Aladar vs. Jim Carr
Aladar Stolmar
news:99ts4s$oms$1...@news.fsu.edu...
> "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote
> in message news:3AB7555E...@mediaone.net...
[...]
> } ... There is no viable substitute for oil other than Fusion Power.
>
> In article <VJIt6.35703$H5.80...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
> "Aladar Stolmar" <alist...@3dresearch.com> writes:
> >
> >How can a non-existent power generating method be viable?
>
> Hey, I agree with Aladar on this one!
>
Dear Jim,
May be you are not at liberty to admit even to yourself (yet), but you
agree with me on all of the issues we argue about...
1. Chernobyl-4 and TMI-2 accidents - the governing process was the
zirconium-steam reaction. If the conditions in the core of the fission
reactors guarantee that this process could not ignite - the nuclear
power is safe.
2. Stellar process - could not be based on proton-proton fusion because
in the nature the proton will not fuse with another proton. [You may need
some more time to accept my revolutionary super-heavy - A=4096 and up -
nuclei decay process as the basis for the stellar energetic processes.]
3. Pioneer 10 excess red-shift - is an indication of photon energy loss
cause of Hubble nebular red-shift, there is no "expansion of Universe"
and the "big bang" never happened.
Graham Cowan
Aladar Stolmar wrote:
In your disputes with him, you are at the disadvantage
that he is recognizably competent, and you are recognizably not.
So I read only him.
---
"Boron: A Better Energy Carrier than Hydrogen?"
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
Aladar Stolmar
"Graham Cowan" <gco...@eagle.ca> wrote in message
news:3AC3531C...@eagle.ca...
It would really hurt me - if such remark would come from a
recognizable competent one - fortunately you provide ample evidence
that it is not the case. [How did you learn about my post? Did you read it?!]
Uncle Al
Here, try this on for size from Uncle Al:
In your disputes with Jim Carr you suffer the significant disadvantage
that he is recognizably competent and you are recognizably
incompetent.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Aladar Stolmar
news:3AC37180...@hate.spam.net...
[...]
>
> Here, try this on for size from Uncle Al:
>
> In your disputes with Jim Carr you suffer the significant disadvantage
> that he is recognizably competent and you are recognizably
> incompetent.
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
> (Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Do you want me to question what do you use for cognition?
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Dennis Towne
You can if you like, however that will not make his statement any less
true, nor will it make you appear any less incompetent.
-dennis T
Aladar Stolmar
"Dennis Towne" <so...@xirr.com> wrote in message
news:3AC38ADD...@xirr.com...
Just to remind the readers: the thread is about our agreements!
Dear Jim,
May be you are not at liberty to admit even to yourself (yet), but you
agree with me on all of the issues we argue about...
1. Chernobyl-4 and TIM-2 accidents - the governing process was the
Mark Folsom
news:7IKw6.5762$Os.15...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
Jim Carr is recognizably honest, well informed and competent. Aladar
Stolmar is obviously willfully stuck in delusions of his own making.
Mark Folsom
Aladar Stolmar
"Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote in message
news:tc7hlq1...@corp.supernews.com...
"Hey, I agree with Aladar on this one!"
Dear Jim,
May be you are not at liberty to admit even to yourself (yet), but you
agree with me on all of the issues we argue about...
1. Chernobyl-4 and TIM-2 accidents - the governing process was the
Sam Wormley
is correct, study the implications GR has for cosmic expansion
and compact objects, and look at the massive experimental and
observation data, you might be overcome by the beauty of it all,
discarding your old ideas and embracing new insight.
When you are visiting in my home (and you are invited), we can
enjoy each other's company and discussions of astrophysics. We
could even check out the night sky with an AstroPhysics 130mm f/8
refractor. I'll look forward to it!
-Sam
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Aladar Stolmar
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@cnde.iastate.edu> wrote in message
news:3AC4204F...@cnde.iastate.edu...
> Aladar, if you make the assumption that General Relativity (GR)
> is correct,
More then that! I'm convinced that GR is correct - the observed
gravitational red-shift convinced me.
> study the implications GR has for cosmic expansion
> and compact objects,
GR has no implication for none of them: the expansion is
assumed from the observed Hubble nebular red-shift as the easy
explanation and the compact objects - I have developed a
description with the correct representation of the feed-back
through the gravitational red-shift caused by the massive
object! Expansion - replaced by photon energy loss [watch for
Pioneer 10 report in the news]; compact objects - there is a
limit on how compact [Daisy-petal graph at the link].
> and look at the massive experimental and
> observation data,
I have - and soon you will have the opportunity to do so, also.
> you might be overcome by the beauty of it all,
> discarding your old ideas and embracing new insight.
That's the way it is for almost thirty years now...
>
> When you are visiting in my home (and you are invited), we can
> enjoy each other's company and discussions of astrophysics. We
> could even check out the night sky with an AstroPhysics 130mm f/8
> refractor. I'll look forward to it!
>
> -Sam
>
Dear Sam,
Thank you for your lovely invitation and I will live with it!
First, we both will have to do some massive reading...
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/nature.htm
Ken Cox
> > > > In your disputes with Jim Carr you suffer the significant disadvantage
> > > > that he is recognizably competent and you are recognizably
> > > > incompetent.
> > Jim Carr is recognizably honest, well informed and competent. Aladar
> > Stolmar is obviously willfully stuck in delusions of his own making.
> Just to remind the readers: the thread is about our agreements!
Actually, this sub-thread resulted from your remark, "It
would really hurt me - if such remark would come from a
recognizable competent one". In some circles, this is
called "leading with your chin".
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Aladar Stolmar
"Ken Cox" <k...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote in message
news:3AC4EDAF...@research.bell-labs.com...
Dear Ken,
That's the whole idea! My mazochistic nature is showing off...
"Jim Carr" <j...@dirac.csit.fsu.edu> wrote in message
news:99ts4s$oms$1...@news.fsu.edu...
> "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote
> in message news:3AB7555E...@mediaone.net...
[...]
> } ... There is no viable substitute for oil other than Fusion Power.
>
> In article <VJIt6.35703$H5.80...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
> "Aladar Stolmar" <alist...@3dresearch.com> writes:
> >
> >How can a non-existent power generating method be viable?
>
> Hey, I agree with Aladar on this one!
>
Dear Jim,
May be you are not at liberty to admit even to yourself (yet), but you
agree with me on all of the issues we argue about...
1. Chernobyl-4 and TMI-2 accidents - the governing process was the
Sam Wormley
>
>
> 2. Stellar process - could not be based on proton-proton fusion because
> in the nature the proton will not fuse with another proton. [You may need
> some more time to accept my revolutionary super-heavy - A=4096 and up -
> nuclei decay process as the basis for the stellar energetic processes.]
>
Aladar, you can print the following URL out and hang it on your wall:
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter17/17f02.html
Ref: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9805135
Neutrino producing reactions adapted [by Lang] from Bahcall (1989). The
termination percentage is a fraction of terminations
of the proton-proton (pp) chain, 4p --> alph + 2e+ + 2Ve, in which each
reaction occurs. Since in essentially all terminations at least one pp neutrino
is produced and in a few terminations one pp and one pep neutrino are created,
the total of pp and pep terminations exceeds 100%
Name Reaction % Termination Neutrino Energy, q
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pp p + p --> H² + e+ + ve 100 q < 0.420 MeV
pep p + e- + p --> H² + ve 0.4 q = 1.442 MeV
hep He³ + p --> He4 + ve 0.00002 q < 18.773 MeV
Be7 Be7 + e- --> Li7 + ve 15 q = 0.862 MeV 89.7%
q = 0.384 MeV 10.3%
B8 B8 --> Be7 + e+ + ve 0.02 q < 15 MeV
Calculated Solar neutrino fluxes at the Earth's Surface
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pp 6.0 x 10^10 cm^-2 s^-1
pep 0.014 x 10^10 cm^-2 s^-1
hep 8 x 10^3 cm^-2 s^-1
Be7 0.47 x 10^10 cm^-2 s^-1
B8 5.8 x 10^6 cm^-2 s^-1
Aladar Stolmar
> Aladar Stolmar wrote:
> >
> >
> > 2. Stellar process - could not be based on proton-proton fusion because
> > in the nature the proton will not fuse with another proton. [You may need
> > some more time to accept my revolutionary super-heavy - A=4096 and up -
> > nuclei decay process as the basis for the stellar energetic processes.]
> >
>
> Aladar, you can print the following URL out and hang it on your wall:
> http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter17/17f02.html
>
> Ref: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9805135
>
> Neutrino producing reactions adapted [by Lang] from Bahcall (1989). The
> termination percentage is a fraction of terminations
> of the proton-proton (pp) chain, 4p --> alph + 2e+ + 2Ve, in which each
> reaction occurs. Since in essentially all terminations at least one pp
neutrino
> is produced and in a few terminations one pp and one pep neutrino are created,
> the total of pp and pep terminations exceeds 100%
>
> Name Reaction % Termination Neutrino Energy, q
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> pp p + p --> H² + e+ + ve 100 q < 0.420 MeV
0 probability, never happens.
> pep p + e- + p --> H² + ve 0.4 q = 1.442 MeV
0 probability, never happens.
> hep He³ + p --> He4 + ve 0.00002 q < 18.773 MeV
highly unlikely, He3 + n is the real process.
> Be7 Be7 + e- --> Li7 + ve 15 q = 0.862 MeV
89.7%
> q = 0.384 MeV
10.3%
> B8 B8 --> Be7 + e+ + ve 0.02 q < 15 MeV
it falls apart into He4 alpha particles [also, it just plain wrong].
>
>
> Calculated Solar neutrino fluxes at the Earth's Surface
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> pp 6.0 x 10^10 cm^-2 s^-1
> pep 0.014 x 10^10 cm^-2 s^-1
> hep 8 x 10^3 cm^-2 s^-1
> Be7 0.47 x 10^10 cm^-2 s^-1
> B8 5.8 x 10^6 cm^-2 s^-1
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Thanks Dear Sam,
But my own dreams are much more exciting, so I don't have to relay on
other guys' dreams!
I'm still waiting for the first evidence, indicating that a proton fused to
another proton... Not dreams, observation, evidence.
Until than: the proton does not fuse with another proton. It's a fact.
So, your stellar process is wrong.
Also, how do you like my black hole rebuttal?:
"Chris Hillman" <hil...@math.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.21.010330...@goedel3.math.washington.edu...
[...]
> Well, if you want to discuss fantasies rather than to make a propose a
> coherent, explicit, testable alternative to the gtr black hole models,
> you'll have to discuss your fantasies with someone else.
>
> Chris Hillman
>
Let me take it as an invitation "to make a propose a coherent, explicit,
testable alternative to the gtr black hole models" - let see the response!
Here is my coherent, explicit and testable alternative to the gtr black
hole models:
The nuclear size and mass are exact above A=27 atomic mass number,
resulting and exact nuclear material density of
rho_nu = 1.3845e17 kg/m^3
The relativistic gravitational red-shift near a massive body is
z = G/c^2 * M/R = 7.4234e-28 M/R - for SI units, M kilogram and R meter.
The proposed coherent, explicit, testable alternative to the gtr black
hole models is the allowing the nuclear density increase in strict, exact
relation to the gravitational red-shift caused by the compact object with
M mass at the surface of the said object defined by R radius:
rho_nu / (1-z)^2
The resulting combined radius versus mass relation for nucleus type objects:
M = 4/3 * Pi * R^3 * rho_nu / (1-7.4234e-28 M/R)^2
The equation has a maximum at M = 6.086 solar masses and R=14,936 m.
At that point the gravitational red-shift z = 0.6.
It is unlikely that the larger mass nuclei type - neutron star type - objects
could form, only the same radius smaller mass objects seem plausible.
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/Stars%20and%20supernova.htm
See lower curve on the graph. It is extremely interesting that the known neutron
stars are around 1.4 solar masses - horizontal red line - and it falls under the
maximum in the masses, indicated by the vertical red line. The possible process
from this graph is the temporary formation of higher mass and an explosive -
gamma ray burst - reduction of mass from maximum mass and corresponding radius
state (6.1 solar masses and about 30 km diameter) to about the same radius but
around 1.4 solar mass more stabile state on the lower curve.
Around 4 solar masses the mass increase will not cause radius increase anymore,
and when the mass gets close to 5 solar masses the absorption of the surrounding
mass causes a contraction, an ever increasing rate contraction of the nucleus.
(For simplicity I'm talking about a free standing mass.)
We expect the mass to reach the surface of the nucleus to be swallowed by it,
but the boundary layer of the nucleus is collapsing, leaving behind the outer
layers! The equilibrium condition, holding together the star got to an end, the
outer layers will separate from the central nucleus - we see a supernova event.
____
I expect that my - "coherent, explicit, testable alternative to the gtr black
hole"
model will trigger an intelligent discussion, not just the usual smoke blowing
by the defenders of losing theories.
--
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/
Maury Markowitz
> 3. Pioneer 10 excess red-shift - is an indication of photon energy loss
> cause of Hubble nebular red-shift, there is no "expansion of Universe"
> and the "big bang" never happened.
Can you tell me, is the photon energy loss in this case elastic or
inelastic?
Maury
Aladar Stolmar
news:Hb8y6.4128$XV.11...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
The energy loss is
E(t) = E_0 / 2^(t/Hd)
decay type internal loss, not a result of an interaction of a photon with
a foreign object. The energy lost by the photon is used for the very
conservation, reconstruction of the same photon on the path of its
progression, if you wish, the energy loss of propagation. The same thing
as the space-time deformation caused by the gravity of massive objects.
There is a meaning for the constructing elements of the photons:
the loss is caused by the plasticity of collision events, constructing
the photons.
