Requiem for Relativity

Sloat, All models have something useful about them but the favored model now is generating too many false clues. Even the electron is not real as far as I can tell although the charge(1.6x10-19J)is real. I see things quite different than you have posted above but you do post some great links. Good job.

Progress, so far, on equations (see previous post) of isothermic ideal proton gas at CMB temperature, subject to Pioneer sunward anomalous acceleration

(Please review my previous post, because just today I made important corrections and additions to it.)

I programmed Panov's formulas for solving the first order system numerically, and also GD Smith's for solving the equivalent second order equation numerically. Then I assumed that initially, the gas is motionless with constant density > 0, out to some convenient distance, like 200AU. The numerical solution of the first order system, for whatever reason, "blows up" much less often than the numerical solution of the second order equation. I saw on a web search, that at least one other author has remarked on this relative numerical robustness of the first order system.

Even so, if mathematical boundary conditions are known only on the half-line r>0, t=0, the limitations of Panov's (or Smith's) method, are such that the characteristics cannot be computed everywhere. I could, though, compute the early paths of the two characteristics (i.e., shock fronts?) beginning at 200AU at t=0. One of these characteristics does undulate about +/- 20% farther or nearer, at least for one cycle, and the period of the cycle is, in the beginning at least, about twice the Barbarossa period; but, it is not exactly periodic, and the undulations seem to damp after the first cycle.

Hi Joe, let's suppose we have a neutrino ideal gas, and we give the electron neutrino a wavelength of about 1/137 That gives us a mass of about 3.0278E-40
T = mc^2/k * 1 - sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
if we say that the speed of light is faster outside of the "space" of matter. then the electron neutrino can go at the local speed of light and have only a modest increase in relativistic mass. I reckon we have v^2 / c^2 = 8.988E 16 / 9.4802E 16 That will give us 1 - .2278 = 0.77213
T = )3.0278E-40 * c^2 / 1.3806E-23) * 0.77213

It looks as though the temperature is going to be about half the observed microwave temperature. If we then "switch on" a cloud of gas that will collapse in short order into a solar system, i think we can have something interesting in terms of how it dumps its angular momentum. We will have an electric current flowing due to neutrino atom interactions though that will look very small beer compared to the charges generated by the collapsing cloud of atoms. Then of course we have to allow for the sun/suns switching on and producing neutrinos.

Early days, I think we would have to look at the neutrino as traveling faster than light in a "material" of given refractive index. It doesn't have a charge so it won't produce any Cerenkov radiation. But let's pretend that it does. It's rather odd oscillations could mean that it interacts with "space" vacuum particles; virtual particles, higgs, whatever; in ways that would look like a pseudo negative refractive space, or a negative mass particle. As it changes its radius it could give off Cerenkov radiation as a wake, or as a cone that precedes it!?

My hunch is that the ratio looks like about 43% of 2pi or 2.701 which looks like an exponential collapse of the radius. Now I think that we have to multiply the e.m. mass by the reciprocal of h to get the gravitational mass. 3.0278E-40 * 1.5092E 33 = 4.56E-7 which is about 105 times larger than the Planck mass.

If you as an electron neutrino, are up against the "luxon wall," in e.m. space, your mirror image looks like a micro black hole of the Planck mass. But an electron neutrino on the gravitational space side of the wall will see a micro black hole as its image. So an electron neutrino can collapse from one space to the other,

A stab at the graviton mass, 3.1415E-74 kg That times the speed of gravity, 2.919E 25 gives us our momentum. For the neutrino electron we have about 3E-40 kg times the speed of light for its momentum. Divide those two to get a value of about 9.8E 16

Sun + Barbarossa = a typical binary


"Binaries with periods greater than about 100 yr show a mass spectrum for their secondaries corresponding to Salpeter's distribution of stellar masses..."

- Poveda et al, in: Docobo, ed., "Visual Double Stars" (Kluwer, 1997), p. 192


Extending Salpeter's law to stars less massive than the Sun, later workers empirically reduced Salpeter's power-law exponent. Salpeter's exponent must fall to less than 2, for the galactic mass to be finite, but a larger exponent than now believed, for less massive "stars", could explain apparent "dark matter" and also the ubiquity of cold objects like Barbarossa.

Barbarossa's orbital semimajor axis = 344AU is typical. Poveda (op.cit.) and Allen et al (op. cit., p. 137) define wide binaries as > 25 AU, i.e., > 100 yr period for a sunlike primary. Poveda's Fig. 1, p. 197, shows that for his catalog of wide binaries, Barbarossa's semimajor axis is about 50th percentile. The interquartile range is about 100-1000 AU.

Barbarossa's orbital eccentricity = 0.6106 is typical. Aitken, "The Binary Stars" (1964), pp. 208-209, cites Henry Norris Russell's group of 500 binaries with mean period ~2000 yr, and mean eccentricity = 0.61 ! (Russell did have another 800 binaries with mean period ~5000 yr and mean e = 0.76; apparently this group was less certain in some way, and hence considered separately. Aitken omits a footnote here; I have not found Russell's original article.) Aitken's own series of 24 binaries with period > 150 yr (Table 3, p. 207) has mean e = 0.615 ! According to Aitken's Table 1, p. 206, 14/24 have 0.4 < e < 0.7. Maybe, those eccentricities really cluster much closer to 0.61 than believed; the deviations from the mean, might be due to some kind of observation error or light deviation, to which Barbarossa, nearby in our own system, is not subject. Such an effect long has been suspected as the explanation for the nonrandom distribution of "little omega", the longitude of periastron (see Aitken pp. 213-215; Aitken's citation of O. Struve & Pogo, should say, Astronomische Nachrichten 234(15):297+, 1928, not 1929).

