Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Spatial Foreshortening and the Pioneer Anomaly
83 views
Skip to first unread message
Eric Flesch
Nov 20, 2012, 12:32:11 PM11/20/12
to
The Pioneer anomaly is a well-known anomalous Sunwards acceleration of
the Pioneer spacecraft. At 20AU the acceleration was measured at
9x10^-10 m/s^2 (wikipedia). This has supposedly been resolved by
Turyshev et al (2012) as thermal recoil force, but such a laboriously
derived finding over so many years in search of an already-known
result is obviously open to question.
Setting aside Turyshev et al for now, I would like to point out an
interesting aspect of the anomaly. Pioneer's speed at 20AU was
12500m/s. so the distance-traversed anomaly per second was 9x10^-10 /
12500 = 7x10^-14 as a ratio. Now 20AU = 3x10^9 km, so let's divide
this by the ratio we've just calculated => 4.5x10^22 km => 5x10^9 LY,
which is close to the Einstein Radius of a static universe model. Now
how did that happen?
The physical interpretation of the calculation is that the Pioneer
spacecraft's path was foreshortened by that ratio at the distance of
20AU, and extending that rate of increasing foreshortening onwards,
would reach 100% at the Einstein radius. Let's follow the trail a
little further (omitting the causal agent of "scale" for now).
The foreshortening can be shown to equate to a redshift which
increases monotonically to 100% at the edge of this static universe
model. In such a universe our Galaxy's furthest stars will have a
redshift of 3m/s, so observationally dwarfed by their orbital motions.
Andromeda's redshift would be 60m/s, again observationally subsumed
into its proper motion, so the redshift would not be perceived
locally. However, high-precision measurements of the Galilean
satellites would demonstrate the presence of the redshift, much as
they were originally used to demonstrate the speed of light.
This topic opens a Pandora's box for all to consider: Astronomy makes
the great assumption that we have an untrammeled clear view of the
Cosmos, and that no warped lens is queering our view. I put forth the
proposal that the cosmological redshift shows us that our view is
warped, that things are not as they look, and that our attempts to
build a great Standard Model under the assumption that our view of the
Universe is clear and undistorted, must fail.
All going well, I'll shortly put up a posting titled "Through the
Looking Glass, Redly" which describes the 1/z static universe model
which explains the whole picture including the CMB radiating from the
apparent edge of the universe where infinities clash. While this
model is obviously speculative, it is soooo-o-o-o much simpler than
the incredibly contrived and epicycle-ridden standard model under
which we currently labour.
Eric Flesch
19 Nov 2012
the Pioneer spacecraft. At 20AU the acceleration was measured at
9x10^-10 m/s^2 (wikipedia). This has supposedly been resolved by
Turyshev et al (2012) as thermal recoil force, but such a laboriously
derived finding over so many years in search of an already-known
result is obviously open to question.
Setting aside Turyshev et al for now, I would like to point out an
interesting aspect of the anomaly. Pioneer's speed at 20AU was
12500m/s. so the distance-traversed anomaly per second was 9x10^-10 /
12500 = 7x10^-14 as a ratio. Now 20AU = 3x10^9 km, so let's divide
this by the ratio we've just calculated => 4.5x10^22 km => 5x10^9 LY,
which is close to the Einstein Radius of a static universe model. Now
how did that happen?
The physical interpretation of the calculation is that the Pioneer
spacecraft's path was foreshortened by that ratio at the distance of
20AU, and extending that rate of increasing foreshortening onwards,
would reach 100% at the Einstein radius. Let's follow the trail a
little further (omitting the causal agent of "scale" for now).
The foreshortening can be shown to equate to a redshift which
increases monotonically to 100% at the edge of this static universe
model. In such a universe our Galaxy's furthest stars will have a
redshift of 3m/s, so observationally dwarfed by their orbital motions.
Andromeda's redshift would be 60m/s, again observationally subsumed
into its proper motion, so the redshift would not be perceived
locally. However, high-precision measurements of the Galilean
satellites would demonstrate the presence of the redshift, much as
they were originally used to demonstrate the speed of light.
This topic opens a Pandora's box for all to consider: Astronomy makes
the great assumption that we have an untrammeled clear view of the
Cosmos, and that no warped lens is queering our view. I put forth the
proposal that the cosmological redshift shows us that our view is
warped, that things are not as they look, and that our attempts to
build a great Standard Model under the assumption that our view of the
Universe is clear and undistorted, must fail.
All going well, I'll shortly put up a posting titled "Through the
Looking Glass, Redly" which describes the 1/z static universe model
which explains the whole picture including the CMB radiating from the
apparent edge of the universe where infinities clash. While this
model is obviously speculative, it is soooo-o-o-o much simpler than
the incredibly contrived and epicycle-ridden standard model under
which we currently labour.
Eric Flesch
19 Nov 2012
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Nov 20, 2012, 5:01:42 PM11/20/12
to
In article <mt2.0-24633...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Eric Flesch
to appear in Astronomy and Geophysics (I don't know if it has). I
wasn't at the talk, but could read the discussion (Meeting of the Royal
Astronomical Society, The Observatory, 132, 57, 2012). Turner mentioned
that, although q (the deceleration parameter) evolves with time, its
average over the previous history of the universe is very close to 0.
However, since it is now negative and will remain negative, this is not
only a "coincidence", but a coincidence which holds only now. (Another
way of looking at it: the age of the universe is very close to the
Hubble time, because the periods of deceleration (making the universe
younger than the Hubble time) and acceleration (making the universe
older than the Hubble time) cancel out---now; in the future, when the
universe will always accelerate, they never will again and the universe
will always be older than the Hubble time. This has also been pointed
out recently by other authors (http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4795). During
the discussion, Donald Lynden-Bell asked "Are you worried about the
sizes of the Sun and the Moon?" Of course, he was pointing out the
remarkable coincidence that the angular sizes of the Sun and Moon are
almost the same and, what is more, since the Moon is moving away from
the Earth, are only the same now. Turner remarked "Well, the trouble
with coincidences is that sometimes they tell you something and
sometimes they don't."
Many theories are constructed to explain "cosmic" coincidences.
However, this rarely happens for the Sun-Moon coincidence, which is
similar in that it is unlikely and has no obvious explanation.
It would be very unlikely if there were NO coincidences. Explaining
them after the fact is not necessarily wrong, but needs to have strong
motivation in addition to explaining the coincidence. It is much better
for a theory to make predictions of such coincidences and other
interesting things which are not natural outcomes of other theories
before these things have been observed.
> However, high-precision measurements of the Galilean
> satellites would demonstrate the presence of the redshift, much as
> they were originally used to demonstrate the speed of light.
Do you have some numbers? Can this be measured now? What about using
OUR Moon?
> All going well, I'll shortly put up a posting titled "Through the
> Looking Glass, Redly" which describes the 1/z static universe model
> which explains the whole picture including the CMB radiating from the
> apparent edge of the universe where infinities clash.
Various authors have proposed static cosmological models in the past.
Be sure to indicate where yours differs and which predictions (better
than postdictions) are unique to it.
<er...@flesch.org> writes:
> Setting aside Turyshev et al for now, I would like to point out an
> interesting aspect of the anomaly. Pioneer's speed at 20AU was
> 12500m/s. so the distance-traversed anomaly per second was 9x10^-10 /
> 12500 = 7x10^-14 as a ratio. Now 20AU = 3x10^9 km, so let's divide
> this by the ratio we've just calculated => 4.5x10^22 km => 5x10^9 LY,
> which is close to the Einstein Radius of a static universe model. Now
> how did that happen?