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/nature.htm
Sam Wormley
>
>
> The energy loss is
> E(t) = E_0 / 2^(t/Hd)
> decay type internal loss, not a result of an interaction of a photon with
> a foreign object. The energy lost by the photon is used for the very
> conservation, reconstruction of the same photon on the path of its
> progression, if you wish, the energy loss of propagation. The same thing
> as the space-time deformation caused by the gravity of massive objects.
>
> There is a meaning for the constructing elements of the photons:
> the loss is caused by the plasticity of collision events, constructing
> the photons.
> --
Pure Poppycock!
Aladar Stolmar
> Aladar Stolmar wrote:
> >
> >
> > The energy loss is
> > E(t) = E_0 / 2^(t/Hd)
> > decay type internal loss, not a result of an interaction of a photon with
> > a foreign object. The energy lost by the photon is used for the very
> > conservation, reconstruction of the same photon on the path of its
> > progression, if you wish, the energy loss of propagation. The same thing
> > as the space-time deformation caused by the gravity of massive objects.
> >
> > There is a meaning for the constructing elements of the photons:
> > the loss is caused by the plasticity of collision events, constructing
> > the photons.
> > --
>
> Pure Poppycock!
>
Yes.
New fundamental property of matter: the photon loses energy -
like the sound wave - to sustain its progression.
The related new fundamental constant is the Hubble wavelength
doubling time constant Hd = 18.524 billion years.
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/nature.htm
Gregory L. Hansen
Aladar Stolmar <alist...@3dresearch.com> wrote:
>
>"Sam Wormley" <swor...@cnde.iastate.edu> wrote in message
>news:3ACB1282...@cnde.iastate.edu...
>> Aladar Stolmar wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > The energy loss is
>> > E(t) = E_0 / 2^(t/Hd)
>> > decay type internal loss, not a result of an interaction of a photon with
>> > a foreign object. The energy lost by the photon is used for the very
>> > conservation, reconstruction of the same photon on the path of its
>> > progression, if you wish, the energy loss of propagation. The same thing
>> > as the space-time deformation caused by the gravity of massive objects.
>> >
>> > There is a meaning for the constructing elements of the photons:
>> > the loss is caused by the plasticity of collision events, constructing
>> > the photons.
>> > --
>>
>> Pure Poppycock!
>>
>
>Yes.
>
>New fundamental property of matter: the photon loses energy -
>like the sound wave - to sustain its progression.
When the sound wave loses energy, that energy goes into heating the air.
We have no reason to think energy is not conserved, so when the photon
loses energy that energy has to go somewhere.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
Aladar Stolmar
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:9af8lb$e8m$6...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu...
Also, we have no reason to think that the energy is conserved. In fact,
we know that the energy may be transformed into mass, so you have to
extend your conservation requirement to incorporate this feature.
I extended the Conservation Principle even further: there is something
what is conserved, the whole and all of its elements, what only exist.
From that general concept the mass and energy conservations follow
and the loss of energy in the case of the photons follow. It goes somewhere:
the elements of substance are rearranged, the probability of collisions
in the entire Universe is rearranged due to that tiny loss of energy by
a photon. Also, there is a counterpart of this energy loss: there is a
possibility of mass generation inside the heavenly objects, large masses
like stars and planets due to the same increased probability of collision
of the elements of underlying substance, which are indeed preserved.
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
franz heymann
Please don't once again go into the old hoary story of tired light.
You have been shown previously that it is complete bullshit.
Franz Heymann
Aladar Stolmar
news:3acb5179$0$12247$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
On the contrary - it became the standard.
All the observations support the photon energy loss
fundamental property - discovered by Edwin Hubble in the
nebular red-shift.
I happen to identify the decay constant, Hubble wavelength doubling
constant as Hd = 18.524 billion years.
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/nature.htm
Maury Markowitz
> The energy loss is
> E(t) = E_0 / 2^(t/Hd)
> decay type internal loss
So just to be sure here: the photon will lose energy as a result of moving
a particular distance. Right? The corollary is that the red shift we see is
in fact due to this effect, and not due to bing-bang-like issues. Right?
> There is a meaning for the constructing elements of the photons:
> the loss is caused by the plasticity of collision events, constructing
> the photons.
Are you claiming that photons are non-elementary?
Maury
Aladar Stolmar
> "Aladar Stolmar" <alist...@3dresearch.com> wrote in message
> news:ZgDy6.21825$Os.46...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> > The energy loss is
> > E(t) = E_0 / 2^(t/Hd)
> > decay type internal loss
>
> So just to be sure here: the photon will lose energy as a result of moving
> a particular distance. Right? The corollary is that the red shift we see is
> in fact due to this effect, and not due to bing-bang-like issues. Right?
Yes. A c * t distance will cause the photons energy to decrease to
the above value from the E_0 original. Hd = 18.524 billion years. For that
time (or 18.524 billion light years distance made) the photon loses half of
its original energy.
>
> > There is a meaning for the constructing elements of the photons:
> > the loss is caused by the plasticity of collision events, constructing
> > the photons.
>
> Are you claiming that photons are non-elementary?
>
> Maury
>
>
I found a common constructing element for the photons and for the particles,
for everything. The common constructing elements are collision events of
uniform elements of an underlying substance. (Monads, first beginnings or
Democritus' real atoms are the similar, uniform elementary elements, but
we perceive only their collisions and everything what we observe are
collision event systems. Including the elementary photons and particles.)
The regular collision systems fit nicely to the nuclei of chemical elements,
their abundance and indicate the cause why these are.
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/
Daniel R. Reitman
<alist...@3dresearch.com> wrote:
>"franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote in message
>news:3acb5179$0$12247$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
>> Please don't once again go into the old hoary story of tired light.
>> You have been shown previously that it is complete bullshit.
>On the contrary - it became the standard. . . .
None so blind . . . .
Dan, ad nauseam
Who remembers
when Aladar was
denying his model
was tired light
Aladar Stolmar
news:3acc2415...@news.onemain.com...
I do remember stating that my tired light theory was different -
in fact is different - from tired light theories. The difference is
the physics involved: my tired light gets tired from inside,
the criticized - rightfully - tired light theories required an
external interaction to tire the photons.
It is a fundamental property of photons, Edwin Hubble discovered
a new fundamental constant which I derived from other fundamental
properties Hd = 18.524 billion light years it takes to lose half of
energy of any photon. And the Hubble red-shift vs. distance law
z = 2^(t/Hd) -1
gives a correct representation of distances (t - light travel time)
from the nebular red-shift. The current observations confirm that.
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Sam Wormley
>
> I do remember stating that my tired light theory was different -
> in fact is different - from tired light theories. The difference is
> the physics involved: my tired light gets tired from inside,
> the criticized - rightfully - tired light theories required an
> external interaction to tire the photons.
>
> It is a fundamental property of photons, Edwin Hubble discovered
> a new fundamental constant which I derived from other fundamental
> properties Hd = 18.524 billion light years it takes to lose half of
> energy of any photon. And the Hubble red-shift vs. distance law
> z = 2^(t/Hd) -1
> gives a correct representation of distances (t - light travel time)
> from the nebular red-shift. The current observations confirm that.
>
Astrophysical cosmology deals with the physical aspects of the origin,
structure and evolution of the Universe, It is firmly rooted in
observational evidence that supports a big bang model of a homogeneous, isotropic expanding Universe (Peebles, Schramm, Turner and Kron,
1991).
The data indicates that the Universe is expanding. GR (which you have
endorsed in a recent thread, Aladar) predicts that Universe cannot be
static. Your "tired light theory" has no theoretical support.
Sam Wormley
>
> I do remember stating that my tired light theory was different -
> in fact is different - from tired light theories. The difference is
> the physics involved: my tired light gets tired from inside,
> the criticized - rightfully - tired light theories required an
> external interaction to tire the photons.
>
> It is a fundamental property of photons, Edwin Hubble discovered
> a new fundamental constant which I derived from other fundamental
> properties Hd = 18.524 billion light years it takes to lose half of
> energy of any photon. And the Hubble red-shift vs. distance law
> z = 2^(t/Hd) -1
> gives a correct representation of distances (t - light travel time)
> from the nebular red-shift. The current observations confirm that.
>
Aladar Stolmar
> Aladar Stolmar wrote:
> >
> > I do remember stating that my tired light theory was different -
> > in fact is different - from tired light theories. The difference is
> > the physics involved: my tired light gets tired from inside,
> > the criticized - rightfully - tired light theories required an
> > external interaction to tire the photons.
> >
> > It is a fundamental property of photons, Edwin Hubble discovered
> > a new fundamental constant which I derived from other fundamental
> > properties Hd = 18.524 billion light years it takes to lose half of
> > energy of any photon. And the Hubble red-shift vs. distance law
> > z = 2^(t/Hd) -1
> > gives a correct representation of distances (t - light travel time)
> > from the nebular red-shift. The current observations confirm that.
> >
>
>
> Astrophysical cosmology deals with the physical aspects of the origin,
> structure and evolution of the Universe,
There is an internal contradiction already: the Universe has no
origin, structure and evolution - if you know the meaning of the
human concept Universe. In this relation your statement plainly
means that the astrophysical cosmology deals with "physical
aspects" of nothing. Other words - useless.
If you would say that it deals with our global surrounding part of
the Universe and the origins, structures and evolutions of objects
in it - I agree with that. There is a big difference, it is not only
semantics, but fundamental meanings. You have no right to talk
about the Universe [seamless whole - if you wish] as a whole,
unique entity - except accepting that it is.
> It is firmly rooted in
> observational evidence that supports a big bang model of a
> homogeneous, isotropic expanding Universe (Peebles, Schramm,
> Turner and Kron, 1991).
The observational evidence -, if it's treated as such - is nothing
else but the energy loss of the photon [because the CMBR also
could be derived from it in a homogeneous infinite Universe]. To
arrive to the big bang hypothesis you need imagination, which
is not science.
>
> The data indicates that the Universe is expanding.
No, it does not. It indicates that the photon loses its energy
proportional to the time of travel as E(t) = E_0 / 2^(t/Hd) where
Hd = 18.524 billion years. To misinterpret it as expansion
you have to assume that the energy loss - observed - is
caused by Doppler effect. (Pioneer 10 evidence of excess
redshift will put to the rest this issue: it is an energy loss, nothing
to do with the relative velocities, but the light travel time only!)
> GR (which you have
> endorsed in a recent thread, Aladar) predicts that Universe cannot be
> static. Your "tired light theory" has no theoretical support.
>
GR - as anything else - has no predictions on the Universe as a
whole! Yes, I endorse GR for the correct description of basic
density deformation by the massive bodies and for the correct
predictions of gravitational redshifts, caused by the same density
deformation by the massive bodies - in each and any locality
in the Universe! This is the theoretical basis of my tired light
representation! I arrive to the GR from the basis of plasticity
of collisions, constructing everything and the collision density
deformations are the GR predicted [described] deformations.
The plasticity of the collisions is seen in the photon energy loss
and in the gravitational fields of massive bodies.
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/nature.htm
Maury Markowitz
> Yes. A c * t distance will cause the photons energy to decrease to
> the above value from the E_0 original. Hd = 18.524 billion years. For that
> time (or 18.524 billion light years distance made) the photon loses half
of
> its original energy.
We have direct observational non-compliance with your "theory"
then.Redshift measurements within the solar system are commonly used for a
number of purposes - for instance the pinpoint landings of the later moon
missions. None of this evidence adds a time-of-flight factor, which suggests
that it simply does not exist.
This means Occam goes "slice". You postulate an additional factor in
redshift for which there is no direct observational evidence at a large
scale, and yet we have all sorts of evidence of redshift due to Doppler.
While you are correct in saying that redshift-from-doppler is largely an
assumption in terms of cosmology, it's a good one considering that we know
for a fact that such redshift does occur. Your model postulates an
additional effect that is to date basically unseen, and does so simply to
support an alternate cosmological theory, which is basically unstated.
Your only "pro" evidence to date is repeated name-dropping of Pioneer 10.
Please post the relivant citations and/or raw data. Until I see this data
and any relivant discussions, I'm willing to put my money on Occam.
Maury
Aladar Stolmar
> "Aladar Stolmar" <alist...@3dresearch.com> wrote in message
> news:k5Ny6.22171$Os.48...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> > Yes. A c * t distance will cause the photons energy to decrease to
> > the above value from the E_0 original. Hd = 18.524 billion years. For that
> > time (or 18.524 billion light years distance made) the photon loses half
> of
> > its original energy.
>
> We have direct observational non-compliance with your "theory"
> then.
On the contrary: all the distant spacecrafts show the effect as I predict!
>Redshift measurements within the solar system are commonly used for a
> number of purposes - for instance the pinpoint landings of the later moon
> missions. None of this evidence adds a time-of-flight factor, which suggests
> that it simply does not exist.
Yes it does: Pioneer 10 excess red-shift observations. And the correction
term is a time of flight of the signal (light time) factor!
[1] J.D. Anderson et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 2858
(gr-qc/9808081)
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9808081
[2] S.G. Turyshev, XXXIV-th Rencontres de Moriond Meeting
on Gravitational Waves and Experimental Gravity, January
1999, gr-qc/9903024
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903024
>
> This means Occam goes "slice". You postulate an additional factor in
> redshift for which there is no direct observational evidence at a large
> scale, and yet we have all sorts of evidence of redshift due to Doppler.
Actually, in my model the photon energy loss is a consequence, not
an additional postulate. The contributing of the Hubble nebular red-shift
to the Doppler effect was in violation of scientific principles: the common
cause was not established by any supporting evidence. Considering the
phenomenological basis only: E(t) = E_0 / 2^(t/Hd) representation fits
better to the observations - without speculations about the cause.
This would be the decent way to do it - 70 years ago...
>
> While you are correct in saying that redshift-from-doppler is largely an
> assumption in terms of cosmology, it's a good one considering that we know
> for a fact that such redshift does occur.
