Requiem for Relativity

Half an hour ago I submitted this to the "Astronomische Nachrichten". First I looked at "Science", but they required my statement that it hasn't been published on the internet (which it essentially has been, on this very messageboard). Then I tried the "Astronomical Journal", but they require an "ms.tex" file, and I'm wary of the Univ. of Chicago anyway. I'll send this to one journal after another and post the list here.


Abstract.

A cold hyperjovian, Barbarossa, causes the "Cosmic" Microwave Background dipole. Barbarossa+Frey+Freya, with a dark nebula, lie at the (+) dipole.

Article.

A cold hyperjovian planet, Barbarossa, causes the "Cosmic" Microwave Background (CMB) dipole. Barbarossa+Frey+Freya, with a dark nebula, lie at the (+) CMB dipole.

Red and blue USNO-B catalog magnitudes change systematically there between c.1954 and c.1985, as does Johnson's bright star photometry c.1964 vs. Harvard magnitude published mostly 1908. Interstellar absorption lines of the two studied nearby stars in this direction, 69 Leonis and Theta Crateris, are exceedingly strong.

My original finding in 2007 was that USNO-B Red1 & Red2 magnitudes, differing enough to be perhaps misidentifications of wanderers, outlined an orbital path there. Dots of magnitude ~ +18, though mostly not of typical starlike appearance, on all relevant red and infrared online survey plate scans, and on prospective photos by Joan Genebriera, Steve Riley, and Robert Turner, lie within arcseconds of an e < 0.1, 198 AU orbit slightly leading the (+) CMB dipole. Frey has a 3-yr, e = 0.65 orbit around Barbarossa with retrograde apsis precession in 24 yr. Freya (not yet identified) is inferred to orbit in 6 yr., perpendicular to the ecliptic, causing Frey's precession and lateral deviation of the Barbarossa-Frey c.o.m. Our solar system resembles Epsilon Indi.

The projection of Barbarossa's orbit onto Jupiter's, follows the mean position of a Jupiter-Saturn conjunction. Claimed COBE & WMAP error bars rule out such a near (~ 2800 yr) orbit. However, only a cause within the solar system, explains the correlation, of the Maxwellian moments of the CMB anisotropy, with the plane of the ecliptic.

At 52.6 AU, the sun's gravitational field equals the maximum achievable by a proton. Barbarossa's gravity distorts the "movie screen" defined by this equation, so that an electron's gravitational potential there, thus the CMB temperature, varies. This ether boundary was revealed by anomalies in Pioneer10's transmission there.

This ether theory, and a Newtonian theory of nodal regression resonances in the outer solar system, give equal estimates of Barbarossa's mass. A mass at Barbarossa's distance gives Neptune, the plutinos, and the classical Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt, 1:2:3 precession resonance. Barbarossa's mass there gives the same torque per degree of inclination, as the rest of the solar system, on the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt.

Subtraction of Barbarossa's tide, makes the Pioneer Anomaly consistent, with gravitation by a smoothly decreasing dark mass density. Barbarossa's angular momentum makes the solar system's J/M^2 value consistent with planets and other astronomical objects (see: Wesson, Physical Review D, 1981).

Observations of the asteroid Metis in 1851 (Graham, also Ferguson, Astronomical Journal), are anomalous near the presumed center of mass of the sun-Barbarossa system. The approach of this center of mass, to Mars, might alter Mars' axis.

Hi Joe, what the astronomical journal wants is an ms word document. That's just to let them drop the document into their page palyout program. The designer needs to be able to see any special formatting code and something like appleworks' code might not be available to the layout progam. The other point is that you have NOT published on the web. By published they are refering to something that is in an archive, as a published reviewed paper, with legal rights and such.

<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 />Hi Joe, what the astronomical journal wants is an ms word document. ...The other point is that you have NOT published on the web. By published they are refering to something that is in an archive, as a published reviewed paper, with legal rights and such.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks for this help, and also for your other recent posts!

