The distance to Sgr A*, Hubble's Constant, and Pioneer drift

It has not escaped my attention that one cannot revise the distance to
SgrA* without revising the Cepheid scale and with it the value of
Hubble's constant, and I have been revising the numerical parameters
describing the teleconnection cosmology.

There is some reason to think the "best" standard distance for SgrA* may
be nearer to 7.5kpc, rather than 8kpc - not least imv that I think this
is the distance at which SgrA* must be if it stationary at the galactic
barycentre as I would expect of such a massive object, rather than
bouncing up and down through the galactic plane. At this distance the
solar velocity would be 227km/s, rather than 242km/s.

There is a certain flexibility in fitting the rotation curve, but I find
I get a reasonable fit based on the teleconnection with a distance of
6kpc. At this distance the true solar velocity would be 181km/s, and the
illusory part of Doppler velocity would ~55km/s, making an apparent
solar velocity of ~235km/s, consistent with observations based on
Doppler.

If one revises down the Cepheid scale proportionately, by 20%, then one
needs to revise up Hubble's constant by 25%. The current popular value
of 71 then becomes 88. This ties in with two other predictions of the
teleconnection, that the Pioneer acceleration is Hc, and the
characteristic MOND acceleration is Hc/8. The measured Pioneer drift is
2.92+-0.44 x 10^-18 s/s^2, while the value corresponding to H0=71 is
2.33 x 10^-18/s, marginally consistent, but not close. After revising H0
upward by 25% one finds 2.91 x 10^-18 /s, extremely close to the Pioneer
value (I didn't understand the error bounds quoted by JPL; as I recall
their measurements appeared much more accurate). One also finds the
precise value of the measured characteristic MOND acceleration, H0c/8 =
1 x 10^-8 cm/s^2.

It is also necessary to revise the age of the universe. Using H0=88,
together with Omega=1.9, which I had from supernova fits to a no Lambda
model, I get from Ned Wright's calculator an age of 12.85 Gyr, just
under the age I get for a standard Lambda model with Omega = 3, i.e.
13.3 Gyr. That's a little short on the age of the oldest stars in the
Milky way, 13.4+-0.8, but within bounds and none of these figures can be
all that precise. What is probably more important is that the predicted
age now agrees well with the age necessary to the observed proton-
neutron ratio which is quite tightly constrained by the rate of
expansion during big bang nucleosynthesis.

I haven't worked out the effect on the Great Attractor, but one
estimates that we are not moving quite so fast toward M31 and that the
Great Attractor will be not quite so great after making all corrections.
If it wasn't all so darn complicated, what I would really like to do is
work out the effect on WMAP and see if I could account for the
alignments in the data.

Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email

On 22 Mar, 11:40, Oh No wrote:

If one revises down the Cepheid scale proportionately, by 20%, then one
needs to revise up Hubble's constant by 25%. The current popular value
of 71 then becomes 88. This ties in with two other predictions of the
teleconnection, that the Pioneer acceleration is Hc, ...

I thought when we last discussed the Pioneer anomaly
you finally agreed that the classical prediction was
A_p = 2 H v where v is the speed of the craft? You
said your theory then gave a value half of the
classical version.

The prediction is about 3 orders less than is measured
which is comparable to v/c hence Anderson et al note
the similarity of Ap to Hc but only as a coincidence.

George

Thus spake "
On 22 Mar, 11:40, Oh No wrote:

If one revises down the Cepheid scale proportionately, by 20%, then one
needs to revise up Hubble's constant by 25%. The current popular value
of 71 then becomes 88. This ties in with two other predictions of the
teleconnection, that the Pioneer acceleration is Hc, ...

I thought when we last discussed the Pioneer anomaly
you finally agreed that the classical prediction was
A_p = 2 H v where v is the speed of the craft? You
said your theory then gave a value half of the
classical version.

No, I recognised that I had been in error when I had previously said
that I calculated half of the classical version, and that I needed to
revise my argument. The correct argument turned out to be much simpler.
I can't remember if I posted it here. I had overlooked it because of a
trivial mistake in signs, a particular bugbear of mine. When the
classical momentum of pioneer is parallel displaced to an observer on
earth it obeys

p_observed/a(t1)^2 = p_actual/a^2(t0)

Where t0 is the time when lock is lost. Then

p_observed = (1 + H0*(t1 - t0)) p_actual

So what is measured is a frequency drift toward the blue. My confusion
arose because the sign is opposite to the cosmological redshift which
applies to photon momentum between emission and reception, but which is
negligible here.

Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email

On 22 Mar, 13:59, Oh No wrote:
Thus spake "
On 22 Mar, 11:40, Oh No wrote:

If one revises down the Cepheid scale proportionately, by 20%, then one
needs to revise up Hubble's constant by 25%. The current popular value
of 71 then becomes 88. This ties in with two other predictions of the
teleconnection, that the Pioneer acceleration is Hc, ...