About a year ago, Mike Turner gave a talk at the RAS. It was supposed
> Setting aside Turyshev et al for now, I would like to point out an
> interesting aspect of the anomaly. Pioneer's speed at 20AU was
> 12500m/s. so the distance-traversed anomaly per second was 9x10^-10 /
> 12500 = 7x10^-14 as a ratio. Now 20AU = 3x10^9 km, so let's divide
> this by the ratio we've just calculated => 4.5x10^22 km => 5x10^9 LY,
> which is close to the Einstein Radius of a static universe model. Now
> how did that happen?
to appear in Astronomy and Geophysics (I don't know if it has). I
wasn't at the talk, but could read the discussion (Meeting of the Royal
Astronomical Society, The Observatory, 132, 57, 2012). Turner mentioned
that, although q (the deceleration parameter) evolves with time, its
average over the previous history of the universe is very close to 0.
However, since it is now negative and will remain negative, this is not
only a "coincidence", but a coincidence which holds only now. (Another
way of looking at it: the age of the universe is very close to the
Hubble time, because the periods of deceleration (making the universe
younger than the Hubble time) and acceleration (making the universe
older than the Hubble time) cancel out---now; in the future, when the
universe will always accelerate, they never will again and the universe
will always be older than the Hubble time. This has also been pointed
out recently by other authors (http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4795). During
the discussion, Donald Lynden-Bell asked "Are you worried about the
sizes of the Sun and the Moon?" Of course, he was pointing out the
remarkable coincidence that the angular sizes of the Sun and Moon are
almost the same and, what is more, since the Moon is moving away from
the Earth, are only the same now. Turner remarked "Well, the trouble
with coincidences is that sometimes they tell you something and
sometimes they don't."
Many theories are constructed to explain "cosmic" coincidences.
However, this rarely happens for the Sun-Moon coincidence, which is
similar in that it is unlikely and has no obvious explanation.
It would be very unlikely if there were NO coincidences. Explaining
them after the fact is not necessarily wrong, but needs to have strong
motivation in addition to explaining the coincidence. It is much better
for a theory to make predictions of such coincidences and other
interesting things which are not natural outcomes of other theories
before these things have been observed.
> However, high-precision measurements of the Galilean
> satellites would demonstrate the presence of the redshift, much as
> they were originally used to demonstrate the speed of light.
OUR Moon?
> All going well, I'll shortly put up a posting titled "Through the
> Looking Glass, Redly" which describes the 1/z static universe model
> which explains the whole picture including the CMB radiating from the
> apparent edge of the universe where infinities clash.
Be sure to indicate where yours differs and which predictions (better
than postdictions) are unique to it.
Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]
Nov 20, 2012, 5:03:21 PM11/20/12
to
Eric Flesch <er...@flesch.org> wrote:
> The physical interpretation of the calculation is that the Pioneer
> spacecraft's path was foreshortened by that ratio at the distance of
> 20AU, and extending that rate of increasing foreshortening onwards,
> would reach 100% at the Einstein radius. Let's follow the trail a
> little further (omitting the causal agent of "scale" for now).
[[...]]
> The physical interpretation of the calculation is that the Pioneer
> spacecraft's path was foreshortened by that ratio at the distance of
> 20AU, and extending that rate of increasing foreshortening onwards,
> would reach 100% at the Einstein radius. Let's follow the trail a
> little further (omitting the causal agent of "scale" for now).
> All going well, I'll shortly put up a posting titled "Through the
> Looking Glass, Redly" which describes the 1/z static universe model
> which explains the whole picture including the CMB radiating from the
> apparent edge of the universe where infinities clash. While this
> model is obviously speculative, it is soooo-o-o-o much simpler than
> the incredibly contrived and epicycle-ridden standard model under
> which we currently labour.
Some questions of interest:
> Looking Glass, Redly" which describes the 1/z static universe model
> which explains the whole picture including the CMB radiating from the
> apparent edge of the universe where infinities clash. While this
> model is obviously speculative, it is soooo-o-o-o much simpler than
> the incredibly contrived and epicycle-ridden standard model under
> which we currently labour.
* Would this foreshortening have detectable effects on the measured
proper motion (around 6 milliarcseconds/year) of Sagittarius A*
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...524..805B
which we customarily interpret as parallax due to the Sun's (and our)
orbital motion about the galactic center?
* Would this foreshortening have detectable effects on the measured
gravitational deflection of light and radio waves by the Sun, Jupiter,
Saturn, and other massive bodies in our solar system? Note that the
Sun's deflection is still a few milliarcseconds even at 90 degrees
away from the Sun, i.e., it's large enough to be detectable by
Hipparcos over a major part of the sky. Unfortunately I don't seem
to have any good references handy for this. :(
* Does this model have a natural explanation for the CMBR anisotropy
multipole spectrum, cf. the recent South Pole Telescope data cited in
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7231
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/11/05/south-pole-telescope-and-cmb-constraints/
* Since the South Pole Telescope survey's full name is the South Pole
Telescope Sunyaev-Zeldovich survey, it's natural to ask what the 1/z
model has to say about the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect?
--
-- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]" <jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu>
Dept of Astronomy & IUCSS, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
on sabbatical in Canada starting August 2012
"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral."
-- quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam
craig.m...@gmail.com
Nov 21, 2012, 3:24:36 AM11/21/12
to
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 5:03:42 PM UTC-5, Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply] wrote:
> Some questions of interest:
> ...
Also:
In NGC 4258, which has maser emissions from a disk of material
around the nucleus, both radial (Doppler) and transverse (proper
motion) velocity measurements have been made. These follow exactly
the profile of a Keplerian disk, but only if the distance is 7.2 +/-
0.3 Mpc. This compares very closely to the cepheid distance to the galaxy,
computed using the the Hubble redshift law. (Caputo et al 2002;
Herrnstein et al 1999). In other words redshift and distance agree
quite well based on independent methods.
CM
References
Caputo, F., Marconi, M., & Musella, I. 2002, ApJ, 566, 833
Froeschle, M. et al, 1997, Proc ESA Symp SP-402, p.49-52
ADS Bibliographic code 1997ESASP.402...49F
Herrnstein, J. R. et al. 1999, Nature, 400, 539
Treuhaft, R. Lowe, S. 1991 AJ, 102, 1879
> Some questions of interest:
> ...
> * Would this foreshortening have detectable effects on the measured
> gravitational deflection of light and radio waves by the Sun, Jupiter,
> Saturn, and other massive bodies in our solar system? Note that the
> Sun's deflection is still a few milliarcseconds even at 90 degrees
> away from the Sun, i.e., it's large enough to be detectable by
> Hipparcos over a major part of the sky. Unfortunately I don't seem
> to have any good references handy for this. :(
How about Froeschle et al 1997 and Treuhaft & Lowe 1991?
> gravitational deflection of light and radio waves by the Sun, Jupiter,
> Saturn, and other massive bodies in our solar system? Note that the
> Sun's deflection is still a few milliarcseconds even at 90 degrees
> away from the Sun, i.e., it's large enough to be detectable by
> Hipparcos over a major part of the sky. Unfortunately I don't seem
> to have any good references handy for this. :(
Also:
In NGC 4258, which has maser emissions from a disk of material
around the nucleus, both radial (Doppler) and transverse (proper
motion) velocity measurements have been made. These follow exactly
the profile of a Keplerian disk, but only if the distance is 7.2 +/-
0.3 Mpc. This compares very closely to the cepheid distance to the galaxy,
computed using the the Hubble redshift law. (Caputo et al 2002;
Herrnstein et al 1999). In other words redshift and distance agree
quite well based on independent methods.
CM
References
Caputo, F., Marconi, M., & Musella, I. 2002, ApJ, 566, 833
Froeschle, M. et al, 1997, Proc ESA Symp SP-402, p.49-52
ADS Bibliographic code 1997ESASP.402...49F
Herrnstein, J. R. et al. 1999, Nature, 400, 539
Treuhaft, R. Lowe, S. 1991 AJ, 102, 1879
Eric Flesch
Nov 21, 2012, 3:28:56 AM11/21/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 12, Phillip Helbig wrote:
>It is much better
>for a theory to make predictions of such coincidences and other
>interesting things which are not natural outcomes of other theories
>before these things have been observed.
