Re: Farmers in orbit
- From: "Oh No" <notI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 10 Jul 2006 04:37:01 -0700
Thus spake Oz <Oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Oh No <notI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
All right then, I take it back. As far as I can see Doppler Navigation
Systems will not result in a MONDian shift. There is a fundamental
difference between light from a distant star, in which the initial
state is on the star, and two way Doppler, which is essentially locked
to a source on Earth. Hence, the MONDian shift I was predicting in the
solar system may well still be there, and has not been measured at all.
Hmmm....
But this means I must have been wrong about Pioneer. It implies Pioneer
has a real acceleration not an illusory one. Actually this may not be
at all unreasonable. The path of pioneer will take it into deep space,
where the Hubble component of redshift will dominate over the velocity
shift. As I have been saying, the Hubble component represents half the
recession velocity of standard, so the path is different from the
standard path.
I think you must try to be clearer or perhaps less confused.
So do I. Unfortunately first attempts at identifying and expressing
ideas tend to come out like this. That is why I appreciate you picking
at them. It helps to push me to finding better ways of expressing them.
Once clear enough, I have a better chance of finding the right
equations. Likewise, of course, if I find the right equations, I will
have a better chance of expressing what they say.
1) Pioneer anomalous acceleration is sunwards (possibly earthwards).
yes.
2) Mondian anomalous velocity is towards an artificially defined origin,
this is usually the galactic centre of the galaxy concerned.
None of these shifts reflect an actual velocity, they are just
previously unmodelled terms in redshift for an expanding universe.
This is what I thought, but I am now challenging it. I have started to
think that the Pioneer acceleration may be real. It may come about
because the Hubble shift represents only half the velocity of recession
which it would in the standard theory. Note that in the standard theory
Hubble shift represents a recession velocity exactly equal to Doppler
velocity in a local reference frame. But if recession velocity is
halved, that also may show up as an acceleration toward the origin.
Within bound systems big-bang redshift is not seen because we do not
exist within a uniform universe and have been mutually interacting via
the vastly stronger force of gravity for some ten billion years,
destroying traces of expansion characteristics.
I think it is not seen because in the standard model it is locally
exactly equivalent to Doppler shift. In expanding coordinates bound
systems accelerate inward at a rate which exactly cancels expansion.
Light, however, is effectively unconstrained by gravity (and here I am
returning to one of your earliest visualisations). In a sense it is
flowing against the expansion at all times. This generates this very
tiny extra term in the doppler/redshift. Of course that's no problem to
astronomers, it simply gets (wrongly) rolled into the 'conventional'
doppler/redshift terms.
So the trick should be for me to unroll it, given that the extra term
in
red shift is no longer exactly equal to Doppler.
but
[and here I find not quite sure of your model]
The clock on pioneer is running fast.
As far as two way doppler is concerned, the clock on Pioneer is locked
to a maser here on earth, as with all two way doppler satellite
navigation (like Cassini).
This is because the photon (in effect) popped out of (part of) our
universe for 24 hours (as it travelled to earth) and so lost 24 hours of
expansion (although it presumably did see 25 light hours of spatial
expansion).
It should be subjected to 24 hours expansion.
and but
Distant galaxies have their rotation curves measured. Here we take the
distance of the galaxy as the redshift of the central core and assign
velocity doppler to the offset. We see a blueshift on one side and a
redshift on the other side and interpret this as a rotation. The outer
reaches of galaxies are rotating in lockstep as a rigid disk. This extra
doppler shift should be interpreted, not as a velocity, but as the extra
term you put on doppler/redshift.
Yes, but not directly so. It should be a term due to an eigenstate of
acceleration toward the centre of the distant galaxy. I want to look at
this again, but I think I am best to get the Pioneer argument right
first.
=================
Now I'm not very convinced your argument produces extra blueshift on one
side and extra redshift on the other. However I think there should be an
extra blueshift as seen from the centre for all stars in that galaxy. To
an extent this would look like an extra inwards acceleration term that
could well be expressed as required above when seen from a distance. The
theory and maths for this would need to be very precise, clear, accurate
AND FIXED.
Fixed, true. I keep wishing I was a better differential geometer. I
feel
pretty shaky, I confess.
The other possibility is that it is an actual real acceleration.
It is claimed that this cannot be so within our solar system because we
would see the planets follow different paths. Personally I am not
completely convinced by this. I presume they know m(solar)G to very high
precision but I'll bet that with newton is not accurate enough. I'll bet
there are a whole flock of adjustments that need to be made and not just
corrections for the effect of the gas giants. I'm not completely
convinced you cannot hide such a low level acceleration in corrective
terms.