Considering the consequences - it is a very bad one. It causes major
internal contradictions: the latest this dark energy, repulsive force...
I contribute the entire sorry state of physics to this stupidity.
> Your model postulates an
> additional effect that is to date basically unseen, and does so simply to
> support an alternate cosmological theory, which is basically unstated.
First of all it is not a postulate, it is a consequence from first principles.
Second, the same effect is the gravity, the gravitational "space-time frame"
deformation. And the Pioneer 10 excess red-shift could be considered as
a controlled experiment, proving the existence of this effect. [A new
large publication is overdue, stay tuned!]
I had no interest in supporting an alternate cosmological theory, it is
just a consequence of my nuclear structure theory, shell theory. The
working model for the structure of nuclei requires a feed-back mechanism
which is the plastic deformation of colliding elements in the collisions
and it is what's seen in the photon energy loss and in the gravity of
massive objects. This is the basis for the deduction of Hubble wavelength
doubling constant Hd=18.524 billion years from known fundamental
constants and parameters. [There is a simply way to disprove my
theory: if you find any object from which the distance caused Hubble
nebular red-shift would represent a different from my very precise
Hd = 18.524 +/- 0.001 billion years value with E(t) = E_0 /2^(t/Hd) and
z = 2^(t/Hd) - 1 --- energy loss and red-shift representation (including
the Pioneer 10 controlled experiment) it would mean that my
representation is wrong. So far I see only signs of encouragement!]
>
> Your only "pro" evidence to date is repeated name-dropping of Pioneer 10.
> Please post the relivant citations and/or raw data. Until I see this data
> and any relivant discussions, I'm willing to put my money on Occam.
>
> Maury
>
>
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Vincent Maycock
Aladar Stolmar wrote in message ...
snip
>Considering the
>phenomenological basis only: E(t) = E_0 / 2^(t/Hd) representation fits
>better to the observations - without speculations about the cause.
>This would be the decent way to do it - 70 years ago...
Your dimensions aren't working out right, there. H does not have units of
velocity. Furthermore, cosmological redshifts should not be turning up in
the solar system, in the manner that you suggested elsewhere.
--
Vince
Aladar Stolmar
"Vincent Maycock" <maycock...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BN1z6.38846$z4.67...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> Aladar Stolmar wrote in message ...
>
> snip
>
> >Considering the
> >phenomenological basis only: E(t) = E_0 / 2^(t/Hd) representation fits
> >better to the observations - without speculations about the cause.
> >This would be the decent way to do it - 70 years ago...
>
> Your dimensions aren't working out right, there. H does not have units of
> velocity.
Hd = 18.524 billion years -- Hubble wavelength doubling time constant.
I'm not talking about the old erratic representation.
> Furthermore, cosmological redshifts should not be turning up in
> the solar system, in the manner that you suggested elsewhere.
Guess what! They are! See the articles:
[1] J.D. Anderson et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 2858
(gr-qc/9808081)
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9808081
[2] S.G. Turyshev, XXXIV-th Rencontres de Moriond Meeting
on Gravitational Waves and Experimental Gravity, January
1999, gr-qc/9903024
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903024
And stay tuned for a long article about it...
>
> --
> Vince
>
>
Maury Markowitz
> Yes it does: Pioneer 10 excess red-shift observations. And the correction
> term is a time of flight of the signal (light time) factor!
>
> [1] J.D. Anderson et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 2858
> (gr-qc/9808081)
> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9808081
I just finished reading this one. Very interesting. Sadly, for your theory
anyway, the apparent shift is in the wrong direction. The paper notes that
there is an acceleration _toward_ the earth, which is an anomolous
_blue_shift, where the photons are _gaining_ energy with distance.
This data is is in direct contradiction to your claims.
Finally it's worth noting that the error range is well within that for
other space probes. The article in question points this out in some detail,
noting that the effect would have been seen on Viking as well due to the
increased accuracy of the measurements with that probe. This clearly
suggests an astronomical solution to the measurement, one that takes place
at the outer solar system alone (or one that's unique to the spacecraft, but
they dismiss that too).
Perhaps the best measurements of all were the lunar ranging experiments
with the laser retroflector. What's particularily interesting about these is
that their accuracy is super-high because of the super-tight filtering
that's placed on the receive end (which is a requirement of the experiment).
I'll bet that if there was an additional redshift due to travel time, the
photons in question would have been filtered right out of the experiment.
> [2] S.G. Turyshev, XXXIV-th Rencontres de Moriond Meeting
> on Gravitational Waves and Experimental Gravity, January
> 1999, gr-qc/9903024
> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903024
Same data, same conclusions.
> On the contrary: all the distant spacecrafts show the effect as I predict!
No, all distant spacecraft show the opposite.
> Actually, in my model the photon energy loss is a consequence, not
> an additional postulate.
Sigh.
The problem here is that we know for a fact that doppler shifting does
occur. We use it all the time, in everything from moon shots to radar traps
on the interstate.
You are postulating an _additional_ redshift-like event, for which no
evidence exists (as noted above, the quoted evidence says exactly the
opposite of what you claim).
Thus Occam clips.
> Considering the consequences - it is a very bad one.
I did not say "cosmological redshift", I said "redshift". We are sure that
redshift (doppler shifting) occurs. Period. Therefor your effect would be in
addition.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
Maury
Aladar Stolmar
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
"Maury Markowitz" <maury@remove_this.sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote in message
news:N52z6.27560$XV.71...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
Aladar Stolmar
> "Aladar Stolmar" <alist...@3dresearch.com> wrote in message
> news:EA0z6.23615$Os.53...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> > Yes it does: Pioneer 10 excess red-shift observations. And the correction
> > term is a time of flight of the signal (light time) factor!
> >
> > [1] J.D. Anderson et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 2858
> > (gr-qc/9808081)
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9808081
>
> I just finished reading this one. Very interesting. Sadly, for your theory
> anyway, the apparent shift is in the wrong direction. The paper notes that
> there is an acceleration _toward_ the earth, which is an anomolous
> _blue_shift, where the photons are _gaining_ energy with distance.
Wrong.
It will be cleared by the new paper in works, so - until than...
>
> This data is is in direct contradiction to your claims.
It proves my claim... see above.
>
> Finally it's worth noting that the error range is well within that for
> other space probes. The article in question points this out in some detail,
> noting that the effect would have been seen on Viking as well due to the
> increased accuracy of the measurements with that probe. This clearly
> suggests an astronomical solution to the measurement, one that takes place
> at the outer solar system alone (or one that's unique to the spacecraft, but
> they dismiss that too).
You started to sound like a believer and crusader of big bang hoax...
>
> Perhaps the best measurements of all were the lunar ranging experiments
> with the laser retroflector. What's particularily interesting about these is
> that their accuracy is super-high because of the super-tight filtering
> that's placed on the receive end (which is a requirement of the experiment).
> I'll bet that if there was an additional redshift due to travel time, the
> photons in question would have been filtered right out of the experiment.
The travel time is too small for the lunar ranging. Pioneer 10 travel time -
two way - is 21 hours now, and the red-shift (photon energy loss) is detectable
only in the large number of measurements as a systematic error.
>
> > [2] S.G. Turyshev, XXXIV-th Rencontres de Moriond Meeting
> > on Gravitational Waves and Experimental Gravity, January
> > 1999, gr-qc/9903024
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903024
>
> Same data, same conclusions.
>
> > On the contrary: all the distant spacecrafts show the effect as I predict!
>
> No, all distant spacecraft show the opposite.
You are deliberately misreading the articles! Take it aside until the new -
clearly stating my position - publication hits the floor.
>
> > Actually, in my model the photon energy loss is a consequence, not
> > an additional postulate.
>
> Sigh.
>
> The problem here is that we know for a fact that doppler shifting does
> occur. We use it all the time, in everything from moon shots to radar traps
> on the interstate.
Yes. From my representation it also follows.
>
> You are postulating an _additional_ redshift-like event, for which no
> evidence exists (as noted above, the quoted evidence says exactly the
> opposite of what you claim).
Hubble nebular redshift - and the controlled Pioneer 10 experiment.
Just these two major datasets.
>
> Thus Occam clips.
>
> > Considering the consequences - it is a very bad one.
>
> I did not say "cosmological redshift", I said "redshift". We are sure that
> redshift (doppler shifting) occurs. Period. Therefor your effect would be in
> addition.
>
> Maury
>
>
It is in addition to the Doppler redshift and to the gravitational redshift.
Correct. The photon energy loss during a t time of progression should be
added to the redshifts at the origin, caused by the gravity and to the
ralative recession - of emitter and receiver - caused Doppler redshift.
One example of this is the dipole on the CMBR: the CMBR is a result of
Hubble nebular redshift from a large number of distant galaxies in
relative rest with our galaxy, and our absolute motion shows as a
superimposed Doppler shift (red and blue) on top of it. Therefore my
effect (Hubble's) is in addition!
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Vincent Maycock
Aladar Stolmar wrote in message ...
>
>"Vincent Maycock" <maycock...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:BN1z6.38846$z4.67...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>> Aladar Stolmar wrote in message ...
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >Considering the
>> >phenomenological basis only: E(t) = E_0 / 2^(t/Hd) representation fits
>> >better to the observations - without speculations about the cause.
>> >This would be the decent way to do it - 70 years ago...
>>
>> Your dimensions aren't working out right, there. H does not have units
of
>> velocity.
>
>Hd = 18.524 billion years -- Hubble wavelength doubling time constant.
>I'm not talking about the old erratic representation.
It doesn't take 18 billion years for the wavelength of light to double due
to cosmological factors. Some quasars, for example, have wavelengths that
are 5 or 6 times as long as normal wavelengths, and they are not 36 billion
light years away.
--
Vince
Aladar Stolmar
Dear Vince,
This is my disagreement with the rest of the world:
The distance where the photons were emitted could be defined from the
observed redshift of known spectral line combinations as:
t = Hd * (ln(z+1) / ln(2)) -
For a z = 3 QSO t = 37 billion years (light time) or 37 billion light years
distance.
There are several observations support my interpretation: the brightness,
the size all indicate that the high redshift galaxies are farther away then
it was thought - or my representation is correct.
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Maury Markowitz
> > I just finished reading this one. Very interesting. Sadly, for your
theory
> > anyway, the apparent shift is in the wrong direction. The paper notes
that
> > there is an acceleration _toward_ the earth, which is an anomolous
> > _blue_shift, where the photons are _gaining_ energy with distance.
>
> Wrong.
_What_ is wrong? Please be specific.
> It will be cleared by the new paper in works
_What_ new paper in the works? Is it by the same authors?
> so - until than...
So are you admiting that the data in the existing papers contradicts your
claims?
> > Perhaps the best measurements of all were the lunar ranging
experiments
>
> The travel time is too small for the lunar ranging. Pioneer 10 travel
time -
> two way - is 21 hours now, and the red-shift (photon energy loss) is
That's a time difference of about 10^5th. I'll bet that the lunar ranging
experiment's doppler measurement is at least 10^5th better than the DSN's of
Pioneer 10. I could find out for sure if you wish, but I know the quoted
accuracy is currently better than 10^10th. I believe he French observations
are even better, up to a factor of 10^12th IIRC.
> You started to sound like a believer and crusader of big bang hoax...
Please stop the ad-hominem attacks.
Maury
Vincent Maycock
What is it about the brightness that leads you to think the quasars are more
distant than was previously thought? How can you even *observe* the "size"
of these objects when they're that far away? Furthermore, I calculate that
E/E0 = 2^-(10^-14) for objects within the solar system (light travel time of
a few hours), using your formula. This is mind-bogglingly close to exactly
one. How are you going to pick that up, observationally, as with Pioneer
spacecraft?
--
Vince
Aladar Stolmar
> "Aladar Stolmar" <alist...@3dresearch.com> wrote in message
> news:Ei2z6.24332$Os.53...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> > > I just finished reading this one. Very interesting. Sadly, for your
> theory
> > > anyway, the apparent shift is in the wrong direction. The paper notes
> that
> > > there is an acceleration _toward_ the earth, which is an anomolous
> > > _blue_shift, where the photons are _gaining_ energy with distance.
> >
> > Wrong.
>
> _What_ is wrong? Please be specific.
Your reading of the article is wrong, you misunderstood what's written there.
There is a specific frequency shift observed toward lower frequencies,
and the acceleration term is clearly used for correction of observed redshift
to correspond to Doppler redshift from real relative recession velocity.
The recession velocity is verified by light time measurements.
>
> > It will be cleared by the new paper in works
>
> _What_ new paper in the works? Is it by the same authors?
90 pages and 18 graphs - by the same authors.
>
> > so - until than...
>
> So are you admiting that the data in the existing papers contradicts your
> claims?
No, just you are the n-th misreader, so I have to accept - based on this
experiment - that if there is a will the present papers could be misinterpreted
(more the will then the real substance of the papers, but well...)
>
> > > Perhaps the best measurements of all were the lunar ranging
> experiments
> >
> > The travel time is too small for the lunar ranging. Pioneer 10 travel
> time -
> > two way - is 21 hours now, and the red-shift (photon energy loss) is
>
> That's a time difference of about 10^5th. I'll bet that the lunar ranging
> experiment's doppler measurement is at least 10^5th better than the DSN's of
> Pioneer 10. I could find out for sure if you wish, but I know the quoted
> accuracy is currently better than 10^10th. I believe he French observations
> are even better, up to a factor of 10^12th IIRC.
The Pioneer 10 Doppler ranging accuracy is very high, same range. It
is the DSN network, with specifics of Pioneer 10.
>
> > You started to sound like a believer and crusader of big bang hoax...
>
> Please stop the ad-hominem attacks.
>
> Maury
>
>
Sorry... Just your ad hock misreading of the cited article contents made
me think that you are biased.
