characteristics:
- A purely geometrical(non mechanical), hyperdimensional ether, that accounts for no less than gravity.
- Absolute time. Time is not a reality in itself (in mechanical terms), but an abstraction(a result of the derivation of formulae). Time has no intrinsic reality at the mechanical level, so we <b>can</b> think of(and then, we <b>must</b> think of, to be taken seriously as physicists) absolute time.
- We must take into account the precession of the perihelion of the orbits of the planets, actually attributed to "relativistic effects"(whatever that means) as a signature and also as an effect of this geometry.
- Light (its front plane) moves at a given velocity, but in no sense that velocity can be "the maximum velocity of everything". Another relativistic absurdity.
- Light leaves a trace behind, and consequently, it is not mechanical(it is not a discrete object). So, we cannot apply ordinary mechanical formulas to light.
- No more leap seconds! That means: a unit of time that has real physical(in the "classical" sense, if you like) meaning.

At the observational/experimental level:
- We should observe gravitational grag without matter! (by example: binary orbits without visible companion). This effect should be relatively common.
- The different degrees of planetary orbital precessions must nicely concide with the curved path.
- The same for axial precession. There must be a (very small) component of axial precession that is in reality effect of this curvature. That axial precession must be present in all the planets, in differing degrees according to its distance to the center of curvature.
- More anomalies can be explained: Pioneer 10 anomaly, Kimura effect, etc.

Best regards, and have a nice Sunday,
Mauro

Maurol, Dumping this stuff here just makes a big mess. You know your stuff but miss the point the author is making.

<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 />Maurol, Dumping this stuff here just makes a big mess. You know your stuff but miss the point the author is making.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi Jim,
as this thread is called "Requiem for Relativity", my previous post is more than appropiate to it.

Regarding other issues that we've been discussing privately, I'll refrain to publish them here.
Let's say, just for reasons of clarity and pertinence.
Anyways, I want to mention that, unrelated as they may seem, they are related; moreover: their profound interrelation is deliberately ignored, ridiculed, or kept in the dark most of the times.
This is something that must change, and we must strive to change it in the best and prolific ways. And as soon as possible.

Mauro

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Maurol</i>
...this thread is called "Requiem for Relativity", my previous post is more than appropiate to it. ...

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

Yes, Mauro, I like your posts! Though the theory of relativity contains much truth, bringing down the rigid dogmas of academic "relativity" is what this thread is about, to a large extent! My planetary discovery, because of its proximity to the "cosmic" microwave background dipole, is part of that larger picture: an important part, because it might be confirmed photographically soon.

I also value Jim's candid comments and support.

On Feb. 12, 2009 (postmarked Feb. 13) I mailed, at a post office, predictions of the Barbarossa/Frey positions, to three astronomers. There was no new infomation in that one-page letter. I gave them the geocentric center of mass position, from the computer program posted here, for three different dates in Feb., so they could interpolate. I gave them the positions of Barbarossa & Frey relative to the c.o.m., based on the (most recently discovered and, I think, best, in this photo) Frey observation in the Dec. 22, 2008 U. of Iowa photo. I gave them the estimated Frey (and thus, Barbarossa) position, relative to the c.o.m., for Feb. 19, from a linear binary orbit extrapolation formula according to my graphical model of the orbit, described here.

The position predicted for Frey for 0h Feb. 19, was

RA 11:26:41.76 c.o.m. +13.48s (Dec. 22 photo) + 6.85s (binary orbit extrapolation) = 11:27:02.09

Decl -9:20:17.15 c.o.m. -56.3" (Dec. 22 photo) - 145" (extrapolation) = -9:23:38.45

(Get the Barbarossa position from the same c.o.m., but multiply the Frey corrections by the mass ratio, 0.1102/0.8898.)

I've asked Prof. Mutel and Steve Riley both for the raw data files that were stacked to make their relevant photos. Riley has started working on this already.

I've now redone the photometry for the three sky survey Frey detections plus the U. of Iowa Frey detection. This gives Red magnitudes (estimated according to Straizys' charts and Wickramasinghe & Hoyle's color, for the U. of Iowa detection):

1954: +18.3; 1986: +19.4; 1987: +18.55; 2008: +19.0

All these were based on a nearby USNO-B catalog star of very similar appearance. The exception is 1987, which because of its elongated appearance was equated to twice the luminosity of a nearby star resembling half of it (not the way I estimated before; the previous estimation method had given ~ +17.8 for 1987).

<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 /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Maurol</i>
...this thread is called "Requiem for Relativity", my previous post is more than appropiate to it. ...

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

Yes, Mauro, I like your posts! Though the theory of relativity contains much truth, bringing down the rigid dogmas of academic "relativity" is what this thread is about, to a large extent! My planetary discovery, because of its proximity to the "cosmic" microwave background dipole, is part of that larger picture: an important part, because it might be confirmed photographically soon.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi Joe!
Good luck with that; you can count on me for whatever I can be useful.

Let's talk about the theory of relativity!

First:
GP-B 2009 interim results have been published. They confirm the inconsistencies in both, the Geodetic effect, with an accuracy of 0.5%, and the Frame Dragging effect, with ~ 15% accuracy. The 3-5% covariance limit hasn't been achieved yet, but actual results speak for themselves.
The difference is 21 marc secs/yr +/- 14 marc secs/yr for the Geodetic (NS) effect, and 5.9 +/- 5.8 marc secs/yr for the Frame Dragging (EW) effect.
The uncertainty of the Frame Dragging effect is still too high.

It is possible that these inconsistencies detected by GP-B are due to the Sun's curved path, which drags the Earth with it, which in turns drags GP-B, producing very small parallax effects.