I thought when we last discussed the Pioneer anomaly
you finally agreed that the classical prediction was
A_p = 2 H v where v is the speed of the craft? You
said your theory then gave a value half of the
classical version.

No, I recognised that I had been in error when I had previously said
that I calculated half of the classical version, and that I needed to
revise my argument. The correct argument turned out to be much simpler.
I can't remember if I posted it here. I had overlooked it because of a
trivial mistake in signs, a particular bugbear of mine. When the
classical momentum of pioneer is parallel displaced to an observer on
earth it obeys

p_observed/a(t1)^2 = p_actual/a^2(t0)

Where t0 is the time when lock is lost. Then

p_observed = (1 + H0*(t1 - t0)) p_actual

So what is measured is a frequency drift toward the blue. My confusion
arose because the sign is opposite to the cosmological redshift which
applies to photon momentum between emission and reception, but which is
negligible here.

What is t1? Lock times are tricky because cycle
slips could occur but contacts usually lasted
around 4 hours from memory.

If the above equation relates to a single contact,
how do you translate that for the fit over many
years?

George

Thus spake "
On 22 Mar, 13:59, Oh No wrote:
Thus spake "
On 22 Mar, 11:40, Oh No wrote:

If one revises down the Cepheid scale proportionately, by 20%, then one
needs to revise up Hubble's constant by 25%. The current popular value
of 71 then becomes 88. This ties in with two other predictions of the
teleconnection, that the Pioneer acceleration is Hc, ...

I thought when we last discussed the Pioneer anomaly
you finally agreed that the classical prediction was
A_p = 2 H v where v is the speed of the craft? You
said your theory then gave a value half of the
classical version.

No, I recognised that I had been in error when I had previously said
that I calculated half of the classical version, and that I needed to
revise my argument. The correct argument turned out to be much simpler.
I can't remember if I posted it here. I had overlooked it because of a
trivial mistake in signs, a particular bugbear of mine. When the
classical momentum of pioneer is parallel displaced to an observer on
earth it obeys

p_observed/a(t1)^2 = p_actual/a^2(t0)

Where t0 is the time when lock is lost. Then

p_observed = (1 + H0*(t1 - t0)) p_actual

So what is measured is a frequency drift toward the blue. My confusion
arose because the sign is opposite to the cosmological redshift which
applies to photon momentum between emission and reception, but which is
negligible here.

What is t1? Lock times are tricky because cycle
slips could occur but contacts usually lasted
around 4 hours from memory.

t1 is the time when a signal is observed on Earth.

If the above equation relates to a single contact,
how do you translate that for the fit over many
years?

Sorry, I was ambiguous. I was referring to the loss of radar lock. While
radar lock is maintained the matter on Pioneer has particular defined
classical relationship with matter on earth. Once it is lost, that
relationship is lost too. Nothing changes with respect to the physics
obeyed by Pioneer, but the relationship between reference frames defined
at Pioneer and at Earth is altered.


Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email

"Oh No" wrote in message
...
Thus spake "
On 22 Mar, 13:59, Oh No wrote:
.....
No, I recognised that I had been in error when I had previously said
that I calculated half of the classical version, and that I needed to
revise my argument. The correct argument turned out to be much simpler.
I can't remember if I posted it here. I had overlooked it because of a
trivial mistake in signs, a particular bugbear of mine. When the
classical momentum of pioneer is parallel displaced to an observer on
earth it obeys

Fair enough but what follows still doesn't derive the
anomaly in the form A_p.

p_observed/a(t1)^2 = p_actual/a^2(t0)

Where t0 is the time when lock is lost. Then

p_observed = (1 + H0*(t1 - t0)) p_actual

So what is measured is a frequency drift toward the blue. My confusion
arose because the sign is opposite to the cosmological redshift which
applies to photon momentum between emission and reception, but which is
negligible here.

What is t1? Lock times are tricky because cycle
slips could occur but contacts usually lasted
around 4 hours from memory.

t1 is the time when a signal is observed on Earth.

If the above equation relates to a single contact,
how do you translate that for the fit over many
years?

Sorry, I was ambiguous. I was referring to the loss of radar lock. While
radar lock is maintained the matter on Pioneer has particular defined
classical relationship with matter on earth. Once it is lost, that
relationship is lost too. Nothing changes with respect to the physics
obeyed by Pioneer, but the relationship between reference frames defined
at Pioneer and at Earth is altered.

So what does that mean? Perhaps you are saying that
during any one contact there would be no apparent
anomaly (though of course it is too small to check)
and that the 'acceleration' is in the form of discrete
steps in apparent velocity that occur between the end
of one contact and the beginning of the next.

If that is the case, the apparent speed error must be
frozen into the system at the signal acquisition time
and hence independent of the duration of the contact.
To look like a constant acceleration, the error must
also be proportional to the time since the start of
the mission and independent of the time since the last
contact. Your equations only contain lock times, not
the time since the mission start.

You say above that you cannot remember if you posted
it and certainly I have never seen any derivation at
all that explained your claim.

