Requiem for Relativity

Galaxy image affected by Barbarossa

Previously, I mentioned on this thread that two of the nearby stars (Theta Crateris & 61 Leonis) showing the very strongest "interstellar" absorption lines, happen to be very near Barbarossa. Tonight I noticed that the galaxy on Wil Tirion's star map, NGC 3672, which is nearest Barbarossa, is one of three spiral galaxies known (as of 1996 or maybe 2007) with severely abnormal apparent internal radial velocities (RVs).

"Kinematic subsystems in disk galaxies (found so far only in NGC 3672, NGC 4826, and NGC 253) appear to be relatively rare compared to ellipticals in which more than a dozen or so cases are known."

- Anantharamaiah & Goss, ApJ 466:L13-L16, 1996, p. L16

"[kinematic subsystems in disk galaxies] are yet rare..."

- Anantharamaiah, ApJ, 2007 (full article unavailable online)


NGC 4826 (a.k.a. M64, aka the "Black Eye Galaxy") and NGC 253 (aka "The Sculptor Galaxy") are bright nearby galaxies (mag 9.4 & 7.1 resp., 24 & 10 Mltyr distant resp.). Not only are they among the nearest galaxies, they both are almost precisely aligned with the pole of the Milky Way:

North pole of Milky Way (J2000.0 coords): RA 12:51, Decl +27:08
Black Eye Galaxy: 12:57, +21:41
Sculptor Galaxy: 00:48, -25:17

Thus the Sculptor Galaxy is only about two degrees from our S galactic pole, and the Black Eye Galaxy only about six degrees from our N galactic pole. It would seem that proximity to the galactic pole, distorts apparent RVs observed within a galaxy.

If proximity to the galactic pole can distort a galaxy's image, then maybe so can proximity to Barbarossa's direction. Indeed the third galaxy of this type known in 1996, has been within a few degrees of Barbarossa in recent decades. (The bulk of the Virgo Cluster is between Leo and northern Virgo, much farther from Barbarossa).

NGC 3672 is at RA 11:25, Decl -9:48. This is about a degree from Barbarossa's 2012 position, and roughly a degree per decade farther than that, from Barbarossa in other years. NGC 3672 is magnitude 12.2, 90 Mltyr distant.

<b>[Joe Keller] "Thus the Sculptor Galaxy is only about two degrees from our S galactic pole, and the Black Eye Galaxy only about six degrees from our N galactic pole. It would seem that proximity to the galactic pole, distorts apparent RVs observed within a galaxy.

If proximity to the galactic pole can distort a galaxy's image, then maybe so can proximity to Barbarossa's direction. Indeed the third galaxy of this type known in 1996, has been within a few degrees of Barbarossa in recent decades."</b>

As mentioned before, DRP expects there to be a transition zone between the entrained elysium associated with our solar system and the much larger mass of background elysium. EM waves reaching us from within or outside of that zone should exhibit some sort of anomalous distortion. It is expected to be very weak, and transient.

And, using Earth's megnetopause analogy as an aid to visualizing things, the anomalies ought to be different, perhaps stronger, in the polar areas.

Proximity to the Sol system's transition zone (Barbarosa? maybe, but we don't really know where the zone is at this point) might be another reason to expect "anomalous anomalies" Or, perhaps Barbarosa is well outside of the Sol system's transition zone, in which case it ought to have its own (much smaller) entrained mass of elysium and its own (much smaller) transition zone.

LB

"Electronic Telegram No. 939
Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams
INTERNATIONAL ASTRONOMICAL UNION

SUPERNOVA 2007bm IN NGC 3672
H. Navasardyan, S. Benetti, A. Harutyunyan, and M. Turatto, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica and Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova

...type-Ia supernova...intense (EW about 0.26 nm) Na I D
interstellar absorption doublet. ..."


Here is a third kind of evidence of abnormal light effects near Barbarossa. First I found, in the literature, the exceptionally strong "interstellar" absorption lines of Theta Crateris and 61 Leonis. Then I found, in the literature, the exceptionally abnormal apparent radial velocity profile of NGC 3672 (see previous post). Now we have the "intense" sodium "interstellar" absorption line of the 2007 supernova in NGC 3672.

Update March 13, 2010:

Patat et al, Science 317:924+, 2007, show the Na I D2 line (shorter wavelength line of the Na I D doublet; twice as strong as D1) for SN 2006X, a "normal" type-Ia supernova in NGC 4321 in the Virgo cluster. This line (Patat, Fig. 1, p. 924) is only 50 km/sec (redshift equivalent) wide at the top (i.e. 589.0nm*50km/s / 300,000km/s = 0.10nm) and only 32 km/s wide at the lowest part shown (normalized flux 0.4). Roughly, the trapezoidal shape probably extends to the bottom (normalized flux 0.0) so this line averages 35km/s wide, i.e. 0.07nm.

Thus the Equivalent Width (EW) of the Na I D2 line for SN 2006X (at the authors' several times, between 2wk and 4mo) is 0.07nm, about a quarter of the "Na I D" (D2?) EW of 0.26 for SN 2007bm in NGC 3672. This is further evidence of abnormally strong "interstellar" absorption near Barbarossa.

In 2008 another supernova, 2008gz, occurred in NGC 3672.

Hi Joe, i was having a look at the electron again, in terms of the Schwarzchild radius. The equation is a parabolic capture orbit. So if an electron were transparent to light, that light couldn't escape at about a radius of 1E-57 metres. We have g/r_s (r/c)^2 = 0.5

r_s is the Schwarzchild radius
g is local gravity at the Compton wavelength radius

A rough working out, to a couple of decimal places, for g gives a value that I reckon is the square root of barh.

Now if we have particles which can travel much faster than the speed of light, and to these an electron is transparent, then the Schwarzchild radius is going to be much smaller again. These particles could go into orbit at about 1E-91 metres radius. Another very rough calculation and it still looks like g is going to be the square root of barh.

Perhaps we can work out the mass of an orbiting graviton about the gravitational Schwarzchild radius of a particle?

Dogs and the Younger Dryas

Above, I wrote about using sled dogs in another Younger Dryas. Also, dogs seem first to have appeared at the Younger Drayas c. 13,000 yr ago.

Kristen Webb and Marc Allard, in the journal "Mitochondrial DNA", Feb. 2010 (I have access only to the abstract) say:

"...studies commonly choose the mitochondrial control region as the locus for which to evaluate the domestic dog. ...Of the most commonly cited evolutionary research, only a single study has adequately surveyed the domestic dog population..."

From the abstract alone, I don't know which study this is, that Webb & Allard say is statistically adequate. Anyway, archaeologists say that from C14 dating, apparently the oldest evidence of domestic dogs is in the Middle East and Europe c. 14,000 yr ago. This figure is inherently biased upward: if I find three sites measured as 12,000, 13,000, and 14,000 yr old, the likeliest true figure for the oldest site, isn't 14,000, because the site whose measurement error is most positive is likeliest to be the "oldest" site. (Error bars on C14 dates reflect only some of the error; they omit the often larger, but harder to estimate, "systematic" errors involved.)