Well, that's the thing, Phil, after I replied to your request to
>It is much better
>for a theory to make predictions of such coincidences and other
>interesting things which are not natural outcomes of other theories
>before these things have been observed.
describe the 1/z universe, I was thinking about how to test it, and so
of course the Pioneer anomaly came to mind, and when I did the math it
came out as an excellent fit. That sort of qualifies as a prediction,
does it not?
>> However, high-precision measurements of the Galilean
>> satellites would demonstrate the presence of the redshift, much as
>> they were originally used to demonstrate the speed of light.
>
>Do you have some numbers? Can this be measured now?
(1) Io's orbital speed is 17km/s compared with Pioneer's 12 km/s
recession, so when that motion is normal to us there should be an
anomalous acceleration of 1.2x10-9 m/s^2, always towards us. This
works because Io's orbit would be seen as being slightly flattened
behind Jupiter, but that's too hard to actually see.
(2) Earth's standard parallax of 2AU applies as an additional 10^-10
sec lag between Jupiter's nearest and farthest positions, but that may
be cutting it too fine.
>What about using OUR Moon?
no good I think.
>Various authors have proposed static cosmological models in the past.
>Be sure to indicate where yours differs and which predictions (better
>than postdictions) are unique to it.
Eric Flesch
Nov 21, 2012, 3:29:58 AM11/21/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 12, "Jonathan Thornburg wrote:
>Some questions of interest:
>* Would this foreshortening have detectable effects on the measured
> proper motion (around 6 milliarcseconds/year) of Sagittarius A*
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...524..805B
> which we customarily interpret as parallax due to the Sun's (and our)
> orbital motion about the galactic center?
It would slightly shrink it because the foreshortening is just the
>Some questions of interest:
>* Would this foreshortening have detectable effects on the measured
> proper motion (around 6 milliarcseconds/year) of Sagittarius A*
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...524..805B
> which we customarily interpret as parallax due to the Sun's (and our)
> orbital motion about the galactic center?
normal component of an all-around shrinkage. But the redshift at the
Galactic centre would amount to only 1m/sec, and I suspect the
shrinkage is too small to be detectable.
The "queering lens" which I'll describe makes the universe look
Lobachevskian, so things shrink, but it's an illusion -- it's
Minkowski flat wherever you go.
>* Would this foreshortening have detectable effects on the measured
> gravitational deflection of light and radio waves by the Sun, Jupiter,
> Saturn, and other massive bodies in our solar system?
expect that massive bodies are a little heavier than we think, because
we see things a bit shrunken. Only talking the order of 10^-10 here.
One prediction that is do-able now is that the furthest stars in our
Galaxy should display a bulk redshift of 3m/s. Therefore a large
survey of Galactic star orbits should show the redshift statistically
-- the impression would be that the Galaxy is spreading outwards into
the IGM -- falsely, of course.
> ... CMBR anisotropy ... Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect
Ah those lovely wobbles, not yet modelled on my budget of $0 but I
will strive to close the gap... :-)
Eric
Eric Flesch
Nov 21, 2012, 6:11:47 AM11/21/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 12 17:32:11 GMT, Eric Flesch <er...@flesch.org> wrote:
>The foreshortening can be shown to equate to a redshift which
>increases monotonically to 100% at the edge of this static universe
>model. In such a universe our Galaxy's furthest stars will have a
>redshift of 3m/s,
3 km/s, that is.
>The foreshortening can be shown to equate to a redshift which
>increases monotonically to 100% at the edge of this static universe
>model. In such a universe our Galaxy's furthest stars will have a
>redshift of 3m/s,
>Andromeda's redshift would be 60m/s,
sorry, long work days...
Eric Flesch
Nov 21, 2012, 6:12:16 AM11/21/12
to
On Wed, 21 Nov 12 08:29:58 GMT, Eric Flesch <er...@flesch.org> wrote:
> But the redshift at the Galactic centre would amount to only 1m/sec
1 km/sec
> But the redshift at the Galactic centre would amount to only 1m/sec
>One prediction that is do-able now is that the furthest stars in our
>Galaxy should display a bulk redshift of 3m/s.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Nov 22, 2012, 9:50:59 AM11/22/12
to
In article <mt2.0-12990...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Eric Flesch
Postdictions are not necessarily worthless, but they are worth less than
predictions. This is more of an emotional thing, perhaps, the idea
being that "if you know in advance the result you expect" then it is
easy to bend the theory to get there. Note that people have connected
the anomalous Pioneer acceleration (which, you have to admit, might
indeed have been explained much more mundanely) to MOND as well, via
similar dimensional arguments.
<er...@flesch.org> writes:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 12, Phillip Helbig wrote:
> >It is much better
> >for a theory to make predictions of such coincidences and other
> >interesting things which are not natural outcomes of other theories
> >before these things have been observed.
>
> Well, that's the thing, Phil, after I replied to your request to
> describe the 1/z universe, I was thinking about how to test it, and so
> of course the Pioneer anomaly came to mind, and when I did the math it
> came out as an excellent fit. That sort of qualifies as a prediction,
> does it not?
This illustrates the distinction between a prediction and a postdiction.
> On Tue, 20 Nov 12, Phillip Helbig wrote:
> >It is much better
> >for a theory to make predictions of such coincidences and other
> >interesting things which are not natural outcomes of other theories
> >before these things have been observed.
>
> Well, that's the thing, Phil, after I replied to your request to
> describe the 1/z universe, I was thinking about how to test it, and so
> of course the Pioneer anomaly came to mind, and when I did the math it
> came out as an excellent fit. That sort of qualifies as a prediction,
> does it not?
Postdictions are not necessarily worthless, but they are worth less than
predictions. This is more of an emotional thing, perhaps, the idea
being that "if you know in advance the result you expect" then it is
easy to bend the theory to get there. Note that people have connected
the anomalous Pioneer acceleration (which, you have to admit, might
indeed have been explained much more mundanely) to MOND as well, via
similar dimensional arguments.
Eric Gisse
Nov 22, 2012, 10:49:51 PM11/22/12
to
On Nov 21, 2:29 am, Eric Flesch <e...@flesch.org> wrote:
> (1) Io's orbital speed is 17km/s compared with Pioneer's 12 km/s
> recession, so when that motion is normal to us there should be an
> anomalous acceleration of 1.2x10-9 m/s^2, always towards us. This
> works because Io's orbit would be seen as being slightly flattened
> behind Jupiter, but that's too hard to actually see.
DOA.
> (1) Io's orbital speed is 17km/s compared with Pioneer's 12 km/s
> recession, so when that motion is normal to us there should be an
> anomalous acceleration of 1.2x10-9 m/s^2, always towards us. This
> works because Io's orbit would be seen as being slightly flattened
> behind Jupiter, but that's too hard to actually see.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306130
Look at the orbital parameters of the stars, specifcially S0-16.
[...]
Eric Flesch
Nov 23, 2012, 3:04:09 AM11/23/12
to
On Fri, 23 Nov 12 03:49:51 GMT, Eric Gisse <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>DOA.
>http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306130
>Look at the orbital parameters of the stars, specifcially S0-16.
OK, I looked, and it's irrelevant to this topic.
>DOA.
>http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306130
>Look at the orbital parameters of the stars, specifcially S0-16.
Eric Gisse
Nov 23, 2012, 1:43:47 PM11/23/12
to
On Nov 23, 2:14 am, Eric Flesch <e...@flesch.org> wrote:
latest guess.
Let's have a little exercise in Newtonian mechanics. How fast is S0-16
going?
Also:
"In such a universe our Galaxy's furthest stars will have a
redshift of 3m/s"
Visible using Doppler shift. There will be a systematic *and large*
over-estimation of stellar masses using spectroscopy were this the
case.
Your guess is DOA.
> On Fri, 23 Nov 12 03:49:51 GMT, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >DOA.
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306130
> >Look at the orbital parameters of the stars, specifcially S0-16.
>
> OK, I looked, and it's irrelevant to this topic.
Objects that move that quickly will not have Newtonian orbits in your
> >DOA.
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306130
> >Look at the orbital parameters of the stars, specifcially S0-16.