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Aladar Stolmar
Starting from z = 0.5 this is what's been observed.
I paste here a long portion from another post with a quoted press release:
> Start with the 2df QSO redshift survey
> http://www.aao.gov.au/press/cosbeaimages/new_wedge.gif
> if the distance scale corrected to reflect the real [tired light based]
> z= 2^(t/Hd) - 1 Hubble nebular redshift vs. distance low
> with Hd = 18.524 billion years the density of QSOs is very
> uniform all the way to z=2.5 corresponding to 33.5 billion
> years. After that the coverage by closer objects start to take
> effect, plus the resolution and the brightness suffer, showing
> less density.
>
> The next picture to look - with open eyes:
> http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2001/09/content/0109y.jpg
>
> and to really see, you have to look at the infrared - so called
> diffused infrared background - for the distant galaxies.
> A high resolution survey is in making, watch out for the results.
>
It came quicker than I expected:
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~nam2001/programme.html
Royal Astronomical Society Press Notice
EMBARGOED FOR 09:00 BST WEDNESDAY 4 APRIL 2001
Date: 2 April 2001 Ref. PN 01/23 (NAM16)
Issued by: RAS Press Officers
Peter Bond
Phone: +44 (0)1483-268672
Fax: +44 (0)1483-274047
E-mail: 10060...@compuserve.com
Mobile phone: 07711-213486
AND
Dr Jacqueline Mitton
Phone: +44 (0)1223-564914
Fax: +44 (0)1223-572892
E-mail: jmi...@dial.pipex.com
Mobile phone: 07770-386133
NAM PRESS ROOM.
The press room phone numbers are:
+44 (0)1223-313724
+44 (0)1223-313754
+44 (0)1223-315553
RAS Web site: http://www.ras.org.uk
UK National Astronomy Meeting Web site:
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~nam2001/
DISTANT GALAXIES ARE IN THE RED
According to scientists from the Institute of Astronomy, University
of Cambridge, red is the colour favoured by distant galaxies. But the
reason for this is still not clear.
Working with astronomers in California and Canada, the Cambridge team
used a special infrared-sensitive camera to carry out a large-scale
survey of distant galaxies. The main goal of the project was to study
the Universe when it was 7 billion years old or around half its current
age.
On Wednesday 4 April at the UK National Astronomy Meeting in Cambridge,
graduate student Andrew Firth will present the first surprising results
from the Cambridge InfraRed Survey Instrument (CIRSI).
CLUMPY RED GALAXIES
The recently completed infrared sky survey has detected over 50,000
galaxies in a patch of sky covering roughly the area of a full Moon.
Although the Cambridge team has so far analysed only one fifth of the
data, they have already found that there are three times as many very
red galaxies as expected.
One possibility is that these galaxies have more old stars in them than
expected. Old stars tend to be large and relatively cool -- hence the
red colour.
A second possibility is that the galaxies are very dusty. Just as dust
in the atmosphere creates red sunsets, so dust clouds in galaxies
scatter red light and change the light they emit.
A second significant result is the discovery that these red galaxies
seem to clump together much more than galaxies in the nearby Universe.
One possible explanation is that these red galaxies are merging with
each other to form single more massive galaxies.
This merging process would explain why the astronomers are seeing more
galaxies in the past than they expected. If galaxies merge, their total
number will decrease to the present-day value.
At the moment, team member Andrew Firth is preparing for observations
that will use the 10m Keck telescope in Hawaii in an effort to measure
the distances to some of these faint galaxies and find out whether
they are, indeed, merging.
A STATE-OF-THE-ART INFRARED CAMERA
The survey was made with the Cambridge InfraRed Survey Instrument
(CIRSI), a special camera that is sensitive to infrared radiation.
Unlike most astronomical instruments that work at optical wavelengths,
this innovative camera contains four highly advanced electronic
detectors that are sensitive to infrared radiation.
The camera is so powerful that when it was mounted on the 2.5m Isaac
Newton Telescope, the Cambridge team was able to detect infrared
radiation more than 50 times faster than the giant 10m Keck telescope
on Hawaii. In fact, the idea for this supersensitive instrument came
to the team leader, Dr Richard McMahon, when he was visiting the Keck
telescope in 1995.
The Cambridge team has also carried out observations with the same
camera on the UK-Dutch 2.5m Isaac Newton Telescope and 4.2m William
Herschel Telescope on La Palma, in the Canary Islands.
The camera takes a picture every 20 seconds, so in a single night over
2000 pictures may be taken. The nightly data volume is gigantic and
amounts to 30,000 MegaBytes of data (i.e. enough to fit on 60 CD-ROMs).
At the heart of the camera are four highly sensitive infrared arrays
from the Rockwell International Science Centre (USA), built using a
hybrid of Mercury-Cadmium-Telluride semiconductors. Each detector is
19mm x 19mm in size and consists of 1024 x 1024 pixels or picture
elements, each 18.5 x 18.5 microns (approximately 1/50 of a millimetre)
in size. The detectors are cooled to a temperature of about -196 degrees
centigrade, using liquid nitrogen that is enclosed in a large evacuated
metal vessel like a vacuum flask.
The camera has been built using a generous donation made by the Raymond
and Beverly Sackler Foundation under a new "Deep Sky Initiative"
proposed by the Institute of Astronomy in 1995.
The Cambridge team consists of Dr Richard McMahon, Dr Ofer Lahav,
graduate student Mr. Andrew Firth, Dr. Craig Mackay, Dr. Chris Sabbey,
Dr Rachel Somerville and Prof. Richard Ellis. The collaboration also
involves scientists at the Carnegie Observatories, USA and the
University of Toronto, Canada.
CONTACT:
Dr Richard G. McMahon
Institute of Astronomy
University of Cambridge
Madingley Road
Cambridge
CB3 OHA
Phone: +44 (0)1223-337519 or 337548
Fax: +44 (0)1223-337523
Mobile: 07885-409019
E-mail: r...@ast.cam.ac.uk
Dr Ofer Lahav (same address)
Phone: +44 (0)1223-337540 or 337548
Fax: +44 (0)1223-337523
E-mail: la...@ast.cam.ac.uk
Dr Craig Mackay (same address)
Phone: +44 (0)1223-337543 or 337548
Fax: +44 (0)1223-337523
E-mail: c...@ast.cam.ac.uk
Dr Rachel Somerville (same address)
Phone: +44 (0)1223-339071 or 337548
Fax: +44 (0)1223-337523
E-mail: rac...@ast.cam.ac.uk
Full List of Team members:
Dr. R. Abraham (University of Toronto)
Dr. R. Carlberg (University of Toronto)
Dr. H. Chen (Carnegie Observatories, Pasadena)
Dr. R. Ellis (Caltech, Pasadena and University of Cambridge)
Dr. A. Firth (University of Cambridge)
Dr. O. Lahav (University of Cambridge)
Dr. C. Mackay (University of Cambridge)
Dr. R. Marzke (Carnegie Observatories, Pasadena; San Francisco State
University)
Dr. P. McCarthy (Carnegie Observatories, Pasadena)
Dr. A. Oemler (Carnegie Observatories, Pasadena)
Dr. E. Persson (Carnegie Observatories, Pasadena)
Dr. C. Sabbey (University of Cambridge)
Dr. R. Somerville (University of Cambridge)
FURTHER INFORMATION AND IMAGES ARE AVAILABLE AT:
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~rgm/nam2001/cirsi/
and
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~optics/cirsi/photo.html
> Furthermore, I calculate that
> E/E0 = 2^-(10^-14) for objects within the solar system (light travel time of
> a few hours), using your formula. This is mind-bogglingly close to exactly
> one. How are you going to pick that up, observationally, as with Pioneer
> spacecraft?
>
> --
> Vince
>
>
Please check the graph 1 in this article:
[1] J.D. Anderson et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 2858
(gr-qc/9808081)
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9808081
They have an integrated light time of over ten years now, this is
why we see the effect clearly - and the value exactly.
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Maury Markowitz
> Your reading of the article is wrong, you misunderstood what's written
there.
Point out how it is that I misinterpreted this:
"indicating an apparent anomalous, constant, acceleration acting on the
spacecraft with a magnitude of the order [snip], directed towards the Sun"
or this:
"so they conclude that there is an unmodeled acceleration towards the Sun"
Hmmm, acceleration towards the sun. Exactly what I said. And prehaps more
importantly this effect is seen only at the edges of the solar system
_within_ the error bars of the experiment. Viking measurements note...
"the Earth and Mars. Indeed, the Viking ranging data limit any unmodeled
radial acceleration acting on the Earth and Mars to no more than [a much
smaller number]"
This certainly supports my claim that the problem in question appears to
be astronomical in nature, because otherwise they would see it on all the
probes, and they don't.
I don't think I'm confused in the least.
> There is a specific frequency shift observed toward lower frequencies
> and the acceleration term is clearly used for correction of observed
> redshift to correspond to Doppler redshift from real relative
> recession velocity.
That's right, and the correction applied is in the direction of the earth.
IE, there is LESS redshift than expected. You are claiming they are seeing
MORE redshift, because redshift is a function of distance.
> The recession velocity is verified by light time measurements.
And shows the same thing. That's why they go on at some length in the
second paper to explain possible events just like those you're talking about
could not be the root cause of the problem, specifically because the
acceleration vs. distance measurements don't work against all four probes.
Try this one on for size:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0102/0102103.pdf
What's particularily facinating about this is that they apply a
time-of-flight correction in pretty much exactly the way I think you are,
but let me quote them...
"This has the effect of producing an apparent anomalous acceleration in
velocities inferred from echo-ranging, but the effect is too small by many
orders of magnitude to account for the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly."
Once again, they appear to directly contradict what you are saying.
> > _What_ new paper in the works? Is it by the same authors?
>
> 90 pages and 18 graphs - by the same authors.
And you claim that they will directly support your argument for
_increased_ redshift - or acceleration away from the sun. Is that your
claim?
> No, just you are the n-th misreader
Wait, let me guess, everyone is misreading it but you?
> > accuracy is currently better than 10^10th. I believe he French
observations
> > are even better, up to a factor of 10^12th IIRC.
>
> The Pioneer 10 Doppler ranging accuracy is very high, same range. It
> is the DSN network, with specifics of Pioneer 10.
Well I showed mine, post yours.
> Sorry... Just your ad hock misreading of the cited article contents made
> me think that you are biased.
Glass houses...
Maury
Aladar Stolmar
> "Aladar Stolmar" <alist...@3dresearch.com> wrote in message
> news:594z6.24881$Os.53...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> > Your reading of the article is wrong, you misunderstood what's written
> there.
>
> Point out how it is that I misinterpreted this:
>
> "indicating an apparent anomalous, constant, acceleration acting on the
> spacecraft with a magnitude of the order [snip], directed towards the Sun"
>
> or this:
>
> "so they conclude that there is an unmodeled acceleration towards the Sun"
>
> Hmmm, acceleration towards the sun. Exactly what I said. And prehaps more
> importantly this effect is seen only at the edges of the solar system
> _within_ the error bars of the experiment. Viking measurements note...
>
> "the Earth and Mars. Indeed, the Viking ranging data limit any unmodeled
> radial acceleration acting on the Earth and Mars to no more than [a much
> smaller number]"
>
> This certainly supports my claim that the problem in question appears to
> be astronomical in nature, because otherwise they would see it on all the
> probes, and they don't.
>
> I don't think I'm confused in the least.
>
> > There is a specific frequency shift observed toward lower frequencies
> > and the acceleration term is clearly used for correction of observed
> > redshift to correspond to Doppler redshift from real relative
> > recession velocity.
>
> That's right, and the correction applied is in the direction of the earth.
The farther the spacecraft - the more the correction. The correction is
a velocity (Doppler velocity, shown on graph1 of 98 article). The more the
distance the more the velocity to be deducted. The direction of the deduction
is toward the Sun. Ergo - the measured redshift (translated to apparent
velocity)
was higher, more then the real velocity is. Excess redshift as I said. And the
apparent acceleration you get when you get the difference of correction
velocities - directed toward the Sun - and divide with the light time difference
corresponding to the position - distance - of the spacecraft.
> IE, there is LESS redshift than expected. You are claiming they are seeing
> MORE redshift, because redshift is a function of distance.
Yes, and they reported that by indicating the frequency drift and the negative
velocities on graph1.
>
> > The recession velocity is verified by light time measurements.
>
> And shows the same thing. That's why they go on at some length in the
> second paper to explain possible events just like those you're talking about
> could not be the root cause of the problem, specifically because the
> acceleration vs. distance measurements don't work against all four probes.
There is a problem with defining the exact velocities of other spacecraft,
not the Pioneer 10 and 11. It shows the same after the deduction of excess
redshift.
>
> Try this one on for size:
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0102/0102103.pdf
>
> What's particularily facinating about this is that they apply a
> time-of-flight correction in pretty much exactly the way I think you are,
> but let me quote them...
>
> "This has the effect of producing an apparent anomalous acceleration in
> velocities inferred from echo-ranging, but the effect is too small by many
> orders of magnitude to account for the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly."
>
> Once again, they appear to directly contradict what you are saying.
Excellent! They provide a proof that the Hubble nebular red-shift could not
be caused by expansion - since the Pioneer 10 excess red-shift does not
show the real acceleration, but the photon energy loss vs. distance only!
This is part of what I'm saying, yes!
>
> > > _What_ new paper in the works? Is it by the same authors?
> >
> > 90 pages and 18 graphs - by the same authors.
>
> And you claim that they will directly support your argument for
> _increased_ redshift - or acceleration away from the sun. Is that your
> claim?
Yes.
>
> > No, just you are the n-th misreader
>
> Wait, let me guess, everyone is misreading it but you?
I asked the authors and got a thorough explanation...
