Requiem for Relativity

Hi Jim, The 'force of gravity' is an effect caused by the graviton capture process and graviton cycle. It takes an exchange of ENERGY to create MASS in motion which is caused by the FTL circulation of gravitons. I hope my explanation helps. John

Solar System Acceleration from Pulsar Timing

Using the millisecond pulsars in Taylor's 1995 catalog, I've made my own estimate of our Solar System's acceleration. Pdot was given for 31 of these, but, to get a more homogeneous group of pulsars, I considered only the eight whose Pdot/P ranges from 0.23/10^17 to 0.36 (I'll drop the /10^17 from now on, in this post). There were clusters of three at 0.36 and two at 0.23.

The nearest (in Pdot/P) other pulsars, to these eight, had Pdot/P = 0.48, 0.20, 0.19 & 0.18. However, the last three became 0.093, 0.175 & 0.058 after subtracting the Shklovskii correction term for transverse speed. This put them even farther from the group of eight. Only one of the group of eight, had known proper motion; its Shklovskii correction was almost negligible (0.333 --> 0.325). So, I applied no Shklovskii corrections to the group of eight.

The correlation coefficient with the cosine of the angle with (l,b) = (264.31,+48.05) (Lineweaver's estimate of the heliocentric CMB dipole, ArXiv.org, 1996) is -0.702. This is equivalent, using the line of best fit for acceleration vs. cosine, to an acceleration toward the (+) CMB dipole, 1/8 of what the Barbarossa system should cause. Remarkably, this acceleration equals the centripetal galactic acceleration in magnitude, though the latter should not be observed if this region of the galaxy rotates as a solid disk. Searching, the best correlation was -0.813 (sigma = approx. 2.54, p = 1%), with (l,b) = (304,+54).

Joe, do you think this indicates the Barbarossa system is less massive than you thought, more distant, or both?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nemesis</i>
<br />Joe, do you think this indicates the Barbarossa system is less massive than you thought, more distant, or both?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

(Regarding Barbarossa detection from pulsar timing)

In my foregoing study, I started with such a narrow range of Pdot/P, that even if the correlation, with the cosine of the angle to Barbarossa, had been perfect, the implied mass would have been only 1/6 what I estimate (from outer solar system precession resonances, the CMB dipole strength, the variation of the Pioneer 10/11 anomalous acceleration, & Paul Wesson's J/M^2 relation). I chose a densely populated but narrow range of Pdot/P, to get a homogeneous sample of objects (objects resembling each other).

The correlation coefficient confirms the acceleration direction (toward the CMB dipole) to roughly sigma = sqr(8-3)*0.5*ln((1+0.702)/(1-0.702)) = 1.95; p = 5%, two-tailed. The implied mass, 1/8 what I predict for the Barbarossa system, is only a lower bound for the actual mass.

Suppose I want to know the effect of nutrition on height. Many factors affect height. In medical studies, these are removed by limiting the study to a homogeneous group, e.g. Danish men. What if the only thing I know about the men, is their height? Height isn't the best criterion for choosing, but it's my only option. So, I study men between 5'4" & 5'6", excluding most European and African men, and studying mainly Asian men, a more homogeneous group. I find that nutrition indeed correlates positively with height; 5'6" men are significantly better nourished than 5'4" men. Of course I find that nutrition makes a difference of less than two inches. This is an underestimate because I excluded tall and short men from my study. If I had excluded no one, I might have had so much scatter, from Pygmies & Watusis, that I would not have detected a significant correlation of nutrition with height, at all.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Has anyone here explained why gravity is considered some kind of energy rather than a force? It seems to me gravity has always been a force and how the idea of energy got into the force is not clear. I hope this is not too confusing for this thread or off the main topic.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think I might have a answer you can see it at the DARKMATTER, REPLICATION, GRAVITY WAVES, WORMHOLES
topic

It might be that electrons and positrons spinning at the speed of light in the intera of the proton distort space time and produce gravity waves?

MARX

[Jim] "Has anyone here explained why gravity is considered some kind of energy rather than a force? It seems to me gravity has always been a force and how the idea of energy got into the force is not clear."

Jim,

Gravity comprises several related concepts:
gravitational force
gravitational acceleration
gravitational energy

So trying to say that gravity is energy rather than force (or vice versa) is a false dichotomy.

===
Regards,
LB