A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Doppler Tests on Local Stars



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 2nd 07, 09:33 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Oh No
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 433
Default Doppler Tests on Local Stars

Thus spake Martin Hardcastle
In article ,
Oh No wrote:
A prediction of the teleconnection is that the reason for the flattening
of galaxy rotation curves is that radial velocity measured using Doppler
requires a correction due to cosmological expansion. If this is true
then the orbital velocity of the sun about the Milky Way is ~160km/s,
not ~220km/s as is usually stated


You need to worry about how these results are consistent with the
observed parallactic motion of the galactic centre -- see e.g. Reid &
Brunthaler 2004 ApJ 616 872.

Yes, I have read that paper. They use VLBI to determine the motion. It's
a bit more subtle and the analysis is a lot more complex than a simple
shift in Doppler, but they are counting interference fringes, and it is
still a quantum effect. My expectation is that whatever the
overstatement in velocity we get from Doppler measurement of globular
clusters, we will get the same overstatement from any other method which
depends on quantum wave effects. I have looked at various other methods
determining the solar orbit, such as calculations from the motion of
open clusters. We are a long way from being able to do a direct
measurement.



Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email
  #12  
Old March 2nd 07, 09:36 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Kent Paul Dolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 225
Default Doppler Tests on Local Stars

Oh No wrote:

No. Remember this is a prediction of a model
in which the standard mystique of the energy
of the vacuum does not hold.


Of course, that would also be a mystique in
which transisters failed to operate, since
both fall directly and in the same way out
of Hiesenberg's uncertainty principle, so
perhaps you should find a different mystique,
the one you have being already falsified.

xanthian.

[Mod. note: please concentrate on the astrophysics: I'm sure there is
some other newsgroup where you can argue about transistors -- mjh]
  #13  
Old March 2nd 07, 12:03 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Oh No
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 433
Default Doppler Tests on Local Stars

Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan
Oh No wrote:

No. Remember this is a prediction of a model
in which the standard mystique of the energy
of the vacuum does not hold.


Of course, that would also be a mystique in
which transisters failed to operate, since
both fall directly and in the same way out
of Hiesenberg's uncertainty principle, so
perhaps you should find a different mystique,
the one you have being already falsified.

xanthian.

[Mod. note: please concentrate on the astrophysics: I'm sure there is
some other newsgroup where you can argue about transistors -- mjh]



I am not in the slightest bit interested in arguing about transistors!
There is absolutely no analogy between solid state physics, in which qft
may be correctly applied as an approximation and works extremely well,
and the vast reaches of empty space between the stars which we study in
astrophysics.

Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email
  #14  
Old March 2nd 07, 01:50 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Martin Hardcastle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Doppler Tests on Local Stars

In article ,
Oh No wrote:
Yes, I have read that paper. They use VLBI to determine the motion. It's
a bit more subtle and the analysis is a lot more complex than a simple
shift in Doppler, but they are counting interference fringes, and it is
still a quantum effect. My expectation is that whatever the
overstatement in velocity we get from Doppler measurement of globular
clusters, we will get the same overstatement from any other method which
depends on quantum wave effects.


I would love to see even an outline of a proof that the VLBI
measurements -- which, remember, are measurements of *angular* motion
wrt background quasars -- should be expected to give exactly the same
results as the standard determination in your model once the distance
to the Galactic centre is folded in. `My expectation is' doesn't seem
sufficiently convincing. As a side effect, you would no doubt be able
to predict discrepancies between the interferometric and
non-interferometric measurements of positions of other objects, which
would easily be testable.

Martin
--
Martin Hardcastle
School of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertfordshire, UK
Please replace the xxx.xxx.xxx in the header with herts.ac.uk to mail me
  #15  
Old March 2nd 07, 04:56 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Oh No
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 433
Default Doppler Tests on Local Stars

Thus spake Martin Hardcastle
In article ,
Oh No wrote:
Yes, I have read that paper. They use VLBI to determine the motion. It's
a bit more subtle and the analysis is a lot more complex than a simple
shift in Doppler, but they are counting interference fringes, and it is
still a quantum effect. My expectation is that whatever the
overstatement in velocity we get from Doppler measurement of globular
clusters, we will get the same overstatement from any other method which
depends on quantum wave effects.


I would love to see even an outline of a proof that the VLBI
measurements -- which, remember, are measurements of *angular* motion
wrt background quasars -- should be expected to give exactly the same
results as the standard determination in your model once the distance
to the Galactic centre is folded in. `My expectation is' doesn't seem
sufficiently convincing.


Unfortunately, working on my own, I think it is going to take me quite a
time to get that far. I have so far only got as far as a formal proof of
Pioneer, which is a particularly simple case, and a heuristic argument
for the MONDian law which I still need to formalise. The formal proof of
that will be quite intricate, and I aim to publish the main theoretical
papers once it is done. For the last couple of months I have been
distracted from doing it by testing local stars, and I still have a
couple of i's to dot and t's to cross before doing a full write up. I am
hoping that, if I can publish what I have so far, other mathematicians
will get interested in working on more of the details. All I can say at
the moment is that, since redshifts work differently from standard, the
spacing of interference fringes will also be different, so that a
measurement of angular motion by observing the movement of interference
fringes is going to come out with a different answer from the standard
result. Of course consistency requires that it comes up with the same
result as measuring the red shift of globular clusters and making the
teleconnection correction, but the fact is it takes a lot of time and
work to do all these consistency checks.

As a side effect, you would no doubt be able
to predict discrepancies between the interferometric and
non-interferometric measurements of positions of other objects, which
would easily be testable.


That's an interesting thought, one which will be well worth pursuing
when I get the time and opportunity.


Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email
  #16  
Old March 2nd 07, 04:57 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Richard Saam Richard Saam is offline
Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jan 2005
Posts: 83
Default Doppler Tests on Local Stars

Oh No wrote:
Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan

Oh No wrote:


No. Remember this is a prediction of a model
in which the standard mystique of the energy
of the vacuum does not hold.


Of course, that would also be a mystique in
which transisters failed to operate, since
both fall directly and in the same way out
of Hiesenberg's uncertainty principle, so
perhaps you should find a different mystique,
the one you have being already falsified.

xanthian.

[Mod. note: please concentrate on the astrophysics: I'm sure there is
some other newsgroup where you can argue about transistors -- mjh]




I am not in the slightest bit interested in arguing about transistors!
There is absolutely no analogy between solid state physics, in which qft
may be correctly applied as an approximation and works extremely well,
and the vast reaches of empty space between the stars which we study in
astrophysics.

Regards

Within the limitations of our current science,
no human being can make such a statement.

"absolutely no analogy between solid state physics"
and
"the vast reaches of empty space between the stars
which we study in astrophysics"

A numerical and dimensional relationship
between solid state physics scale
and interstellar space scale
as well as the nuclear scale
has been made in:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905007

xanthian will probably say that this is totally unrealistic.
but according to the conceptual tools of dimensional analysis,
it is true with the elastic assumption.

Dimensional analysis does work.
That is how Boeing can design an aircraft
according to certain dimensional requirements
such as lb fuel/ passenger mile
material strengths (Force/area)
and then build and fly such a plane
without any prior physical model building
or wind tunnel testing.

This discipline segregation
is a critical deficiency in the scientific community.
Do not go outside of your field whatever it is:
solid state physics (condensed matter)
astro physics
nuclear physics
chemistry
bio-genetics
All split into further distinct elements.

It could be done better.

regards,

Richard
  #17  
Old March 2nd 07, 05:01 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Kent Paul Dolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 225
Default Doppler Tests on Local Stars

Oh No wrote:
Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan


Oh No wrote:


No. Remember this is a prediction of a model
in which the standard mystique of the energy
of the vacuum does not hold.


Of course, that would also be a mystique in which
transisters failed to operate, since both fall
directly and in the same way out of Hiesenberg's
uncertainty principle, so perhaps you should find
a different mystique, the one you have being
already falsified.


xanthian.


[Mod. note: please concentrate on the
astrophysics: I'm sure there is some other
newsgroup where you can argue about transistors
-- mjh]


Physics is physics; if the math that makes
transistors work makes space seethe with energy of
the vacuum, then transistors operating as they do is
evidence that space seethes. The two subjects are
not in the least divorced. Much of what we know about
astronomy was discovered here on earth in the realm
of condensed matter.

[Mod. note: you appear to be under the impression that I'm talking
about what is physics and what isn't: I'm actually talking about the
charter of this newsgroup, which requires clear relevance to the
sub-discipline of astrophysics -- mjh]

I am not in the slightest bit interested in
arguing about transistors!


I've noticed in the past, online and in email, how
prompt you are to reject any evidence that rebuts
your theories. This is just another case in point.

There is absolutely no analogy between solid state
physics, in which qft may be correctly applied as
an approximation and works extremely well, and the
vast reaches of empty space between the stars
which we study in astrophysics.


Well, you are perfectly free to argue by special
pleading that physics works differently where we
cannot do direct local measurements than it does
where we can do direct local measurements, but the
scientific community is quite free to choose to
ignore arguments by special pleading, and routinely
does so.

A set of laws of physics which have only local
coverage isn't of much use studying a universe the
size of the one we inhabit, and once you grant that
the laws of physics can change from locale to
locale, you have abosolutely no way to pretend to
limit physics over the vast universe to having only
two sets of laws, or only three, or only any finite
number, and instead are left to entertain the
likelihood that nothing we know about anywhere,
including here, is true anywhere else.

Your version of reality would require for example,
because the laws governing transisters _do_ hold
sway, for sure, where solid matter exists, that
every passing dust speck in the reaches of empty
space would carry its own separate set of laws of
physics with it through the passive vacuum where a
quite different set of laws of physics pertained.

Were your version of reality correct, space would
_twinkle_ so.

Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

xanthian.
  #18  
Old March 2nd 07, 09:27 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Oh No
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 433
Default Doppler Tests on Local Stars

Thus spake Richard Saam
A numerical and dimensional relationship
between solid state physics scale
and interstellar space scale
as well as the nuclear scale
has been made in:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905007


I do not see that your example has anything to do with what I was
referring to. I was talking about the physical structure of a
semiconductor as compared the physical structure of empty space. The
fact that one can find similar mathematical relationships among
different real things is a commonplace. It does not indicate that the
things themselves are the same.

Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email
  #19  
Old March 2nd 07, 09:30 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Oh No
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 433
Default Doppler Tests on Local Stars

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

Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan
Physics is physics; if the math that makes
transistors work makes space seethe with energy of
the vacuum, then transistors operating as they do is
evidence that space seethes.


It is no evidence at all. Quantities of apples and oranges obey similar
the same arithmentic relations. Is that evidence that apples are
oranges?

The two subjects are
not in the least divorced.


Similar mathematics does not imply similar physical structure.

Much of what we know about
astronomy was discovered here on earth in the realm
of condensed matter.


There is every reason to think that the stuff of stellar matter is the
same as the stuff of earth matter. That is quite a different thing.

[Mod. note: you appear to be under the impression that I'm talking
about what is physics and what isn't: I'm actually talking about the
charter of this newsgroup, which requires clear relevance to the
sub-discipline of astrophysics -- mjh]

I am not in the slightest bit interested in
arguing about transistors!


I've noticed in the past, online and in email, how
prompt you are to reject any evidence that rebuts
your theories. This is just another case in point.


It is another case where you are doing that which you accuse. I have
presented evidence which you are trying to reject. You have presented no
evidence.

There is absolutely no analogy between solid state
physics, in which qft may be correctly applied as
an approximation and works extremely well, and the
vast reaches of empty space between the stars
which we study in astrophysics.


Well, you are perfectly free to argue by special
pleading that physics works differently where we
cannot do direct local measurements than it does
where we can do direct local measurements, but the
scientific community is quite free to choose to
ignore arguments by special pleading, and routinely
does so.


Actually the arguments are fundamental to quantum theory. Of course if
you want to throw away the foundations of one of the main achievements
of science in the C20th, and mathematical reason and empirical evidence
along with it that is up to you. Ultimately I don't think the scientific
community will agree with you.

A set of laws of physics which have only local
coverage isn't of much use studying a universe the
size of the one we inhabit,


Oh dear. Almost all our laws of physics are local laws. The principle of
general relativity is about local laws. Even the Friedmann equation is
derived from local laws. See what Ted Bunn has recently said in s.p.r.
in the thread on Energy Conservation in an Expanding Universe.

and once you grant that
the laws of physics can change from locale to
locale, you have abosolutely no way to pretend to
limit physics over the vast universe to having only
two sets of laws, or only three, or only any finite
number, and instead are left to entertain the
likelihood that nothing we know about anywhere,
including here, is true anywhere else.

Your version of reality would require for example,
because the laws governing transisters _do_ hold
sway, for sure, where solid matter exists,


As transistors are solid matter, that is something of a tautology.

that
every passing dust speck in the reaches of empty
space would carry its own separate set of laws of
physics with it through the passive vacuum where a
quite different set of laws of physics pertained.


Ahem, every speck of passing dust is also solid matter.


Were your version of reality correct, space would
_twinkle_ so.

Do you have any evidence that this is the case?


I have just presented fairly weighty evidence.


Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email
  #20  
Old March 2nd 07, 09:31 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Steve Willner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,172
Default Doppler Tests on Local Stars

Oh No wrote:
They use VLBI to determine the motion.


Actually, they use VLBI to determine the position on the sky. The
change in position over several years determines the motion.

they are counting interference fringes, and it is
still a quantum effect.


You mean in the teleconnection model? In standard theory, radio
interferometry is all classical: good old Maxwell's equations.

My expectation is that whatever the
overstatement in velocity we get from Doppler measurement of globular
clusters, we will get the same overstatement from any other method which
depends on quantum wave effects.


Quasar positions measured by VLBI agree with those measured by
classical astrometry.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gravitational Doppler [email protected] Astronomy Misc 138 March 28th 07 07:44 PM
Gravitational Doppler [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 July 31st 06 08:44 AM
Gravitational Doppler [email protected] Astronomy Misc 12 July 28th 06 08:41 AM
redshift Vs doppler shift Maximus Misc 0 July 1st 05 10:19 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.