Kuiper Belt dynamics: evidence for Barbarossa

[Joseph C. Keller]

(See metaresearch.org, posts by "Joe Keller", on thread "Requiem for Relativity", for more information.)


It seems that Lescarbault assumed a parabolic orbit (with argument of perihelion = 270#) for Vulcan, and LeVerrier a circular one. My rough calculation for such a parabolic orbit gives, in heliocentric ecliptic coordinates, delta(z)/delta(sqrt(x^2+y^2)) = tan(7.6#), agreeing with Lescarbault. This assumes Vulcan was observed at the descending node; more accurately, 13# - (March 26 - March 21) = 8# before the descending node, gives 8.8#. For argument of perihelion = 180#, no distance gives a slow enough apparent speed: 0.33 AU gives the slowest apparent speed but it's still 20% too fast.

My plot of 85 KBOs from 2005-2006, shows that although eccentricity and inclination are correlated, it is eccentricity, not inclination per se, that correlates with ascending nodes near 14# or 194#. The most eccentric of the 85, had e=0.97 & omega=197#; next most, e=0.83 & omega=192#. This suggests that Vulcan, omega=13#, was a very eccentric big KBO, not a typical short-period comet. Vulcan would have had significant gravity; its surface might have resembled Mercury's, hence no cometary tail. When Lescarbault's report reached LeVerrier, nine months after the sighting, Vulcan would have been in the asteroid belt and maybe as dim as Neptune. Vulcan's failure to return before 2007 indicates that its major axis and aphelion are > 2*28 = 56 AU.

From a preliminary sample, the 2006 subset (n=35, excluding those with i<3) of my KBOs, I find only 4 with argument of perihelion within 45# of 270#, vs. 10 within 45# of 0#, 8 within 45# of 90#, and 13 within 45# of 180#. Thus 23/35 have argument of perihelion nearer 0/180; this might be explained without Barbarossa. On the other hand, the clustering of the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt Objects' ascending nodes seems to require a large mass on an inclined orbit, i.e., a Barbarossa.

The most significant clustering of the longitude (not argument) of perihelion is near 270#: 11 near 270# (e.g., Vulcan?), 10 near 0#, 4 near 90#, 10 near 180# (excluding i<3). Again, symmetry makes this seem to require additional explanation. When the 5 objects with i<3 are restored to this sample (to give n=40), longitude 236# minimizes the sum of the absolute angular deviations.

The gravitational field can be approximated as a central inverse-square term, plus an inverse-cube term which has a central and a non-central part. The central inverse-cube term causes perihelion advancement (see Goldstein's Classical Mechanics, Ch. 3, Exer. 7); the non-central inverse-cube term causes regression of the nodes. Above I found that the Barbarossa, and known solar system, contributions to the non-central inverse-cube term, have the same derivative w.r.t. z (cylindrical coordinates) at the classical Kuiper Belt. By Poisson's equation, this also holds for the central inverse-cube term's derivative w.r.t. r (cylindrical coords). So the classical Kuiper Belt lies where, for both node regression and perihelion advancement, Barbarossa's vs. the known solar system's influences, are equally strong. At 52.6 AU, Barbarossa's contribution to the derivatives of the inverse-cube term, is stronger than the known solar system's, by a factor of about sqrt(4*pi).

Near the beginning of this discussion of the Kuiper Belt (and ultimately its importance in refuting the Big Bang and orthodox Relativity) Dr. Van Flandern questioned the existence of any type of barrier at 52.6 AU. Now I can address this objection directly. Let a KBO have semimajor axis 46 AU and eccentricity 0.15. These figures are only slightly more than the median for KBO samples I've seen. Aphelion would be 53 AU, and the KBO would spend almost twice as much time near aphelion as near perihelion. I think that this is the essence of Dr. Van Flandern's objection: the rather sudden, drastic reduction in KBOs, reported beyond 52-53 AU, can be real only if major axis and eccentricity are somehow correlated.