>
> OK, I looked, and it's irrelevant to this topic.
latest guess.
Let's have a little exercise in Newtonian mechanics. How fast is S0-16
going?
Also:
"In such a universe our Galaxy's furthest stars will have a
redshift of 3m/s"
over-estimation of stellar masses using spectroscopy were this the
case.
Your guess is DOA.
Eric Flesch
Nov 24, 2012, 5:08:11 AM11/24/12
to
On Fri, 23 Nov 12 18:43:47 GMT, Eric Gisse <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Objects that move that quickly will not have Newtonian orbits in your
>latest guess.
Of course they do, the image is foreshortened, the actual manifold is
>Objects that move that quickly will not have Newtonian orbits in your
>latest guess.
flat. I've been clear about that.
>Let's have a little exercise in Newtonian mechanics. How fast is S0-16
>going?
high-precision. The idea of using Io is that we can be clever to
figure out something high precision, or even better, to drop a ticker
onto its surface so we can do some real high-precision measuring --
the idea being that the Pioneer anomaly would be replicated on Io.
>"In such a universe our Galaxy's furthest stars will have a
>
>Visible using Doppler shift.
The Galaxy centre redshift would be 1 km/sec, in my model. Let us
know what your expert calculation of the Sun's vector shows that the
Galaxy centre's redshift should be, and what tools we will use to read
that.
>Your guess is DOA.
It may be, but not from your analysis.
Eric F
Eric Gisse
Nov 25, 2012, 5:01:57 AM11/25/12
to
On Nov 24, 4:08 am, Eric Flesch <e...@flesch.org> wrote:
periastron is in the thousands of kilometers per second range.
You are, of course, encouraged to confirm this yourself. Its' a
straight forward computation.
>
> >Let's have a little exercise in Newtonian mechanics. How fast is S0-16
> >going?
>
> It doesn't matter, because the measurement of S0-16 is insufficiently
> high-precision.
Please don't borrow Oldershaw's talking points.
The star has been observed since the early 90's with sufficient
resolution to determine its' orbital parameters through close to two
orbits now.
Perhaps a visual aid?
http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/movies/gclarge.gif
Yeah, there's no way we can know. Even though I could take that
animated gif and directly trace out the orbit and determine the
orbital parameters of a lot of the stars.
> The idea of using Io is that we can be clever to
> figure out something high precision, or even better, to drop a ticker
> onto its surface so we can do some real high-precision measuring --
> the idea being that the Pioneer anomaly would be replicated on Io.
Ah, the good ol' "I don't believe the measurement" gambit.
Let me know how that works out for you.
>
> >"In such a universe our Galaxy's furthest stars will have a
> >redshift of 3km/s"
>
> >Visible using Doppler shift.
>
> The Galaxy centre redshift would be 1 km/sec, in my model. Let us
> know what your expert calculation of the Sun's vector shows that the
> Galaxy centre's redshift should be, and what tools we will use to read
> that.
Spectroscopy in the form of Doppler shift of known spectral lines.
Isn't that what I just said?
Your model suffers the same problems ballistic light models suffer.
This is trivially observable via earthbound experiments, and large
speed astronomical events like the stars orbiting the Milky Way's
central black hole. I only pick the example because I like it and had
notes from a few years ago with the relevant references and
calculations. You are free to pick a more 'well known' example like a
binary star.
>
> >Your guess is DOA.
>
> It may be, but not from your analysis.
>
> Eric F
Iit isn't worth the effort to make the effort, and trying to convince
someone with a fool of a theory has always been a vortex of time.
> On Fri, 23 Nov 12 18:43:47 GMT, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Objects that move that quickly will not have Newtonian orbits in your
> >latest guess.
>
> Of course they do, the image is foreshortened, the actual manifold is
> flat. I've been clear about that.
Orbits still won't be Newtonian. Especially in this case where
> >Objects that move that quickly will not have Newtonian orbits in your
> >latest guess.
>
> Of course they do, the image is foreshortened, the actual manifold is
> flat. I've been clear about that.
periastron is in the thousands of kilometers per second range.
You are, of course, encouraged to confirm this yourself. Its' a
straight forward computation.
>
> >Let's have a little exercise in Newtonian mechanics. How fast is S0-16
> >going?
>
> It doesn't matter, because the measurement of S0-16 is insufficiently
> high-precision.
The star has been observed since the early 90's with sufficient
resolution to determine its' orbital parameters through close to two
orbits now.
Perhaps a visual aid?
http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/movies/gclarge.gif
Yeah, there's no way we can know. Even though I could take that
animated gif and directly trace out the orbit and determine the
orbital parameters of a lot of the stars.
> The idea of using Io is that we can be clever to
> figure out something high precision, or even better, to drop a ticker
> onto its surface so we can do some real high-precision measuring --
> the idea being that the Pioneer anomaly would be replicated on Io.
Let me know how that works out for you.
>
> >"In such a universe our Galaxy's furthest stars will have a
> >redshift of 3km/s"
>
> >Visible using Doppler shift.
>
> The Galaxy centre redshift would be 1 km/sec, in my model. Let us
> know what your expert calculation of the Sun's vector shows that the
> Galaxy centre's redshift should be, and what tools we will use to read
> that.
Isn't that what I just said?
Your model suffers the same problems ballistic light models suffer.
This is trivially observable via earthbound experiments, and large
speed astronomical events like the stars orbiting the Milky Way's
central black hole. I only pick the example because I like it and had
notes from a few years ago with the relevant references and
calculations. You are free to pick a more 'well known' example like a
binary star.
>
> >Your guess is DOA.
>
> It may be, but not from your analysis.
>
> Eric F
someone with a fool of a theory has always been a vortex of time.
Eric Flesch
Nov 25, 2012, 11:09:51 AM11/25/12
to
On Sun, 25 Nov 12 10:01:57 GMT, Eric Gisse <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I only pick the example because I like it and had
>notes from a few years ago with the relevant references and
>calculations.
Well, why don't you use your time to publish something, instead of
> I only pick the example because I like it and had
>notes from a few years ago with the relevant references and
>calculations.
spending all your time on this newsgroup misunderstanding instrumental
limitations.
>Iit isn't worth the effort to make the effort, and trying to convince
>someone with a fool of a theory has always been a vortex of time.
And if you would say something sensible, such as that my theory models
redshift, but the Pioneer anomaly comprises a blueshift, then I would
say "well done". But your arguments are not coherent like that, more
like a dog with a bone, any bone.
Eric F
[Mod. note: can I suggest that we either terminate this discussion
here, or focus on discussion of the astrophysics -- mjh]
craig.m...@gmail.com
Nov 26, 2012, 4:07:52 AM11/26/12
to
On Sunday, November 25, 2012 11:10:12 AM UTC-5, Eric Flesch wrote:
And, for example how it applies to the Pioneer effect which occurs exclusively in the radial (line-of-sight) direction. There is no spatial perspective involved in the Pioneer effect.
CM
> On Sun, 25 Nov 12 10:01:57 GMT, Eric Gisse <j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm perfectly capable of finding holes in my own speculative theory,
>
Could you please describe exactly what is meant by spatial foreshortening? In other words, with some kind of prediction for how it affects observables?
> I'm perfectly capable of finding holes in my own speculative theory,
>
And, for example how it applies to the Pioneer effect which occurs exclusively in the radial (line-of-sight) direction. There is no spatial perspective involved in the Pioneer effect.
CM
Eric Flesch
Nov 26, 2012, 10:54:49 AM11/26/12
to
On Mon, 26 Nov 12, "craig.m...@gmail.com" wrote:
>Could you please describe exactly what is meant by spatial foreshortening?
>In other words, with some kind of prediction for how it affects observables?
The immediate effect is that cosmological redshift is strictly
>Could you please describe exactly what is meant by spatial foreshortening?
