where did the dark matter that causes flat rotation curves in gal

In article , Craig Markwardt
wrote:

Charles Cagle writes:
In article , Craig Markwardt
wrote:

Charles Cagle writes:
Anderson (2002) does not include a solar wind velocity gradient with
latitude in the orbit propagation. There was no "adjustment" for
solar oblateness, which in any case is negligibly small under
Newtonian gravity at 5 AU where Ulysses is located.

5AU! Then it's pretty well established that one wouldn't detect the
effect from Ulysses. If it is that far away it isn't a fit instrument
upon which to base a measurement in the first place. Lack of evidence
is not evidence of lack.


Illogical argument. The planets lie both both within and beyond 5 AU.
A putative gravitational anisotropy which affects the planets will
also affect Ulysses. No such effect is seen in Ulysses tracking data.

You're being illogical. Ulysses only momentarily (compared to the time
it spends outside of the ecliptic) cuts the ecliptic, therefore it is
not likely that you'd be able to detect the effect.

This claim is unsubstantiated. Radiometric Doppler tracking is
extremely sensitive to anomalous accelerations (changes in velocity
~10^{-9} of the Sun's gravity at 1AU over 1 day), and no such
latitude-dependent anomalies are detected. You have not provided
estimates of the magnitude of the acceleration, or the size of the
region around the ecliptic where the putative accleration would apply,
so it is indeed *not* "well established that one wouldn't detect the
effect from Ulysses." You have provided no basis to say whether it
could or could not be.

You've provided no basis to say that it would be detected either. I
think that the claim is substantiated by data simply because the
gravity field is aniostropic and the greatest acceleration would lie
along the ecliptic. Most of the bodies of the solar system lie within
a few degrees of the ecliptic and that itself is data that suggests
that such region is the lowest energy state plane for the solar system.
But it isn't really the plane of the ecliptic that is of interest but
rather what I'm interested in should be defined as the gravitational
plane produced by the anisotropic nature of a monolithic gravtitational
source in the first place.

There are other bodies whose orbits lie outside of the ecliptic plane,
such as Asteroid 9969 Braille (29 deg; 1.33 AU perihelion);
19P/Borrelly (30 deg; 1.36 AU); 5381 Sekhmet (49 deg; 1 AU semi-major
axis); 10563 Izhdubar (63 deg; 1.0 AU); and of course Pallas.
Mercury's orbit lies 7 degrees of the ecliptic, and Venus's is at 3.4
deg. This is further substantiation that solar system bodies are not
constrained to the ecliptic.

There you go again erecting straw men. I never once said that the
solar system bodies are constrained to the ecliptic. I said that most
planets are within a few degrees of the ecliptic. When a planet
exlodes as did the planet which now lies as the scattered ruins which
compose the asteroid belt some of the components will certainly depart
from the elciptic. Not enough time has passed to bring them back. The
more closely the angle of their orbit to a normal to the ecliptic the
longer it will take.

Claims that high latitude asteroids could have come from an exploded
planet are unsubstantiated; they are not in the asteroid "belt."

There you go with that catchphrase 'unsubstantiated'. 'Substantiation'
is related to 'evidence' which is nothing more or less than the
subjective interpretation of the data and 'proof' (which you might link
to the concept of 'substantiation') is only an arbitrary amount of
'evidence'. Whether or not a thing is 'substantiated' turns out to be
a matter of opinion when used in the way that you have been found using
it. So, you become like a little child saying with an argumentive
companion 'is', 'is not', 'is too', 'is not' and so on and so forth.
Perhaps you could restrain yourself from such a puerile argument style
and include in your declarations that you don't accept a thing as
substantiated instead of you present technique of attempting to tie
'substantiation' to something other than mere opinion which it really
rests upon in the way that you use it.


Mercury and Venus, which are not asteroids, have the second and third
highest planetary inclinations from the ecliptic. In any case, the
definition of the ecliptic is a purely imaginary construction, namely
the plane of the earth's orbit. Even the sun's rotation axis is
inclined with respect to the plane of the ecliptic.


The fact that the planets lie primarily in a plane is not an argument
for or against a non-spherical mass distribution within the sun.