Dear Prof. *******,

The article I cited yesterday, saying that the Galileo & Ulysses probes also had about the same magnitude & direction of anomalous acceleration, as Pioneer 10 & 11, is:

Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2858 - 2861 (1998)
Indication, from Pioneer 10/11, Galileo, and Ulysses Data, of an Apparent Anomalous, Weak, Long-Range Acceleration
...

primary author: JD Anderson (Turyshev, inter alia, also an author)

Yesterday I mentioned to Prof. *******, that Pdot/P for millisecond pulsars is bimodally distributed, with histogram peaks near +/- H, where H is the Hubble parameter. I don't know whether I've put that information on Dr. Van Flandern's messageboard or not, though I discovered it several months ago. Today I re-examined Taylor's 1995 pulsar catalog (on VizieR). I found 31 pulsars with P &lt; 30ms and Pdot known. The Pdot/P values are:

units, 10^(-17) per sec

62, 53, 7.1, 6.7, 3.8, 3.2, 2.1, 1.1, 1.0, 0.99, 0.79, 0.71, 0.48,
0.36, 0.36, 0.36, 0.33,
0.28, 0.25, 0.23, 0.23, 0.20, 0.19, 0.18,
0.092, 0.070, 0.064,
-0.052, -0.16, -0.87, -220

In the same units, the Hubble parameter (assuming it's 72km/sec/Mpc) is 0.2333. So, for 7 of 31 millisecond pulsars, Pdot/P lies within +/- 25% of the (+) Hubble parameter. For 23 of 31, the absolute value of Pdot/P lies within a factor of 5, of the Hubble parameter. Plotting positive and negative Pdot/P values on separate histograms, with log(abs(Pdot/P)) as abscissa, shows the strong +H and weaker -H peaks. (Many authors have remarked that the anomalous Pioneer/Galileo/Ulysses acceleration also nearly equals the Hubble parameter * c).

After three days (long enough to wait for a receipt from a government bureau) I've received no acknowledgment from that German government bureau, "Astronomische Nachrichten". Bob Turner's comment above, changes my mind about sending this (slightly expanded version) to "Science" as a letter to the editor. I'll warn them and the others that it essentially already appears on this internet messageboard.

updates:
Dec. 19, 2008: rejected by "Science" editors (automatic acknowledgment of submission, received Dec. 12; no other comment)
Dec. 20: submitted as letter to "Nature"
Dec. 23: rejected by "Nature" editor (automatic acknowledgment of submission, received Dec. 20; other comment: "The Editor thanks you for your communication but regrets that he is unable to publish it. He regrets also that he cannot enter into further correspondence on this matter.")
Dec. 23: submitted to Astronomy & Astrophysics (online publication, e.g., "astro-ph", explicitly permitted, but they asked where, and I told them it's on this messageboard; for convenience I registered as a new author but told them I submitted previously).
Dec. 28: revision sent to A&A.
Jan. 2, 2009: rejected with explanation by A&A editor (no peer review):

Dear Mr. Walmsley:
I am quite capable of providing you with any amount of detail that you require. Tell me how long to make the discussion. I can provide you with as much rigorous detail as can be compressed into that length, with a hundred or more citations of refereed journals, and unpublished astrophotographs, if desired. This letter already has been rejected without comment by Science and Nature. The joke is on them, because the objective and quantitative evidence is overwhelming. While I await your reply, I'll submit this letter to another journal.
Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller
(B. A., cumlaude, Mathematics, Harvard)
[no reply from Walmsley as of Jan. 27, 2009]
&gt;Dear Dr Keller,
...After consideration, I regret to inform you that your manuscript cannot be considered for publication in Astronomy and Astrophysics. We require a more detailed discussion than supplied and I would suggest submitting to a journal with a more generalised readership.
Yours sincerely,
Malcolm Walmsley
A&A Letters Chief Editor

Jan. 2, 2009: submitted to Icarus (I told them in two places that it essentially already has been published on this messageboard).
Jan. 17, 2009: status inquiry emailed to Icarus editors:

Dear Icarus editors:
What is the status of my Jan. 2, 2009 submission, which your automated system assigned the tracking number, 090102-0007? Please respond to the email address I gave for correspondence. I have received no email confirmation of any kind, ever, not even when I submitted.
Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller

Jan. 27: rejected with explanation by Icarus editor (no peer review):
Dear Editor of "Icarus": (he never responded to this)
Obviously it is all connected to one conclusion. Therefore it is not "disconnected", as you assert.
I was brief because, as journal editors often say, space is at a premium. The more detail I include, the less cause you have to complain that it is too short, but the more cause you have to complain that it is too long. I would rather write a short paper and be told that it is too short, than waste more time writing a long paper to be told that it is too long.
If you really want to know the truth, I suggest you ask me to elaborate on one sentence, of your choosing, of my submission. You will find that I have abundant data, rigorous calculations and references to offer. While you are thinking about my offer, I will submit this letter to another journal.
Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller, M. D.
&gt;Dear Mr. Keller,
I am sorry to inform you that your submission of January 2 does not meet the minimum standards of a paper in Icarus. It has no Abstract, Introduction, Results, Conclusions, or a proper list of
references. Furthermore, it seems to consist of a series of disconnected speculations or inferences about a hypothetical giant planet in the outer Solar System, which are not backed up by any calculations or even numerical estimates of the claimed effects.
Your paper will therefore not be sent out for review.
Sincerely,
Philip D. Nicholson
Editor-in-Chief
Icarus

