Requiem for Relativity

Hi John, it's something I've been thinking about too. if we say that half of the energy of matter at rest is this "atmospere" of aether and that this falls off as an inverse fourth power. Then, I think that this extremely rigid substance has a slight curve to it. Of course we don't know the ratio of light speed to gravity speed but I like the idea that of it being in the region of pi times 10 billion. A few constants actually start to get into the right ball park with that ratio.

Put matter in motion and it tries to to get to equilibrium, it rebalances its aether energy, so that it's no longer half and half. It rotates faster. A planet going near light speed will not flatten but speed up its rotation.

On this brown dwalf. I don't think that it was formed from the sun in a fission process. Much more likely that it was an early break up of the cosmic cloud. So, lets say that two aether "bubbles" form. Where they meet, do we get an almost flat disk of aether energy density, which would have a massive surface area but little volume. Also thiis surface area would more than likely have fractal properties. Boundaries have different surface areas for different frequencies. Such a disk, at the 54 Au mark"?" would have interesting properties.

Bode's Law; well it's not a law but we should expect that there is something to do with resonances going on here. Suppose we say that, in order for a solar system like ours to happen, we need a brown dwarf to direct the Sun's fission of planetary mass objects. No brown dwalf and the sun will still fission off planets but they will be closer in to the parent.

Hi Stoat, excellent post yes I agree most likely "break up of the cosmic cloud" is a typical process mimicking overall motions of Universe. The original plasma begins to rotate as a dipole and two electromagnetic fields produce spin at top and bottom in reverse directions. This spin causes the plasma to divide in half or variations there of and that is how you gain two opposing rotational stars and the splitting of “cosmic cloud” mass causes a trailing of plasmas following the greater gravitational center or larger sun. So that the binary star system is the normal causation for planetary structure not a fission process, which may also be a later function of the gravity differences between centers.

Accretion is constant from higher scales feeding like a spring that is attached to every atom. I see all matter as a condensate of the slowing down of this higher frequency constant connection from the higher scales. To include as you correctly understood both boundary resonant conditions and fractals. Galaxies are like gemstones in their brilliance and repetitive fractals that appear to fall into an infinite center (galaxies really move in two directions from collapsing fields inwards to outwards motion of mass formed in creational zones, and resonance boundary zones).

As you said, the inverse square rule certainly does apply but maybe what we are not seeing is this “fall off” zones near boundaries are literally not of this scale high frequencies concentration regions that are the result of a shock wave resonating off of the centers of gravity. So that the collapsing field “hits a wall” of resonating boundary zones and falls off from that point out into space around mass subject to the inverse square rule (of combined gravitational centers of mass).

I have really enjoyed the great science involved in your guys search for our brown dwarf sister sun. I would think that there will be one large trailing component found of comets and other trailing destruction of asteroids. Most star systems are binary because that is the common shape of Universe. Two opposing fields in reverse rotation and that is why I will say that until we understand that nothing can exist period with out time going in two directions (as it is attempting to collapse back to zero time) we will still be flailing around in the water without a paddle: Trying to fabricate all kinds of work arounds to describe the unusual conditions of motion that we observe from false big bangs, to dark matter that does not exist. Thanks to TVF first bringing forward the idea of (multiple scales, FTL CG impacts) high frequency higher scale attributes of Universe, we can now see that all mass is generated as a component of this constant streaming of FTL collapsing fields around all mass.

john

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />Can you say what its ascending node is, and its inclination to the ecliptic, Joe? I thought I'd add it to my planets in the program "Starry Night Back Yard" You might want to donload a demo copy of that and see if it lets you add a planet in demo mode. Setting up a planet is pretty easy as it's all done by sliders, and it does some of the maths for you, like working out the planet's year. About 2600 for this one at 191 AU.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks for the information. As I recall, I had estimated that Barbarossa crosses the celestial equator, descending in Declination, at RA 10h 14m. I estimated the angle of Barbarossa's orbit to the equator, as 27.5 deg, and Barbarossa's inclination to the ecliptic (the usual meaning of inclination), as about 16 deg.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
<br />Hi Joe,

Sure enjoying your posts! Wondering about pioneer anomaly, mass accelerations, and the phenomenon of time delayed echo�s of images. Your astute calculations indicated the pioneer anomaly was caused by a zone of differential acceleration towards gravitational center of Sun. Boundary zones of resonance around our solar system may exist where FTL accelerations are more concentrated as they enter this scale. If all mass acceleration is the result of a collapsing higher scale FTL fields (we cannot see because these fields exist outside of our spectrum view plane), then could shells of concentrated resonant electromagnetic fields surrounding solar systems and galaxies result in lensed time delayed echoes of images revealing light wave splitting of image from these boundary zones?

