Requiem for Relativity

<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 />...gravitational caustics? For that matter near field Fresnels, what is a near field when electromagnetic space and gravitational space are so hugely different?...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Iorio, Journal of Cosmology & Astroparticle Physics, 2005, repeats reports that the entire solar system is expanding at a rate of 7 +/- 2 m / century / AU. The "unit" of this quantity is "1/time", like the "unit" of that other quantity, Hubble's parameter, 72 km / s / Mpc. The former quantity is 1/157 (error range: 1/122 to 1/220) times the latter. This is consistent with a ratio of 1/137, the fine structure constant.

I also find that textbook general relativity (GR) might overestimate perihelion advance by sqrt(1/137) = 8.5%. The three most important cases are Mercury, Icarus, and binary pulsars:

1. Mercury. The textbook GR prediction is 42.98" / century (for many years everyone cited Clemence's 43.03", which eventually was accurized by others). Shapiro (1972) found Mercury's observed non-Newtonian perihelion advance to be 43.2" +/- 0.9" (cited by Dicke & Goldenberg, AJ Supp 27:131-182, 1974). Although studies of the sun's (surface and internal) rotation do not explain it, and other measurements contradict it, Dicke & Goldenberg (op. cit.), in some of the most careful work I've ever seen, did find a solar oblateness which, with likely models of the sun's interior, implies an additional approx. 2.98" / century of Newtonian perihelion advance (due to solar oblateness) for Mercury. If Dicke & Goldenberg are correct, then Mercury's observed non-Newtonian perihelion advance is only 43.2 - 3.0 = 40.2", i.e., 6.5% too little.

2. Icarus. Sitarski, AJ 104:1226+, 1992, finds close observational agreement with the textbook GR prediction ( 10.05" / century; Gilvarry, Phys. Rev., 1953) for Icarus' non-Newtonian perihelion advance. However, Sitarski there relied heavily on fancy statistical processing, of observations made near one point in time, that of Icarus' close passage to Earth. From a more conventional data set, Sitarski (op. cit., citing his own 1983 article) found that Icarus' observed non-Newtonian perihelion advance is only 93% +/- 6% of the textbook GR prediction. Shapiro et al, AJ 76:588+, 1971, similarly found Icarus' observed to be 95% of predicted, +/- 8% statistical error but possibly +/- 20% systematic error. Adler, Intro. to Gen. Relativity, 1975, says that the perihelion advance due to solar oblateness, drops off faster than that due to GR, by an extra factor of r. Dicke-Goldenberg's solar oblateness effect would amount to

2.98/42.98 * 0.387 (Mercury's a)/1.078 (Icarus' a) = 2.5%

of the GR prediction for Icarus. So, by the earlier and more orthodox of Sitarski's analyses, Icarus' non-Newtonian perihelion advance is 7 + 2.5 = 9.5% too small.

3. Binary pulsars. (Both should be neutron stars, because tidal effects become important for larger stars.) If the sum of the masses of the pulsars, and the orbital period & eccentricity, are known, then textbook GR predicts the perihelion advance (Lyne & Graham-Smith, Pulsar Astronomy, 3d ed., 2006, p. 67, eq. 6.9). These authors say, "This measured value of the rate of advance of periastron is important, since it provides a measure of the total mass of the system." This statement seems to imply, that currently the total binary mass is known accurately only from the perihelion advance. To test GR, the total mass must be accurately determined by other means, which currently are lacking.

Hi Joe, when I was looking at that index I forgot to take the square root, oops! We've got n, a very larger number, divided by its reciprocal to give us one. The square root thrown in gives us nx =2

That means I can double the mass of my higgs, which of course I'm thinkiing of as an aether particle. I don't need to pair them up in that case.

How such a particle interacts with a photon is the six million dollar question.

The thing about that graph, it's an exponetial, it's not equal to e but it's very close, as n is such a large number,and it does cross the y axis. Thinking of it as a bank's compound interest, then having your money in such a bank would pay you to spend it all and go into debt. You could be paid huge amounts of interest on your debt but the punters in credit have to pay that over by actually having negative interest on their savi ngs. Now with this bank everyone and everything has to be a member, there are no other banks. The amount of negative interest is tiny however, so there's no cutomer revolt.

We have been talking about neutron stars. Great fun exploding billiard balls on school fields. We set one off and the blast throws a good 70% of the star out and compresses the core. Part explosion and part implosion.

Let's say that this compression forces aether particles (higgs) from the core. Simply to allow the neutrons to be closer together. These things don't like to move. They stop the neutrons from bouncing back from the implosion and becoming protons again. The neutrons after all have that extra little bit of mass to play with, and the total mass of the new sun is not much greater than the mass of our sun. What is it that stops the renormalisation?

(Edited) almost forget, about that graph, when x equals zero the curve snaps to a horizontal line of y =1 The speed of light, now I woud argue that it varies about that line, because when we talk about h we are talking about an angular momentum. (For negative x values the graph looks the same as for positive values of x.)

A photon is spinning through space, it loses energy then gets it back from aether particles. It will lose more energy where the aether particle density is greater, near matter.

The heaviest common, stable isotope is the ("double magic" according to nuclear orbital theory) lead-208. The heaviest stable isotope of all, is bismuth-209. Because of binding energy (almost 8 MeV per nucleon for nuclei in this mass range, i.e., ~ 0.8%) the bismuth nucleus weighs slightly more than 207 protons. A muon weighs almost 207 times as much as an electron. Therefore maybe bismuth-209 is very slightly radioactive.

According to my 2004 theory of lepton and meson (maybe baryon too) masses, the muon weighs what it does, because the mass of the electron must be multiplied by this much, for the electron to become small enough (according to Schroedinger wave mechanics) to amount to a black hole (from the point of view of a test object with the charge/mass ratio of a positron) when electrostatic force is substituted for gravitational force (Weyl's unified theory idea). This theory also explains the masses of some mesons, when the quarks are assumed to be like layered immiscible liquids in chemistry.

If the mass within a nucleus is communal, that is, if one proton's charge can temporarily acquire some or all of the mass of other nucleons, then a nuclear mass greater than approx. 207 proton masses would allow a kind of Weyl, or electrostatic analogy, black hole to form. This could be the real reason that none of the nuclei with more than 209 nucleons, are stable.

The main difficulty getting anyone to pay attention to these glaringly non-accidental relationships, is that Weyl's unified theory has acquired a large baggage of tensor calculus. Unless one finds a way to put a large baggage of tensor calculus on the back of the above observations, all "trained minds" are going to snap shut. In other words, if tensors aren't needed to explain it, they can't think about it.

(new article submitted to Jeff Rense on Oct. 30, 2008)

New Evidence re: Nibiru

I. Introduction. I am not a professional astronomer. I was graduated from Harvard cumlaude in Mathematics. I also studied Mathematics at Iowa State Univ. for four years, passing the doctoral qualifying exams, but not writing a thesis or receiving a degree. I received an M. D. degree from the Univ. of Nebraska and became board-certified in Ophthalmology.

This year I submitted the substance of the following, to the professional astronomical conference review committee which I thought likeliest to respond intelligently. A representative of the review committee eventually responded, that the committee would neither formally accept nor formally reject my submission. I interpret this, as an underhanded rejection on political grounds.


II. My discovery. During the last two years I have collected extensive evidence, from refereed astronomical journals and from photographs, that a system of three hyperjovian planets lies in a nearly circular orbit 200 A. U. from our sun. I call the largest of these Barbarossa, and its two moons Frey and Freyja. There is some published evidence that such objects might be smaller or blacker than usually supposed, or might be surrounded by nebulae. Some of the faint images I've found on online sky survey plate scans, and on electronic amateur photos, are starlike, and some not. They are consistent with about +19 magnitude. These images lie too close to an orbital path, to be chance. They are too dim to have been found by Tombaugh in his manual "blink" survey. Their mutual orbital motion likely would have caused them to be automatically rejected as noise or asteroids, in the recent computerized surveys.

According to published reports, a complete research-quality telescope installation of the size I think needed to image these definitively, would cost almost a million dollars, which I can't afford. While I'm trying to build my own telescope, I hope to persuade or coerce the government's astronomy establishment to look, with the present tax-funded equipment. Even a negative search would be a significant contribution to scientific knowledge.

Details are on the online messageboard of Dr. Tom Van Flandern, under my name, Joe Keller. Dr. Van Flandern's was the only major astronomy messageboard that did not ban my posts.


III. Barbarossa is related to Zecharia Sitchin's Nibiru. The Semitic philologist, Sitchin, is said to have estimated Nibiru's period as 3600 years on textual grounds. On photographic and celestial mechanical grounds, I estimate Barbarossa's period as 2800 yr, but 3600 would be within my margin of error. Michael S. Heiser, a doctor of Semitic languages from the Univ. of Wisconsin, stated early this morning in a radio interview with George Noory, that ancient texts support an association of Sitchin's Nibiru with either Jupiter or Mercury. Though not identical with Jupiter or Mercury, Barbarossa is associated with both those planets:

Barbarossa's association with Jupiter, is that Barbarossa's position, projected onto the ecliptic, coincides with the "mean" (i.e., averaged over Jupiter's and Saturn's perihelion advance) position of one of the three conjunction points of the 5:2 Jupiter:Saturn resonance. Barbarossa shepherds the famous "Great Inequality" (i.e., discrepancy) of this resonance.

Barbarossa's association with Mercury, is that Lescarbault & LeVerrier's "Vulcan", apparently a very large tailless comet which resembled a second Mercury, has the same orbital inclination as Barbarossa. Nibiru might be, like Vulcan, in a highly elliptical orbit but associated with Barbarossa. If so, Nibiru likely would have an orbital period similar to Barbarossa's.