Jan. 27: submitted to Serbian Astronomical Journal (with notice that it already has been published here).
Jan. 28: rejected by Serbian Astronomical Journal, with minimal comment by editor (no peer review).
Feb. 7: revised version (version #3, see below) submitted to Journal of the British Interplanetary Society.
Feb. 9: rejected by British Interplanetary Society, as not their job:
Dear Mr Keller
Thank your for submitting your paper on a cold hyperjovian. I regret I must reject this paper as the subject matter is pure astronomy and JBIS is a journal for astronautics, and I am afraid your paper is well outside this remit.
Regards
Mark Hempsell
Editor JBIS

I think I'll take a break from these submissions for awhile. Though online submission is fairly efficient, it still takes much more of my time to submit the article, than it takes the editor to send his silly canned excuse for not sending my article for peer review. Thus the "enemy" (the system) is getting a better than one-to-one trade on resources (time), which I can't afford, because (1) there are many more of them than of me; (2) they're getting paid (from taxes) and I'm not (from anyone); and (3) I'm able to accomplish something significant with my time, but they aren't. If anyone else would like to write about this, and submit the article somewhere, be my guest, as long as you cite me appropriately.

*********

Abstract.

A cold hyperjovian, Barbarossa, causes the "Cosmic" Microwave Background dipole. Barbarossa+Frey+Freya, with a dark nebula, lie at the (+) dipole.

Article. (N.B.: in essence this already has appeared under my name on the messageboard of Dr. Van Flandern at www.metaresearch.org .)

A cold hyperjovian planet, Barbarossa, causes the "Cosmic" Microwave Background (CMB) dipole. Barbarossa+Frey+Freya, with a dark nebula, lie at the (+) CMB dipole.

Red and blue USNO-B catalog magnitudes change systematically there between c.1954 and c.1985, as does Johnson's bright star photometry c.1964 vs. Harvard magnitude published mostly 1908. Interstellar absorption lines of the two studied nearby stars in this direction, 69 Leonis and Theta Crateris, are exceedingly strong.

My original finding in 2007 was that USNO-B Red1 & Red2 magnitudes, differing enough to be perhaps misidentifications of wanderers, outlined an orbital path there. Dots of magnitude ~ +18, though mostly not of typical starlike appearance, on all relevant red and infrared online survey plate scans, and on prospective photos by Joan Genebriera, Steve Riley, and Robert Turner, lie within arcseconds of an e &lt; 0.1, 198 AU orbit slightly leading the (+) CMB dipole. Frey has a 3-yr, e = 0.65 orbit around Barbarossa with retrograde apsis precession in 24 yr. Freya (not yet identified) is inferred to orbit in 6 yr., perpendicular to the ecliptic, causing Frey's precession and lateral deviation of the Barbarossa-Frey c.o.m. Our solar system resembles Epsilon Indi.

The projection of Barbarossa's orbit onto Jupiter's, follows the mean position of a Jupiter-Saturn conjunction. Claimed COBE & WMAP error bars rule out such a near (~ 2800 yr) orbit. However, only a cause within the solar system, explains the correlation, of the Maxwellian moments of the CMB anisotropy, with the plane of the ecliptic.

At 52.6 AU, the sun's gravitational field equals the maximum achievable by a proton. Barbarossa's gravity distorts the "movie screen" defined by this equation, so that an electron's gravitational potential there, thus the CMB temperature, varies. This ether boundary was revealed by anomalies in Pioneer10's transmission there.

This ether theory, and a Newtonian theory of nodal regression resonances in the outer solar system, give equal estimates of Barbarossa's mass. Barbarossa's mass and distance give Neptune, Pluto, and the classical Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt, torque per degree of inclination, respectively equal to 0.33:0.5:1 times the torque on them, per degree, from the remainder of the solar system.

Subtraction of Barbarossa's tide, makes the Pioneer Anomaly consistent, with gravitation by a smoothly decreasing dark mass density. Barbarossa's angular momentum makes the solar system's J/M^2 value consistent with planets and other astronomical objects (see: Paul Wesson, Physical Review D, April 15 1981).

Observations of the asteroid Metis in 1851 (Graham, also Ferguson, Astronomical Journal 2:12-13, 2:43-44), are anomalous near the presumed center of mass of the sun-Barbarossa system. The approach of this center of mass, to Mars, might alter Mars' axis.

