Requiem for Relativity

More
18 years 1 month ago #19066 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
The "spreading" phenomenon above isn't the "black drop effect". It may be an ether drift effect, caused by a thin layer of ether flowing around the moon. If so, the amount of spreading of a planet at occultation might depend on the lunar phase, because the lunar phase, determines the ether velocity due to Earth's orbital motion.

I found three published photos showing displacement of a lunar peak seen at the moon's edge, but to the accuracy of my measurements (with a mm ruler, sometimes by eye, from a book page) these seem to be explained by libration. I think the peak that I studied, is on the E (farside) or maybe SE rim of the Lyot crater. See Z Kopal, "A New Photographic Atlas of the Moon" (Taplinger; New York, 1971) Plate 148 p. 219; and GL Gutschewski et al, "Atlas & Gazetteer of the Near Side of the Moon" (NASA; 1971) SP-241, Plate 5-3 p. 14, Plate 38-1 p. 22. The peak is at about 50S 88E or maybe 53S 87E. (South of the main peak, is a longer, lower, double, peak, also visible at the moon's edge in Alter's lunar atlas, Plates 40 & 41, but past the edge of the frame in de Callatay. Also someone had sliced out de Callatay's photo of a Soviet moon probe's landing site.)

I drew a line through the northernmost edges of the interior shadows of two reference craters, Fraunhofer V & B. Fraunhofer V prominently straddes the nearside rim of the crater Fraunhofer. Fraunhofer B is a prominent, isolated, simple, round crater about 2/3 the diam. of Fraunhofer; its N shadow edge is at about 42S 67E. See Gutschewski, Plate 52-2 p. 35. See also Plate 523, "Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the Moon", DE Bowker & JK Hughes, NASA SP-206, 1971. A drawn USAF Mercator moon map is reprinted in FM Branley et al's "Astronomy" (1975); and in Kopal, op. cit.

D Alter, ed., "Lunar Atlas" (Dover; New York, 1964) Plate 41, shows the moon at phase 4.59d in 1938. V de Callatay, "Atlas of the Moon" (Macmillan; 1964), Plate 1, p. 98, shows the moon at phase 3.53d on Dec. 30, 1943. Alter gives the libration angles and time of observation; these agreed with the American Ephemeris. For de Callatay, I got the libration angles by assuming a 6PM observation time at Pic du Midi (roughly consistent with the terminator line, i.e. solar colongitude, compared to Alter Plate 40, and with good sky position) & interpolating in the American Ephemeris.

I considered the libration as the sum of infinitesimal rotations called "to/from" (the peak moves toward or away from Earth) and "twirling" (the moon rotates about the axis defined by the peak). Because the peak will be taken to be at 45S latitude (a good approximation for "twirling" because, luckily, the long. & lat. librations are about equal for all three Plates considered), these are easy to calculate from the regular libration angles.

"To/from" libration rapidly changes the identity of the apparent peak, by bringing other parts of the ridge into position, but luckily this libration, whether the peak is taken at 45S or 50S, differs only about a degree between the plates considered. The smallness of the differences in "to/from" libration is confirmed by measurement on the photos, using the NS length of crater Furnerius vs. its distance from the moon's edge. The identity of the peak moves only reluctantly with "twirling" libration. Because the reference craters make a line almost coplanar with the twirling axis and the Earth, to/from libration, to first approximation, doesn't disrupt their collinearity with the peak.

It appears from the 1938 American Ephemeris, that the libration published in Alter, Appendix A, is for Washington D.C. For an observation at 8PM Pacific Standard Time, of a 4.6-day-old moon, the 3000 mile distance across the US would project to half that, i.e., roughly 3/8 degree greater libration in longitude. For de Callatay's presumed 6PM observation of a 3.5-day-old moon, the 5000 mile transatlantic distance would project 1/sqrt(2), i.e., roughly 7/8 degree less libration in longitude.

So we have librations for Lick Plate #2 ( = Alter Plate 41) of long. +5.54, lat. +6.63; and for de Callatay long. +1.21, lat. +2.31. The difference in "twirl" libration is (5.54+6.63-1.21-2.31)/sqrt(2)= 6.12 degrees. (Direct measurement on the photos yielded a corroborating estimate of 5.8 degrees.) Spherical trigonometry approximations gave 33km expected displacement of the peak (northward in Alter Plate 41, vs. deCallatay), along the moon's edge, referred to the line through the reference craters where it intersects the moon's edge. The actual displacement is measured to be 31 km, using 57 km plateau-to-plateau NS diam. of the crater Fraunhofer as a yardstick.