In my sample of 85, are 18 with semimajor axis 45 or 46 AU (rounded to the nearest AU); these would require e=0.17 or 0.14, resp., to reach 52.6 AU at aphelion. Four of these have large eccentricities ranging from 0.37 to 0.66. Seven have e=0.13, 0.14 or 0.15, bringing them almost to 52.6 AU. The remaining seven have e=0.09 or smaller. There is a significant gap at e=0.10 through 0.12 and e=0.16 through 0.36. In my sample are 25 with semimajor axis 43 or 44; these require e=0.22 or 0.20 resp. to reach 52.6 AU. One has e=0.24, one e=0.29 (both these were 44 AU). The remaining 23 have e <= 0.16 (the sole e=0.16 & e=0.15 both were 43 AUs). Thus all fell at least 0.06 eccentricity units under 52.6 AU or else were at least 0.04 over.

In the same sample of 85, I shuffled the eccentricities by giving each KBO the eccentricity of the KBO 31,61 or 73 entries ahead. For each of the three shuffles, the aphelia histogram decreased gradually throughout the range 48-57 AU; nothing special happened at 53 AU nor anywhere else. When I did not shuffle the eccentricities, the aphelia hostrogram declined only slightly until almost exactly 52.6, then suddenly began declining by a factor of 2 for each additional AU of distance.

Poincare's Celestial Mechanics cites a theorem of Legendre, that in N-body motion, the major axis, i.e. energy, tends to be conserved. If so, then eccentricity changes only through change in the minor axis, i.e. angular momentum. Prograde vortices of force (i.e. an acceleration vector with positive curl) near 52.6 AU, would impart angular momentum without energy, increasing the minor axis of bodies approaching that barrier.

[andyschlei]

(See metaresearch.org, posts by "Joe Keller", on thread "Requiem for Relativity", for more information.)


It seems that Lescarbault <...Snip...> would impart angular momentum without energy, increasing the minor axis of bodies approaching that barrier.

But what's the conclusion? What, exactly, does this say about a "Barbarossa?"

[Joseph C. Keller]

(see metaresearch.org for more information)

Barbarossa & Frey also appear on the 1987 sky survey (I refer to this survey as "C"). So, Barbarossa & Frey are on the A, B, & C online survey scans, and on "G" (for J. Genebriera's photo). Barbarossa appears on the C plate as "C", the original object I had announced as Barbarossa. Frey appears as an object I had named "C6" in my own notes.

C (Barbarossa, 1987 La Silla red) RA 11 18 03.18 Decl -7 58 46.1
C6 (Frey, 1987 La Silla red) RA 11 17 43.1 Decl -7 48 38.5

The pair C/C6 can be added to the constant-speed great circle drawn through A2/A, B3/B, and Genebriera's Barbarossa/Frey of March 25, 2007. The heliocentric angular speeds from 1954-1986 and 1987-2007 become equal and consistent with observation, when Barbarossa's orbital distance from the sun is 197.664 AU, Barbarossa's orbital period 2810.03 yr, and the mass ratio Barbarossa:Frey = 0.8936:0.1064 = 8.4:1. Then, the heliocentric angular speed from 1986 (the B plate) to 1987 (the C plate) differs from the speed before or after, by only 0.383%, equivalent to 1.56".

The angle between the 1954-1986 path and the 1987-2007 path is only 0.0023 radian. The angle between the 1986-1987 path and the paths before or after, is arcsin(0.11). This error is consistent with a second Barbarossa satellite, Freya, with period between 2 and 50 years and mass between 1/15 and 1/8 Barbarossa's. I assume that the 1986-1987 path direction error equals the maximum producible by Freya in circular orbit; the error is likely small between 1954 & 2007, if Freya makes at least one orbit. The relative smallness of the 1986-1987 path length error, suggests that Freya's orbital axis about Barbarossa, lies rather near Barbarossa's orbital plane about the sun, and that Freya's orbit is seen rather edge-on.