>In other words, with some kind of prediction for how it affects observables?
time-lag dependent and so even local objects have a tiny redshift
which is dwarfed (and so hidden) by ordinary motion. This would be
the consequence of a migrating universal parameter which makes the
past look different to the present, which differs from our assumption
that it looks the same. My plan is to tie this together in one more
topical post, but I'll repeat that a falsifiable observation of it
would be a bulk 3 km/sec redshift of the farthest stars of this
Galaxy, which should be statistically visible in a large enough census
of such stars.
>And, for example how it applies to the Pioneer effect which occurs exclusively
>in the radial (line-of-sight) direction. There is no spatial perspective involved
> in the Pioneer effect.
involved would be if space shrank in the line-of-sight and everything
else remained the same. This would equate to a speed-up of C, and
that wasn't my idea at all. The sign of the Pioneer anomaly is
backward -- such an ugly fact, as they say.
Eric
Eric Gisse
Nov 26, 2012, 4:33:09 PM11/26/12
to
On Nov 26, 9:55 am, Eric Flesch <e...@flesch.org> wrote:
lines. This would have been noticed quite a long time ago.
I am unclear of the value of this discussion as you brought this up in
context with some sort of 1/z cosmology which is also observationally
wrong.
>
> >And, for example how it applies to the Pioneer effect which occurs exclusively
> >in the radial (line-of-sight) direction. There is no spatial perspective involved
> > in the Pioneer effect.
>
> I agree in that the only way that spatial perspective could be
> involved would be if space shrank in the line-of-sight and everything
> else remained the same. This would equate to a speed-up of C, and
> that wasn't my idea at all. The sign of the Pioneer anomaly is
> backward -- such an ugly fact, as they say.
>
> Eric
So you do in fact suffer from the same problem as ballistic theories.
At least you acknowledge the evidence is against you. Will that be the
end of the inquiry?
> On Mon, 26 Nov 12, "craig.markwa...@gmail.com" wrote:
> >Could you please describe exactly what is meant by spatial foreshortening?
> >In other words, with some kind of prediction for how it affects observables?
>
> The immediate effect is that cosmological redshift is strictly
> time-lag dependent and so even local objects have a tiny redshift
> which is dwarfed (and so hidden) by ordinary motion. This would be
> the consequence of a migrating universal parameter which makes the
> past look different to the present, which differs from our assumption
> that it looks the same. My plan is to tie this together in one more
> topical post, but I'll repeat that a falsifiable observation of it
> would be a bulk 3 km/sec redshift of the farthest stars of this
> Galaxy, which should be statistically visible in a large enough census
> of such stars.
A 3km/s-effective redshift would systematically shift all spectral
> >Could you please describe exactly what is meant by spatial foreshortening?
> >In other words, with some kind of prediction for how it affects observables?
>
> The immediate effect is that cosmological redshift is strictly
> time-lag dependent and so even local objects have a tiny redshift
> which is dwarfed (and so hidden) by ordinary motion. This would be
> the consequence of a migrating universal parameter which makes the
> past look different to the present, which differs from our assumption
> that it looks the same. My plan is to tie this together in one more
> topical post, but I'll repeat that a falsifiable observation of it
> would be a bulk 3 km/sec redshift of the farthest stars of this
> Galaxy, which should be statistically visible in a large enough census
> of such stars.
lines. This would have been noticed quite a long time ago.
I am unclear of the value of this discussion as you brought this up in
context with some sort of 1/z cosmology which is also observationally
wrong.
>
> >And, for example how it applies to the Pioneer effect which occurs exclusively
> >in the radial (line-of-sight) direction. There is no spatial perspective involved
> > in the Pioneer effect.
>
> I agree in that the only way that spatial perspective could be
> involved would be if space shrank in the line-of-sight and everything
> else remained the same. This would equate to a speed-up of C, and
> that wasn't my idea at all. The sign of the Pioneer anomaly is
> backward -- such an ugly fact, as they say.
>
> Eric
At least you acknowledge the evidence is against you. Will that be the
end of the inquiry?
craig.m...@gmail.com
Nov 27, 2012, 3:07:07 AM11/27/12
to
On Monday, November 26, 2012 10:55:11 AM UTC-5, Eric Flesch wrote:
I'm afraid I (and probably others) don't really know what "strictly time-lag dependent" actually means. One really needs some kind of prescription - algorithm - formula - whatever, that allows one to predict changes in observables. "Strictly time-lag dependent" or "migrating universal parameter" doesn't tell me how to do this. While you're at it, please provide a prediction for a body at 7 Mpc (redshift v = 450 km/s).
> >And, for example how it applies to the Pioneer effect which occurs exclusively
> >in the radial (line-of-sight) direction. There is no spatial perspective involved
> > in the Pioneer effect.
>
>
>
> I agree in that the only way that spatial perspective could be
> involved would be if space shrank in the line-of-sight and everything
> else remained the same. This would equate to a speed-up of C, and
> that wasn't my idea at all. The sign of the Pioneer anomaly is
> backward -- such an ugly fact, as they say.
It's interesting that the "fact" that motivated the theory is now an ugly contradiction.
CM
> On Mon, 26 Nov 12, "craig...@gmail.com" wrote:
>
> >Could you please describe exactly what is meant by spatial foreshortening?
>
> >In other words, with some kind of prediction for how it affects observables?
>
>
>
> The immediate effect is that cosmological redshift is strictly
> time-lag dependent and so even local objects have a tiny redshift
> which is dwarfed (and so hidden) by ordinary motion. This would be
> the consequence of a migrating universal parameter which makes the
> past look different to the present, which differs from our assumption
> that it looks the same. ...
>
> >Could you please describe exactly what is meant by spatial foreshortening?
>
> >In other words, with some kind of prediction for how it affects observables?
>
>
>
> The immediate effect is that cosmological redshift is strictly
> time-lag dependent and so even local objects have a tiny redshift
> which is dwarfed (and so hidden) by ordinary motion. This would be
> the consequence of a migrating universal parameter which makes the
> past look different to the present, which differs from our assumption
I'm afraid I (and probably others) don't really know what "strictly time-lag dependent" actually means. One really needs some kind of prescription - algorithm - formula - whatever, that allows one to predict changes in observables. "Strictly time-lag dependent" or "migrating universal parameter" doesn't tell me how to do this. While you're at it, please provide a prediction for a body at 7 Mpc (redshift v = 450 km/s).
> >And, for example how it applies to the Pioneer effect which occurs exclusively
> >in the radial (line-of-sight) direction. There is no spatial perspective involved
> > in the Pioneer effect.
>
>
>
> I agree in that the only way that spatial perspective could be
> involved would be if space shrank in the line-of-sight and everything
> else remained the same. This would equate to a speed-up of C, and
> that wasn't my idea at all. The sign of the Pioneer anomaly is
> backward -- such an ugly fact, as they say.
CM
Eric Flesch
Nov 27, 2012, 5:14:19 AM11/27/12
to
On Mon, 26 Nov 12 21:33:09 GMT, Eric Gisse <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 26, 9:55 am, Eric Flesch <e...@flesch.org> wrote:
>> ... a bulk 3 km/sec redshift of the farthest stars of this Galaxy ...
>On Nov 26, 9:55 am, Eric Flesch <e...@flesch.org> wrote:
>
>A 3km/s-effective redshift would systematically shift all spectral
>lines. This would have been noticed quite a long time ago.
The farthest stars of the Galaxy are faint and rarely attempted. The
>A 3km/s-effective redshift would systematically shift all spectral
>lines. This would have been noticed quite a long time ago.
brightest of them could be observed nowadays with a dedicated dynamic
survey, I think, but I don't believe this has yet been done.
>some sort of 1/z cosmology which is also observationally wrong.
right, e,g Fig 5 in Nilsson et al, 1993 ApJ 413 453 who dared to
include the 1/z line in their LAS/z chart (and remarked that it "in
fact agrees well with the data"), and in the previous thread about
http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.3663 which shows in Fig 16 a z=10 galaxy
which entirely misses the FRW size curves and would have fit the 1/z
line reasonably had it only been plotted.
