### Big Splash at Jupiter

The Great Black Spot imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope using the newly installed Wide Field Camera 3.

The Great Black Spot was first sighted by Australian "amateur" astronomer Anthony Wesley. These photos by WFC3 were Hubble's first science observations since the STS-125 servicing mission. Astronomers can not decide whether the impactor was an asteroid or comet. Unlike Shoemaker-Levy 9 no one saw the object coming. They guess that it had a diameter of several hundred metres. An rock of 220 m radius would have a mass of about 10^10 kg, just right for a small Black Hole. A singularity impacting Jupiter would arrive unobserved and leave a mark just like this.

Despite the smoke and fury, the singularity would not suck up the planet. It would eventually join a larger Black Hole that has occupied Jupiter's core since before the planet formed. The Hole in Jupiter's core would be primordial, formed shortly after the Big Bang. Jupiter and other planets may gave formed around singularities like pearls around a grain of sand.

Despite amazing instruments like Hubble, humans are unable to perceive that Black Holes could be nearby, even within our planetary system. Though Hubble observations of supernovae show the speed of light slowing, most humans are unable to see that. Rather than wonder about the wonder of light, scientists have promoted an accelerating universe dominated by "dark energy.". The credibility of science continues to sink like a Black Hole into Jupiter's core.

Labels: black holes, jupiter

## 9 Comments:

The credibility of science continues to sink like a Black Hole into Jupiter's core.So true, and yet whenever I complain I get that stare of disdain for whinging females. Being listened to is completely out of the question, with the exception of a few remarkable individuals who already know what's up anyway.

A timely post Louise! I've had some time to follow up on some earlier questions I had for you and would like to hear your comments. Earlier you wrote: "For tim: The standard formula for redshift is too lengthy to write here; you will have to look it up. An object of redshift Z=0.5 is receding at 38% of today's value of c. That is only 33% of c at time of photon emission, so apparent redshift is smaller."

From this comment and reading your paper carefully I believe I have worked out the correct formula for applying your adjustment for varying-c to observed magnitudes and redshift. In the following, let M stand for observed magnitude, m for adjusted magnitude, Z for observed redshift, Z for adjusted redshift.

The magnitude adjustment is just:

m = M - 2.5*log10(1 + Z)

Using your comment above I was able to deduce your formula for adjusting the standard redshift formula by changing c according to your theory. The resulting formula is fairly complicated and I've found no simple way to write it down, but here is one version:

z = sqrt([(1+Z)^(5/2) + (1+Z)^2 - 1]/[(1+Z)^(5/2) - (1+Z)^2 + 1]) - 1

These formulae give the same adjusted values as in your paper so I believe they are correct eg. for observed redshift Z=1.0 I get an adjusted redshift z=0.57 and a magnitude change of -0.75 as in your paper.

I checked both your points and get the same values as your paper, however it seems to me there may be a problem with the curve you have drawn through the supernova data. It seems like you have assumed the adjusted curve should be a straight line, and have drawn a line through the two points which follows the supernova data very well. But if I've got your formula right, this doesn't appear to be the case, in fact the adjusted data follows a distinct curve upwards, away from the data.

A further problem is that you have drawn your adjusted z-values going up to redshifts of 1, whereas the z in the formula above has a maximum value of z=0.65 (attained when Z=1.85 or so).

I have put a couple of plots on the web for you to look at. The first shows the expected curve for magnitude against redshift in a cosmology with Omega=1, overlaid with the current supernova data. I have then overlaid the adjusted values using your method. You can see that the curve is not a straight line and obviously doesn't fit the data.

The second curve plots adjusted z against observed Z. You can see that z has a max of 0.65 at Z=1.85. I didn't plot very large values of Z but z is monotone decreasing after that.

I have put my plots up here and would like to hear your views on this.

Sorry, I mistyped the formula for z. It should have been

z = sqrt((sqrt(1+Z)*((1+Z)^2+1) + (1+Z)^2 - 1)/(sqrt(1+Z)*((1+Z)^2+1) - (1+Z)^2 + 1)) - 1

Plots available here.

For Kea: Yes, sexism also clogs the arteries of science.

For Tim: Your effort in graphing this is appreciated. There is indeed a recursion relation for very high Z. Having thought about this before, one recals that the goal is to test whether c has changed recently. That is shown by supernovae, the "faint young Sun" and lunar laser ranging.

The extreme Z supernovae are so distant that astronomers must consider other factors, like dust and gravitational redshift. Perhaps we are seeing that vertical line "stretched" by dust reddening into higher redshifts. All that said, your graphs are quite well done! Thanks!