>
> > > accuracy is currently better than 10^10th. I believe he French
> observations
> > > are even better, up to a factor of 10^12th IIRC.
> >
> > The Pioneer 10 Doppler ranging accuracy is very high, same range. It
> > is the DSN network, with specifics of Pioneer 10.
>
> Well I showed mine, post yours.
I will dig out the data, reference.
>
> > Sorry... Just your ad hock misreading of the cited article contents made
> > me think that you are biased.
>
> Glass houses...
>
> Maury
>
>
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Paul F. Dietz
> Point out how it is that I misinterpreted this:
>
> "indicating an apparent anomalous, constant, acceleration acting on the
> spacecraft with a magnitude of the order [snip], directed towards the Sun"
Give it up, Maury. Idiot Stolmar has been told this
many times. He's far too stupid to understand.
Paul
Aladar Stolmar
news:3ACD1A76...@interaccess.com...
This explains my reaction...
When the acceleration is "apparent" (as the velocity was according
to Edwin Hubble in his discovery paper) it has a meaning that it is not
a real acceleration, but a ratio of the excess redshift (translated to
a found excess velocity over the real recession velocity) and divided
by the signal travel time.
Paul,
I will expect you to get on your knees to present your apology - after
the Pioneer 10 paper will be published.
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Paul F. Dietz
> I will expect you to get on your knees to present your apology - after
> the Pioneer 10 paper will be published.
Fat chance, idiot boy.
Paul
Sam Wormley
>
>
> I will dig out the data, reference.
>
I've been waiting for many months now, Aladar!
Where's the data?
Aladar Stolmar
> Aladar Stolmar wrote:
> >
> >
> > I will dig out the data, reference.
> >
>
> I've been waiting for many months now, Aladar!
> Where's the data?
>
In the 90 pages and 18 graphs in review...
Which I was expecting to be published last June.
But for references - if an open minded, not influenced by the
dominating big bang and expanding Universe hoaxes reader
could be found - the 98 and 99 articles are perfectly good.
[1] J.D. Anderson et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 2858
(gr-qc/9808081)
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9808081
[2] S.G. Turyshev, XXXIV-th Rencontres de Moriond Meeting
on Gravitational Waves and Experimental Gravity, January
1999, gr-qc/9903024
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903024
Just remember, the a_P is calculated as:
"The formula
v = c / 2 * Dnu / nu0
uses factor 1/2 to account for the two-way data.
The ferquency change Dnu is the two way data that is being divided by 2
to
get a one way results for the velocity change. This means that
v = a_P * t -
is the change in velocity during the one-way signal travel.
In the plot we discussed time t - is a time of any light travel, not
only two-way light travel.
So this is a one-way acceleration, not the two way one. This means that
Hd (in your terminology)
is [...] 16-18 bly."
Also, Hd = (18.524 +/- 0.001) bly is the correct value. defined from
fundamental constants.
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/nature.htm
Aladar Stolmar
I know that with the ideocracy entrenched in the academia
- big bang, expanding Universe, black hole hoaxes - you feel quite
secure. I would say like the communist nomenclature felt - until
1989 in East-Germany...
I started to chip away the Berlin Wall of science... Watch out
for big bang when it falls!
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Aladar Stolmar
> > Aladar Stolmar wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > 2. Stellar process - could not be based on proton-proton fusion because
> > > in the nature the proton will not fuse with another proton. [You may need
> > > some more time to accept my revolutionary super-heavy - A=4096 and up -
> > > nuclei decay process as the basis for the stellar energetic processes.]
> > >
> >
> > Aladar, you can print the following URL out and hang it on your wall:
> > http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter17/17f02.html
> >
> > Ref: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9805135
> >
> > Neutrino producing reactions adapted [by Lang] from Bahcall (1989). The
> > termination percentage is a fraction of terminations
> > of the proton-proton (pp) chain, 4p --> alph + 2e+ + 2Ve, in which each
> > reaction occurs. Since in essentially all terminations at least one pp
> neutrino
> > is produced and in a few terminations one pp and one pep neutrino are
created,
> > the total of pp and pep terminations exceeds 100%
> >
> > Name Reaction % Termination Neutrino Energy,
q
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > pp p + p --> H² + e+ + ve 100 q < 0.420 MeV
>
> 0 probability, never happens.
>
> > pep p + e- + p --> H² + ve 0.4 q = 1.442 MeV
>
> 0 probability, never happens.
>
> > hep He³ + p --> He4 + ve 0.00002 q < 18.773 MeV
>
> highly unlikely, He3 + n is the real process.
>
> > Be7 Be7 + e- --> Li7 + ve 15 q = 0.862 MeV
> 89.7%
> > q = 0.384 MeV
> 10.3%
> > B8 B8 --> Be7 + e+ + ve 0.02 q < 15 MeV
>
> it falls apart into He4 alpha particles [also, it just plain wrong].
>
> >
> >
> > Calculated Solar neutrino fluxes at the Earth's Surface
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > pp 6.0 x 10^10 cm^-2 s^-1
> > pep 0.014 x 10^10 cm^-2 s^-1
> > hep 8 x 10^3 cm^-2 s^-1
> > Be7 0.47 x 10^10 cm^-2 s^-1
> > B8 5.8 x 10^6 cm^-2 s^-1
> >
> >
> > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>
>
> But my own dreams are much more exciting, so I don't have to relay on
> other guys' dreams!
>
> I'm still waiting for the first evidence, indicating that a proton fused to
> another proton... Not dreams, observation, evidence.
>
> Until than: the proton does not fuse with another proton. It's a fact.
>
> So, your stellar process is wrong.
>
> Also, how do you like my black hole rebuttal?:
> "Chris Hillman" <hil...@math.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.4.21.010330...@goedel3.math.washington.edu...
> [...]
> > Well, if you want to discuss fantasies rather than to make a propose a
> > coherent, explicit, testable alternative to the gtr black hole models,
> > you'll have to discuss your fantasies with someone else.
> >
> > Chris Hillman
> >
>
> Let me take it as an invitation "to make a propose a coherent, explicit,
> testable alternative to the gtr black hole models" - let see the response!
>
> Here is my coherent, explicit and testable alternative to the gtr black
> hole models:
>
> The nuclear size and mass are exact above A=27 atomic mass number,
> resulting and exact nuclear material density of
> rho_nu = 1.3845e17 kg/m^3
> The relativistic gravitational red-shift near a massive body is
> z = G/c^2 * M/R = 7.4234e-28 M/R - for SI units, M kilogram and R meter.
>
> The proposed coherent, explicit, testable alternative to the gtr black
> hole models is the allowing the nuclear density increase in strict, exact
> relation to the gravitational red-shift caused by the compact object with
> M mass at the surface of the said object defined by R radius:
>
> rho_nu / (1-z)^2
>
> The resulting combined radius versus mass relation for nucleus type objects:
>
> M = 4/3 * Pi * R^3 * rho_nu / (1-7.4234e-28 M/R)^2
>
> The equation has a maximum at M = 6.086 solar masses and R=14,936 m.
> At that point the gravitational red-shift z = 0.6.
> It is unlikely that the larger mass nuclei type - neutron star type - objects
> could form, only the same radius smaller mass objects seem plausible.
>
> http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/Stars%20and%20supernova.htm
>
> See lower curve on the graph. It is extremely interesting that the known
neutron
> stars are around 1.4 solar masses - horizontal red line - and it falls under
the
> maximum in the masses, indicated by the vertical red line. The possible
process
> from this graph is the temporary formation of higher mass and an explosive -
> gamma ray burst - reduction of mass from maximum mass and corresponding radius
> state (6.1 solar masses and about 30 km diameter) to about the same radius but
> around 1.4 solar mass more stabile state on the lower curve.
> Around 4 solar masses the mass increase will not cause radius increase
anymore,
> and when the mass gets close to 5 solar masses the absorption of the
surrounding
> mass causes a contraction, an ever increasing rate contraction of the nucleus.
> (For simplicity I'm talking about a free standing mass.)
>
> We expect the mass to reach the surface of the nucleus to be swallowed by it,
> but the boundary layer of the nucleus is collapsing, leaving behind the outer
> layers! The equilibrium condition, holding together the star got to an end,
the
> outer layers will separate from the central nucleus - we see a supernova
event.
> ____
>
> I expect that my - "coherent, explicit, testable alternative to the gtr black
> hole"
> model will trigger an intelligent discussion, not just the usual smoke blowing
> by the defenders of losing theories.
> --
>
> --
> Aladar
> http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/
>
>
Dear Sam,
Your are silent about this thread.
Is it because you learned that the
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter17/17f02.html
cited by you graph has more to do with female reproductive organs
then with the real nucear reactions?!
Or is it because you learned that the cited reactions were intended
for disinformation only?!
Or is it because you realised that my neutron star representation -
black hole imposibility - is correct?!
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/nature.htm
Sam Wormley
>
>
> Dear Sam,
>
> Your are silent about this thread.
> Is it because you learned that the
> http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter17/17f02.html
> cited by you graph has more to do with female reproductive organs
> then with the real nucear reactions?!
>
> Or is it because you learned that the cited reactions were intended
> for disinformation only?!
>
> Or is it because you realised that my neutron star representation -
> black hole imposibility - is correct?!
> --
> Aladar
> http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/nature.htm
Ha Ha, that's the best laugh I've had this morning (local time),
Aladar. In the diagram you cited above, there is predicted both
photon and neutrino production.... Measured data and compared
to theory.
For those that may not be familiar with some of the established
research in the area, please see:
Ref: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9805135
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/Gif/bluesnspecpercent.ps
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/solar_neutrino.html
[Physics FAQ] - [Copyright]
original by Bruce Scott
updated 5-JUN-1994 by SIC
updated 14-MAR-1998 by John Bahcall
The Solar Neutrino Problem
The Short Story
Fusion reactions in the core of the Sun produce a huge flux of
neutrinos. These neutrinos can be detected on Earth using large
underground detectors, and the flux measured to see if it agrees with
theoretical calculations based upon our understanding of the
workings of the Sun and the details of the Standard Model (SM) of
particle physics. The measured flux is roughly one-half of the flux
expected from theory. The cause of the deficit is a mystery. Is our
particle physics wrong? Is our model of the Solar interior wrong?
Are the experiments in error? This is the "Solar Neutrino Problem."
There are precious few experiments which seem to stand in
disagreement with the SM, which can be studied in the hope of
making breakthroughs in particle physics. The study of this problem
may yield important new insights which may help us go beyond the
Standard Model. There are many experiments in progress, so stay
tuned.
The Long Story
A middle-aged main-sequence star like the Sun is in a
slowly-evolving equilibrium, in which pressure exerted by the hot
gas balances the self-gravity of the gas mass. Slow evolution results
from the star radiating energy away in the form of light, fusion
reactions occurring in the core heating the gas and replacing the
energy lost by radiation, and slow structural adjustment to
compensate the changes in entropy and composition.
We cannot directly observe the center, because the mean-free path
of a photon against absorption or scattering is very short, so short
that the radiation-diffusion time scale is of order 10 million years.
But the main proton-proton reaction (PP1) in the Sun involves
emission of a neutrino:
p + p --> D + positron + neutrino(0.26 MeV),
which is directly observable since the cross-section for interaction
with ordinary matter is so small (the 0.26 MeV is the average energy
carried away by the neutrino). Essentially all the neutrinos make it to
the Earth. Of course, this property also makes it difficult to detect the
neutrinos. The first experiments by Davis and collaborators,
involving large tanks of chloride fluid placed underground, could
only detect higher-energy neutrinos from small side-chains in the
solar fusion:
PP2: Be(7) + electron --> Li(7) + neutrino(0.80 MeV),
PP3: B(8) --> Be(8) + positron + neutrino(7.2 MeV).
Recently, however, the GALLEX experiment, using a
gallium-solution detector system, has observed the PP1 neutrinos to
provide the first unambiguous confirmation of proton-proton fusion
in the Sun.
There is a "neutrino problem", however, and that is the fact that
every experiment has measured a shortfall of neutrinos. About one-
to two-thirds of the neutrinos expected are observed, depending on
experimental error. In the case of GALLEX, the data read 80 units
where 120 are expected, and the discrepancy is about two standard
deviations. To explain the shortfall, one of two things must be the
case: (1) either the temperature at the center is slightly less than we
think it is, or (2) something happens to the neutrinos during their
flight over the 150-million-km journey to Earth. A third possibility is
that the Sun undergoes relaxation oscillations in central temperature
on a time scale shorter than 10 Myr, but since no-one has a credible
mechanism this alternative is not seriously entertained.
(1) The fusion reaction rate is a very strong function of the
temperature, because particles much faster than the thermal average
account for most of it. Reducing the temperature of the standard
solar model by 6 per cent would entirely explain GALLEX; indeed,
Bahcall has recently published an article arguing that there may be
no solar neutrino problem at all. However, the community of solar
seismologists, who observe small oscillations in spectral line
strengths due to pressure waves traversing through the Sun, argue
that such a change is not permitted by their results.
(2) A mechanism (called MSW, after its authors) has been proposed,
by which the neutrinos self-interact to periodically change flavor
between electron, muon, and tau neutrino types. Here, we would
only expect to observe a fraction of the total, since only electron
neutrinos are detected in the experiments. (The fraction is not
exactly 1/3 due to the details of the theory.) Efforts continue to verify
this theory in the laboratory. The MSW phenomenon, also called
"neutrino oscillation", requires that the three neutrinos have finite
and differing mass, which is also still unverified.
To use explanation (1) with the Sun in thermal equilibrium generally
requires stretching several independent observations to the limits of
their errors, and in particular the earlier chloride results must be
explained away as unreliable (there was significant scatter in the
earliest ones, casting doubt in some minds on the reliability of the
others). Further data over longer times will yield better statistics so
that we will better know to what extent there is a problem.