The relatively large and comparable masses of Frey & Freya, suggest a complicated three-body orbit. Such an orbit would be needed, because the four Barbarossa-Frey radius vectors do not lie near any reasonable ellipse.

[R.A.F.]

The TVF page was not part of what was posted...major snip...and no one has picked up the ball to run in an ATM direction...

That has now changed...Mr. Keller is now posting HERE and referring us to his ATM posts on the TVF page...

Please move this thread to the ATM section...

[Tinaa]

The ball has been picked up. Moved to ATM.

Note to Joseph C. Keller Please read the rules for the ATM section: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864

[Nereid]

New thread created by splitting posts from the (now closed) Planet X / Barbarossa thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=56233).

Please note that this thread will be automatically closed on 27 June.

[SharkByte]

I read through the other thread on this subject which has now been locked and I skimmed through this one. You've got a lot of numbers in there I, being the very very amature astronomer that I am, have no clue what they mean:lol: An overwhelming amount of evidence that I've seen seems to be against the idea of a Jupiter sized KBO floating around out there at the edges of the solar system but if you have three photo's that show something in the orbit you've described it won't hurt anything for me to point my 11 inch SCT where you say it should be and look for it the next time I'm out observing. My scope and dark sky spot may be a bit on the low side for seeing something like you're describing but I'll give it a shot.

While the perponderance of the evidence is against you, I have a belief that there are a lot of things in the universe we don't know about or understand yet so while its very un-likely that I'll find your giant planet, anything is possible. I'll post a detailed observation report back here with exactly how I did my observing and what I found. I'm sure there probably is something really there I just don't think its going to turn out to be a massive planet...

[Peter Wilson]

An Interesting Possibility…but it’s cut by Occams’ Razor (i.e. there’s a simpler explanation): 1/e^3 point


See here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=58237)

[Joseph C. Keller]

I've found two objects consistent with Freya, Barbarossa's smaller planet:

B2 (1986) RA 11 16 57.0 Decl -7 53 29.6
C3 (1987) RA 11 18 37.6 Decl -7 54 09.5

If the mass ratios Barbarossa:Frey:Freya are adjusted to 14.3:2.04:1, the center-of-mass path ABCG (four time points, 1954-2007) is straight, and constant-speed to a precision consistent with, assuming an average location on the orbit, eccentricity 0.015. In 1986, Freya appeared 71% as far from Barbarossa as was Frey, and in 1987, 86%.

As assigned, the points are inconsistent with an elliptical orbit for Frey. An alternative to chaotic orbits, is reassigning object "A" as Freya, not Frey. This only slightly affects the overall fit, and gives three Freys & three Freyas, so elliptical orbits can be drawn.

I've looked at 15'x15' regions from 1954, 1986, 1987 and 2007. The regions chosen were, basically, those consistent with a Barbarossa orbit following that mean Jupiter:Saturn resonance point nearest the CMB dipole. The above assignments as Barbarossa, Frey and Freya came from among 2400 possible assignments that I considered (a million different assignments were possible but I considered only the brightest dots as Barbarossa or Frey). There were two more dependent than independent variables to be fit, and these were fit to about one part in 40 (error / region width), i.e., 1 part in 40^2=1600 overall. (The main lack of perfect fit, is due to the uncertain contribution of the unknown 1954 & 2007 Freyas.)

The 2400 choices were far from stochastically independent. A well- or poorly-fitting choice of Barbarossa, Frey & Freya usually implies a good or poor fit by similar choices. In effect there were far fewer than 2400 independent choices.

The J:S resonance points are 72# apart, but the (+) CMB dipole lies on Barbarossa's orbit only 2# behind Barbarossa. Because a causal lag is expected, this gives another factor of 36 in significance.

Additional significance arises from the smoothing of the Pioneer acceleration by subtracting Barbarossa's presumed tidal influence, and from the balance between Barbarossa and planetary tidal (1/r^3) forces at the classic Kuiper Belt.