Just how images bounce back and forth on there way through the Elysium or Aether may reveal where these boundary zones exist. A slightly skewed field may bounce the light waves in such a way that reveal a time delayed portion of the spectrum resulting in double images. Space is certainly not empty and from my perspective if you were to look at space from a higher scale viewpoint and were able to take a picture (beyond the frequencies of light) of Universe, all mass in this scale would appear as empty holes/space and then the negative space would reveal bands of extreme frequency energies as they collapsed into this scale. The viewer suddenly would realize that everything we presently see as Universe was the result of this FTL interactions with lower frequency light waves and matter. So, that 90% of the Universe rather then being Dark Matter is now higher scale higher frequency wave forms collapsing into this lower frequency electromagnetic spectrum of light creating mass and accelerations. Just some thoughts�.

John

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks for the compliment! These are very valuable thoughts.

I found Barbarossa on a third archive plate. There is no longer any doubt of Barbarossa's reality nor of Barbarossa's position. Using the two most credible of these "disappearing dots" (1987 & 1997) Barbarossa's period, assuming circular orbit, matches the progression of the imperfect 5:2 Jupiter:Saturn resonance, to 3% accuracy. As in earlier estimates, Barbarossa aligns in longitude, with one of the five (mean, corrected for Jupiter & Saturn eccentricity) resonance points, to 0.4 or maybe 0.1 deg error.

Corrected for Earth parallax, the four points (there are two competing dots on the 1954 plate scan) lie nearly on a great circle. The change in angular speed corresponds to orbital eccentricity of at least 0.1, or at least 0.25, if one or the other of the 1954 points is used in addition to the 1987 & 1997 points. The Red comparison-based magnitudes of three of the objects are all +17.6 +/- 0.3; one of the 1954 objects is about Red +18.3.

The plates (from online 1.0"-resolution scanned versions) are:

1. POSS-I E (a.k.a. POSS-I Red)(exposures for this series varied from 2400 to 4200 sec) Plate XE671, February 25, 1954, epoch 1954.154.

First dot: RA 11h 03m 12.4s Decl -5deg 58' 09"

I determined the Red magnitude as +17.6 by comparison with the USNO-B Red1 magnitude (Red1 was chiefly determined from plates of this series) of a nearby star with stable magnitude. I found this dot, March 29. If it is Barbarossa, then Barbarossa's eccentricity must be at least 0.25, assuming the validity of the 1987 & 1997 dots.


Second dot: RA 11h 02m 25.16s Decl -5deg 56' 11.3"

By comparison with nearby stars, this dot's Red mag is about +18.3. I found this dot, March 28. It is the brightest of a "flying circus" of five disappearing dots spread over about 1'. Together with the 1987 & 1997 dots, it would imply an eccentricity of at least 0.1.


2. SERC-ER (a.k.a. SERC2 Red)(exposure 3600 sec), Plate 713, January 31, 1987, epoch 1987.08215.

RA 11h 18m 03.18s Decl -7deg 58' 46.1"

Because this sky survey was only one of three used to determine the USNO-B Red2 magnitudes, I determined the magnitude of Barbarossa on this plate, by comparison with both the R1 & R2 magnitudes of four nearby stars, finding +17.3. I saw Barbarossa on this plate, March 4, and realized on March 5 that what I saw, was Barbarossa.


3. SERC-I (a.k.a. Optical Infrared)(exposure 5400 sec), Plate IS713(A438), March 3, 1997, epoch 1997.16711.

RA 11h 22m 16.77s Decl -8deg 29' 30.9"

I determined Barbarossa's Infrared magnitude as +18.1 by comparison with two nearby stars. Though the authors of the USNO-B catalog warn that it is a relatively inaccurate source for magnitudes of bright stars, I used the USNO-B's I-R value for Capella, 0.2, to correct the sunlit Barbarossa's Red magnitude to +17.9. I found this dot March 31. I've found no other Optical Infrared plate online with which to prove the disappearance of this dot. Instead, I found that it is absent from both the SERC Red and MASS IR J,K,H plate scan series, indicating, if not disappearance, then an aberrantly narrow spectrum.


The 1987-1997 track implies a 2775 year period for circular orbit. Recent values of Jupiter's and Saturn's periods indicate that their 5:2 resonance progesses with a period of 2696 yr.

Corrected for April 1 Earth parallax, Barbarossa's geocentric coordinates tonight, assuming a circular orbit through the 1987 & 1997 objects, are:

RA 11h 26m 30.9s Decl -9deg 00' 11"

The position might be 7' W to 1.5' E of this, if one or the other of the 1954 dots is used for prediction instead of, or in addition to, the 1997 dot. Last night Steve Riley imaged an approx. mag. +17.3 dot which tonight will be 3' NW of these coordinates (only 1' above the predicted track), if Steve indeed imaged Barbarossa.

Barbarossa's estimated apparent diameter is 0.9". Barbarossa's estimated retrograde motion is 0.7"/hr.

Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller, M. D.

Here's the latest image from the Bradford. at 11 27 9.60 RA
-9 12 36 Decl.

(edited) I took a look at the faq page at the Bradford and it says that sometimes the image is upside down because of the mounting. The image is flipped horizontally by default, So if the stars are upside down, then one rotates the image rather than flipping it vertical. So I changed the image to a rotated 180 degree image, rather than the flipped one I'd put up at first.