Spatial Foreshortening and the Pioneer Anomaly

On Fri, 30 Nov 12, wrote:
similar efforts for the galaxies UGC 3789 and NGC 6264.
These galaxies are at distances of 50 Mpc and 140 Mpc respectively

Why don't you get invested enough to check the redshifts for yourself?
The answer is that the "foreshortening" formula overpredicts by thousands of km/s.

OK, these are water-maser measured galaxies and I've obtained the
papers. There is some FRW-dependence in the water-maser method but
not enough to matter here. So results for three galaxies a

NGC 4258: 7Mpc, 450 km/sec, I get 685 km/sec, 50% too high. However,
the authors point out that this galaxy has an unknown peculiar motion.

UGC 3789: 47.6Mpc, 3630 km/sec after peculiar motion removed, I get
4655 km/sec, 30% too high.

NGC 6264: 137Mpc, 10000 km/sec, I get 13400 km/sec, 35% too high.

So the solution for me is to adopt a value 35% higher for the Einstein
radius, thus 1.35 x 10^10 LY, which makes my results conform to these
low-z galaxies. Then the question is how it performs at higher z.
Its angular size calculation is quite good, but in terms of distance,
all we have to compare to is the FRW calculation, and obviously we
can't use FRW as the yardstick by which to measure alternatives.

An aspect of astronomy which is unique amongst the sciences is that we
directly look back into the distant past. But we treat this as though
we are simply looking across the room -- no thought is given to the
queering effect of distant look-back, and what might physically
distinguish long-ago epochs from our own. I'm intending a posting on
that when time & materials permit.

Eric

On 12/1/12 2:37 AM, Eric Flesch wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 12 09:00:17 GMT, Eric Flesch wrote:
the ratio of the shortfall to distance travelled is 3.6 x 10^-14.
...
20AU / ratio = 3 x 10^9 km / 4.5 x 10^10^-14 = 6.67 x 10^22 km =
7 x 10^9 LY, close to the standard Einstein radius of 10^10 LY.

Argh, I used the wrong value for the ratio. Using the right value:

20AU / ratio = 3 x 10^9 km / 3.6 x 10^-14 = 8.33 x 10^22 km =
8.8 x 10^9 LY, close to the 10^10 LY Einstein radius.

I tried to be careful, sorry for the mess,
Eric.

Your idea of 1/z universe may be comparable
to the concept of momentum space
established in solid state physics.
z is real space
and
1/z is momentum space.
Have you thought of it in those terms?
RDS

On Dec 1, 2:38*am, Eric Flesch wrote:

[...]

So the solution for me is to adopt a value 35% higher for the Einstein
radius, thus 1.35 x 10^10 LY, which makes my results conform to these
low-z galaxies. *Then the question is how it performs at higher z.
Its angular size calculation is quite good, but in terms of distance,
all we have to compare to is the FRW calculation, and obviously we
can't use FRW as the yardstick by which to measure alternatives.

What does it matter what number you use when it is an empirical fact
that redshift is not a linear function of distance?

[...]

On 11/27/12 2:07 AM, wrote:
On Monday, November 26, 2012 10:55:11 AM UTC-5, Eric Flesch wrote:
The sign of the Pioneer anomaly is
backward -- such an ugly fact, as they say.

It's interesting that the "fact" that motivated the theory is now an ugly contradiction.

CM


Free body physical analysis of such a fact
(in this case the positive acceleration cH)
would indicate the possibility of opposing component forces
expressed as negative acceleration.
Reported component Pioneer
thermal recoil negative acceleration error bars
do not absolutely exclude other negative forces.
One candidate is a negative force due to
Pioneer traveling through space vacuum viscosity.
Space vacuum viscosity (momentum transferred per area)
is typically discussed in:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3165
In this paper, such a vacuum viscosity is expressed as
vacuum viscosity = h*entropy density/(4*pi))
Pioneer or any other object traveling through
this universe vacuum viscosity
would have a negative acceleration
due to their momentum transfer with the space vacuum
and relative to their area/mass
and may in aggregate match the positive universal cH

RDS

In article ,
Eric Flesch writes:
However, high-precision measurements of the Galilean
satellites would demonstrate the presence of the redshift,

What about tracking of the Galileo and Cassini spacecraft?

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

On Tue, 18 Dec 12, Steve Willner wrote:
Eric Flesch writes:
However, high-precision measurements of the Galilean
satellites would demonstrate the presence of the redshift,

What about tracking of the Galileo and Cassini spacecraft?

The problem is to detect a 10^-10sec anomaly in their signals when
their orbits are not well defined (3-body or n-body orbits). Pioneer
presented a well-defined baseline because it coasted for years without
thrusters, and a beeper on the surface of Io/Europa would similarly
develop an orbital baseline over some years.

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:19:07 AM UTC-6, Eric Flesch wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 12, Steve Willner wrote:

Eric Flesch writes:

However, high-precision measurements of the Galilean

satellites would demonstrate the presence of the redshift,



What about tracking of the Galileo and Cassini spacecraft?



The problem is to detect a 10^-10sec anomaly in their signals when

their orbits are not well defined (3-body or n-body orbits). Pioneer

presented a well-defined baseline because it coasted for years without

thrusters, and a beeper on the surface of Io/Europa would similarly

develop an orbital baseline over some years.

Binary stars, eg the Hulse Taylor pulsar, and objects in the vicinity of Sgr. A* are excellent tests of what has been proposed. No dice.

On Thu, 29 Nov 12 15:28:56 GMT, Eric Gisse wrote:
Except that redshift as a straight linear function of distance is very well known to be wrong. There was a nice little Nobel in physics recently awarded on this.

Could you give a reference to this? I would like to read all about it.

[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- mjh]

On Mar 12, 4:25*pm, news
wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 12 15:28:56 GMT, Eric Gisse wrote:
Except that redshift as a straight linear function of distance is very well known to be wrong. There was a nice little Nobel in physics recently awarded on this.

Could you give a reference to this? I would like to read all about it.

[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- mjh]

http://supernova.lbl.gov/

The deviation from linearity (no dark energy) has both a strong
observational and theoretical basis.

Also:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...r-lecture.html