A week ago I sent another 30 emails to professional astronomers. Of the estimated 200 emails I've sent to professional astronomers about this (over several months' time) only one has responded. The professional astronomer who responded didn't know my main purpose; I'd only asked him a trivial question.

I've read that Neptune first was observed by two "assistants". These would be the sociological equivalents of graduate students today. So, my new strategy will be to email graduate students until one simply looks and finds out whether any of this is or is not there.

[Joseph C. Keller]

An Interesting Possibility…but it’s cut by Occams’ Razor (i.e. there’s a simpler explanation): 1/e^3 point


See here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=58237)

That's an interesting page! Thanks for the link and for your input.

- Joe Keller

[Joseph C. Keller]

I read through the other thread on this subject which has now been locked and I skimmed through this one. You've got a lot of numbers in there I, being the very very amature astronomer that I am, have no clue what they mean:lol: An overwhelming amount of evidence that I've seen seems to be against the idea of a Jupiter sized KBO floating around out there at the edges of the solar system but if you have three photo's that show something in the orbit you've described it won't hurt anything for me to point my 11 inch SCT where you say it should be and look for it the next time I'm out observing. My scope and dark sky spot may be a bit on the low side for seeing something like you're describing but I'll give it a shot.

While the perponderance of the evidence is against you, I have a belief that there are a lot of things in the universe we don't know about or understand yet so while its very un-likely that I'll find your giant planet, anything is possible. I'll post a detailed observation report back here with exactly how I did my observing and what I found. I'm sure there probably is something really there I just don't think its going to turn out to be a massive planet...

Thanks for your interest! In the north especially, Leo is getting too far west for the best view. Amateur astronomer Steve Riley in California did get, I think, some photos showing these objects with an 11", but the time of year was more favorable. I think he had a southern desert, maybe altitude, location somewhere in S. California without too much light pollution, and he went to a lot of trouble to maximize his magnitude cutoff with the electronic camera (stacking, etc.). If you do make a photo, please send me a "private message"; I'd like to check it! The mass, diameter & albedo aren't really known. That's all theory. So, please look!

The recent image in which I have most confidence is Joan Genebriera's with an 18" and electronic camera on Tenerife, March 25, 2007. I showed it to the president of the Des Moines, Iowa astronomy club. He did not think it was artifact. By comparison with a sky survey, I estimated the J2000 celestial coordinates as RA 11h 26m 22.2s, Decl -09# 04' 59". I theorize that the distance from the sun is 198 AU. Here's how to correct for Earth parallax: Joan's photo was slightly after opposition. Your photo will be slightly before quadrature. The difference in position between opposition & quadrature is 1/198 radian = 57.3/198 # = 0.29# = 17 arcminutes ("retrograde motion" due to Earth's motion). So, it's moved less than that. Also, Barbarossa is, I estimate, moving around the sun about 1/sqrt(198)=1/14 as fast as Earth, which partly compensates. So let's say 10 arcminutes. Find a star chart, find Joan's point (coordinates given above), then move 10 arcminutes west, parallel to the ecliptic, and aim there. That will be good enough if your field is 15'.

- Joe Keller

[Joseph C. Keller]

The ball has been picked up. Moved to ATM.

Note to Joseph C. Keller Please read the rules for the ATM section: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864

I'd never posted to, nor even looked at, this messageboard in my life, then I looked and saw that people here were calling me a Nazi and saying all my detections were artifact, even though the president of the Des Moines astronomy club looked at one of the detections and didn't think it was artifact. So, I decided to defend myself. The famous Roman law of the Colonia Julia Genetiva (Urso, in southern Spain) allows the defendant twice as much time to speak as the prosecutor.

[Joseph C. Keller]

Pulsar constancy is said to rule out acceleration of the sun, relative to the pulsars, greater than about the equivalent of a Jupiter at 200 AU (Zakamska et al, Astronomical Journal 130:1939+, 2005; I got this citation from a member of the "Bad Astronomy" messageboard). My mass estimate for Barbarossa might be 10x too high, or the error of this pulsar method might be 10x greater than believed.