>At least you acknowledge the evidence is against you. Will that be the
>end of the inquiry?
but the Einstein Radius calculation I presented for it was off by 50%,
and in fact it hits the 10^10 LY size like a bullseye. I will have to
make a summary posting for that on its own merit, since it is (at
least) such a remarkable coincidence.
Eric F
Eric Flesch
Nov 27, 2012, 5:17:45 AM11/27/12
to
On Tue, 27 Nov 12, "craig.m...@gmail.com" wrote:
>I'm afraid I (and probably others) don't really know what "strictly time-lag dependent" actually means.
You know, in one year light travels 1 light year, that's all. I could
>I'm afraid I (and probably others) don't really know what "strictly time-lag dependent" actually means.
not say "distance" because of the question of spatial foreshortening.
>While you're at it, please provide a prediction for a body at 7 Mpc (redshift v = 450 km/s).
= 300,000 km/sec x 7,000,000 pc x 3.26 LY/pc / 10^10 LY
= 685 km/s.
Bearing in mind that the Einstein radius of 10^10 LY is an
approximation.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Nov 29, 2012, 2:25:00 AM11/29/12
to
In article <mt2.0-6544...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Eric Flesch
the errors.
> and in the previous thread about
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.3663 which shows in Fig 16 a z=10 galaxy
> which entirely misses the FRW size curves and would have fit the 1/z
> line reasonably had it only been plotted.
How do you measure the size of a galaxy at z=10? Note that (at least in
standard cosmology) the surface brightness is proportional to
(1+z)^4, in a finite band to (1+z)^5 and thus signal-to-noise is
proportional to (1+z)^10. Add to that appreciable evolution and any
sort of isophotal diameter is difficult to relate to some "standard
rod".
> >At least you acknowledge the evidence is against you. Will that be the
> >end of the inquiry?
>
this tells us. What does the remarkable coincidence that the angular
sizes of the Sun and Moon are the same tell us?
> Obviously the reason I bring it up is because it is observationally
> right, e,g Fig 5 in Nilsson et al, 1993 ApJ 413 453 who dared to
> include the 1/z line in their LAS/z chart (and remarked that it "in
> fact agrees well with the data"),
There are an infinite number of curves which agree with the data within
> right, e,g Fig 5 in Nilsson et al, 1993 ApJ 413 453 who dared to
> include the 1/z line in their LAS/z chart (and remarked that it "in
> fact agrees well with the data"),
the errors.
> and in the previous thread about
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.3663 which shows in Fig 16 a z=10 galaxy
> which entirely misses the FRW size curves and would have fit the 1/z
> line reasonably had it only been plotted.
standard cosmology) the surface brightness is proportional to
(1+z)^4, in a finite band to (1+z)^5 and thus signal-to-noise is
proportional to (1+z)^10. Add to that appreciable evolution and any
sort of isophotal diameter is difficult to relate to some "standard
rod".
> >At least you acknowledge the evidence is against you. Will that be the
> >end of the inquiry?
>
> The Pioneer anomaly obviously does not support the 1/z static model,
> but the Einstein Radius calculation I presented for it was off by 50%,
> and in fact it hits the 10^10 LY size like a bullseye. I will have to
> make a summary posting for that on its own merit, since it is (at
> least) such a remarkable coincidence.
The question is how remarkable it is and, even if it is remarkable, what
> but the Einstein Radius calculation I presented for it was off by 50%,
> and in fact it hits the 10^10 LY size like a bullseye. I will have to
> make a summary posting for that on its own merit, since it is (at
> least) such a remarkable coincidence.
this tells us. What does the remarkable coincidence that the angular
sizes of the Sun and Moon are the same tell us?
craig.m...@gmail.com
Nov 29, 2012, 2:26:06 AM11/29/12
to
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 5:18:06 AM UTC-5, Eric Flesch wrote:
Either way, it doesn't matter. The "foreshortening" model has a problem because of NGC 4258. NGC 4258 is a unique galaxy because it has both a bunch of cepheid variable stars and a orbiting gas which makes water maser emission.
The cepheid period properties tell us how distant the galaxy is in Megaparsecs. Using the Hubble distance-redshift relationship, this puts it at ~450 km/s, which is close to the true redshift of the galaxy, not your predicted 685 km/s.
You might argue that the Hubble relation was calibrated with Cepheids and therefore the distance is somehow invalid, but that is only partially true: there are several other techniques used to measure the Hubble relation.
One of those other techniques comes from water maser measurements. NGC 4258 has water maser emitters embedded in a nearly keplerian disk circulating around the central compact object. It's possible to measure both doppler shift as well as proper motion of the maser blobs. Together, these observations completely constrain the system including the central mass and inclination, AND the distance! This distance agrees to within a few percent with the distance derived via cepheids. It's a remarkable confirm
ation that the cepheid technique is working well. (I've already referred to Herrnstein; Caputto; more recently Argon et al 2007)
The "foreshortening" model incorrectly predicts 685 km/s when the actual redshift of NGC 4258 is ~450 km/s based on both of these techniques. The error is not just a few percent, but almost 50%. Is that another inconvenient fact?
By the way, you might be tempted to argue that NGC 4258 is some kind of fluke or due to peculiar motion. I picked NGC 4258 because I remembered it off the top of my head and is the most whopping big maser emitter. But it is not alone. Some quick searches show that the Megamaser Cosmology Project has done similar efforts for the galaxies UGC 3789 and NGC 6264. These galaxies are at distances of 50 Mpc and 140 Mpc respectively, which are even more stringent tests (and rejections) of the "foreshortening" t
heory. More inconvenient facts?
CM
References
Argon et al 2007 ApJ 659 1040
> On Tue, 27 Nov 12, "craig...@gmail.com" wrote:
>
> >I'm afraid I (and probably others) don't really know what "strictly time-lag dependent" actually means.
....
>
> >I'm afraid I (and probably others) don't really know what "strictly time-lag dependent" actually means.
> >While you're at it, please provide a prediction for a body at 7 Mpc (redshift v = 450 km/s).
>
> Model predicts redshift in km/sec => C x distance / 10^10 LY
> = 300,000 km/sec x 7,000,000 pc x 3.26 LY/pc / 10^10 LY
> = 685 km/s.
It's unclear if you are claiming that your model would *add* 685 km/s to the cosmological redshift; or if you are saying that the actual redshift should be 685 km/s instead of 450 km/s.
>
> Model predicts redshift in km/sec => C x distance / 10^10 LY
> = 300,000 km/sec x 7,000,000 pc x 3.26 LY/pc / 10^10 LY
> = 685 km/s.
Either way, it doesn't matter. The "foreshortening" model has a problem because of NGC 4258. NGC 4258 is a unique galaxy because it has both a bunch of cepheid variable stars and a orbiting gas which makes water maser emission.
The cepheid period properties tell us how distant the galaxy is in Megaparsecs. Using the Hubble distance-redshift relationship, this puts it at ~450 km/s, which is close to the true redshift of the galaxy, not your predicted 685 km/s.
You might argue that the Hubble relation was calibrated with Cepheids and therefore the distance is somehow invalid, but that is only partially true: there are several other techniques used to measure the Hubble relation.
One of those other techniques comes from water maser measurements. NGC 4258 has water maser emitters embedded in a nearly keplerian disk circulating around the central compact object. It's possible to measure both doppler shift as well as proper motion of the maser blobs. Together, these observations completely constrain the system including the central mass and inclination, AND the distance! This distance agrees to within a few percent with the distance derived via cepheids. It's a remarkable confirm
ation that the cepheid technique is working well. (I've already referred to Herrnstein; Caputto; more recently Argon et al 2007)
The "foreshortening" model incorrectly predicts 685 km/s when the actual redshift of NGC 4258 is ~450 km/s based on both of these techniques. The error is not just a few percent, but almost 50%. Is that another inconvenient fact?