More about Barbarossa's speed in 2012, resonating with the Milky Way

Tifft found periodicity, apparently due to some unknown physical effect, in the apparent radial velocity ("RV", i.e. redshift) of distant galaxies. As I noted in earlier posts, a comparable periodicity exists here in our own Milky Way and maybe even closer to home than that. Today I reviewed my program for determining that fundamental velocity period, from the catalog of Blitz, et al, Astrophysical Journal Supplement 49:183, 1982.

This catalog lists redshifts, with uncertainties, of ordinary carbon monoxide spectral lines (12-CO, not the isotope 13-CO often used to investigate small regions) within ionized atomic hydrogen (HII) regions in our part of the Milky Way galaxy. For greater precision, I approximate the normal error curve for each spectral line, as a histogram with ten bars of equal area, then proceed as if there had been ten measurements, one at the center of each histogram. This way, the information conveyed by the error bars, is not wasted.

I include all sources in Blitz's catalog "A", pp. 189-195, for which a redshift number was reported, except for eight parenthetical sources which Blitz said to have only an uncertain association between the CO line and the HII region. This gives 194 sources, net. Eight sources appear as "twins" or a "quadruplet", that is, very near together, but I treat these individually, the same as other sources.

The periodogram peak, that is, the speed, of which the RVs tend most strongly to be whole multiples, is 2.3489 km/s. Even if I had an hypothesis for the phase of the sinusoid, the result, correlation = 0.044, is not by itself statistically significant, because 1sigma = 1/sqrt(2)/sqrt(194) = 0.0508.

Data on regions from RA 8h to 17h (galactic longitude 240-350), corresponding to the southern Milky Way, are lacking in Blitz's catalog. If galactic longitude has an effect on this periodicity, then symmetry due to the reversibility of light, implies the effect should be a second harmonic. Joining each clock hour of galactic longitude to its antipode, gives a fairly equal binning of the data. When I give to each datum in one of these clock-hour-pair bins, the weight needed to make each bin of equal weight, I find 2.3488 km/s, practically the same period as with equal individual weights. Nor is the (borderline) statistical significance of the result, much affected by this weight correction for a possible second order harmonic longitude effect.

I omit Blitz's "B" catalog (n=47) because these regions are not from the Sharpless catalog, and generally are much smaller: no region in the "B" catalog, with an RV determination, is larger than 90 arcmin, but 19 regions in the "A" catalog, for which Blitz made RV determinations, are 100 arcmin or larger. Six of these large (100+ arcminute) regions have RV error < 1 km/s (range: 0.1 - 0.7 km/s). The RVs of these six large regions, which also have very specific RVs, are:

+27.6 +/- 0.5; +27.6 = 2.35*12 - 0.6
-0.2 +/- 0.4; -0.2 = 2.35*0 - 0.2
-13.9 +/- 0.7; -13.9 = 2.35*(-6) + 0.2
-16.1 +/- 0.5; -16.1 = 2.35*(-7) + 0.35
+12 +/- 0.5; +12 = 2.35*5 + 0.25
+14.3 +/- 0.1; +14.3 = 2.35*6 + 0.2

So the periodicity was only borderline significant when all the small regions with vague RVs were included, but the six regions in the Sharpless catalog, which are at least 100 arcmin in diameter and which have error < 1 km/s according to Blitz's determination, show periodicity significant at p = (0.4/2.35)^3*(0.5/2.35)*(0.7/2.35)*(1.2/2.35) = 0.016 % !

Alas, I don't know how to weight the regions optimally according to size. Weighting by sky area, would give more than half the total weight, to just two regions. Making equal use of the six large regions above, and ignoring the others, the best period could be (averaging the corrections needed for the five equations involving 2.35):

2.35 + 1/5*(-0.6/12 + 0.2/(-6) + 0.35/(-7) + 0.25/5 + 0.2/6)

= 2.35 - 0.01 = 2.34, but this contradicts the error bar, 0.1, of the last region listed. Alternatively, I could make that adjustment which would imply the overall least unlikely errors for the five measurements; the last region would dominate this result, which would be almost 2.38.

The value, 2.3488 km/s found from the whole catalog "A", equals the scalar speed of Barbarossa relative to the(Sun+Barbarossa+Jupiter+etc.) solar system center of mass (assuming that Barbarossa's moons have negligible mass and Barbarossa's is 0.010026 solar, as estimated in one of my previous posts) at 2012.42 AD. I estimate the error, by randomly splitting the data, two different ways. I get 0.0236 & 0.0200 km/s differences between the results from the half-sets of data, for the two splits. This implies a 1-sigma error for the full set, of 0.0109 km/s, which corresponds to 5.26 years' worth of change in Barbarossa's speed relative to the center of mass. So, from the periodicity in Sharpless/Blitz catalog Milky Way HII region RVs, I can estimate that a physical event related to Barbarossa's critical speed, will occur at

2012.42 +/- 5.26 yr AD.