The above article cites another, about dynamical detection of dark matter in the solar system (DW Hogg, AJ 101:2274+, 1991). Its Fig. 5 and accompanying text indicate that detection by residual errors in planetary ephemerides would require a Barbarossa at least 0.5 Jupiter mass, likely 2 Jupiter mass or more (maybe much more if there are systematic errors). Detection by "modeling", i.e., a prospective least-squares fit of ephemeris errors, theoretically (no one has done it with modern data) would require 1/3 that mass. (It might be easier simply to look.) Localization of Barbarossa within 1 degree would require at least 1.5 Jupiter mass, likely more than 6 Jupiter mass.

[LoneWolfiNTj]

I'd never posted to, nor even looked at, this messageboard in my life, then I looked and saw that people here were calling me a Nazi

Everyone who uses the Internet leaves footprints, Joe.

and saying all my detections were artifact, even though the president of the Des Moines astronomy club looked at one of the detections and didn't think it was artifact.

No one can tell from one photo what's an artifact (cosmic-ray strike) and what isn't. To filter out the artifacts, several photos of the same location need to be taken in rapid sequence, and "medianed" together, which discards any bright spots (or dark spots on negative images) that were caused by cosmic rays. (Of course, if you know that an image is already the result of such a median, then that's a different story; you can be reasonably sure that the objects you see are really there.)

So, I decided to defend myself....

You're not on trial. It's your astronomical assertions which are on trial. Why take things so personally, Joe? If I took things that personally, I couldn't do my job as a programmer. When co-workers point out bugs and errors in my work, I thank them, because I need that input to make the product better. Try looking at scientific peer review in the same light.

[Nereid]

(See metaresearch.org, posts by "Joe Keller", on thread "Requiem for Relativity", for more information.)

[snip]There "Joe Keller" says, in a post dated 23 May "from my theory above."

A day later, in another post: "My theory is that the microwaves are produced not by the "big bang" nor even in intergalactic space, but at an interface at which the sun's gravitational force is of a certain strength. The vacuum isn't empty; rather, it's like a pot of water. Water evaporates at an interface at which intermolecular forces are of a certain strength. Just as the infrared wavelength coming from boiling water is determined by the *pressure* at that interface (the surface of the water), the wavelength of the CMB is determined by the gravitational *potential* at the interface where the gravitational force is of a certain strength." and "It would be easier just to aim a telescope".

Two questions:

1) Is this indeed your 'theory'? If so, may we ask questions about it?

2) Where (what RA and Dec) should one 'aim a telescope'? In more detail, what are the coordinates, plus estimated (visual) magnitude(s), of this object, as a function of time (say, daily@UTC=00:00)?

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!] The recent image in which I have most confidence is Joan Genebriera's with an 18" and electronic camera on Tenerife, March 25, 2007. I showed it to the president of the Des Moines, Iowa astronomy club. He did not think it was artifact. [Snip!]
(Emphasis mine)

The first prerequisite for an "argument by authority" is to have an authority. ;)

[R.A.F.]

Where (what RA and Dec) should one 'aim a telescope'? In more detail, what are the coordinates, plus estimated (visual) magnitude(s), of this object, as a function of time (say, daily@UTC=00:00)?

Once that question is answered, I'm sure someone here will "have a look" with the proper equipment and they will either see "something" or they won't.

Then the "question of existance" will be answered.

Sounds simple enough...so what am I missing. :)

[Joseph C. Keller]

(Emphasis mine)

The first prerequisite for an "argument by authority" is to have an authority. ;)

Indeed:

"I've looked at the images he has been quoting and yes there are things there but they are a mix of image defects and asteroid or space junk trails."

- "higginsdj" on PlanetX/Barbarossa thread, April, 2007

[Joseph C. Keller]

There "Joe Keller" says, in a post dated 23 May "from my theory above."