Explanation (2) depends of course on a proposal whose veracity has
not been determined. Until the MSW phenomenon is observed or
ruled out in the laboratory, the matter will remain open.
In summary, fusion reactions in the Sun can only be observed
through their neutrino emission. Fewer neutrinos are observed than
expected, by two standard deviations in the best result to date. This
can be explained either by a slightly cooler center than expected or
by a particle-physics mechanism by which neutrinos oscillate
between flavors. The problem is not as severe as the earliest
experiments indicated, and further data with better statistics are
needed to settle the matter.
1998 Update
The one missing element in this 1994 article is the new and
extraordinarily precise agreement between the predictions of the
standard solar model for sound speeds in the sun and the recent
accurate measurements of those sound speeds over nearly the entire
volume of the sun. The root-mean-squared agreement is 0.1 % ! The
agreement is so precise that it has changed our view of the problem
and physicists are now much more confident than before that the
problem must be explained by new physics.
For further info visit John Bahcall's web site which has considerable
information about solar neutrinos:
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb
References:
The main-sequence Sun: D. D. Clayton, Principles of Stellar
Evolution and Nucleosynthesis, McGraw-Hill, 1968. Still the
best text.
Solar neutrino reviews: J. N. Bahcall and M. Pinsonneault,
Reviews of Modern Physics, vol 64, p 885, 1992; S.
Turck-Chieze and I. Lopes, Astrophysical Journal, vol 408, p
347, 1993. See also J. N. Bahcall, Neutrino Astrophysics
(Cambridge, 1989).
Experiments by R. Davis et al: See October 1990 Physics Today,
p 17.
The GALLEX team: two articles in Physics Letters B, vol 285, p
376 and p 390. See August 1992 Physics Today, p 17. Note that
80 "units" correspond to the production of 9 atoms of Ge(71) in
30 tons of solution containing 12 tons Ga(71), after three weeks
of run time!
Bahcall arguing for new physics: J. N. Bahcall and H. A. Bethe,
Physical Review D, vol 47, p 1298, 1993; against new physics:
J. N. Bahcall et al, "Has a Standard Model Solution to the Solar
Neutrino Problem Been Found?", preprint IASSNS-94/13
received at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, 1994.
More recent and convincing evidence for new physics: J. N.
Bahcall et al. Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 171 (1997)
The MSW mechanism, after Mikheyev, Smirnov, and
Wolfenstein: See the second GALLEX paper.
Solar seismology and standard solar models: J.
Christensen-Dalsgaard and W. Dappen, Astronomy and
Astrophysics Reviews, vol 4, p 267, 1992; K. G. Librecht and M.
F. Woodard, Science, vol 253, p 152, 1992. See also the second
GALLEX paper.
Maury Markowitz
> When the acceleration is "apparent" (as the velocity was according
> to Edwin Hubble in his discovery paper) it has a meaning that it is not
> a real acceleration, but a ratio of the excess redshift (translated to
> a found excess velocity over the real recession velocity) and divided
> by the signal travel time.
a) the acceleration is real the distance measurements DO confirm it
b) it's towards the sun, leading to LESS redshift
You can repeat yourself as many times as you like, but you're still wrong.
Maury
Sam Wormley
>
> I started to chip away the Berlin Wall of science... Watch out
> for big bang when it falls!
>
I lived in Berlin (1969-1972) and lived with the reality of
the Berlin wall in the Cold War era. Physics, on the other
had has no such analogy. As technology advances, we gain
ever increasing evidence of the expansion of the Universe.
Ref: http://www.sciam.com/2001/0101issue/0101peeblesbox1.html
Concept:
The Universe evolved from a hotter denser state
Grade:
A+
Comments:
Compelling evidence drawn from many corners of astronomy
and physics
Aladar Stolmar
> Aladar Stolmar wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Sam,
> >
> > Your are silent about this thread.
> > Is it because you learned that the
> > http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter17/17f02.html
> > cited by you graph has more to do with female reproductive organs
> >
> > Or is it because you learned that the cited reactions were intended
> > for disinformation only?!
> >
> > Or is it because you realised that my neutron star representation -
> > black hole imposibility - is correct?!
> > --
> > Aladar
> > http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/nature.htm
>
> Ha Ha, that's the best laugh I've had this morning (local time),
> Aladar. In the diagram you cited above, there is predicted both
> photon and neutrino production.... Measured data and compared
> to theory.
Nonetheless none of the reactions depicted on the diagram
exists in nature. None, dear Sam! [And if you remove the letters -
it could be a nice poster on a gynecologist's wall...]
>
> For those that may not be familiar with some of the established
> research in the area, please see:
I would call it dreams... A-aaa...
This is one reaction which never will happen - and never did.
>
> which is directly observable since the cross-section for interaction
> with ordinary matter is so small (the 0.26 MeV is the average energy
> carried away by the neutrino). Essentially all the neutrinos make it to
> the Earth. Of course, this property also makes it difficult to detect the
> neutrinos. The first experiments by Davis and collaborators,
> involving large tanks of chloride fluid placed underground, could
> only detect higher-energy neutrinos from small side-chains in the
> solar fusion:
>
> PP2: Be(7) + electron --> Li(7) + neutrino(0.80 MeV),
> PP3: B(8) --> Be(8) + positron + neutrino(7.2 MeV).
>
>
> Recently, however, the GALLEX experiment, using a
> gallium-solution detector system, has observed the PP1 neutrinos to
> provide the first unambiguous confirmation of proton-proton fusion
> in the Sun.
This sounds like 'because we imagined these from such and such
source and we found them they must come from there'. Really?
Dear Sam,
There is only one conclusion from the above: the Stolmar shell
model explains much better the energy generation in the Sun,
gives a much more solid and universal basis for the representation
of stellar processes and nucleosynthesis - decay chains.
Yes, with the internal superheavy elements, like in order of 10^27 kg
nucleus in the Sun and some other intermediate layers, the A=4096
series what we see decay in the close to the surface regions.
The same coherent representation results in the conclusion
that there are no black holes. Seems, you are avoiding this part
of my post. Why?
rho_nu / (1-z)^2
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/Stars%20and%20supernova.htm
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Aladar Stolmar
> Aladar Stolmar wrote:
> >
> > I started to chip away the Berlin Wall of science... Watch out
> > for big bang when it falls!
> >
>
> I lived in Berlin (1969-1972) and lived with the reality of
> the Berlin wall in the Cold War era.
I lived on the Eastern side of the iron curtain and visited the wall
a couple times on that side. One - in 1979 (I was part of Nord
nuclear power plant start-up team [I know, it should not be
started]) - visit is very memorable: with a friend we started to laugh
because we found it so bizarre that the same nation cuts himself
into two with such sadistic devices - and we could not stop
laughing. Soon after that I decided to bring it down. ...
> Physics, on the other
> had has no such analogy.
Yes, it has. The assumption that the photons are eternal, nothing
happens to them - very much the same laughable taboo as the Berlin
wall!
> As technology advances, we gain
> ever increasing evidence of the expansion of the Universe.
Not a single one, so far. I have to break the news to you:
never will be found ever any evidence of the "expansion",
because there is no "expansion"! The photon loses its energy
as it travels, aging, gets tired - E(t) = E_0 /2^(t/Hd) where
Hd = 18.524 bly - this is the fact! (The chisel with what
I chip away the pieces of the Berlin Wall in the science....)
> Ref: http://www.sciam.com/2001/0101issue/0101peeblesbox1.html
>
> Concept:
> The Universe evolved from a hotter denser state
>
> Grade:
> A+
>
> Comments:
> Compelling evidence drawn from many corners of astronomy
> and physics
>
Wish me luck, Sam!
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Aladar Stolmar
> "Aladar Stolmar" <alist...@3dresearch.com> wrote in message
> news:0J9z6.25463$Os.56...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> > When the acceleration is "apparent" (as the velocity was according
> > to Edwin Hubble in his discovery paper) it has a meaning that it is not
> > a real acceleration, but a ratio of the excess redshift (translated to
> > a found excess velocity over the real recession velocity) and divided
> > by the signal travel time.
>
> a) the acceleration is real the distance measurements DO confirm it
The apparent anomalous acceleration is not a real acceleration of
the spacecraft and the distance measurements require the deduction
of excess red-shift in order to place the spacecraft where it is.
> b) it's towards the sun, leading to LESS redshift
The direction of removal of the excess apparent velocity is toward the Sun.
The excess redshift observed in the Doppler measurement is translated
into excess velocity.
>
> You can repeat yourself as many times as you like, but you're still wrong.
I got verified by knowledgeable sources. Someone else is wrong...
>
> Maury
>
>
This is what I got as an explanation how the excess red-shift is
recalculated into acceleration term (from one of the authors):
"The formula
v = c / 2 * Dnu / nu0
uses factor 1/2 to account for the two-way data.
The ferquency change Dnu is the two way data that is being divided by 2
to
get a one way results for the velocity change. This means that
v = a_P * t -
is the change in velocity during the one-way signal travel.
In the plot we discussed time t - is a time of any light travel, not
only two-way light travel.
So this is a one-way acceleration, not the two way one. This means that
Hd (in your terminology)
is [...] 16-18 bly."
Also, Hd = (18.524 +/- 0.001) bly is the correct value defined from
fundamental constants.
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Maury Markowitz
> > a) the acceleration is real the distance measurements DO confirm it
>
> The apparent anomalous acceleration is not a real acceleration of
> the spacecraft and the distance measurements require the deduction
> of excess red-shift in order to place the spacecraft where it is.
Please point the parts of the articles that state this.
> > b) it's towards the sun, leading to LESS redshift
>
> The direction of removal of the excess apparent velocity is toward the
Sun.
Nope, the removal of velocity _period_. Again, feel free to point out
where the articles say otherwise.
> The excess redshift observed in the Doppler measurement is translated
> into excess velocity.
Nope, the doppler _and_ ranging data both point to _less_ velocity. Once
again, feel free to point out where the articles say otherwise.
If you're so sure of yourself, it should be no problem at all to point
this out. Right?
> I got verified by knowledgeable sources.
Name them.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
This has all become rather confused, so I'd like to try to clear the air
and boil down the thread again. I think it all comes down to two points. I
would like a "yes" or "no" to these so we can continue, if you don't mind...
1) what is the anomaly in the shift, more redshift or less?
- I claim the report states that there is _less_ redshift than what it
should be using existing predictions
- you claim that the report states that there is _additional_ (more)
redshift than what it should be using existing predictions (in keeping with
more distance = more redshift). You have further claimed that their new
report does the same thing.
Is this a correct assesment of the most important part of the argument?
2) what is the actual velocity, is it being accelerated?
- I claim that the acceleration is a real acceleration, and that direct
distance measurements to Pioneer 10 show the same acceleration as the
doppler
- you claim that the acceleration is apparent only and has not effected the
actual predicted distance to P10
Correct?
Maury
Paul F. Dietz
> I know that with the ideocracy entrenched in the academia
> - big bang, expanding Universe, black hole hoaxes - you feel quite
> secure.
Well, that's the problem, idiot. Your brain is defective
and you reach conclusions that are false.
It must really suck to be you.
Paul
Aladar Stolmar
> "Aladar Stolmar" <alist...@3dresearch.com> wrote in message
> news:Fzlz6.26423$Os.58...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
>
> This has all become rather confused, so I'd like to try to clear the air
> and boil down the thread again. I think it all comes down to two points. I
> would like a "yes" or "no" to these so we can continue, if you don't mind...
>
> 1) what is the anomaly in the shift, more redshift or less?
>
> - I claim the report states that there is _less_ redshift than what it
> should be using existing predictions
>
> - you claim that the report states that there is _additional_ (more)
> redshift than what it should be using existing predictions (in keeping with
> more distance = more redshift). You have further claimed that their new
> report does the same thing.
>
> Is this a correct assesment of the most important part of the argument?
Yes.
>
> 2) what is the actual velocity, is it being accelerated?
>
> - I claim that the acceleration is a real acceleration, and that direct
> distance measurements to Pioneer 10 show the same acceleration as the
> doppler
>
> - you claim that the acceleration is apparent only and has not effected the
> actual predicted distance to P10
>
> Correct?
Yes.
>
> Maury
>
>
Bull's eye! Correct on both.
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Aladar Stolmar
At this moment - it really feels great!
Practice the getting down on your knees!
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Aladar Stolmar
In due time...
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Paul F. Dietz
> At this moment - it really feels great!
>
> Practice the getting down on your knees!
Oh boy, they accepted your paper at the Weekly World News?
BWAHAHAHA!
Paul
Vincent Maycock
Aladar Stolmar wrote in message ...
>news:brqz6.38146$XV.96...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
>> "Aladar Stolmar" <alist...@3dresearch.com> wrote in message
>> news:Fzlz6.26423$Os.58...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
>>
>> This has all become rather confused, so I'd like to try to clear the
air
>> and boil down the thread again. I think it all comes down to two points.
I
>> would like a "yes" or "no" to these so we can continue, if you don't
mind...
>>
>> 1) what is the anomaly in the shift, more redshift or less?
>>
>> - I claim the report states that there is _less_ redshift than what it
>> should be using existing predictions
>>
>> - you claim that the report states that there is _additional_ (more)
>> redshift than what it should be using existing predictions (in keeping
with
>> more distance = more redshift). You have further claimed that their new
>> report does the same thing.
>>
>> Is this a correct assesment of the most important part of the argument?
>
>Yes.
snip
More to the point, Maury appears to be right. Furthermore, tired light is
not going to produce an acceleration effect of the sort observed by these
guys, since all the radiation from the spacecraft spends roughly the same
amount of time in space. So it should all have the same shift in wavelength
(as opposed to an accleration situation, where the degree of wavelength
shift will change over time).