Now, in a more "theoretical" venue, here's again what I have to say about the theory of relativity:

The (general) theory of relativity is correct in the sense that it predicts the observed phenomena, but is incorrect in the sense that it confuses the causes of these phenomena, with its effects.

The theory of relativity correctly states that space is curved, but then mistakes the causes of this curvature with its effects.
That is, it mistakes so called "gravity" as an effect of the accumulation of matter, when in reality the accumulation of matter is a consequence of the hyperdimensional curvature of space.

For those that cannot imagine an hyperdimensional curvature of tridimensional space, with a kind of "sucking force" tying it all together (and producing the curvature in the first place), here is a bidimensional analogy:
Imagine a sphere and a (bidimensional) ant over its surface. The bidimensional ant would not be able to detect the curvature of the sphere, because this curvature is homogeneous all around.

Now imagine a small deformation of the surface, a kind of sinking hole or bump in the sphere's surface. The ant will be able to detect it, by comparing it with the surrounding, homogeneously curved, space!

Now, if she observes that she tends to "fall" into these sinking holes, and that in their centers sand was present, she can conclude, quite erroneously, that she's attracted by the sand, when in reality the sand was "attracted" there in the past(the sand was dragged down there, due to the etherical suction exerting a little bit more "pressure" there, and geometrically deforming the space)
She is attracted now, as the sand was attracted in the past.

These sinking holes are no more than "hot spots" or "softenings" of the sphere's surface ("structurally weaker" points, maybe initially due to heat, to differences of temperature), and submitted to a suction force.)

She cannot detect this "suction" in other ways or places, because it is homogeneous all over the sphere, and indeed, it's the original cause of the general spherical form of his world.

If she is an ant that likes to think about these things, she maybe will conclude one day that her Universe is modeled by hyperdimensional(radial) "suction forces", acting over "hot spots", forces that she cannot observe directly, but whose effects are clearly visible in his bidimensional world.

If you imagine this suction force as a kind of fluid(but this must be imagined non-materially), you can explain the rotation of the planets and stars, caused by the rotation of these "suction vortexes".

Then, in the center of the Earth, by example, there is one of these. And indeed, matter can probably be "dragged down" slowly through it. So the Earth can be losing mass; and the vortex is losing momentum, due to its interaction with other vortexes. Both effects occurring at the same time.

If this vortex holding matter together were to disappear for some reason, matter would be suddenly left "to its own means", so to speak, and the planet or star will break apart/disintegrate; or it will explode.

Regarding the special theory of relativity, there are other, different issues, that are incorrect, related to the nature of light and time, but I wouldn't talk about that now.

Best regards, and let me know what you think!
Mauro

(email sent today, Feb. 20)

Hi Prof. ******* & Prof. *******,

Someone else recently literally gave me a red-filter photo. The background was wiped clean (no detail; no fluctuation, not one single hot pixel). I checked, basically, all the 18.0 to 19.0 magnitude stars in the USNO-B catalog (30 of 31 verified catalog stars were visible in the photo), and found that their magnitude on this photo, estimated from the morphology of their images, correlated statistically much better with USNO-B R2 magnitude, than the USNO-B R2 & R1 mags do with each other.

Assuming this photo is legit (from a telescope of aperture &gt; 15 inches) but "too processed", it does give worthwhile information. Stars of R2 mag +18.9 are barely detected, typically a 1x2 block of faint pixels. On the three sky surveys, the best comparison estimates of Red mag that I can make, for my three "Frey" detections, are 18.3, 18.5 and 19.4. Assuming that the V mag of "Frey" on the Dec. 22 U. of Iowa photo is the same as for the nearby catalog star, and using the color corrections in Straizys to find the V mag of that catalog star, then assuming "Frey" has the color Wickramasinghe & Hoyle report for typical reddish KBOs, the R mag of the Dec. 22 "Frey" is 19.1. So detection is iffy on my new photo and presumably on the U. of Iowa photo too, especially with the dilutions caused by Earth motion in an hour or more (even near stationarity, let alone near opposition) and apparent object size maybe 1" or more (Robert Turner suggested rings, and the object might be collapsed, or of very low albedo).

It's possible to detect motion of 0.5 or 0.25" despite 1" pixels, if one has the raw data, i.e., knows how many photons were seen where and when. If three 1" pixel boxes have 3, 14, and 3 photons, and an hour later have 1, 9, and 9, it turns out statistically that as common sense suggests, there likely was about 0.5" motion. A 5x5 array of 1" boxes (usable if FWHM = 2" seeing) at more than two time points, affords even better motion detection. Surrounding stars, of similar dimness, would be used as controls. I've used Kendall's statistics text before and can design an efficient test based on Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, and likelihood ratios.

The method by which I found these objects is a book-length story, but I'm at the bottom of a big, and maybe efficient, funnel which starts with Robert Harrington's simulation, and some even earlier work that Harrington confirmed. A few years ago I worked part time for a year on an NSF grant, doing the math and Fortran programming for an engineering group at ISU, whose leader got an award for the project I helped with. That doesn't prove I'm right but it proves I have the tools needed to be maybe right. I try to persuade others that this is worthwhile, because I've never taken an astrophotograph in my life [except with an unaided 35mm camera & tripod], don't have access to a big telescope, and therefore can't do this alone.

Three of the four "Frey" detections (that I made before thinking of the possibility of collinearity) have turned out to be collinear (that is, the break in the line is &lt; 1deg) relative to the center of mass as origin. This is typical of the apparently straight sides of a binary orbit seen nearly edge on (by analogy with planetary rotations, I expect i &gt; 60, in the terminology of binary stars). Such regularities can be accidental and likely have misled me before. However, it might not be mere coincidence, considering that the c.o.m. orbit predicted by these three object pairs on sky surveys, is the only one that accurately solves one more dynamical equation, than it has adjustable parameters.

Sincerely,
Joe Keller