A day later, in another post: "My theory is that the microwaves are produced not by the "big bang" nor even in intergalactic space, but at an interface at which the sun's gravitational force is of a certain strength. The vacuum isn't empty; rather, it's like a pot of water. Water evaporates at an interface at which intermolecular forces are of a certain strength. Just as the infrared wavelength coming from boiling water is determined by the *pressure* at that interface (the surface of the water), the wavelength of the CMB is determined by the gravitational *potential* at the interface where the gravitational force is of a certain strength." and "It would be easier just to aim a telescope".

Two questions:

1) Is this indeed your 'theory'? If so, may we ask questions about it?

2) Where (what RA and Dec) should one 'aim a telescope'? In more detail, what are the coordinates, plus estimated (visual) magnitude(s), of this object, as a function of time (say, daily@UTC=00:00)?

1. See my posts on Dr. Tom Van Flandern's messageboard, at metaresearch.org.

2. See my answer to "SharkByte" on this thread.

Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller, M. D.

[Joseph C. Keller]

Everyone who uses the Internet leaves footprints, Joe.



No one can tell from one photo what's an artifact (cosmic-ray strike) and what isn't. To filter out the artifacts, several photos of the same location need to be taken in rapid sequence, and "medianed" together, which discards any bright spots (or dark spots on negative images) that were caused by cosmic rays. (Of course, if you know that an image is already the result of such a median, then that's a different story; you can be reasonably sure that the objects you see are really there.)



You're not on trial. It's your astronomical assertions which are on trial. Why take things so personally, Joe? If I took things that personally, I couldn't do my job as a programmer. When co-workers point out bugs and errors in my work, I thank them, because I need that input to make the product better. Try looking at scientific peer review in the same light.

Whether I am or am not a "Nazi", and whether that is a good or bad thing, is ad hominem. Likewise the statement on the predecessor thread, that I speak "giberish" [sic] is ad hominem. When it's ad hominem, then I am indeed personally on trial and am indeed defending "myself".

[Joseph C. Keller]

About half my posts (all on this subject) recently were deleted from the messageboard of the large Australian astronomy club, "Iceinspace". David Higgins posted there that he can't find them either. I hope this messageboard can do better.

[Nereid]

There "Joe Keller" says, in a post dated 23 May "from my theory above."

A day later, in another post: "My theory is that the microwaves are produced not by the "big bang" nor even in intergalactic space, but at an interface at which the sun's gravitational force is of a certain strength. The vacuum isn't empty; rather, it's like a pot of water. Water evaporates at an interface at which intermolecular forces are of a certain strength. Just as the infrared wavelength coming from boiling water is determined by the *pressure* at that interface (the surface of the water), the wavelength of the CMB is determined by the gravitational *potential* at the interface where the gravitational force is of a certain strength." and "It would be easier just to aim a telescope".

Two questions:

1) Is this indeed your 'theory'? If so, may we ask questions about it?

2) Where (what RA and Dec) should one 'aim a telescope'? In more detail, what are the coordinates, plus estimated (visual) magnitude(s), of this object, as a function of time (say, daily@UTC=00:00)?1. See my posts on Dr. Tom Van Flandern's messageboard, at metaresearch.org.I'm not sure that you actually answered my question.

No matter; that site has the following at the bottom of the page: "©1991-2007 Meta Research. All rights reserved"

BAUT has no intention of breaking any copyright. We are also not in the business of promoting sites such as that.

If you wish to present your theory here, please do so. If not, then please say so.

Please do not direct readers to such a site.

Also, may I remind you of Tinaa's post, early in this thread, directing you to BAUT's Rules for Posting To This Board (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864).2. See my answer to "SharkByte" on this thread.

Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller, M. D.Unfortunately, that answer is quite unhelpful.

On the DSS plates (as available publicly (http://skyview.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/query.pl)), there are ~100 objects within ~0.1o of 11 26 22.2, -09 04 59.

