Requiem for Relativity

After a quick read through of that paper, to get the angular velocities they're on about G has to be smaller, in the region of 1E-17, that means that the radius of the universe has to be larger. Now somewhere in this thread I worked out that the universe would be about eight thousand times larger than the 13.5 billion light year estimate. Trouble is I can't remember how I got that, all I can remember was that it had something to do with Wheeler and the idea that the universe "knows" in terms of the Compton wavelength.

6333 Gandharvas: Vedic knowledge of Barbarossa's period

Review: the disappearing dots I found on four online sky surveys, are consistent with a planet X, Barbarossa, with sidereal period 6340 +/- 7 yr. The "Sothic" (really, Arcturian) date of Amenhotep I points to an Egyptian calendar starting at the summer solstice 4328BC, 6339.5 tropical year before the end of the Mayan Long Count. The Mayan Long Count itself, 5125 yr, is the tropical period (Earth tropic) of Barbarossa, using the best available estimate of Earth's precession rate 6340 yr ago.


"The Gandharvas...observe all forms (or phases) of the Moon. ...(the Moon) lived among the Gandharvas...

"Their number is given variously as 27 and 6333.

"...Gayatri meter of the Rg Veda is an 8/3 meter. The Rg Veda declares that the Gayatri meter has different functions.

"...in the Rg Veda, the Gandharva is called Visvavasu or the universal Vasu, the term Vasu being associated with the number eight. It is specifically stated that the Vasus are associated with the Gayatri meter."

- B. G. Sidharth, "Precession of the Equinoxes and Calibration of Astronomical Epochs", pp. 5,6; arXiv.org (physics), Jan. 14, 2010

Sidharth notes that 27 is the number of whole days in a sidereal month. So, 27 Gandharvas symbolize the (shifting, because 27.3217 > 27) nightly stations of the Moon during the sidereal month. I think that likewise, 6333 (originally 6339 ? ) Gandharvas symbolize the yearly stations of Barbarossa during Barbarossa's sidereal orbit (6339.5 Earth tropical yr = 6339.254 Earth sidereal yr assuming the modern rate of precession). Sidharth also notes that 6333 synodic months = 6333*29.5306d = 512.0165 sidereal year = 8.00009^3 sidereal yr. If 8^3 is the "universal 8", then a "universal 8" of years, is 6333 synodic months. I think that originally however, 6333 signified years, not synodic months. The 6333 years of Barbarossa's sidereal orbit were analogous to the 27 days of the Moon's.

"The 'heavenly Gandharva' of the Veda was a deity who knew and revealed the secrets of heaven...generally had their dwelling in the sky...regulate the asterisms..."

- John Dowson, "Classical Dictionary of Hindu Mythology"

Hi Joe, I screwed up a bit on the spin rate of the universe, mixing up my degrees and radians per year. With a radius of 1.4E 26 metres, the velocity will be about a third of the speed of light, well the speed of light divided by pi. That gives me something in the region of 2.2E-11 radians per year.

Another reason I went askew there was I was after the radius where the universe is effectively not spinning at all.

Barbarossa period a fundamental physical constant; Hubble parameter related to Barbarossa period and acceleration due to moon gravity

The Hubble parameter's apparent value really might be peculiar to our solar system. Be that as it may, the root-mean-square speed of a proton in a given direction is sqrt(k*T/m) where k is Boltzmann's constant, we let T = 2.725 Kelvin (the current estimate of the "Cosmic" Microwave Background temperature is 2.725 +/- 0.001 K), and m is the mass of the proton. With a deceleration equal to H * c, where H is Hubble's parameter and c is the speed of light, the Barbarossa period, 6339.36 Julian yr, corresponds to the deceleration time, given a Hubble parameter of 77.16 km/s/Mpc. The current value of the Hubble parameter from the website, hubblesite.org, is 74.2 +/- 3.6 km/s/Mpc.

(Amendment August 31:

Fixsen, Astrophysical Journal 707:916+, recently combined all available data, and found for the CMB temperature, 2.72548 +/- 0.00057 K. By the above formula, this gives a Hubble parameter of 77.1729 km/s/Mpc; the error in this Hubble parameter prediction, is almost all due to the CMB temperature uncertainty, and amounts to about 1 part in 10,000.)