By the way, you might be tempted to argue that NGC 4258 is some kind of fluke or due to peculiar motion. I picked NGC 4258 because I remembered it off the top of my head and is the most whopping big maser emitter. But it is not alone. Some quick searches show that the Megamaser Cosmology Project has done similar efforts for the galaxies UGC 3789 and NGC 6264. These galaxies are at distances of 50 Mpc and 140 Mpc respectively, which are even more stringent tests (and rejections) of the "foreshortening" t
heory. More inconvenient facts?
CM
References
Argon et al 2007 ApJ 659 1040
Eric Flesch
Nov 29, 2012, 10:26:21 AM11/29/12
to
On Thu, 29 Nov 12, "craig.m...@gmail.com" wrote:
>Eric Flesch wrote:
>> = 685 km/s.
>
>It's unclear if you are claiming that your model would *add* 685 km/s to the cosmological redshift;
>or if you are saying that the actual redshift should be 685 km/s instead of 450 km/s.
The model's cosmological redshift for the distance you stated.
>Eric Flesch wrote:
>> = 685 km/s.
>
>It's unclear if you are claiming that your model would *add* 685 km/s to the cosmological redshift;
>or if you are saying that the actual redshift should be 685 km/s instead of 450 km/s.
>NGC 4258... ~450 km/s, which is close to the true redshift of the galaxy, not your predicted 685 km/s.
Hmm, and you know the proper motion of that galaxy, normal to us, is
zero? And not 300 km/sec toward us like Andromeda?
> similar efforts for the galaxies UGC 3789 and NGC 6264.
> These galaxies are at distances of 50 Mpc and 140 Mpc respectively
speculative, and I was simply answering your request to do a
calculation. So I am not invested in the outcome.
Eric
Eric Flesch
Nov 29, 2012, 10:28:03 AM11/29/12
to
.... adding to my reply above, I had also stated that the Einstein
Radius of 10^10 LY, used in the calculation as the denominator, is
approximate. Obviously that is a tweakable parameter and would be set
to some optimal value over a large input data sample. Once that
average is found, then the question is how well the fit adheres across
all z. And don't worry, I won't add "dark energy" to make it fit
better.
Eric
Radius of 10^10 LY, used in the calculation as the denominator, is
approximate. Obviously that is a tweakable parameter and would be set
to some optimal value over a large input data sample. Once that
average is found, then the question is how well the fit adheres across
all z. And don't worry, I won't add "dark energy" to make it fit
better.
Eric
Eric Gisse
Nov 29, 2012, 10:28:56 AM11/29/12
to
Eric Gisse
Nov 29, 2012, 10:30:03 AM11/29/12
to
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:14:41 AM UTC-6, Eric Flesch wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 12 21:33:09 GMT, Eric Gisse <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 26, 9:55�am, Eric Flesch <e...@flesch.org> wrote:
>
> >> ... a bulk 3 km/sec redshift of the farthest stars of this Galaxy ...
>
> >
>
> >A 3km/s-effective redshift would systematically shift all spectral
>
> >lines. This would have been noticed quite a long time ago.
>
>
>
> The farthest stars of the Galaxy are faint and rarely attempted. The
>
> brightest of them could be observed nowadays with a dedicated dynamic
>
> survey, I think, but I don't believe this has yet been done.
As with Oldershaw I do with you:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 12 21:33:09 GMT, Eric Gisse <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 26, 9:55�am, Eric Flesch <e...@flesch.org> wrote:
>
> >> ... a bulk 3 km/sec redshift of the farthest stars of this Galaxy ...
>
> >
>
> >A 3km/s-effective redshift would systematically shift all spectral
>
> >lines. This would have been noticed quite a long time ago.
>
>
>
> The farthest stars of the Galaxy are faint and rarely attempted. The
>
> brightest of them could be observed nowadays with a dedicated dynamic
>
> survey, I think, but I don't believe this has yet been done.
http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR
This is an excellent resource.
craig.m...@gmail.com
Nov 30, 2012, 3:56:22 AM11/30/12
to
On Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:26:21 AM UTC-5, Eric Flesch wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 12, "craig...@gmail.com" wrote:
>
> >Eric Flesch wrote:
....
> > similar efforts for the galaxies UGC 3789 and NGC 6264.
> > These galaxies are at distances of 50 Mpc and 140 Mpc respectively
>
> Do tell us the redshifts. But remember that I have said my model is
> speculative, and I was simply answering your request to do a
> calculation. So I am not invested in the outcome.
Why don't you get invested enough to check the redshifts for yourself? The answer is that the "foreshortening" formula overpredicts by thousands of km/s.
.... and what will happen is that you will end up mimicking the Hubble flow, v = Ho d, in the local universe. Your factor will be equivalent to Ho; you will call it the foreshortening factor (or 1/Reinstein), but it's effectively the same thing as Ho. But then the "foreshortening" model will have problems at high redshifts, just as the standard Hubble law does, where Type Ia supernova remnants demonstrate to us that v = H d is no longer valid.
CM
> On Thu, 29 Nov 12, "craig...@gmail.com" wrote:
>
> >Eric Flesch wrote:
....
>
> >NGC 4258... ~450 km/s, which is close to the true redshift of the galaxy, not your predicted 685 km/s.
>
> Hmm, and you know the proper motion of that galaxy, normal to us, is
> zero? And not 300 km/sec toward us like Andromeda?
NGC is within the Hubble flow to within a few tens of km/s. Nowhere near 235 km/s.
> >NGC 4258... ~450 km/s, which is close to the true redshift of the galaxy, not your predicted 685 km/s.
>
> Hmm, and you know the proper motion of that galaxy, normal to us, is
> zero? And not 300 km/sec toward us like Andromeda?
> > similar efforts for the galaxies UGC 3789 and NGC 6264.
> > These galaxies are at distances of 50 Mpc and 140 Mpc respectively
>
> Do tell us the redshifts. But remember that I have said my model is
> speculative, and I was simply answering your request to do a
> calculation. So I am not invested in the outcome.
CM
Eric Flesch
Nov 30, 2012, 4:00:17 AM11/30/12
to
This is just to close out the thread with a corrected calculation for
the Einstein Radius using the Pioneer anomaly:
At 20AU Pioneer was travelling 12500m/s.
The anomalous sunward acceleration was 9 x 10^-10 m/s^2
Therefore, per each second, the distance travelled was 12500m, and the
anomolous distance shortfall was d=.5a = 4.5 x 10^-10m.
Thus the ratio of the shortfall to distance travelled is 3.6 x 10^-14.
Spatial foreshortening is equivalent to an open Lobechevskian
curvature of the manifold which brings distant places closer. Let's
say that curvature X yielded the above foreshortening at 20AU. Such
foreshortening linearly increases with distance in tandem with the
increasing total curvature, eventually reaching 100% at what we would
perceive to be the edge of the universe. That distance would thus be
20AU / ratio = 3 x 10^9 km / 4.5 x 10^10^-14 = 6.67 x 10^22 km =
7 x 10^9 LY, close to the standard Einstein radius of 10^10 LY.
If this were a true relationship, then the Pioneer anomaly would be
seen to be twice at 40AU as it was at 20AU. I doubt that this would
be found to be the case, but it would be interesting to find out.
cheers,
Eric
the Einstein Radius using the Pioneer anomaly:
At 20AU Pioneer was travelling 12500m/s.
The anomalous sunward acceleration was 9 x 10^-10 m/s^2
Therefore, per each second, the distance travelled was 12500m, and the
anomolous distance shortfall was d=.5a = 4.5 x 10^-10m.
Thus the ratio of the shortfall to distance travelled is 3.6 x 10^-14.
Spatial foreshortening is equivalent to an open Lobechevskian
curvature of the manifold which brings distant places closer. Let's
say that curvature X yielded the above foreshortening at 20AU. Such
foreshortening linearly increases with distance in tandem with the
increasing total curvature, eventually reaching 100% at what we would
perceive to be the edge of the universe. That distance would thus be
20AU / ratio = 3 x 10^9 km / 4.5 x 10^10^-14 = 6.67 x 10^22 km =
7 x 10^9 LY, close to the standard Einstein radius of 10^10 LY.