What is the expected visual (or other) magnitude of this object? A range would be even better.

Where do you expect this object to be, at 00:00:00 UTC on 2 June, 2007? at 00:00:00 UTC on 4 June, 2007

[Joseph C. Keller]

The new copyright convention allows free limited educational use. Besides, I haven't surrendered any rights. I give everyone permission to quote me here, but one doesn't really need anyone's permission to quote me.

[Joseph C. Keller]

Requiem for Relativity


Relativity is dead, long live Relativity.


Above, I suggest that there might be a kind of boundary or barrier surrounding the solar system ("ether iceberg"), maybe at 52.6 AU, beyond which the Doppler effect is not orthodoxly relativistic. Suppose a radio signal from Pioneer 10 crosses that barrier and reaches Earth. The redshift might be the sum of the two redshifts produced by: Earth's motion relative to the barrier (i.e., relative to the "iceberg"); and Pioneer 10's motion relative to the interstellar medium. If the barrier is scarcely moving relative to the nearby interstellar medium, then only some small effects, e.g., retardation of Pioneer 10's time dilation (see my 2002 Aircraft Engineering & Aerospace Technology article or its recapitulation on this messageboard) or retardation of stellar aberration (see my discussion of the Kimura phenomenon on this messageboard) remain.

Larger effects are noticed, when the movement of the barrier, relative to the interstellar medium, is not negligible. Pulsar timing fails to detect Earth's gravitational acceleration by Barbarossa, because to first order approximation, Barbarossa equally accelerates the 52.6 AU barrier and everything inside it. Also, interstellar space outside the barrier is so slack over interstellar distances that this term of the redshift doesn't change either. By the same mechanism, pulsar timing fails to detect distant companions of the millisecond pulsars. Above, I argue that the solar system detections around pulsars are better explained by this than by the "kick" theory.

Binary stars sometimes show paradoxical orbital redshifts (AW Irwin et al, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 108:580-590, 1996). The binary star 36 Ophiuchus AB shows a supposed mutual Doppler redshift about 30% larger than consistent with any possible celestial mechanics. This might be because the light from one star passes through the dumbbell-shaped (defined, as above, by critical gravitional field intensity) barrier three times.

[Joseph C. Keller]

"Above", "this messageboard", etc., refer to Dr. Van Flandern's messageboard, posted by "Joe Keller" in the thread "Requiem for Relativity", at metaresearch.org.

Note to moderator: if Dr. Van Flandern's messageboard is so erroneous, then there's no need to censor the mention of it. Perhaps readers are intelligent enough to judge for themselves. Cutting and pasting everything there, to here, would be a good thing, but it just hasn't worked its way to the top of my list of things to do.

Here's a true example: a local library had a book that said Frank Sinatra was a sex pervert. The book was written after Sinatra had died, so he couldn't defend himself. An old lady in the town who was a fan of Sinatra, complained about the book. The librarians had a meeting about it and decided that the book would stay on the shelf because of the "right to read". But just try getting a public library to stock any book with so-called "radical rightwing" (i.e, mainstream in any century before the 20th) political content.

[R.A.F.]

Mr. Keller...will you be responding to Nereid's last post??

[Joseph C. Keller]

Let's consider a nearby star with a surrounding spherical barrier or boundary (like the barrier or boundary I hypothesize for the sun at 52.6 AU). Maybe the star can achieve an apparent Doppler acceleration toward us, in two ways. One way, is if a distant companion, outside the star's barrier, accelerates the star and its barrier as a unit toward us.

Another way, is if a close companion, inside the star's barrier, accelerates the star relative to the barrier. There is a wavetrain between us and the star. Part of this wavetrain is within the star's barrier: call that part's length, L. If the first time-derivative of L is negative, blueshift may occur.