Alter's Plate 40 (Lick Plate #1) requires about +3/4 / sqrt(2) degree geographic correction in long. lib., giving long. lib. +3.93, lat. lib. +3.76. The same peaks appear as on Alter's Plate 41. (3.93+3.76-1.21-2.31)/sqrt(2)= 2.95 degrees, giving 16km expected displacement northward vs. deCallatay, relative to the reference craters' line; measured is 13km.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 10 months ago #18745 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Abstract. Pioneer 10 tracking, and stellar occultations by Saturn's rings, reveal violations of Special Relativity, consistent with an ether boundary at about 53 A.U. from the sun.


In 2001, I remarked (Aircraft Engineering & Aerospace Technology 74:269, last two pars.) on an unexplained and unnoticed anomaly (besides the anomalous deceleration) in the Pioneer 10 Doppler data. Beginning at about 53 A.U. from the sun, the Doppler shift begins to oscillate sinusoidally with small (roughly 1 cm/s velocity equivalent) amplitude, and period one year. The phase is such, that this apparent oscillation in velocity would occur if, beyond 53 A.U., the time dilation is really the time dilation that exists when the radio signal enters the 53 A.U. boundary (not the time dilation that exists when the radio signal reaches Earth).

The occultation of a star by Saturn's rings, amounts to a test of another special-relativistic effect, the aberration of starlight. Because stars lie more than 53 A.U. away, the aberration of starlight might be expected to result, from the tangential velocity when the light enters the 53 A.U. boundary, not to result from the tangential velocity when the light reaches Earth. On the other hand, light interacts with transparent air (causing the index of refraction to differ considerably from 1) and so might interact with gas or transparent particles in Saturn's rings. So, in most parts of the rings, the aberration of starlight from an occulted star might be expected to result from the tangential velocity when the light reaches Earth, as in Special Relativity theory.

When Saturn is near quadrature with the sun, the difference in the two tangential velocities amounts to about 0.1 arcsecond of aberration. As the star moves between dense and sparse ring regions, especially near the edge of the ring, it might jump back and forth by 0.1". This was observed by Mourao & Mourilhe (A F O'D Alexander, The Planet Saturn, 1962, pp. 442-443):

"As Saturn was then near a station, with apparent motion only 1" of arc per hour...

"By 5h13m13s the immersion seemed to be complete...About 5h20m the star seemed to 'beat', i.e. to move inside, then outside the ring, a phenomenon repeated several times."

This 6.8 minutes of time, between immersion and the onset of 'beating', amounts to 0.1" of movement of the ring edge, i.e., an amplitude of 'beating' of 0.1", assuming the star moved just outside the ring.

Mourao observed from Brazil, in 1960 with an 18-inch refractor, 650 power, with a clear, stable sky. In 1920, from South Africa with a 6-inch refractor, 216 power, W Reid et al (Alexander, op. cit., pp. 346-347)(BAAJ 30:230) observed the oil-drop phenomenon at emersion from a stellar occultation by Saturn, but during immersion into the ring, Reid didn't see the 'beating', only fluctuation, a flicker, and sudden extinction. However, Saturn was only about an hour from opposition.

In 1917 (Alexander, op. cit., pp. 340-341), from Sussex with a 5-inch refractor and 100 to 250 power, J Knight noted that

"...apart from isolated moments when the air was particularly unsteady, [the occulted star] never seemed wholly to disappear." When in the Cassini division, Knight thought the star's image looked elongated. Saturn was about halfway between opposition and quadrature.

The occultation of 28 Sgr in 1989 occurred when Saturn was near opposition; neither 'beating' nor elongation were observed (J Harrington et al, Icarus 103:235). A fault of the modern occultation observations is that they tend to emphasize automated data collection which would seem to miss such unexpected effects.







Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 10 months ago #18776 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Does anyone know where I can find data on the aberration of starlight that might confirm that the direction of it, is "off" roughly 0.3 degree? That is, that the aberration vector depends on the velocity of Earth when the starlight crossed the 53 AU limit?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 10 months ago #18777 by tvanflandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Joe Keller</i>
<br />Does anyone know where I can find data on the aberration of starlight that might confirm that the direction of it, is "off" roughly 0.2 degree? That is, that the aberration vector depends on the velocity of Earth when the starlight crossed the 53 AU limit?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You have your facts and/or numbers wrong for some reason. Stellar aberration is a function of speed relative to the local gravity field, and rarely exceeds 0.01 degrees in the solar system. And nothing special happens at 53 au, which is also not any kind of limit. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 10 months ago #18779 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Do you think that the transmitter.receiver mismatch on the Cassini-Huygens mission might be worth a look, as a possible relativistic error, as I understand it did have something to do with the doppler shift?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 10 months ago #18780 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
<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 />Do you think that the transmitter.receiver mismatch on the Cassini-Huygens mission might be worth a look, as a possible relativistic error, as I understand it did have something to do with the doppler shift?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I heartily agree that someone should look at this! Thanks for your input!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.684 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum