The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.

Quote from: sokarul on April 22, 2016, 10:55:26 AM

1. The energy comes from the earth.
2. Planes do fly faster going west to east due to the jet stream. As for your actual comment, are you aware the higher a plane goes the further it has to travel?
3. Do you have any sources that state the bands on Jupiter are from the rotation if Jupiter?

1. If the earth was physically connected to the atmosphere, then what you say would be correct. But they are not, they are connected by friction and the friction would be greatest at the surface of the earth. The atmosphere would have a tendency to shear or slip the higher it went. At the far reaching limits it probably wouldn't be rotating at all. So I think your answer is wrong.

2. I'm talking about planes at the same altitude. I shouldn't have to say that for you to get my point.

3. Jupiter's Atmospheric Features:

The exterior of Jupiter is noted by its brightly colored latitudinal zones, dark belts and thin bands dotted with numerous storms and eddies. Due to differential rotation, the equatorial zones and belts rotate faster than the higher latitudes and poles as seen in this Jupiter movie.


The zones and belts are zonal jet streams moving with velocities up to 400 miles/hr. Wind direction alternates between adjacent zones and belts. The light colored zones are regions of upward moving convective currents. The darker belts are made of downward sinking material. The two are therefore always found next to each other. The boundaries of the zones and belts (called bands) display complex turbulence and vortex phenomenon.

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast121/lectures/lec19.html

1. I agree, just like a blender. But you need to remember the only force acting on the atmosphere is from the earth. Nothing is counteracting the rotation.
2. You missed the point. Anyaways, when a plane takes off, it is traveling at the same speed as the earth's rotation. It then encounter's air resistance. I don't believe the speed difference will be great enough to notice. Not to mention there is less air the further up you go. Plus as already mention, air still freely moves around while generally moving with the earth's rotation.
3. Seems like it's more about Coriolis effect. It even mentions the belts moving in opposite directions. This doesn't seem to claim they are formed from the rotation of Jupiter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Jupiter

I have a few questions and please give me your answers. The further out you go from the center on a rotating body the faster the rotation becomes until you reach the outside edge. That means the equator rotates at a higher rate then at the poles. Because of friction the atmosphere is rotating in perfect sync with the earth  and the atmosphere has to be rotating at a faster rate or not at the same rate the earth rotates because it is further away from the surface. My questions are these, If the earth is rotating at a certain rate and the atmosphere is rotating at a higher rate then the earth, where does the atmosphere get the increased energy to cause it to rotate faster then the earth?  Because the atmosphere is rotating at a higher rate then the surface of the earth, why don't planes arrive sooner going from W-E then they do going from E-W? Why doesn't the earth's atmosphere form bands due to the different rotational speeds from the poles all the way through the atmosphere? We can see them in pictures of Jupiter but not in pictures of the earth.

Well no one said the entire atmosphere is rotating in complete sync with the surface. There differences as you go up and as you go north and south. These differences are very small though and contribute to the global weather patterns.

Lets look at some math. The Earth has a radius of about 3965 miles at the equator. The formula for circumference is 2*pi*r, giving a circumference for the equator of

2 * 3.14 * 3965 miles = 24900 miles.
24900 miles / 24 hours = 1038 mph

This is where we get the often quoted 1000 mph figure. Now add an extra 10 miles to the radius, for an altitude of 52800 feet. This is close to the maximum altitude for most passenger aircraft and is higher than what is normally flown at.

2 * 3.14 * 3975 miles = 24963 miles
24963 miles / 24 hours = 1040 mph

At the altitude of 52800 feet the difference in speed if 2 mph. This is almost nothing for an airliner traveling 500 mph. If the flight is anywhere other than directly over the equator, the difference is even smaller.

As for the bands when compared to Jupiter, Jupiter is much larger and spins much faster. It's atmosphere is much more chaotic, it is basically one large storm. The radius for Jupiter is around 43,441 miles and has a rotational period of 9.9 hours. Same equation as before.

2 * 3.14 * 43441 miles = 272,810 miles
272,810 miles / 9.9 hours = 27,557 mph

27 times faster than Earth, much more of a difference between the poles and the equator than Earth.

The most massive storms we have on Earth, hurricanes or typhoons, are affected by the difference in rotational speed from North to South. It is why they rotate different directions in the Northern vs the Southern hemisphere. They don't cross the equator either, they would have to change directions. How does the flat Earth theory explain them rotating different directions in different hemispheres?

I have a few questions and please give me your answers. The further out you go from the center on a rotating body the faster the rotation becomes until you reach the outside edge. That means the equator rotates at a higher rate then at the poles. Because of friction the atmosphere is rotating in perfect sync with the earth  and the atmosphere has to be rotating at a faster rate or not at the same rate the earth rotates because it is further away from the surface. My questions are these, If the earth is rotating at a certain rate and the atmosphere is rotating at a higher rate then the earth, where does the atmosphere get the increased energy to cause it to rotate faster then the earth?  Because the atmosphere is rotating at a higher rate then the surface of the earth, why don't planes arrive sooner going from W-E then they do going from E-W? Why doesn't the earth's atmosphere form bands due to the different rotational speeds from the poles all the way through the atmosphere? We can see them in pictures of Jupiter but not in pictures of the earth.