Can you start with a clear set of definitions and show
the derivation fully through to getting A_p = H_0 * c ?
From what I have seen so far, you aren't going to be
able to do that because nothing in any of your equations
relates to the mission time but you hev never posted the
whole thing, just unconnected snippets.

George

Thus spake George Dishman
"Oh No" wrote in message
...
Sorry, I was ambiguous. I was referring to the loss of radar lock. While
radar lock is maintained the matter on Pioneer has particular defined
classical relationship with matter on earth. Once it is lost, that
relationship is lost too. Nothing changes with respect to the physics
obeyed by Pioneer, but the relationship between reference frames defined
at Pioneer and at Earth is altered.

So what does that mean? Perhaps you are saying that
during any one contact there would be no apparent
anomaly (though of course it is too small to check)
and that the 'acceleration' is in the form of discrete
steps in apparent velocity that occur between the end
of one contact and the beginning of the next.

No, I don't think so.

If that is the case, the apparent speed error must be
frozen into the system at the signal acquisition time
and hence independent of the duration of the contact.
To look like a constant acceleration, the error must
also be proportional to the time since the start of
the mission and independent of the time since the last
contact. Your equations only contain lock times, not
the time since the mission start.

It must be linear with the time since start of mission, not proportional
to it. I have it as proportional to the time since loss of radar lock.

Can you start with a clear set of definitions and show
the derivation fully through to getting A_p = H_0 * c ?
From what I have seen so far, you aren't going to be
able to do that because nothing in any of your equations
relates to the mission time but you hev never posted the
whole thing, just unconnected snippets.

I'll work on something.

Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email

Oh No wrote:
There is some reason to think the "best" standard distance for SgrA* may
be nearer to 7.5kpc, rather than 8kpc
.....
I get a reasonable fit based on the teleconnection with a distance of
6kpc.

If you decrease the GC distance by 20%, you decrease the globular
cluster distances by the same factor. That decreases the stellar
luminosity at the main sequence turnoff by 40%, mass at the turnoff by
about 12%, and increases the stellar age by something like 25% or 3
Gyr. That seems uncomfortable.

I'm still unclear on what your predictions say about radial
velocities. If there's a cluster of stars at the GC that has a true
average radial velocity of zero and radial velocity dispersion of 100
km/s, what values will be measured by standard Doppler techniques at
Earth?

Thus spake Steve Willner
Oh No wrote:
There is some reason to think the "best" standard distance for SgrA* may
be nearer to 7.5kpc, rather than 8kpc
....
I get a reasonable fit based on the teleconnection with a distance of
6kpc.

If you decrease the GC distance by 20%, you decrease the globular
cluster distances by the same factor. That decreases the stellar
luminosity at the main sequence turnoff by 40%, mass at the turnoff by
about 12%, and increases the stellar age by something like 25% or 3
Gyr. That seems uncomfortable.

Interesting. I have other reasons for thinking my original estimate may
be a little much. There is quite a lot of balancing to be done, but some
flexibility because error margins are not that tight.

I'm still unclear on what your predictions say about radial
velocities. If there's a cluster of stars at the GC that has a true
average radial velocity of zero and radial velocity dispersion of 100
km/s, what values will be measured by standard Doppler techniques at
Earth?

It's not a simple relationship, but the illusory component of radial
velocity decreases toward the galactic centre. Unfortunately, I don't
have a precise general solution, and toward the centre it will depend on
mass distribution. ATM I am still working with estimates. At our
distance the illusory component is about 25% of the true distance. As
the sun is moving toward the galactic centre at about 10km/s, I believe
that will contribute about 2.5km/s, which will be an offset for the
average velocity of the cluster. For the velocity dispersion, I think
there will be at most 10% illusory component.

I have started to look at globular clusters, and there is an interesting
trend in the rotational velocities which appears to confirm this. The
apparent average rotational velocity goes from about 50km/s retrograde
for clusters far from the galactic centre to about 100km/s prograde near
the galactic centre. Very preliminary calculations - don't put too much
on them just yet.

Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email

If there's a cluster of stars at the GC that has a true
average radial velocity of zero and radial velocity dispersion of 100
km/s, what values will be measured by standard Doppler techniques at
Earth?

Oh No wrote:
It's not a simple relationship, but the illusory component of radial
velocity decreases toward the galactic centre. Unfortunately, I don't
have a precise general solution, and toward the centre it will depend on
mass distribution. ATM I am still working with estimates. At our
distance the illusory component is about 25% of the true distance. As
the sun is moving toward the galactic centre at about 10km/s, I believe
that will contribute about 2.5km/s, which will be an offset for the
average velocity of the cluster. For the velocity dispersion, I think
there will be at most 10% illusory component.

It won't have escaped you that I was describing the maser technique
for determining Galactic center distance. If you want the distance to
be smaller, the observed radial velocity _dispersion_ has to be
_larger_ than the true radial velocity dispersion. The magnitude of
the radial velocity itself is irrelevant for the distance
determination.