Sure it is. Below you make it an argument for a common origin. Bodies
all obtain to the lowest energy state possible; this is an axiom upon
which thermodynamics is based. The idea that all of the planetary
bodies are occupying a low energy state orbit argues strongly for
gravitational anisotropy.

Irrelevant, since all planar orbits in a central body system with the
same major/minor axes have the same energy, regardless of orientation.
Bodies "obtaining" to a different orbital inclination would need to
violate the conservation of angular momentum.

An example of an irrelevant factoid being used incorrectly.

Conservation of angular momentum is not irrelevant. Angular momentum
plays a large role in orbital mechanics.

And you're busy using it as an irrelant factoid.



As I have pointed out before, a significant non-spherical distribution
of mass within the sun would indeed affect the orbits of the planets,
because there is an additional 1/r^3 term. Radar ranging to Mars
alone constrains any non-spherical component to be negligible compared
to the total mass of the sun.

The point is that it is not negligible unless you are stark raving
blind to the idea that the components of the universe do obtain to the
lowest energy state possible. This is so obvious I can only wonder
what things you did to yourself which so utterly blocks your intuition.

This is an unsubstantiated claim. Using Newtonian mechanics I showed
that observations of earth and Mars constrain the distribution of mass
within the sun, and any anisotropies must be small. However, it is
important to note that the Sun's equatorial bulge should slightly
affect the orbits of the asteroids and Mercury, which is consistent
with both current theories of gravity and observations.

CM

A beautiful null content catchphrase 'is consistent with' is used in
any number of nonsensical papers. Comets emerging from the outer solar
system is consistent with the theory that a huge invisible ogre tosses
them at the sun for pitching practice, too.

"Consistent" and "inconsistent" are mutually exclusive adjectives.
Those experiments which are consistent with a theory are distinguished
from those which are not. Therefore, "is consistent with" is
meaningful. Interesting that your "straw man" is fantastically
nonsensical, whereas my counterexamples are based in observational
fact.

No they are not. Your examples are based upon the subjective
interpretation of data which you have confused with the data itself
supposing egotistically that you have interpreted the data correctly.

Sorry I bothered you, Craig. I thought you were sharper than it now
appears that you actually are.

Congratulations, you also have also not lived up to my expectations.
The difference is that my expectations were low.

CM

There you go, then. You intepreted the data according to your
expectations. When you do science that way it is pseudoscience and
apparently this is the process that you have become familiar with over
the years. I actually had high expectations from you but once again I
see that there is no connection between certain intellectual skill
levels and old fashion wisdom. Rarely, it seems, that they may be
found residing in a single individual. I know that history has shown
us that occasionally they are found in a single individual so I always
hold out some hope that the person I'm communicating with might be so
blessed. I see this isn't the case with you. No hard feelings from
me just disappointment.

Charles Cagle

(Aladar) writes:

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
What I suspect: the data is already a cumulative sum of residuals,
presented as a function of accumulated light time. You - all NASA related
parties - use this data to present it as a calendar day related data.
It is simply not true, but you get the verification of your bigbangology.
Which is the object of the exercise.

This conclusion is unsubstantiated. None of the effects of earth
motion, earth rotation, precession, nutation or polar motion are
cumulative in any fashion, and neither is the anomalous Pioneer
acceleration. The "calendar day" is quite simply the date of
observation, no "accumulation" was performed or required.

However, the Doppler data is 'averaged' - which I suspect is the
accumulation, adding the residuals and adding the light times, signal
travel times to match the assigned timetags. This conclusion was
substantiated by the response to my very first question, related to
the Pioneer 10 anomalous Doppler observations.

Your suspicion about the "accumulation" of light travel times is
incorrect. I performed no such accumulation. None of the earth
motion or rotation effects were accumulated. You are simply wrong.

[ Markwardt: ]
I am not insinuating any sign. I am declaring explicitly that the
received frequency was slightly higher than expected. A putative sign
error would have been hideously obvious, since all the other Doppler
terms are very strongly imprinted in the signal. Therefore your
claims are unsubstantiated, and your conclusions are irrelevant.


CM

But again: how to explain than the proposed test, made by the
authors?!