No, I think this is pretty accurate, from the orbits of the planets.
equivalent real acceleration) is about -21 km and -76From Anderson "For Earth and Mars, delta-r (change in orbit due to an
km. However, the Viking data determines the difference
between the Mars and Earth orbital radii to about a 100
m accuracy, and their sum to an accuracy of about 150
m. The Pioneer effect is not seen."
===============
Anyway, it seems to me that its either a real acceleration everywhere,
or its a figment of incorrectly modelled shift everywhere. Given that
everything in the observable universe is bound to some extent and yet
follows a free unfettered acceleration-free geodesic to some extent, I
think you will be rightly shafted by all scientists (including me) if
you start (effectively) picking and choosing to suit what you think are
solid experimental results.
One cannot get around the fact that the pioneer effect is seen for
pioneer but not for the planets. I think a lot of scientists think the
Pioneer effect must be an unmodelled systematic error for precisely
this
reason. However, I think there has to be some effect of "slipping of
space" while it expands. This can cancel out for bound orbits, leaving
MOND as only an optical effect, but I have to get the analysis right.
===============
As originally proposed in outline (after I had pushed you towards
astronomical conundrums) the 'second order correction to
dopple/redshift' which generated an apparently phantom blueshift
produced:
1) Explained pioneer anomalous acceleration.
2) Converted galactic rotations to newtonian form using only visible-
light related mass terms. Ie MOND
3) Made the universe significantly older and thus more compatible with
observations of distant galaxy ages and old stars and clusters.
4) Removed the need for unobserved and theoretically unexplainable dark
matter and dark energy to explain (2) and (3) conventionally.
3 & 4 are still true, and in these cases the analysis is mathematically
rigorous, also give (marginally) better fit with SN Ia and no
inconsistency in CDM lensing profiles. But I can't get round the fact
that my Pioneer argument always was somewhat heuristic.
Note that the above were (and for some still are) hugely controversial
and have only become generally accepted following years/decades of
controversy, very close examination and confirmation by varied
independent sources.
They are thus data/results of the very highest confidence.
Still needing examination is the doppler shift data for the milky way
galaxy. You seem to suggest some evidence for corrections to newton
although to me this seems still unformed and preliminary.
Yes. I have done some plots, which indicate a better fit than the MOND
interpolation function, also probably no need to fiddle inclinations of
distant galaxies as did de Blok. Also hope to resolve inconsistency of
Hipparcos measurement of Pleiades parallax. My current analsysis is
that
the MOND effect is the same in the Milky Way as it is in distant
galaxies. However, I feel I must resolve the Pioneer acceleration
properly before I can be sure of MOND analysis.
Its failed:
1) Extra blueshift doesn't seem to be seen for other solar satellites
and planets. I would say this is a very low quality objection given the
poor accuracy and data.
If my current thoughts are right, it is a very low quality objection
indeed. Two way Doppler is very accurate, but the constant corrections
made to the DNS system could wipe out any effect, and in any case my
argument is that I only expect an effect when initial state for
emission
of photon is correctly modeled on distant system. I do not expect the
effect in a correctly modeled classical system (e.g. a series of beeps
at a rate of 10per sec, which is what they actually do). My problem is
that Pioneer also uses two way Doppler, so I think this effect is
either
real acceleration or modelling error. But since pioneer is going onto a
path in deep space where it's recession velocity will be half of
standard Hubble, that strongly suggests I ought to be predicting an
inward acceleration compared to standard.
2) An apparently blindingly accurate experiment with cassini that I have
as yet not evaluated. My immediate reaction is some italian lily-
guiding.
As far as I gather, Cassini is just using the same DSN (Deep Space
Network) that everything else uses.
3) Er, I'm sure there are some more....
No ageing problem for distant galaxies, which seems to be getting
progressively worse with observation.
=================
Lets make a table:
Pass given by R(eal acceleration),
and F(igment of wrong model)
Age of universe F
Galactic rotation FM
Pioneer FM
Planetary orbits F
No dark energy/matter F
===========
This does not imply non-geodesic motion. It implies that the current
idea of a purely static schwarzschild embedded somehow in an expanding
universe is dodgy, and should not be used for hyperbolic paths (except
in approx).
Hmmm....
I don't think elliptical orbits have to be modified, as that is just a
coordinate transformation. But to properly describe a hyperbolic orbit
we have to take into account that the Hubble shift represents only half
the velocity of the equivalent Doppler shift, and I think this applies
at every point of the orbit. Now I need to work out the equation.
Hmmm....
Regards
--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Farmers in orbit
- From: Oz
- Re: Farmers in orbit
- References:
- Farmers in orbit
- From: Oh No
- Re: Farmers in orbit
- From: Oz
- Farmers in orbit
- Prev by Date: Re: Squeaking owls - Malcolm?
- Next by Date: Bats
- Previous by thread: Re: Farmers in orbit
- Next by thread: Re: Farmers in orbit
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
