Re: physics for ex-farmers

Oh No <notI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Well the papers are with the institute of physics. It's got past the
editor and the web tracking page tells me that two referees have felt
unable to report,

Isn't that remarkable?
OK, I know they aren't paid, but a quick rejection doesn't take long.

but it has been with a third for about 10 days now,
so
presumably he is having a shot.

Or is on holiday, marking papers, or hasn't yet got round to looking at
it.

I expect it to take at least a couple
of
months before he reports.

Yes.

Meanwhile I come more and more to the feeling that I am still missing a
vital piece of the jigsaw concerning the Pioneer acceleration and MOND.
I am reasonably happy that the analysis given is basically right, and I
am pretty convinced that I now know how to extend it to the Milky Way.
The teleconnection removes the undetermined interpolation function from
MOND, and gives a better fit with data in the intermediate regime than
MOND, but I am still having trouble with the solar system.

I don't think there is anything that conclusively shows this, but the
indications seem to be that if the doppler anomaly is present in the
inner solar system it would have been picked up in other measurements
than Pioneer.

I don't know how many times I have to tell you that this is unlikely.
Firstly the adjustment must surely be cyclical so that a body arriving
in the same relative position/velocity will always show the same
classical position. After all you have shown the classical
correspondence.

So the only sensible detector (emitter) would be an artificial satellite
orbiting one of the planets and from that spot the minute drift
depending on its distance from earth. Trouble is you have a myriad
corrections to make. Planetary gravity will slow clocks, there will be
(true) doppler every rotation, the satellite will probably change
temperature and make regular rocket bursts to point the
satellite/equipment at interesting objects. There will be solar wind
effects and (probably) planetary magnetic fields all trying to move the
satellite.

Compare that to pioneer. Its pretty well a dead satellite of small x-
sectional area with no fuel, no planetary interference, spin stabilised
so its dish points at the inner solar system as it traverses the far
empty outer reaches of the solar system. Just to communicate (probably
at a data rate of only a few bits a second) very accurate corrections
have to be made to the earth transmitter and receiver so signals can be
phase locked at *precisely the correct frequency* for long enough to
transfer the data.

Possibly a MONDian anomaly should have been picked up in
the Earths motion from Pioneer, although I think the analysis shows
that
isn't the case.

Maybe.

Trouble is, while the measurements are extremely accurate, they are not
at all simple, which makes analysis difficult, especially for a mathmo
with no great background in physics and almost none in engineering.

Quite. Like physicists, engineers can often quickly find their data
actually showed something else....

But I think the fundamental problem is that I still can't state clearly
the condition under which the anomalous shift is observed. I have gone
back to thinking that it has to do with continuous measurement in a
reference frames. As it seems to me everything in the inner solar
system
contained in well defined reference frame, defined by classical
motions.

On average it is, as I pointed out before, bodies return to the same
relative position rather frequently and you show that in this situation
mond (which is a correction to redshift) SUPPORTS THE CLASSICAL
NEWTONIAN ORBITS. That is, your correction isn't a correction but a
refinement. It pretty well only applies to bodies travelling close to
lightspeed.

Hmmm...
Have you considered looking at any anomalies associated with
superluminal jets from the black holes in galactic nuclei and/or
supernovae? I have a memory that these don;t quite add up properly
either.

Under such circumstances quantum wave functions are constantly
collapsing to yield classical motions, and with that we should expect
also classical Doppler measurements.

This idea of collapse is a crutch you should have put in its rightful
place by now. We see classical doppler because the f*cking bodies are
actually where newton said they would be. The only thing being modified
is the light in passage from the body to us. These two events are
entangled with the communicating light beam. A complex body, like ay a
bacterium or speck of dust, has a myriad of possible states but only a
small number close to classical are probable. You can plug your system
in and this will not change as you have shown the classical
correspondence.

For a distant galaxy, there is no way it can be considered as part of
the same classical reference frame as the solar system, and under such
circumstances I expect an anomalous shift, yielding the MONDian law.

The shift is NOT anomalous, only the conventional way of interpreting
it. Its like someone with no knowledge of GR putting an anomalous shift
in a gravitational field. Its only anomalous if you misinterpret it.

My original thought was that Pioneer was not bound to the solar system,
ergo the anomalous shift, and I have gone back to thinking this is
probably the answer.

Bollocks....
Everything will obey the same laws....

But if that is the case I should be able to write
down a clear criterion as to why Pioneer cannot be treated as a
classical motion in the solar system. As you remember, I thought it was

Aaargh! Its path IS CLASSICAL.
Only the doppler shift isn't 'classical'.
Just like stars in the mondian range of a galaxy, they are in fact
orbiting newtonianally with the galaxy mass and distribution being as
seen and NOT requiring dark matter (which ain't there).

because it was in a non-bound orbit, a solution much scorned by Oz. But
I don't think it is as simple as that, because it raises the issue of
why bound orbits in the Milky way exhibit a shift, whereas those in the
solar system don't.

They don't exhibit any more shift than mond, and they actually orbit
newtonianally. The solar system bodies are measured locally, in the
local frame, as they return to the same position (actually never really
leave it).

That's when I started expecting the shift would be present even in
bound
orbits in the solar system. I can't fully write off this possibility,
because I can't find a clear test, but given the uses to which Doppler
has been put it now seems less likely that it would not have been
noticed.

See (well) above.

Meanwhile I have found indication within the Galaxy which may yield a
clear result. The distance to the Pleiades has been measured by
parallax
using the Hipparcos satellite. This is not consistent with other
determinations which use Doppler as part of the method. It is about 10%

lower. They now think the Hipparcos measurement was in error (will be
repeated with greater accuracy by Gaia, due for launch in 2011). But if

true orbital velocities are less than currently thought, the other
method would also give a lower result. Haven't calculated yet,

Unfortunately not a prediction then ...

but I am

moving to Cambridge this month and mean to settle down to it after the
move.

You have a job I hope?

If the Hipparcos meausurement turns out to be right, it will
alter
the Cepheid scale and increase Hubble's constant by 10%, much closer
the
value of Hc given by Pioneer, and I will get a better fit with big bang

nucleosynthesis too.

There, you see. You worry too much ...

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.



.

Relevant Pages

  • physics for ex-farmers
    ... vital piece of the jigsaw concerning the Pioneer acceleration and MOND. ... but I am still having trouble with the solar system. ... Trouble is, while the measurements are extremely accurate, they are not ... contained in well defined reference frame, ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: Orbiting planet
    ... > A frame of reference is a universe created by Big Bang theory. ... An assembly such as the Solar System ... yet it is moving at a speed close to ...
    (sci.physics)