Is there a clearly defined 1. we sent this frequency, 2. we should get
this frequency and 3. we got as much higher then expected frequency -
unexplained but at least clear picture as you are trying to suggest?

Markwardt, gr-qc/0208046:
By the end of the data span in 1994, the frequency of the received
Doppler signal is higher than expected by approximately +2.7 Hz in a
single round trip.


Are you really saying that the error in JPL location determination - as
a result of cummulative error in the velocity determination - is in
order of light seconds?!

You erroneously presuppose that the change in light travel time would
be of order light seconds. There is no observational range data for
Pioneer 10, so the light travel cannot be constrained well. In fact,
the effect of 0.5 * a_P * t^2, over the 7 year time span of my
analysis would be of order 0.05 lt sec; and over the 11 year span of
the Anderson paper would be 0.1 lt sec. This level of change is not
distinguishable in the Doppler residuals, compared to other sources of
Doppler measurement error.


CM

Charles Cagle wrote:

You've provided no basis to say that it would be detected either. I
think that the claim is substantiated by data simply because the
gravity field is aniostropic and the greatest acceleration would lie
along the ecliptic. Most of the bodies of the solar system lie within
a few degrees of the ecliptic and that itself is data that suggests
that such region is the lowest energy state plane for the solar system.
But it isn't really the plane of the ecliptic that is of interest but
rather what I'm interested in should be defined as the gravitational
plane produced by the anisotropic nature of a monolithic gravtitational
source in the first place.

ILLUCID

Aladar wrote:


Are you really saying that the error in JPL location determination - as
a result of cummulative error in the velocity determination - is in
order of light seconds?!

In that case the claims that we know anything about gravity is
substantiated, and great many conclusions are irrelevant -
on the establishment side...



Since you are going away for two weeks, take a copy of
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208046 with you and study it
at length.

-Sam

In article , Craig Markwardt
wrote:

Charles Cagle writes:
In article , Craig Markwardt
wrote:

Charles Cagle writes:
Anderson (2002) does not include a solar wind velocity gradient with
latitude in the orbit propagation. There was no "adjustment" for
solar oblateness, which in any case is negligibly small under
Newtonian gravity at 5 AU where Ulysses is located.

5AU! Then it's pretty well established that one wouldn't detect the
effect from Ulysses. If it is that far away it isn't a fit instrument
upon which to base a measurement in the first place. Lack of evidence
is not evidence of lack.


Illogical argument. The planets lie both both within and beyond 5 AU.
A putative gravitational anisotropy which affects the planets will
also affect Ulysses. No such effect is seen in Ulysses tracking data.

You're being illogical. Ulysses only momentarily (compared to the time
it spends outside of the ecliptic) cuts the ecliptic, therefore it is
not likely that you'd be able to detect the effect.

This claim is unsubstantiated. Radiometric Doppler tracking is
extremely sensitive to anomalous accelerations (changes in velocity
~10^{-9} of the Sun's gravity at 1AU over 1 day), and no such
latitude-dependent anomalies are detected. You have not provided
estimates of the magnitude of the acceleration, or the size of the
region around the ecliptic where the putative accleration would apply,
so it is indeed *not* "well established that one wouldn't detect the
effect from Ulysses." You have provided no basis to say whether it
could or could not be.

You've provided no basis to say that it would be detected either. I
think that the claim is substantiated by data simply because the
gravity field is anisotropic and the greatest acceleration would lie
along the ecliptic. Most of the bodies of the solar system lie within
a few degrees of the ecliptic and that itself is data that suggests
that such region is the lowest energy state plane for the solar system.
But it isn't really the plane of the ecliptic that is of interest but
rather what I'm interested in should be defined as the gravitational
plane produced by the anisotropic nature of a monolithic gravtitational
source in the first place.

There are other bodies whose orbits lie outside of the ecliptic plane,
such as Asteroid 9969 Braille (29 deg; 1.33 AU perihelion);
19P/Borrelly (30 deg; 1.36 AU); 5381 Sekhmet (49 deg; 1 AU semi-major
axis); 10563 Izhdubar (63 deg; 1.0 AU); and of course Pallas.
Mercury's orbit lies 7 degrees of the ecliptic, and Venus's is at 3.4
deg. This is further substantiation that solar system bodies are not
constrained to the ecliptic.