IV. Sunlike stars often have companions like Barbarossa. A recent estimate is, that the second-hottest class of brown dwarfs, though uncommonly detectable ("observation bias"), is ten times commoner than the hottest class. No one knows how common, an even colder hyperjovian class might be. A sunlike star only 12 light years away, has a system of a pair of brown dwarfs, orbiting it. Often, brown dwarfs orbit a few A. U. from each other, and together in nearly circular orbit a few hundred A. U. from sunlike stars. If cold hyperjovians are as common as they might be, a system such as Barbarossa+Frey+Freya would be typical for sunlike stars. Published theoretical temperatures of hyperjovian planets involve questionable extrapolations; if Barbarossa, like Edgeworth-Kuiper belt objects, were in temperature equilibrium with solar radiation, it would be near the temperature of the galactic background, and undetectable in far infrared.


V. More gravitational evidence. Barbarossa's orbit is inclined to the orbits of the known planets, so Barbarossa torques them, but, the published article claiming that such a body would disrupt the solar system, confesses doubtful mathematical simplifications. The mass and distance of the Barbarossa system, give small-integer resonances for the Barbarossa-induced orbital precessions of Neptune, the plutinos, and the classic Edgeworth-Kuiper objects. Also, the classic Edgeworth-Kuiper belt lies at the distance where its precession caused by Barbarossa, equals its precession caused by the other, known, planets.

Barbarossa's tidal pull largely explains all the orbital residuals for Uranus and Neptune, found by many astronomers since Neptune's discovery. The recent paper by Standish which claims to remove the residuals, does not offer adequate explanation for their cause. Maybe Standish made the graduate student do it over and over until it came out zero.

Subtraction of Barbarossa's tidal pull, from the anomalous Pioneer 10/11 probe acceleration, leaves a smoothly decreasing remaining, unexplained force. This remaining force would be consistent with outer solar system dark matter or with some other sun-centered force.

The precision of Hipparcos and other surveys, is inadequate to detect gravitational light-bending by objects such as Barbarossa against background stars. The claim that pulsar timing excludes any acceleration of the sun as large as would be caused by Barbarossa, relies on a naive model which fails to consider the quantization of apparent pulsar accelerations, whose quantization step, I have found, equals the Hubble parameter.


VI. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) dipole. It is admitted that the dipole, quadrupole, and higher multipole anisotropies of the apparent CMB temperature, are significantly correlated with the plane of the ecliptic. No one else offers any explanation for this. I have found that binary star orbital orientations are significantly nonrandom, but they, and the orbits of known extrasolar planets, are random enough, that if today's CMB dogma is correct, very few other solar systems should be correlated with the CMB anisotropy, as our own is. Some local mechanism, maybe the mechanism I've outlined on Dr. Van Flandern's messageboard, is needed to explain the correlation. If the orbits of the planets somehow affect the CMB anisotropy, then the distant, massive Barbarossa, should lie at the CMB dipole. Barbarossa does lie slightly prograde of the positive CMB dipole.


VII. Barbarossa's nebula. Barbarossa is too cold to blow away its nebula. According to the Jacobi limit, modified to include the sun's radiation pressure and solar wind, this nebula should have large angular size. Of nearby stars, those in the direction of Barbarossa show the strongest reliable, unexplained interstellar spectral line absorption.

Discrepancies between stellar magnitudes at different epochs, are unusually systematic and large near Barbarossa, according to various data I have compared. This indicates moving debris. This was the first method by which I detected Barbarossa.

Hi Joe, I wanted to respond to your statment regarding possible black hole as anchor point within the nuclear model:

"According to my 2004 theory of lepton and meson (maybe baryon too) masses, the muon weighs what it does, because the mass of the electron must be multiplied by this much, for the electron to become small enough (according to Schroedinger wave mechanics) to amount to a black hole (from the point of view of a test object with the charge/mass ratio of a positron) when electrostatic force is substituted for gravitational force (Weyl's unified theory idea). This theory also explains the masses of some mesons, when the quarks are assumed to be layered like immiscible liquids in chemistry."

Let's first look at the 'source energy' for electrons: I think that gravitons operating above light speeds at extremely higher frequencies above light is the 'source energy' for electrons. A unified field approach balanced between graviton and antigraviton reciprocal motion from small to large scales should replicate generalized mass creational systems causing induction anchor points for all mass circulations around black holes. We currently have a very poor understanding of the role of black holes in cosmology. This reminds me of Dirac 'holes' in a sea of energy as being the negative charge. Of course, depending upon what side your observations were being made from the 'hole' might appear to be a 'hill' so that mirror reversals as found in matter antimatter pairs certainly does play a role in the power dynamics of this greater exchange. John

<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 />...gravitons operating above light speeds at extremely higher frequencies above light...Dirac 'holes' in a sea of energy as being the negative charge... - John
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I haven't yet had time to become very familiar with these concepts, though they seem to be relevant. Tom Goodey has given me a copy of the book, "Pushing Gravity".

There seems to be a previously unappreciated hierarchy of forces and particles. The electron seems to be the simplest manifestation of the electric force. The proton is a complex manifestation of that force, yet the radioactivity of nuclei of greater than 207 proton masses, seems analogous to the muon mass of 207 electron masses.