Barbarossa might escape detection in infrared, because it might have accreted or convected differently than assumed in published 4.6 billion yr extrapolations of the temperature of hyperjovians; the equilibrium temperature with sunlight at 198 AU, approximates cold interstellar dust. Automated ecliptic searches might reject a double planet with atypical proper motion. The unexplained clustering of Pdot/P, near the value of the Hubble parameter, vitiates the determination of Solar acceleration from pulsar timing.


Revised version Dec. 28, with results of Dec. 22 photo:

(same abstract and notice)

A cold hyperjovian planet, Barbarossa, causes the "Cosmic" Microwave Background (CMB) dipole. Barbarossa+Frey+Freya, with a dark nebula, lie at the (+) CMB dipole.

Red and blue USNO-B catalog magnitudes change systematically there between c.1954 and c.1985, as does Johnson's bright star photometry c.1964 vs. Harvard magnitude published mostly 1908. Interstellar absorption lines of the two studied nearby stars in this direction, 69 Leonis and Theta Crateris, are exceedingly strong.

My original finding in 2007 was that USNO-B Red1 & Red2 magnitudes, differing enough to be perhaps misidentifications of wanderers, outlined an orbital path there. Dots of magnitude ~ +18, though mostly not of typical starlike appearance, on all relevant red and infrared online survey plate scans, and on prospective photos by Joan Genebriera, Steve Riley, and Robert Turner, lie within arcseconds of an e &lt; 0.1, 198 AU orbit slightly leading the (+) CMB dipole.

Our solar system resembles Epsilon Indi. A Dec. 22, 2008 photo shows Barbarossa at RA 11:28:22.08, Decl -9:16:6.4, and Frey at RA 11:29:04.66, Decl -9:07:2.3. With only one adjustable parameter, the four extant photos of the pair allow constancy of areal speed to 0.125%. Frey has a 15.2 yr, a = 0.94 AU, e = 0.24 orbit around Barbarossa. Barbarossa + Frey possess only 1/3 of the total Barbarossa system mass.

The projection of Barbarossa's orbit onto Jupiter's, follows the mean position of a Jupiter-Saturn conjunction. Claimed COBE & WMAP error bars rule out such a near (~ 2800 yr) orbit. However, only a cause within the solar system, explains the correlation, of the Maxwellian moments of the CMB anisotropy, with the plane of the ecliptic.

At 52.6 AU, the sun's gravitational field equals the maximum achievable by a proton. Barbarossa's gravity distorts the "movie screen" defined by this equation, so that an electron's gravitational potential there, thus the CMB temperature, varies. This ether boundary was revealed by anomalies in Pioneer10's transmission there.

This ether theory, and a Newtonian theory of nodal regression resonances in the outer solar system, give equal estimates of Barbarossa's mass. Barbarossa's mass and distance give Neptune, Pluto, and the classical Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt, torque per degree of inclination, respectively equal to 0.33:0.5:1 times the torque on them, per degree, from the remainder of the solar system.

Subtraction of Barbarossa's tide, makes the Pioneer Anomaly consistent, with gravitation by a smoothly decreasing dark mass density. Barbarossa's angular momentum makes the solar system's J/M^2 value consistent with planets and other astronomical objects (see: Paul Wesson, Physical Review D, April 15 1981).

Observations of the asteroid Metis in 1851 (Graham, also Ferguson, Astronomical Journal 2:12-13, 2:43-44), are anomalous near the presumed center of mass of the sun-Barbarossa system. The approach of this center of mass, to Mars, might alter Mars' axis.

Barbarossa might escape detection in infrared, because it might have accreted or convected differently than assumed in published 4.6 billion yr extrapolations of the temperature of hyperjovians; the equilibrium temperature with sunlight at 198 AU, approximates cold interstellar dust. Automated ecliptic searches might reject a double planet with atypical proper motion. The unexplained clustering of Pdot/P, near the value of the Hubble parameter, vitiates the determination of Solar acceleration from pulsar timing.

version #3 (same abstract and notice)

A cold hyperjovian planet, Barbarossa, causes the "Cosmic" Microwave Background (CMB) dipole. Barbarossa+Frey+Freya, with a dark nebula, lie at the (+) CMB dipole.

Red and blue USNO-B catalog magnitudes change systematically there between c.1954 and c.1985, as does Johnson's bright star photometry c.1964 vs. Harvard magnitudes published mostly 1908. Interstellar absorption lines of the two studied nearby stars in this direction, 69 Leonis and Theta Crateris, are exceedingly strong.