There you go again erecting straw men. I never once said that the
solar system bodies are constrained to the ecliptic. I said that most
planets are within a few degrees of the ecliptic. When a planet
exlodes as did the planet which now lies as the scattered ruins which
compose the asteroid belt some of the components will certainly depart
from the elciptic. Not enough time has passed to bring them back. The
more closely the angle of their orbit to a normal to the ecliptic the
longer it will take.

Claims that high latitude asteroids could have come from an exploded
planet are unsubstantiated; they are not in the asteroid "belt."

There you go with that catchphrase 'unsubstantiated'. 'Substantiation'
is related to 'evidence' which is nothing more or less than the
subjective interpretation of the data and 'proof' (which you might link
to the concept of 'substantiation') is only an arbitrary amount of
'evidence'. Whether or not a thing is 'substantiated' turns out to be
a matter of opinion when used in the way that you have been found using
it. So, you become like a little child saying with an argumentive
companion 'is', 'is not', 'is too', 'is not' and so on and so forth.
Perhaps you could restrain yourself from such a puerile argument style
and include in your declarations that you don't accept a thing as
substantiated instead of you present technique of attempting to tie
'substantiation' to something other than mere opinion which it really
rests upon in the way that you use it.


Mercury and Venus, which are not asteroids, have the second and third
highest planetary inclinations from the ecliptic. In any case, the
definition of the ecliptic is a purely imaginary construction, namely
the plane of the earth's orbit. Even the sun's rotation axis is
inclined with respect to the plane of the ecliptic.


The fact that the planets lie primarily in a plane is not an argument
for or against a non-spherical mass distribution within the sun.

Sure it is. Below you make it an argument for a common origin. Bodies
all obtain to the lowest energy state possible; this is an axiom upon
which thermodynamics is based. The idea that all of the planetary
bodies are occupying a low energy state orbit argues strongly for
gravitational anisotropy.

Irrelevant, since all planar orbits in a central body system with the
same major/minor axes have the same energy, regardless of orientation.
Bodies "obtaining" to a different orbital inclination would need to
violate the conservation of angular momentum.

An example of an irrelevant factoid being used incorrectly.

Conservation of angular momentum is not irrelevant. Angular momentum
plays a large role in orbital mechanics.

And you're busy using it as an irrelant factoid.



As I have pointed out before, a significant non-spherical distribution
of mass within the sun would indeed affect the orbits of the planets,
because there is an additional 1/r^3 term. Radar ranging to Mars
alone constrains any non-spherical component to be negligible compared
to the total mass of the sun.

The point is that it is not negligible unless you are stark raving
blind to the idea that the components of the universe do obtain to the
lowest energy state possible. This is so obvious I can only wonder
what things you did to yourself which so utterly blocks your intuition.

This is an unsubstantiated claim. Using Newtonian mechanics I showed
that observations of earth and Mars constrain the distribution of mass
within the sun, and any anisotropies must be small. However, it is
important to note that the Sun's equatorial bulge should slightly
affect the orbits of the asteroids and Mercury, which is consistent
with both current theories of gravity and observations.

CM

A beautiful null content catchphrase 'is consistent with' is used in
any number of nonsensical papers. Comets emerging from the outer solar
system is consistent with the theory that a huge invisible ogre tosses
them at the sun for pitching practice, too.

"Consistent" and "inconsistent" are mutually exclusive adjectives.
Those experiments which are consistent with a theory are distinguished
from those which are not. Therefore, "is consistent with" is
meaningful. Interesting that your "straw man" is fantastically
nonsensical, whereas my counterexamples are based in observational
fact.

No they are not. Your examples are based upon the subjective
interpretation of data which you have confused with the data itself
supposing egotistically that you have interpreted the data correctly.

Sorry I bothered you, Craig. I thought you were sharper than it now
appears that you actually are.

Congratulations, you also have also not lived up to my expectations.
The difference is that my expectations were low.