Posted here Aug. 16, 2010 because server would not accept new post:

Hubble parameter relationship to Luna's acceleration at Earth, Io's acceleration at Jupiter

I use the following values:

Luna mass: 7.34959736*10^25 gm (nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov)
Io mass: 8.9316*10^25 gm (solarsystem.nasa.gov)
Luna semimajor axis: 238855 miles = 384400 km (2007 World Almanac)
Io semimajor axis: 421700 km (Wikipedia)
Luna eccentricity: 0.0549 (2007 World Almanac)
Jupiter equatorial radius: 71492 km (Wikipedia)
Jupiter oblateness 1-b/a: 0.06487 (Wikipedia)
Gravitational constant: 6.6726/10^8 cm/s^2 (IAU, per Wikipedia)

In finding the acceleration at the center of Jupiter, Io's eccentricity is negligible, but Luna's eccentricity must be considered because it causes the time-average acceleration to be multiplied by 1.00151. In finding the average absolute value of the acceleration due to Luna on Earth's surface, the effects of Earth's diameter and oblateness are negligible, but Jupiter's diameter and oblateness cause the surface-average absolute acceleration to be multiplied by 1.00199. With these small corrections, the acclerations are:

due to Luna: 0.00332398 cm/s^2
due to Io: 0.003358 cm/s^2

Let's suppose that the Hubble parameter satisfies:

A*(fine structure const.)^2 / sqrt(6) = H*c

Then H (from Io) = 75.14 km/s/Mpc
and H (from Luna) = 74.382 km/s/Mpc

These are close to the hubblesite.org value of 74.2 +/- 3.6.

The factor sqrt(6) comes from common Poisson ratios in solid mechanics. The Poisson ratio of glass and of phenolic laminates, is 0.25 (Fung & Tong, Classical & Computational Solid Mechanics, Table 6.2:1, p. 142), and "...Poisson advanced arguments...that the value of [the Poisson ratio, for most materials] should be 1/4." (Fung & Tong, p. 143). The Poisson ratio of hot rolled copper is 0.33, and other metals range from 0.29 to 0.35 (Fung & Tong, Table 6.2:1). If the ether (or "space" if the taboo word "ether" is to be avoided) contains elements resembling a perfect glass (Poisson ratio 1/4, volume decrease 1 - 2/4 = 1/2) or a perfect metal (Poisson ratio 1/3, volume decrease 1 - 2/3 = 1/3) with equal probability, then the overall effect could be the geometric mean of the two, 1/sqrt(6).

(Amendment Aug. 31:

Since Luna's time average absolute value acceleration at Earth's center, when multiplied by (fine structure const.)^2/sqrt(6), agrees with the recent hubblesite.org value for the Hubble parameter, let's find the time average absolute value (not root-mean-square) acceleration at Jupiter's center due to the Galilean moons; the other moons are negligible. For Io I use the values above together with the Wikipedia eccentricity 0.0041. For Europa, Ganymede & Callisto, I use the Wikipedia masses, semimajor axes, and eccentricities 4.8*10^25 g, 671100 km, 0.0094; 14.8*10^25, 1070400 km, 0.0011; 10.8*10^25 g, 1882700 km, 0.0074. One of the three integrations required, to find the time average, may be found from the (rapidly convergent, in this case) power series for a complete elliptic integral of Legendre's second kind. The other two integrations are by a two-dimensional trapezoidal rule. The time-average acceleration at Jupiter's center, corresponds, as above, to a Hubble parameter of 77.172 km/s/Mpc; the error, due to the implied uncertainty in Europa's mass, is about 1 part in 7500, and due to the uncertainty in the Gravitational constant, 1 part in 20,000. Summarizing:

Hubble parameter inferred from fundamental physical constants, CMB temperature, and Barbarossa period:

77.173 km/s/Mpc, 1/10,000 error due to CMB temp uncertainty

Hubble parameter inferred from Jovian moons' time-average absolute value of acceleration at planet center:

77.172 km/s/Mpc, 1/7000 error due to Europa mass and G uncertainty

and these two numbers differ only 1 part in 80,000. )


Addendum Aug. 17, 2010:

The modern fashion is not to publish epochs of observations, and not to share data with amateurs, but in old astronomical literature, epochs usually are published. Recently the Iowa State Univ. library moved most of the old astronomy journals to the storage building, where, because I'm not currently enrolled, I don't have access to them. Some old articles are available online but they are harder to browse than in bound hardcopy form. Anyway, I did find data on Hubble's parameter, that somewhat confirm that the measured value of the parameter, corrected for Earth's orbital motion, is proportional to Luna's gravity.