My original finding in 2007 was that USNO-B Red1 & Red2 magnitudes, differing enough to be perhaps misidentifications of wanderers, outlined an orbital path there. Dots of magnitude ~ +18.5, on all relevant red online sky survey plate scans, and on a Dec. 22, 2008 photograph taken with the U. of Iowa's robotic telescope, lie within arcseconds of an e = 0.1, 202 AU, 2800 yr orbit slightly leading the (+) CMB dipole.

Our solar system resembles Epsilon Indi. The Dec. 22, 2008 photo shows Barbarossa's moon, Frey at RA 11:27:30.17, Decl -9:21:48.6. The four extant photos of Frey satisfy Kepler's second law on their long arcs, indicate binary eccentricity 0.5, binary period 20.4 or 22 yr, and binary major axis consistent with system 0.01 solar mass.

The projection of Barbarossa's orbit onto Jupiter's, follows the mean position of a Jupiter-Saturn conjunction. Claimed COBE & WMAP error bars rule out such a near (~ 2800 yr) orbit. However, only a cause within the solar system, explains the correlation, of the Maxwellian moments of the CMB anisotropy, with the plane of the ecliptic.

At 52.6 AU, the sun's gravitational field equals the maximum achievable by a proton. Barbarossa's gravity distorts the "movie screen" defined by this equation, so that an electron's gravitational potential there, thus the CMB temperature, varies. This ether boundary was revealed by anomalies in Pioneer10's transmission there.

This ether theory, and a Newtonian theory of nodal regression resonances in the outer solar system, give equal estimates of Barbarossa's mass. Barbarossa's mass/r^3 gives Neptune, Pluto, and the classical Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt, precession periods in the ratios 3::2::1. The torque on the Kuiper belt per degree of inclination, from Barbarossa, equals that from the remainder of the solar system.

Subtraction of Barbarossa's tide, makes the Pioneer Anomaly consistent, with gravitation by a smoothly decreasing dark mass density. Barbarossa's angular momentum makes the solar system's J/M^2 value consistent, with the giant planets' rotation, and other astronomical objects (see: Paul Wesson, Physical Review D, April 15 1981).

Observations of the asteroid Metis in 1851 (Graham, also Ferguson, Astronomical Journal 2:12-13, 2:43-44), are anomalous near the presumed center of mass of the sun-Barbarossa system. The approach of this center of mass, to Mars, might alter Mars' axis.

Barbarossa might escape detection in infrared, because it might have accreted or convected differently than assumed in published 4.6 billion yr extrapolations of the temperature of hyperjovians; the equilibrium temperature with sunlight at 202 AU, approximates cold interstellar dust. Gravitational collapse can begin at lower masses, for bodies composed of heavier elements, and might explain Barbarossa's and Frey's dimness. Other researchers have theorized albedos &lt; 1% for a particluar class of cool brown dwarf.

Automated ecliptic searches might reject a double planet with atypical proper motion. The unexplained clustering of Pdot/P, near the value of the Hubble parameter, vitiates the determination of Solar acceleration from pulsar timing; furthermore my own determinations from small homogeneous millisecond pulsar sets, or from the next higher pulsar period derivative, roughly confirm Barbarossa's mass/r^2, and direction.

Hi Joe, I've been thinking about the aether (never a good idea, thinking) We need massive particles stacked very close together. So I thought I'd take a look at the higgs as a possibility.

Now I've got h = c^2 / b^2 as a possible for a speed of gravity but it's only a ratio, so I can write
h = v^2 / c^2 The square root of h times c equals v.

Take the square root of h as a wavelength, then find a mass for it.
Lambda = h / mc
That will give us a mass that is 2.49 times the theoretical mass of the higgs, which is about 117 Gev (Note that if it were about 120 Gev it would be the root of barh though)

Then I thought I've got v = sqrt h *c that's very slow indeed. Can we consider it a sound in some medium? Then we could say
v = x* sqrt (k / m) but with this material, which can have particles very close together, the sqrt of k / m is going to equal c. That would mean that k is simply the mass energy of the particle, from e =mc^2

k = E*x where E is Youngs modulus but x is the wavelength of the particle so in this case wed have E = c


Youngs modulus for iron is about 1.5E 11 pa

That's as far as Ive got so far. One thing to check over, the mass of the nucleus of the iron atom is used to work out the atomic spacing of the metal. They use the proton mass rather than the neutron mass times the atomic number but the mass of a higgs, having a wavelength of the sqrt of h isn't far off that aggregate mass. I haven't checked it though as yet.