CM

There you go, then. You intepreted the data according to your
expectations. When you do science that way it is pseudoscience and
apparently this is the process that you have become familiar with over
the years. I actually had high expectations from you but once again I
see that there is no connection between certain intellectual skill
levels and old fashion wisdom. Rarely, it seems, that they may be
found residing in a single individual. I know that history has shown
us that occasionally they are found in a single individual so I always
hold out some hope that the person I'm communicating with might be so
blessed. I see this isn't the case with you. No hard feelings from
me just disappointment.

Charles Cagle

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
Charles Cagle writes:
[ Markwardt: ]
This claim is unsubstantiated. Radiometric Doppler tracking is
extremely sensitive to anomalous accelerations (changes in velocity
~10^{-9} of the Sun's gravity at 1AU over 1 day), and no such
latitude-dependent anomalies are detected. You have not provided
estimates of the magnitude of the acceleration, or the size of the
region around the ecliptic where the putative accleration would apply,
so it is indeed *not* "well established that one wouldn't detect the
effect from Ulysses." You have provided no basis to say whether it
could or could not be.

You've provided no basis to say that it would be detected either.

*You* are the one who has claimed, either directly or indirectly, that
relativity tests using solar system bodies are incorrectly
interpretted since they do not account for the putative gravitational
anisotropy.

The effects of relativity are clearly detected in the motions of the
planets and asteroids, and in spacecraft tracking data, in some cases
with a signal to noise ratio of 10000. Spacecraft tracking is able to
detect acceleration of ~one billionth of the standard Newtonian
acceleration at 1 AU.


I guess one of the requirements of being a relativistic numbskull is
actually NOT to read what Newton wrote and especially the Scholium
section,where you get this 'Newtonian acceleration' from I do not
know,nowhere in the Principia will you find F= ma and as much as he
has to say about acceleration is ;

"I likewise call attractions and impulses, in the same sense,
accelerative, and motive; and use the words attraction, impulse or
propensity of any sort towards a centre, promiscuously, and
indifferently, one for another; considering those forces not
physically, but mathematically: wherefore, the reader is not to
imagine, that by those words, I anywhere take upon me to define the
kind, or the manner of any action, the causes or the physical reason
thereof, or that I attribute forces, in a true and physical sense, to
certain centres (which are only mathematical points); when at any time
I happen to speak of centres as attracting, or as endued with
attractive powers." Principia

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time




So the question arises: should the putative anisotropy detectable
above the noise with today's technology, or not? If not, then it's
irrelevant to the discussion of tests of relativity.


You simply can't designate yourself as anything associated with
stars,you definitely must be a theorist who knows no better about
Newton,astronomy structure and motion of the cosmos otherwise why
would you impose a definition on "Newtonian acceleration" when he
himself tells you the distinctions between acceleration as he treats
it mathematically and acceleration due to Kepler's second law.

Are you all entirely silly or is it that you must go through the
Scholium of the Principia line by line for the sake of a guy who
completely bungled absolute/relative distinctions.You have so much to
learn and unlearn that in some ways I pity you.




If the anisotropy should be detectable, then why is it not? Bear in
mind that none of the model components contain latitude dependent
terms, so neither could mask a supposed anisotropy.

I
think that the claim is substantiated by data simply because the
gravity field is anisotropic and the greatest acceleration would lie
along the ecliptic.

And, spacecraft tracking techniques are most sensitive to forces along
the plane of the ecliptic as the spacecraft passes through the plane,
since this direction is along the line of sight. You have not
provided estimates of the magnitude of the acceleration, or the size
of the region around the ecliptic where the putative accleration would
apply, so it is indeed *not* "well established that one wouldn't
detect the effect from Ulysses." You have provided no basis to say
whether it could or could not be.



Most of the bodies of the solar system lie within
a few degrees of the ecliptic and that itself is data that suggests
that such region is the lowest energy state plane for the solar system.

What the alignments of the planets suggest to your intuition is
irrelevant to the physics that may be involved.


But it isn't really the plane of the ecliptic that is of interest but
rather what I'm interested in should be defined as the gravitational
plane produced by the anisotropic nature of a monolithic gravtitational
source in the first place.