--
Vince
Aladar Stolmar
The acceleration effect relates exactly to the light time, signal travel
time which is increasing with the distance of the space-craft from us.
a_P = 7.4e-10 m/s^2 relates to the t=21 hr signal travel time, this is
the excess (redshift) velocity detected by Doppler measurement
over the real recession velocity.
In the tired light representation the energy of the photon decreases
with the signal travel time as
E(t) = E_0 / 2^(t/Hd)
from where there is a direct connection between the Pioneer 10
apparent acceleration and the Hubble wavelength doubling constant:
a_P = c / Hd / ln(2) - where c - light speed, Hd = 18.524 billion years
> So it should all have the same shift in wavelength
> (as opposed to an accleration situation, where the degree of wavelength
> shift will change over time).
>
> --
> Vince
There is no acceleration, just a distance - light/signal travel time - increase.
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/Pioneer.htm
Aladar Stolmar
Three things are coming together at the same time -[besides the
more important reasons which make me feel really great!]:
- the infrared astronomy raises the question of Diffuse InfraRed
Background as it could be from normal galaxies, seen in their
pictures (we argued about it with Ned Wright in 1998, see
at http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/redshift.htm)
Distant Luminous Infrared Galaxies detected in ISOCAM Deep Surveys
and the Cosmic Infrared Background (April 3 Planetary session)
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~nam2001/programme.html
- the Pioneer 10 controlled experiment showing the photon energy loss
as E(t) = E_0 / 2^(t/Hd) finally being published
- and I found a simple, unquestionable way to represent the neutron
stars mass - radius relationship from phenomena, showing that there
are no black holes.
So, practice to get on your knees and prepare yourself for the
end of cosmognomia...
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/nature.htm
Sam Wormley
Hubble's Law. This is well understood. The acceleration could be
positive, zero, or negative! Current data indicates that acceleration
is positive.
Aladar, this figure may help clarify things for you:
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter26/26f12.html
Paul F. Dietz
> So, practice to get on your knees and prepare yourself for the
> end of cosmognomia...
You are *such* a delusional shithead.
Paul
Aladar Stolmar
But Dear Paul,
My point is that the delusional shitheads like you - representing the
big bang and black hole cosmognomia - will be kicked out very soon
from the academia. And this is done based on the solid evidence,
presented by me and the like, gathered by new devices like the
Distant Luminous Infrared Galaxies detected in ISOCAM Deep Surveys
and the Cosmic Infrared Background (April 3 Planetary session)
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~nam2001/programme.html
and the Pioneer 10 and the large surveys - all prove that I'm right!
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Paul F. Dietz
> My point is that the delusional shitheads like you - representing the
> big bang and black hole cosmognomia - will be kicked out very soon
> from the academia.
But your point is based entirely on your own inane illogic
and stupidity. Basically, you're a fool, an idiot, and are
barely able to connect a premise with a conclusion. Your
arguments are pathetic, YOU are pathetic, and are worthless
as anything more than a bad example.
Paul
Aladar Stolmar
> Aladar--We observe the expansion (velocity) of the Universe obeying
> Hubble's Law. This is well understood.
No dear Sam! We observe the red-shift of light (or EM waves) increase
with distance. When you assume that the red-shift is caused by Doppler
effect from a recession velocity relative to the observer and emitter,
than you create an acceleration term to correspond to the signal travel
times. I understand it very well. Also, the real velocities of Pioneer 10
could be found from the signal travel times and this is the proof that
the excess red-shift is caused by direct energy loss of photons as
a function of distance, and not recession!
> The acceleration could be
> positive, zero, or negative!
It is used to correct for obvious contradictions, like for the sizes
of galaxies or brightness - massaging the data (at that point the
Hubble constant could be any result of anyone's wet dream...)
>Current data indicates that acceleration
> is positive.
>
> Aladar, this figure may help clarify things for you:
> http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter26/26f12.html
>
You still did not get it: the whole curved space is coming from
the same observation: (finally clarified by Pioneer 10 controlled
experiment) energy loss of photon with the time of travel as
E(t) = E_0 / 2^(t/Hd)
where t - signal travel time, Hd - Hubble wavelength doubling constant
= 18.524 billion years (from fundamental constants).
(The local curvatures when add up for the infinite Universe - cancel
out each other.)
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/nature.htm
Aladar Stolmar
As anyone can see it from this thread, too.
I'm the one providing links to scientific meetings and publications,
I'm the one who bases the statements on solid phenomenon...
What did you put up to counter that?!!!
About the same thing as the big bang, black hole cosmognomia
could gather for the 70 years of reigning - delusional hallucinations...
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Paul F. Dietz
> I'm the one providing links to scientific meetings and publications,
> I'm the one who bases the statements on solid phenomenon...
Ooooh. He can provide links!
Too bad they don't support your inane nonsense, idiot.
Give up this science stuff and go back to something you
can handle. I suggest basket weaving. The challenge
should do you good.
Paul
Aladar Stolmar
> Aladar Stolmar wrote:
>
> > I'm the one providing links to scientific meetings and publications,
> > I'm the one who bases the statements on solid phenomenon...
>
> Ooooh. He can provide links!
Compared to what you have shown -- its a lot.
>
> Too bad they don't support your inane nonsense, idiot.
Only an idiot like you can miss the identity of my site
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/redshift.htm
my position four years ago
and the current state of science:
Distant Luminous Infrared Galaxies detected in ISOCAM Deep Surveys
and the Cosmic Infrared Background (April 3 Planetary session)
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~nam2001/programme.html
>
> Give up this science stuff and go back to something you
> can handle. I suggest basket weaving. The challenge
> should do you good.
>
> Paul
Dear Paul,
It's your turn, you and the like cosmognomists will be forced
to give up with ruining the science with their delusions...
Practice getting on your knees!
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Paul F. Dietz
> > Ooooh. He can provide links!
>
> Compared to what you have shown -- its a lot.
Idiot boy, many people have posted trivial refutations
of your crank delusions. Your confusion about Pioneer
10 -- even when corrected by the principle investigator!
-- is truly classic crank insanity. Your tired light
theory is directly contradicted by observational
evidence. Your inability to understand error bars
is pathetic.
Yet, like the idiot crank you are, you haven't abandoned
your falsified ideas. For that reason, at this point
you deserve nothing but derision.
Paul
Germanating Thought
alist...@3dresearch.com wrote on 4/7/01 10:35 AM:
Are we saying the stars are really only an arm length away and we should
begin praying for savior.
Has your paper be published? I can't say I understand it completely, but it
seems to be in order. Have your peers judged it yet? Admittedly some in the
establishment hold tightly to their beliefs because they are unwilling to
change. Most however will acknowledge mistakes. That is what the peer review
is all about. There is no conspiracy to prevent your research from getting
out.
Germanating Thought
alist...@3dresearch.com wrote on 4/7/01 9:30 AM:
> "Paul F. Dietz" <di...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
> news:3ACF246C...@interaccess.com...
>> Aladar Stolmar wrote:
>>
>>> So, practice to get on your knees and prepare yourself for the
>>> end of cosmognomia...
>>
>> You are *such* a delusional shithead.
>>
>> Paul
>
> But Dear Paul,
>
> My point is that the delusional shitheads like you - representing the
> big bang and black hole cosmognomia - will be kicked out very soon
> from the academia.
why should they be kicked out. Discussion is what makes peer review
possible. I guess I missed the links to others that have published claims
similar to yours. The below link is just a program for a Conference. How
does that prove anything. The program seems to indicate a bunch of
astronomers sharing their latest research. Why should people sharing
research result in Paul being ousted from academia. If Paul is in this
field, he will most likely be reading about their research in the journals.
He may try and replicate the observations/experiments of those that
published.
Admittedly we should all try and keep our name calling abilities to
ourselves. Sometimes it is difficult through this extremely limited
communication means.
> And this is done based on the solid evidence,
> presented by me and the like, gathered by new devices like the
> Distant Luminous Infrared Galaxies detected in ISOCAM Deep Surveys
> and the Cosmic Infrared Background (April 3 Planetary session)
> http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~nam2001/programme.html
>
> and the Pioneer 10 and the large surveys - all prove that I'm right!
I look forward to reading about the solid evidence.
Aladar Stolmar
news:B6F4A192.DAD8%the...@tznet.com...
It's just for Paul to extend his apologies to me... (Some others can join...)
>
> Has your paper be published? I can't say I understand it completely, but it
> seems to be in order. Have your peers judged it yet?
I have no peers. I'm bringing down the establishment...
Also, what's important: in the establishment it started to germinate...
> Admittedly some in the
> establishment hold tightly to their beliefs because they are unwilling to
> change. Most however will acknowledge mistakes. That is what the peer review
> is all about. There is no conspiracy to prevent your research from getting
> out.
>
>
I know, it will. I already found some co-conspirators, we just started...
It is also too big for rushing it. The Pioneer 10 publication is a
turning point, the summer time will bring the fruits...
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Aladar Stolmar
Shame on me!
I just hinted about the Pioneer 10 excess redshift article publication
but I did not tell that I got the information from one of the investigators.
Also I failed to disclose that yes, they report what I'm representing here...
Well!
So, the idiot cranks of failing theories of big bang, expanding
Universe and black holes still haven't abandoned their falsified ideas.
What do they deserve?
Are you practicing the kneeling and chanting your apologies?!
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Paul F. Dietz
> Why should people sharing
> research result in Paul being ousted from academia.
Don't be misled by Idiot Stolmar. I'm not in academia,
or in a field of astronomy or physics.
I'm assuming idiot boy thought anyone who opposes his ideas
must do so because they have a vested interest in
current theories.
Paul
Germanating Thought
>> Are we saying the stars are really only an arm length away and we should
>> begin praying for savior.
>
> It's just for Paul to extend his apologies to me... (Some others can join...)
>
>>
>> Has your paper be published? I can't say I understand it completely, but it
>> seems to be in order. Have your peers judged it yet?
>
> I have no peers. I'm bringing down the establishment...
> Also, what's important: in the establishment it started to germinate...
>
Such comments get one labeled a wacko. Admittedly their are conspiracies at
some level, but the "establishment" isn't nearly so unbending.
>> Admittedly some in the
>> establishment hold tightly to their beliefs because they are unwilling to
>> change. Most however will acknowledge mistakes. That is what the peer review
>> is all about. There is no conspiracy to prevent your research from getting
>> out.
>>
>>
>
> I know, it will. I already found some co-conspirators, we just started...
> It is also too big for rushing it. The Pioneer 10 publication is a
> turning point, the summer time will bring the fruits...
>
Most of the "establishment" likes to think about new directions. They just
ignore quacks that think they know better without anything to back them up.
It is why I would rather listen to James Randi than Uri Geller. (oops I
feel a lawsuit coming).
> --
> Aladar
> http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
>
>
>
>
Greg Hennessy
Aladar Stolmar <alist...@3dresearch.com> wrote:
> I just hinted about the Pioneer 10 excess redshift article publication
> but I did not tell that I got the information from one of the investigators.
> Also I failed to disclose that yes, they report what I'm representing here...
If what you say is true, why did the principle investigator tell me in
email that that Pioneer 10 is indeed accelerating towards the sun? I
even sent you a copy of that email.
Sam Wormley
>
>
> No dear Sam! We observe the red-shift of light (or EM waves) increase
> with distance. When you assume that the red-shift is caused by Doppler
> effect from a recession velocity relative to the observer and emitter,
> than you create an acceleration term to correspond to the signal travel
> times. I understand it very well. Also, the real velocities of Pioneer 10
> could be found from the signal travel times and this is the proof that
> the excess red-shift is caused by direct energy loss of photons as
> a function of distance, and not recession!
>
Aladar, if I understand you correctly, you are saying something is effecting
the photons as they make their way from the Pioneer 10 spacecraft to the
receiver antennas on the earth--something inherent in the property of photons.
Don't you think it is a bit strange that we don't see this same phenomenon
in the photons coming from known physical processes on Jupiter? The majority
of the physics community has concluded that anomalous data associated with the
Pioneer 10 is due to forces on the spacecraft that are explained completely by
classical mechanics.
Why make a fool of yourself? You are wrong!
Vincent Maycock
Aladar Stolmar wrote in message ...
snip
>- the Pioneer 10 controlled experiment showing the photon energy loss
>as E(t) = E_0 / 2^(t/Hd) finally being published
Hey, snotball. Get it through your thick skull: the photons are *gaining*
energy over time, not losing it. Furthermore, according to the article, the
total frequency shift is 1.5 Hz, which is far too small by several orders of
magnitude to match up with your formula (assuming communication with Pioneer
spacecraft uses radio waves). Furthermore, the acceleration in figure 1 is
damned close to being exactly constant. There's no way your formula can
produce the appearance of a constant "acceleration." Furthermore, your
formula can't accomodate the evidence that the distance/velocity galaxy plot
is approximately linear for nearby galaxies, as well as being non-linear in
the *wrong direction* for very distant galaxies (using your formula, the
most distant galaxies should be receding more quickly than a linear plot
might indicate, but the reverse is true, since the acceleration of the
universe appears to be increasing over time). Furthermore, there is no
theoretical justification or mechanism for getting photons to lose energy
over time in the manner you suggested, and there is no evidence whatsoever
that if photons *did* lose energy over time, that they would do so in the
manner suggested by your formula.
--
Vince
Aladar Stolmar
news:9anmi3$n2i$1...@24-168-195-81.ff.cox.rr.com...
You misread his letter. Wait until the article hits the floor...
Yes, it is true.
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Aladar Stolmar
>
> Aladar Stolmar wrote in message ...
>
> snip
>
> >- the Pioneer 10 controlled experiment showing the photon energy loss
> >as E(t) = E_0 / 2^(t/Hd) finally being published
>
> Hey, snotball. Get it through your thick skull: the photons are *gaining*
> energy over time, not losing it. Furthermore, according to the article, the
> total frequency shift is 1.5 Hz, which is far too small by several orders of
> magnitude to match up with your formula (assuming communication with Pioneer
> spacecraft uses radio waves).