Let the star have a small distant companion whose distance is twice the barrer radius. If the "barrier" occurs at that surface in space where the magnitude of the gravitational field vector is such-and-such, then a distant companion causes the barrier to be indented, like a "flat tire", a small distance proportional to the mass of the small companion. Let the small companion be seen in inferior conjunction. As the small companion slowly orbits at inferior conjunction, the star and barrier are accelerated toward us. Also, we see the star's light through a part of the "tire" that is less and less indented. The first and second time-derivatives of L (see previous par.) are positive. There is accelerating positive "apparent radial velocity" due to the asphericity of the rotating barrier. The barrier's indentation is proportional to the mass of the small companion. So, the distortion of the barrier commonly could appear to cancel up to about half, of the entire barrier's acceleration toward us.

Now let's consider an equal-mass binary near conjunction, both sunlike, separated by a distance of order 50 AU. The barrier in such a binary might be a dumb-bell or it might be two flattened spheres which are not connected (dumb-bell with no handle). Either way, light from the more distant star passes twice through the barrier of the nearer one. Plausibly, the apparent (from apparent radial velocity, "RV", red/blueshift measurement) acceleration, of the farther partner, inferred from the progessive blueshifting of its light, is the sum of five terms:

1. The acceleration of its own barrier toward us.

2. The acceleration of its partner's barrier away from us (#1 & #2 cancel, because the light passes through both these equal but oppositely accelerated "icebergs").

3. The second time derivative of L1, the length of wavetrain within its own barrier (zero for a spherical barrier).

4A. The second derivative of L2, the length of the farther partner's wavetrain, within the nearer partner's barrier, but only that part due to the shortening at the surface nearest us.

4B. This term is the same as 4A except that it is that part due to shortening at the surface farthest from us, and has sign opposite the sign of 4A. That is, shortening at the surface nearest us simulates movement toward us, and shortening at the surface farthest from us simulates movement away from us.

The orbital elements (see Aitken, "Binary Stars" for clear definitions of these symbols) of 36 Ophiuchus AB (Irwin et al, 1996, op. cit.) make it relatively easy to calculate what the apparent "RV"-based acceleration of the farther partner toward us, should be if the foregoing theory is correct. With a slide rule, trigonometry and careful approximation (considering, to first order, the distortion of the barriers), I found that the "RV"-based apparent acceleration toward us should be 1.64 times the celestial mechanics prediction. Irwin et al found 1.64 times.

"Web of science" (the online Science Citation Index) shows only six papers citing Irwin's. None of these measure binaries like Irwin's. 36 Ophiuchus AB is special because the stars are far enough apart to be outside each other's barriers, yet close enough to conjunction that the farther partner's light must pass through the "barrier" hypothetically surrounding the nearer partner. The nearer partner's hypothetical "barrier" eclipses the farther partner.

[Joseph C. Keller]

Mr. Keller...will you be responding to Nereid's last post??

I've already responded to it.

[Nereid]

"Above", "this messageboard", etc., refer to Dr. Van Flandern's messageboard, posted by "Joe Keller" in the thread "Requiem for Relativity", at metaresearch.org.

Note to moderator: if Dr. Van Flandern's messageboard is so erroneous, then there's no need to censor the mention of it. Perhaps readers are intelligent enough to judge for themselves. Cutting and pasting everything there, to here, would be a good thing, but it just hasn't worked its way to the top of my list of things to do.

[snip]In March 2007, New Policies Regarding Against the Mainstream section (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=54740) were introduced. Fraser explained these new policies, and discussed them with BAUT member, in this The Future of ATM thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=55184).

I suggest that it might be worth your while for you to read some of the posts in those threads, if you wish to continue to present your ATM ideas here in BAUT.

When you are ready to present your ATM idea, here in this thread, please send me (or any other moderator) a Private Message (PM), and this thread will be re-opened.

Please note that, even if this thread is re-opened, it will be closed automatically 30 days after 28 May*. This 30 day limit was one of the key new policies introduced on 6 March, 2007.

Thread closed.

*Depending on which time zone you are in, and when the automatic 'close 30-day old ATM threads' program runs on any particular day, etc, this may not be on 27 June.