Mercury and Venus, which are not asteroids, have the second and third
highest planetary inclinations from the ecliptic. In any case, the
definition of the ecliptic is a purely imaginary construction, namely
the plane of the earth's orbit. Even the sun's rotation axis is
inclined with respect to the plane of the ecliptic.



CM

In message , Craig Markwardt
writes

Charles Cagle writes:

But it isn't really the plane of the ecliptic that is of interest but
rather what I'm interested in should be defined as the gravitational
plane produced by the anisotropic nature of a monolithic gravtitational
source in the first place.


Mercury and Venus, which are not asteroids, have the second and third
highest planetary inclinations from the ecliptic. In any case, the
definition of the ecliptic is a purely imaginary construction, namely
the plane of the earth's orbit. Even the sun's rotation axis is
inclined with respect to the plane of the ecliptic.

Sorry for the change of subject, but does anyone have a good explanation
for that? The ecliptic does define the plane of the solar system quite
well. Even Jupiter, with almost all the mass of the solar system, is in
an orbit inclined to the Sun's equator.
Obvious but probably misleading counter-example - the moons of the gas
giants are almost all in equatorial orbits.
--
"Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with
relativity"
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
Or visit Jonathan's Space Site http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk

In article , Craig Markwardt
wrote:

Charles Cagle writes:
[ Markwardt: ]
This claim is unsubstantiated. Radiometric Doppler tracking is
extremely sensitive to anomalous accelerations (changes in velocity
~10^{-9} of the Sun's gravity at 1AU over 1 day), and no such
latitude-dependent anomalies are detected. You have not provided
estimates of the magnitude of the acceleration, or the size of the
region around the ecliptic where the putative accleration would apply,
so it is indeed *not* "well established that one wouldn't detect the
effect from Ulysses." You have provided no basis to say whether it
could or could not be.

You've provided no basis to say that it would be detected either.

*You* are the one who has claimed, either directly or indirectly, that
relativity tests using solar system bodies are incorrectly
interpretted since they do not account for the putative gravitational
anisotropy.

Finally, you got it. Except that it is not putative.


The effects of relativity are clearly detected in the motions of the
planets and asteroids, and in spacecraft tracking data, in some cases
with a signal to noise ratio of 10000. Spacecraft tracking is able to
detect acceleration of ~one billionth of the standard Newtonian
acceleration at 1 AU.

So the question arises: should the putative anisotropy detectable
above the noise with today's technology, or not? If not, then it's
irrelevant to the discussion of tests of relativity.

The forces which shape a thing (like the solar system, for example) are
manifested by the appearance (structure) of the solar system itself.


If the anisotropy should be detectable, then why is it not? Bear in
mind that none of the model components contain latitude dependent
terms, so neither could mask a supposed anisotropy.

Anisotropy is detectable, it is just that you don't know what you're
looking at when it is plainer than the nose on your face.



I
think that the claim is substantiated by data simply because the
gravity field is anisotropic and the greatest acceleration would lie
along the ecliptic.

And, spacecraft tracking techniques are most sensitive to forces along
the plane of the ecliptic as the spacecraft passes through the plane,
since this direction is along the line of sight. You have not
provided estimates of the magnitude of the acceleration, or the size
of the region around the ecliptic where the putative accleration would
apply, so it is indeed *not* "well established that one wouldn't
detect the effect from Ulysses." You have provided no basis to say
whether it could or could not be.



Most of the bodies of the solar system lie within
a few degrees of the ecliptic and that itself is data that suggests
that such region is the lowest energy state plane for the solar system.

What the alignments of the planets suggest to your intuition is
irrelevant to the physics that may be involved.

Nonsense. Intuition is the fount of knowledge. Logic simply confirms
in tiny baby steps what was already evident to the prepared intellect
via intuition.




But it isn't really the plane of the ecliptic that is of interest but
rather what I'm interested in should be defined as the gravitational
plane produced by the anisotropic nature of a monolithic gravtitational
source in the first place.


Mercury and Venus, which are not asteroids, have the second and third
highest planetary inclinations from the ecliptic. In any case, the
definition of the ecliptic is a purely imaginary construction, namely
the plane of the earth's orbit. Even the sun's rotation axis is
inclined with respect to the plane of the ecliptic.



CM