There is a perfect match. The acceleration of
a_P = 7.4 e-10 m/s^2 = c / Hd / ln(2) for Hd = 18.524 billion years.
> Furthermore, the acceleration in figure 1 is
> damned close to being exactly constant. There's no way your formula can
> produce the appearance of a constant "acceleration." Furthermore, your
> formula can't accomodate the evidence that the distance/velocity galaxy plot
> is approximately linear for nearby galaxies, as well as being non-linear in
> the *wrong direction* for very distant galaxies (using your formula, the
> most distant galaxies should be receding more quickly than a linear plot
> might indicate, but the reverse is true, since the acceleration of the
> universe appears to be increasing over time).
Dah!
> Furthermore, there is no
> theoretical justification or mechanism for getting photons to lose energy
> over time in the manner you suggested, and there is no evidence whatsoever
> that if photons *did* lose energy over time, that they would do so in the
> manner suggested by your formula.
>
> --
> Vince
>
>
Hubble nebular redshift, Pioneer 10 controlled experiment,
my little coherent shell theory.
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
GroundZero
Vincent Maycock
Aladar Stolmar wrote in message ...
>"Vincent Maycock" <maycock...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:uwLz6.48623$z4.90...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>> Aladar Stolmar wrote in message ...
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >- the Pioneer 10 controlled experiment showing the photon energy loss
>> >as E(t) = E_0 / 2^(t/Hd) finally being published
>>
>> Hey, snotball. Get it through your thick skull: the photons are
*gaining*
>> energy over time, not losing it. Furthermore, according to the article,
the
>> total frequency shift is 1.5 Hz, which is far too small by several orders
of
>> magnitude to match up with your formula (assuming communication with
Pioneer
>> spacecraft uses radio waves).
>
>There is a perfect match. The acceleration of
>a_P = 7.4 e-10 m/s^2 = c / Hd / ln(2) for Hd = 18.524 billion years.
snip
How did you derive this equation, Stolmar? Furthermore, as I recall it the
acceleration was 8.5*10^-10 m/s^2 to a fairly high degree of accuracy, not
7.4*10^-10 m/s^2.
--
Vince
Aladar Stolmar
>
> Aladar Stolmar wrote in message ...
> >"Vincent Maycock" <maycock...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:uwLz6.48623$z4.90...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >>
> >> Aladar Stolmar wrote in message ...
> >>
> >> snip
> >>
> >> >- the Pioneer 10 controlled experiment showing the photon energy loss
> >> >as E(t) = E_0 / 2^(t/Hd) finally being published
> >>
> >> Hey, snotball. Get it through your thick skull: the photons are
> *gaining*
> >> energy over time, not losing it. Furthermore, according to the article,
> the
> >> total frequency shift is 1.5 Hz, which is far too small by several orders
> of
> >> magnitude to match up with your formula (assuming communication with
> Pioneer
> >> spacecraft uses radio waves).
> >
> >There is a perfect match. The acceleration of
> >a_P = 7.4 e-10 m/s^2 = c / Hd / ln(2) for Hd = 18.524 billion years.
>
> snip
>
> How did you derive this equation, Stolmar?
Through the redshifts. The red-shift from the Doppler effect representation:
a_P x t / c = z and for small t values from my representation of z = 2^(t/Hd)-1
you get z = t / Hd / ln(2), combining the two results a_P = c / Hd / ln(2).
> Furthermore, as I recall it the
> acceleration was 8.5*10^-10 m/s^2 to a fairly high degree of accuracy, not
> 7.4*10^-10 m/s^2.
>
> --
> Vince
Please note that I indicated that the 7.4e-10 m/s^2 value is for Hd = 18.524
billion years Hubble constant value. The reported value for a_P in the 98
article is 8.5e-10 m/s^2, which was revised in the 99 article to 7.5e-10m/s^2.
The later - more accurate - measurements indicate that my theoretical
prediction [derived from the fundamental constants as
Hd = 2/3 x 2^16 x m_e x c^2 / rho_nu / G / h = (18.524 +/- 0.001) billion years
where m_e - electron mass, c - light speed, rho_nu = 1.3845e17 kg /m^3
nuclear density, G - gravitational constant and h - Planck constant]
is well within the tolerances, close to the mean value.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903024
Based partially on a further data for the Pioneer 10 orbit determination, the
data now spans January 1987 to July 1998, our best estimate of the average
Pioneer 10 acceleration directed towards the Sun is $\sim 7.5 \times 10^{-8}$ cm
s$^{-2}$.
I repeat my challenge here: if you can prove on a single object that
the Hd = 18.524 billion years photon half-life is incorrect for more then 0.001
billion years tolerance, my theoretical representation is incorrect. Until than:
that's the truth!
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Aladar Stolmar
> Aladar Stolmar wrote:
> >
> >
> > No dear Sam! We observe the red-shift of light (or EM waves) increase
> > with distance. When you assume that the red-shift is caused by Doppler
> > effect from a recession velocity relative to the observer and emitter,
> > than you create an acceleration term to correspond to the signal travel
> > times. I understand it very well. Also, the real velocities of Pioneer 10
> > could be found from the signal travel times and this is the proof that
> > the excess red-shift is caused by direct energy loss of photons as
> > a function of distance, and not recession!
> >
>
> Aladar, if I understand you correctly, you are saying something is effecting
> the photons as they make their way from the Pioneer 10 spacecraft to the
> receiver antennas on the earth--something inherent in the property of photons.
Yes. Both ways. They lose part of their energy as E(t) = E_0 / 2^(t/Hd)
>
> Don't you think it is a bit strange that we don't see this same phenomenon
> in the photons coming from known physical processes on Jupiter?
Until you put up there a controlled device, a known wavelength radio station,
or laser you don't see it. Even the station should be very very precise, narrow
band to make the detection possible - and you have to make provisions to
compensate for all effects, shifting the wavelength (Doppler, heat etc).
> The majority
> of the physics community has concluded that anomalous data associated with the
> Pioneer 10 is due to forces on the spacecraft that are explained completely by
> classical mechanics.
It is wishful thinking: nothing is being concluded by "majority" - and majority
never made a discovery yet...
>
> Why make a fool of yourself? You are wrong!
Dear Sam,
I'm making a fool of myself because this is the only way a revolution could be
started. Also, I'm making a fool of the establishment - like the fools did in
the
king's yard, by making fools of themselves.
I know that it is very hard to accept, but I'm right!
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Greg Hennessy
Aladar Stolmar <alist...@3dresearch.com> wrote:
> > If what you say is true, why did the principle investigator tell me in
> > email that that Pioneer 10 is indeed accelerating towards the sun? I
> > even sent you a copy of that email.
> >
>
> You misread his letter. Wait until the article hits the floor...
Please tell me how I misread:
We are indeed observing an excess blue shift. The spacecraft is
experiencing an anomalous acceleration toward the Sun, not away
from it. It is receding from the solar system at a slower rate
than Newtonian theory predicts. If the anomalous acceleration
persists indefinitely at its observed constant value, the
spacecraft will eventually stop and then fall back into the
Sun.
Aladar Stolmar
> In article <6xNz6.30420$Os.67...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>,
> Aladar Stolmar <alist...@3dresearch.com> wrote:
> > > If what you say is true, why did the principle investigator tell me in
> > > email that that Pioneer 10 is indeed accelerating towards the sun? I
> > > even sent you a copy of that email.
> > >
> >
> > You misread his letter. Wait until the article hits the floor...
>
> Please tell me how I misread:
>
> We are indeed observing an excess blue shift.
In the correcting term. The excess velocity - calculated from the
excess redshift observed - has to be removed.
> The spacecraft is
> experiencing an anomalous acceleration toward the Sun, not away
> from it.
The apparent anomalous acceleration is directed toward the Sun, because
the farther the spacecraft the more the velocity to be deducted from the
observed - transferred to velocity by the Doppler relationship - redshift.
> It is receding from the solar system at a slower rate
> than Newtonian theory predicts.
"than the Doppler measurements [redshift of returned signal] shows"
would be the correct expression.
> If the anomalous acceleration
> persists indefinitely at its observed constant value, the
> spacecraft will eventually stop and then fall back into the
> Sun.
"If the apparent anomalous acceleration would be a real acceleration" -
but the excess red-shift is the only real observation.
[I did not get a confirmation of the authenticity of the letter, this is why
I did not responded to it, yet.]
Again, there is a 90 pages 18 graphs article about the excess redshift
discovered in the Pioneer 10 Doppler ranging observations. Wait until
it gets to the press...
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Sam Wormley
>
>
> Until you put up there a controlled device, a known wavelength radio station,
> or laser you don't see it. Even the station should be very very precise, narrow
> band to make the detection possible - and you have to make provisions to
> compensate for all effects, shifting the wavelength (Doppler, heat etc).
>
in the vicinity of Jupiter for more than five years, called Galileo. See:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/
So tell me, Aladar, what's different about Pioneer 10 and Galileo? Why does one
have "anomalous data" and not the other. UNLESS IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH
THE SPACECRAFT ITSELF and nothing to do with your "tired light" assertion.
Sorry I raised my voice!
Jonathan Silverlight
Stolmar <alist...@3dresearch.com> writes
>
>http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903024
>Based partially on a further data for the Pioneer 10 orbit determination, the
>data now spans January 1987 to July 1998, our best estimate of the average
>Pioneer 10 acceleration directed towards the Sun is $\sim 7.5 \times 10^{-8}$ cm
>s$^{-2}$.
>
>
>I repeat my challenge here: if you can prove on a single object that
>the Hd = 18.524 billion years photon half-life is incorrect for more then 0.001
>billion years tolerance, my theoretical representation is incorrect. Until than:
>that's the truth!
Is this a first? Aladar is conceding that there's an acceleration toward
the sun, i.e. a slight blue shift compared to what is expected.
But given the errors in most astronomical data, 18.524 still has far too
many significant digits.
Aladar Stolmar
news:01I0jLAk...@merseia.demon.co.uk...
> In article <kCZz6.31683$Os.70...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>, Aladar
> Stolmar <alist...@3dresearch.com> writes
> >a_P = 7.4 e-10 m/s^2 = c / Hd / ln(2) for Hd = 18.524 billion years.
>
> snip
>
> How did you derive this equation, Stolmar?
Through the redshifts. The red-shift from the Doppler effect representation:
a_P x t / c = z and for small t values from my representation of z = 2^(t/Hd)-1
you get z = t / Hd / ln(2), combining the two results a_P = c / Hd / ln(2).
> Furthermore, as I recall it the
> acceleration was 8.5*10^-10 m/s^2 to a fairly high degree of accuracy, not
> 7.4*10^-10 m/s^2.
>
> --
> Vince
Please note that I indicated that the 7.4e-10 m/s^2 value is for Hd = 18.524
billion years Hubble constant value. The reported value for a_P in the 98
article is 8.5e-10 m/s^2, which was revised in the 99 article to 7.5e-10m/s^2.
The later - more accurate - measurements indicate that my theoretical
prediction [derived from the fundamental constants as
Hd = 2/3 x 2^16 x m_e x c^2 / rho_nu / G / h = (18.524 +/- 0.001) billion years
where m_e - electron mass, c - light speed, rho_nu = 1.3845e17 kg /m^3
nuclear density, G - gravitational constant and h - Planck constant]
is well within the tolerances, close to the mean value.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903024
Based partially on a further data for the Pioneer 10 orbit determination, the
data now spans January 1987 to July 1998, our best estimate of the average
Pioneer 10 acceleration directed towards the Sun is $\sim 7.5 \times 10^{-8}$ cm
s$^{-2}$.
I repeat my challenge here: if you can prove on a single object that
the Hd = 18.524 billion years photon half-life is incorrect for more then 0.001
billion years tolerance, my theoretical representation is incorrect. Until than:
that's the truth!
>
> Is this a first? Aladar is conceding that there's an acceleration toward
> the sun, i.e. a slight blue shift compared to what is expected.
>
> But given the errors in most astronomical data, 18.524 still has far too
> many significant digits.
There is an excess redshift which has to be corrected. The excess
redshift is represented by the acceleration toward the Sun correcting term.
See, how did I use it! It is equal to photon energy loss. I never conceding...
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Aladar Stolmar
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@cnde.iastate.edu> wrote in message
news:3AD0AFA2...@cnde.iastate.edu...
> Aladar Stolmar wrote:
> >
> >
> > Until you put up there a controlled device, a known wavelength radio
station,
> > or laser you don't see it. Even the station should be very very precise,
narrow
> > band to make the detection possible - and you have to make provisions to
> > compensate for all effects, shifting the wavelength (Doppler, heat etc).
> >
>
> Gosh, Aladar, we've had a "controlled device, a known wavelength radio
station"
> in the vicinity of Jupiter for more than five years, called Galileo. See:
> http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/
>
> So tell me, Aladar, what's different about Pioneer 10 and Galileo? Why does
one
> have "anomalous data" and not the other. UNLESS IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH
> THE SPACECRAFT ITSELF
One: distance
Two: stabilization
But... the effect of Hubble nebular red-shift is seen in the data for Galileo
and Ulysses - as you can see in 99 article...
> and nothing to do with your "tired light" assertion.
>
> Sorry I raised my voice!
>
Wrong again!
Get used to it: the tired light is correct, the big bang is incorrect.
(Repeat it ten times a day, it helps!)
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Paul F. Dietz
> Get used to it: the tired light is correct, the big bang is incorrect.
> (Repeat it ten times a day, it helps!)
The observational evidence decisively disproves
a putative tired light effect as the cause of
cosmological red shift.
Get used to it, idiot boy.
Paul