My Source #1 is Humason, Mayall & Sandage, Astronomical Journal 61:97-162, Table V, pp. 119-127. They measured the redshift of 300 galaxies, all with the same 36 inch prime focus reflector at Lick Observatory. The article doesn't explicitly say that the redshifts in Table V, col. 13, are corrected for Earth's orbital motion (regarding this detail, the reader is referred to another article which isn't available to me) but Zwicky's catalog copies the redshift values (e.g. for NGC 2366, NGC 4618, NGC 4753) as if they were corrected for Earth's orbital motion. The article is explicit that the redshifts in this column are not corrected for any solar apex motion, galactic motion, etc.

My source #2 is deVaucouleurs & deVaucoleurs, AJ 72:730-737, Table III, pp. 733-736. They measured the redshift of 113 galaxies, all with the same 82 inch prime focus reflector at McDonald Observatory. The article explicitly says that the redshifts in Table V, col. 14, are corrected for Earth's orbital motion. This column is explicitly not corrected for any galactic motion, solar apex motion, etc.

Only six galaxies are identified in both Tables: NGC 1058, 1232, 2366, 4618, 4753, 7640. Zwicky's catalog lists five of these; the photographic magnitudes given, range from +11.5 to +11.8.

Source #1 gives +80 km/s for NGC 1058, vs. +521 km/s for Source #2 and +518 km/s for Wikipedia. Zwicky apparently emended Source #1 to +480 km/s, but this emendation is doubtful because Source #1 itself, used the +80 km/s value to determine the galactic motion-corrected value. So, +80 is not a simple misprint.

Source #2 gives +847 km/s for NGC 4753, vs. the modern ne.jp value, +1724. Source #1 gives +1364 ( +/- 12, an unusually narrow error bar) and Zwicky used this value.

Four believable galactic observations remain. As a proxy for the reciprocal of the lunar distance, I use the lunar parallax (in arcminutes) listed in the [British] Nautical Almanac. Source #1 gives the epoch, presumably the midpoint of the plate exposure, to 0.1 day GMT. The exposures were several hours, therefore the midpoint had to be near local midnight, and indeed all epoch dates were x.3, x.4 or x.5 GMT, as expected; I interpolated the lunar parallax linearly from the daily tables. Source #2 gives the epoch only to 1 day GMT. The mean fractional day for Source #1 was x.37; the longitude difference would imply x.33 for McDonald Observatory. Instead, I used x.5 for Source #2, but 0.17 day never amounts to more than 0.1 arcminute change in lunar parallax.

galaxy/Humason shift/deVaucouleurs"/Humason lunar parallax/deV."

NGC 1232/1820+-67/1723+-42/54.3/54.5
NGC 2366/194+-36/145+-18/56.3/56.4
NGC 4618/484+-47/562+-22/54.3/58.7
NGC 7640/423+-83/388+-28/61.1/56.2

Not only are the above redshifts given by Sources #1 & #2 believably close to each other; the errors given by Source #1 are roughly twice the errors given by Source #2, as expected from their telescope apertures.

For each of the four galaxies, I find the sum of all the likelihoods, for all the possible true redshift velocities, of giving the actual result (Sources #1 & #2, assuming normal error curve). Then I multiply the four sums, to find the likelihood of getting all four results. The likelihood ratio is 1.95::1 in favor of the hypothesis that the redshift is proportional to lunar acceleration, vs. the hypothesis that the redshift is constant.

test

Hi Joe, suppose we take that sqrt(kT/m) and rewrite it as kT = mc^2*(((1-sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))

Then interesting stuff happens when v^2 approaches c^2 and v^2 is vanishingly small. For instance it would man that an isolated hydrogen atom could ingest its electron by k capture and destroy itself as a hard gamma ray explosion.

But let's have v^2 go above c^2 Then we'll have a complex solution to the equation. A proton would have a positive temperature and a "i," or "j" if you prefer, temperature. If we go this route, just for the maths, then we have to deal with negative mass and energy. Or we could go with phase change. In which case we are talking about ordinary positive mass particles but in complex space which has a negative refractive index past light speed. That's an aether but it's not a static aether, it's a complex viscoelastic. I think there might be profit in considering the permeability and permittivity of the vacuum as being analogous to stress and strain.