If this were a true relationship, then the Pioneer anomaly would be
seen to be twice at 40AU as it was at 20AU. I doubt that this would
be found to be the case, but it would be interesting to find out.
cheers,
Eric
Eric Flesch
Dec 1, 2012, 3:37:37 AM12/1/12
to
On Fri, 30 Nov 12 09:00:17 GMT, Eric Flesch <er...@flesch.org> wrote:
> the ratio of the shortfall to distance travelled is 3.6 x 10^-14.
> ...
> the ratio of the shortfall to distance travelled is 3.6 x 10^-14.
>20AU / ratio = 3 x 10^9 km / 4.5 x 10^10^-14 = 6.67 x 10^22 km =
>7 x 10^9 LY, close to the standard Einstein radius of 10^10 LY.
Argh, I used the wrong value for the ratio. Using the right value:
>7 x 10^9 LY, close to the standard Einstein radius of 10^10 LY.
20AU / ratio = 3 x 10^9 km / 3.6 x 10^-14 = 8.33 x 10^22 km =
8.8 x 10^9 LY, close to the 10^10 LY Einstein radius.
I tried to be careful, sorry for the mess,
Eric.
Eric Flesch
Dec 1, 2012, 3:38:27 AM12/1/12
to
On Fri, 30 Nov 12, craig.m...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > similar efforts for the galaxies UGC 3789 and NGC 6264.
>> > These galaxies are at distances of 50 Mpc and 140 Mpc respectively
>
>> > similar efforts for the galaxies UGC 3789 and NGC 6264.
>> > These galaxies are at distances of 50 Mpc and 140 Mpc respectively
>
>Why don't you get invested enough to check the redshifts for yourself?
>The answer is that the "foreshortening" formula overpredicts by thousands of km/s.
OK, these are water-maser measured galaxies and I've obtained the
>The answer is that the "foreshortening" formula overpredicts by thousands of km/s.
papers. There is some FRW-dependence in the water-maser method but
not enough to matter here. So results for three galaxies are:
NGC 4258: 7Mpc, 450 km/sec, I get 685 km/sec, 50% too high. However,
the authors point out that this galaxy has an unknown peculiar motion.
UGC 3789: 47.6Mpc, 3630 km/sec after peculiar motion removed, I get
4655 km/sec, 30% too high.
NGC 6264: 137Mpc, 10000 km/sec, I get 13400 km/sec, 35% too high.
So the solution for me is to adopt a value 35% higher for the Einstein
radius, thus 1.35 x 10^10 LY, which makes my results conform to these
low-z galaxies. Then the question is how it performs at higher z.
Its angular size calculation is quite good, but in terms of distance,
all we have to compare to is the FRW calculation, and obviously we
can't use FRW as the yardstick by which to measure alternatives.
An aspect of astronomy which is unique amongst the sciences is that we
directly look back into the distant past. But we treat this as though
we are simply looking across the room -- no thought is given to the
queering effect of distant look-back, and what might physically
distinguish long-ago epochs from our own. I'm intending a posting on
that when time & materials permit.
Eric
Richard D. Saam
Dec 2, 2012, 8:36:37 AM12/2/12
to
to the concept of momentum space
established in solid state physics.
z is real space
and
1/z is momentum space.
Have you thought of it in those terms?
RDS
Eric Gisse
Dec 2, 2012, 8:40:21 AM12/2/12
to
On Dec 1, 2:38�am, Eric Flesch <e...@flesch.org> wrote:
[...]
> So the solution for me is to adopt a value 35% higher for the Einstein
> radius, thus 1.35 x 10^10 LY, which makes my results conform to these
> low-z galaxies. �Then the question is how it performs at higher z.
> Its angular size calculation is quite good, but in terms of distance,
> all we have to compare to is the FRW calculation, and obviously we
> can't use FRW as the yardstick by which to measure alternatives.
What does it matter what number you use when it is an empirical fact
that redshift is not a linear function of distance?
[...]
[...]
> So the solution for me is to adopt a value 35% higher for the Einstein
> radius, thus 1.35 x 10^10 LY, which makes my results conform to these
> low-z galaxies. �Then the question is how it performs at higher z.
> Its angular size calculation is quite good, but in terms of distance,
> all we have to compare to is the FRW calculation, and obviously we
> can't use FRW as the yardstick by which to measure alternatives.
that redshift is not a linear function of distance?
[...]
Richard D. Saam
Dec 2, 2012, 8:41:13 AM12/2/12
to
(in this case the positive acceleration cH)
would indicate the possibility of opposing component forces
expressed as negative acceleration.
Reported component Pioneer
thermal recoil negative acceleration error bars
do not absolutely exclude other negative forces.
One candidate is a negative force due to
Pioneer traveling through space vacuum viscosity.
Space vacuum viscosity (momentum transferred per area)
is typically discussed in:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3165
In this paper, such a vacuum viscosity is expressed as
vacuum viscosity = h*entropy density/(4*pi))
Pioneer or any other object traveling through
this universe vacuum viscosity
would have a negative acceleration
due to their momentum transfer with the space vacuum
and relative to their area/mass
and may in aggregate match the positive universal cH
RDS
Steve Willner
Dec 18, 2012, 1:26:57 AM12/18/12
to
In article <mt2.0-24633...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
Eric Flesch <er...@flesch.org> writes:
> However, high-precision measurements of the Galilean
> satellites would demonstrate the presence of the redshift,
What about tracking of the Galileo and Cassini spacecraft?
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Eric Flesch <er...@flesch.org> writes:
> However, high-precision measurements of the Galilean
> satellites would demonstrate the presence of the redshift,
What about tracking of the Galileo and Cassini spacecraft?
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Eric Flesch
Dec 18, 2012, 8:19:07 AM12/18/12
to
On Tue, 18 Dec 12, Steve Willner <wil...@cfa.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Eric Flesch <er...@flesch.org> writes:
>> However, high-precision measurements of the Galilean
>> satellites would demonstrate the presence of the redshift,
>
>What about tracking of the Galileo and Cassini spacecraft?
The problem is to detect a 10^-10sec anomaly in their signals when
> Eric Flesch <er...@flesch.org> writes:
>> However, high-precision measurements of the Galilean
>> satellites would demonstrate the presence of the redshift,
>
>What about tracking of the Galileo and Cassini spacecraft?
their orbits are not well defined (3-body or n-body orbits). Pioneer
presented a well-defined baseline because it coasted for years without
thrusters, and a beeper on the surface of Io/Europa would similarly
develop an orbital baseline over some years.
Eric Gisse
Dec 20, 2012, 2:31:16 AM12/20/12
to
news
Mar 12, 2013, 5:25:04 PM3/12/13
to
On Thu, 29 Nov 12 15:28:56 GMT, Eric Gisse <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Except that redshift as a straight linear function of distance is very well known to be wrong. There was a nice little Nobel in physics recently awarded on this.
Could you give a reference to this? I would like to read all about it.
>Except that redshift as a straight linear function of distance is very well known to be wrong. There was a nice little Nobel in physics recently awarded on this.
[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- mjh]
Eric Gisse
Mar 14, 2013, 3:59:52 PM3/14/13
to
On Mar 12, 4:25 pm, news <n...@newsfe11.iad.highwinds-media.com>
wrote:
The deviation from linearity (no dark energy) has both a strong
observational and theoretical basis.
Also:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/perlmutter-lecture.html
wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 12 15:28:56 GMT, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Except that redshift as a straight linear function of distance is very well known to be wrong. There was a nice little Nobel in physics recently awarded on this.
>
> Could you give a reference to this? I would like to read all about it.
>
> [Mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- mjh]
http://supernova.lbl.gov/
> >Except that redshift as a straight linear function of distance is very well known to be wrong. There was a nice little Nobel in physics recently awarded on this.
>
> Could you give a reference to this? I would like to read all about it.
>
> [Mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- mjh]
The deviation from linearity (no dark energy) has both a strong
observational and theoretical basis.
Also:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/perlmutter-lecture.html
0 new messages