From: sarfatti@pacbell.net

Subject: Re: UPPER LENGTH shot down?

Date: October 19, 2004 7:47:45 PM PDT

To: czarlosromanov@yahoo.com, gravitics1@aol.com, bur@ibrae.ac.ru

Cc: creon@isso.org, Laurent.Nottale@obsmp.fr, f130smith@mindspring.com, sarfatti@attglobal.net, sirag@mindspring.com, bdj10@cam.ac.uk, and 2 more...

Memorandum for the Record

It is pretty obvious that what Creon Levit, a Top Gun at NASA AMES, found today shoots down your idea and Notalle's idea of a lower and upper scale definitively. See Creon's message below. The experimentalists clearly say they can measure at least down to 10^-9 cm/sec^2 which is 10^-2 of your alleged irreducible minimum. I just sent you a pdf on that.

My idea of a dark energy halo surrounding the Sun with

/\zpf = c^2/LpR(t)r

where R(t) is a pure number (dimensionless) FRW scale-factor also seems to be shot down, but for a different reason unless Tony Smith can save it with his hollow halo idea?

No, there is absolutely no evidence at all for either an upper or a lower scale in Nature. All tests so far seem to go in the wrong direction in this regard. If anyone has evidence to the contrary please tell us. Of course, my macro-quantum theory for the emergence of Einstein's curved spacetime from an instability in the flat micro-quantum Dirac Sea to the non-perturbative background independent curved macro-quantum Higgs Ocean shows WHY there should not be ANY quantum gravity foamy grainy structure to space-time. So far the experiments are consistent with that idea.

On Oct 19, 2004, at 7:22 PM, Carlos Castro wrote:

Dear Jack and friends :

If Laurent Nottale and Max Born are correct, in

postulating a lower and upper scale in Nature, and a

maximal proper force, if we take R to be the

asymptotic upper length in Nature, then the minimal

acceleration should be

of the order of c^2 / R .

The question is wether or not the asymptotic value of

upper scale agrees or not with Laurent Nottale's

postulate, R = of the order of the Hubble scale

today.

I am open to possibility that the upper asymptotic

scale could be larger than 10^{ 28 } cm and in this

case the minimal acceleration is pushed to a lower

value.

But that is no good. It is ugly and adhoc without any great idea like adding epicycles. You have been doing too much string theory Carlos! :-)

Laurent Nottale is the expert astrophysicist and he

can better defend his judicious choice for value for

the asymptotic scale R in Nature ( of the order of

Hubble scale today ) that is related to the

resolution of the cosmological constant problem.

You do not solve the cosmological constant problem with anything you have said.

The problem is WHY is /\ ~ 1/R^2 where R ~ 10^28 cm instead of the QED prediction /\ ~ 1/Lp^2 where Lp ~ 10^-33 cm. This is an error of 122 powers of ten! I do have the explanation - I think. No one else has anything better, that much is sure.

I am not including the issue of the cosmological

variations of the fundamental constants. This is

another book to explore.

Best wishes

Carlos

On Oct 19, 2004, at 4:22 PM, Creon Levit wrote:

Jack,

Please scan what I believe is the definitive paper:

"Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11" ( http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064 )

In particular I think you should read the (relatively short) section XI, and especially subsections XI-B and C (pages 43-46). In particular, section XI-B makes the the following two points, either one of which may shoot down the 1/r dark energy theory, and both of which we will need to address if dark energy really is the explanation, IMHO. (And yes, I know dark energy ≠ dark matter)

Point 1:

"If the cause is dark matter, it is hard to understand. A

spherically-symmetric distribution of matter which goes

as

ρ ∼ r^−1 produces a constant acceleration inside the

distribution. To produce our anomalous acceleration

even only out to 50 AU would require the total dark

matter to be greater than 3 × 10^−4M⊙. But this is in

conflict with the accuracy of the ephemeris, which allows

only of order a few times 10^−6M⊙ of dark matter even

within the orbit of Uranus [8]"...

Point 2:

"... any universal gravitational explanation for

the Pioneer effect comes up against a hard experimental

wall. The anomalous acceleration is too large to

have gone undetected in planetary orbits, particularly

for Earth and Mars. NASA’s Viking mission provided

radio-ranging measurements to an accuracy of about 12

m [137, 138]. If a planet experiences a small, anomalous,

radial acceleration, a_A, its orbital radius r is perturbed

by

r = ... [eqn] (58)...

"For Earth and Mars, delta-r is about −21 km and −76

km. However, the Viking data determines the difference

between the Mars and Earth orbital radii to about a 100m

accuracy, and their sum to an accuracy of about 150m.

The Pioneer effect is not seen.

"Further, a perturbation in r produces a perturbation

to the orbital angular velocity of

ω = .... [eqn] (59)

The determination of the synodic angular velocity (ωE − ωM)

is accurate to 7 parts in 1011, or to about 5 ms accuracy

in synodic period. The only parameter that could

possibly mask the spacecraft-determined a_R is (GM⊙).

But a large error here would cause inconsistencies with

the overall planetary ephemeris [8, 49]. [Also, there

would be a problem with the advance of the perihelion

of Icarus [139].]

"We conclude that the Viking ranging data limit any

unmodeled radial acceleration acting on Earth and Mars

to no more than 0.1 × 10−8 cm/s2. Consequently, if the

anomalous radial acceleration acting on spinning spacecraft

is gravitational in origin, it is not universal. That

is, it must affect bodies in the 1000 kg range more than

bodies of planetary size by a factor of 100 or more. This

would be a strange violation of the Principle of Equivalence..."

Meantime look at the last pdf.

I have been reading http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064 - take a glance. It is a comprehensive summary of the experimental evidence so far. It contains statistics, software, and celestial mechanics - about which I know just enough to get us into trouble.

Be good for you to do some fancy computer stuff if possible - for the longer paper.

## Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

## No comments:

Post a Comment