Hi Louise. Thanks for taking the time to look at my plots. What I'm trying to understand here is whether the supernova evidence really does support changing c as you predict. Your plot in this post shows a straight line you have drawn which matches the supernova data very well. I've tried to understand the procedure by which you've produced the adjusted values for magnitude and z for the two points marked on the plot (at Z = 0.5 and Z = 1.0) and believe I'm doing this correctly. I get the same values for the two points marked on your graph, but I can't reproduce the straight line that gives adjusted values of z up to (and presumably beyond) z = 1. Instead, I find that using your procedure it doesn't seem possible to produce adjusted redshifts above about z = 0.65. So rather than the straight line you have drawn, I get a line that curves sharply upward at 0.65 on the horizontal axis. Is it possible that you have extrapolated a straight line that appears to fit the data using those two points on the graph?

Would you be able to check a couple of values for me and see if we agree? For the points marked on the plot I get:

Z = 0.5 gives z = 0.3841

Z = 1.0 gives z = 0.5728

which agree with the values in your paper. For some other values I get:

Z = 1.25 gives z = 0.6171

Z = 1.50 gives z = 0.6401

Z = 1.75 gives z = 0.6488

Z = 2.00 gives z = 0.6482

and so on. If you calculate the adjusted values your way, do you get the same answers as me?

Or to reverse the procedure, what value of Z on the horizontal axis of your plot will yield an adjusted value of z = 1?

Tim has done an excellent job of calculating all this. You have found the recursion relation. At low redshifts we can use sqrt(1 + Z) because Z and z are nearly equal. Redshifts tend to converge around z = 0.65, so the calculation at ultra-high redshifts is slightly different.

An object of redshift Z = 2.0 would be receding at 80% of today's speed of light co. We must divide by:

ci/co = sqrt(1 + 0.65) ~ 1.3

80% of today's co is only about 60%of ci at time supernova exploded. Apparent redshift is then 1.0, so we move the data point to the left.

Energy production mc^2 is increased by 1.65 for a magnitude change of -0.54. The ticker moves down by 0.54, right in the middle of the data points.

I prefer not to use these ultra-high redshift supernovae, because the observations could be clouded by dust or other factors. We may eventually need to revise the standard formula for calculating redshifts, but enough apple carts have been upset today.

Again Tim's work in calculating all this is appreciated. Intelligent comments help to move the theory along.

The supernova of redshift Z = 1.5 would be receding at 72% of co, today's speed of light.

Divide by sqrt(1.65), it recedes at 56% of ci at time light was emitted.

Apparent redshift z = 0.88, magnitude change is again -0.54, still in the middle of data points.

If redshift were simply v/c, it could not be higher than 1.0 because nothing travels faster than light. This leads to some very interesting conclusions.

Thanks Louise. I'm afraid I'm a bit unclear how you're getting these values.

"Redshifts tend to converge around z = 0.65".

I don't really understand what you mean by this. To me it appears that when I adjust high redshifts using your procedure they converge to z=0.65, but this is a consequence of your theory. It does not seem to match the supernovae data.

"An object of redshift Z = 2.0 would be receding at 80% of today's speed of light co".

Agreed. I am using the relativistic redshift formula

1 + Z = sqrt((1+v/c0)/(1-v/c0))

and with Z=2 I get v/c0=0.8 (exactly).

"80% of today's co is only about 60% of ci at time supernova exploded."

I don't understand how you get 60%. In your paper you state that "When light of redshift Z was emitted, c was greater by factor sqrt(1 + Z)" ie.

ci = sqrt(1+Z) c0

So if we agree that an object of redshift Z=2 is receding at v/c0 = 0.8, then at the time of emission it is receding at

v/ci = v/(sqrt(1+Z)*c0)

= 0.8/sqrt(1+2)

= 0.46

or 46% of ci at the time. This yields an adjusted value for z of

z = sqrt((1+0.46)/(1-0.46))

= 0.64

To be totally explicit: suppose we measure an object at Z=2. It's apparent velocity is 0.8*3x10^8 = 2.4x10^8 m/s. However, at the time of emission

ci = sqrt(1+2)*3x10^8

= 5.2x10^8 m/s,

so the velocity then is 2.4/5.2 = 0.46 or 46% of ci at the time.

The only way I can reproduce your 60% of ci (actually I get close to 62%) is by

assuminga value of z=0.65 - but this is the value that we are trying to determine. You do the same thing for the Z=1.5 calculation.It would help me a lot if you could provide an explicit formula or procedure to calculate little-z from big-Z which works regardless of the relative sizes of z and Z. Could you do that please?

it's amazing to study about jupiter's core.

Post a Comment

## Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home