It would only be slightly faster (as shown by Inkey's post), and even then, it would be stationary over a given point on the surface if it still had the same RPM. 

Quote from: 29silhouette on April 19, 2016, 07:27:42 PM

Quote from: Yendor on April 19, 2016, 03:35:54 PM

Riding inside a closed in vehicle proves nothing.

Because the air is moving the same speed as......?

29silhouette, I know you try hard to persuade me a lot of times and I respect that. However, when it comes to the earth spinning I have a hard time accepting it. Never in my life did I believe it was true just because I was told that. You, on the other hand, seem to accept it with no reservations. I have tried to find proof on the internet that the earth does actually spin and the only proof I can really find is a swinging pendulum. I have found many articles that say the the pendulum uses electromagnetism to keep it swinging and another device to keep in going in a circular pattern.

The pendulum does stop swinging after a while, so some means is required to keep it swinging.  Nothing is stopping you from making one yourself to see if it works.  Nothing should be needed to keep the 'circular' pattern going though.  That info didn't come from something like "we gots us some satan-nasa conspiracies.org" did it?

I have read that it swings in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere.

That is to be expected on a globe Earth.

I have even read where Noble Prize Winner, Maurice Allais saw the pendulum's movement was affected during an Eclipse.

I looked into that.  Yet to be solved apparently, and only seen sometimes.  It is interesting.

Say we trust the pendulum and it works just as expected, why can't it be the aether causing it to work. The Michelson-Gale experiment detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth. Airey’s failure experiment didn't detect earth movement at all, only star movement.

I'll have to look into those experiments again.

To me, the evidence the pendulum presents is nothing I would hang my hat on as actual proof. So I ask you dear friend, what is it that has convinced you, beyond a shadow of doubt, the earth is spinning. Maybe then it will convince me too. I don't want math formulas, just give me an experiment or some physical proof that has convinced you it spins and it could not possible be something else causing the same results.

Moon and sun are the same size all day, the same face is seen all day, they go below the horizon, move the same speed overhead as they at the horizon, and move the same speed overhead in both the northern and southern hemisphere.  Stars stay the same size and distance between each other all night, and rotate around two opposite celestial poles.  FE's explainations for what is seen have too many issues and contradicting models to make it work.

Being able to comprehend inertia, frames of reference, optics, various properties of a sphere that size, etc, help too in understanding how a spinning globe is far more likely and simpler.

Precession can be, has been, and continues to be measured. Astrometry is the branch of astronomy that deals with the measurement of the positions and motions of the celestial bodies; comparing actual star positions against predictions very accurately is what they do, among other things.

My previous message proves very clearly that the axial precession of the Earth is a myth: there simply are no historical/astronomical records to prove it.

Your previous message was a long, rambling collection of anecdotes about the history of some religious traditions and various other unsubstantiated assertions. It's not proof of anything other than that you can paste copied text into a very long post.

Repeating parts of it in another long pasted-together post doesn't make it any more correct. Not even emphasizing some of the text in red makes it true.

The most precise proof, within a fraction of a second, that the Earth DOES NOT undergo an axial precession at all.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1718735#msg1718735

THE SIRIUS MERIDIAN TRANSIT PERIODS DATA: INEXISTENCE OF EARTH’S AXIAL PRECESSION

https://web.archive.org/web/20100305042618/http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/diagrams/SiriusTransitObservations.shtml

The latter link is to a web archive from March 2010, more than six years ago.

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA:

A thorough analysis of the data would require a comparison with data obtained over the same time periods by the International Earth Rotation Service, US Naval Observatory or NASA, for example.

That same statement is in the earliest archive of the article at that site, March, 2005, more than eleven years ago.

Was this comparison ever done?

http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/SiriusResearch.shtml

Extended sidereal time-measurements from 6 April 1994 to 6 April 1996 revealed a total negative time deviation of 1.6 seconds from tropical-sidereal time. According to 'precession' this difference should be about 3.34 seconds per year. Hence a total negative deviation of about 6.68 seconds was to be expected, but did not occur in reality.

The continuous measurement of 6 April 1994 to 5 April 2000 confirmed this fact conclusively. In that period the total negative deviation of 'Sirius time' from the total mean sidereal time accumulated to 4.1 seconds. This means about negative 0.68 s per year (!). Again, according to 'precession' a negative time difference of 6 × 3.34 s or about 20 seconds should have occurred, but did NOT occur with respect to Sirius!

As a matter of fact, the mean rotation period of the earth relative to Sirius is nearly identical to the time interval of the mean sidereal day of 86164.09054 seconds.

The meridian transit measurements of Sirius have shown that neither a time difference of 6 × 1223 s, nor a difference of 6 × 3.34 s has occurred over the 6-year observation period from April 1994 to April 2000.

These observations clearly indicate that the so-called 'precession of the earth' is NOT a scientific fact.

[This page was updated June 19, 2012]
...
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA:
A thorough analysis of the data would require a comparison with data obtained over the same time periods by the International Earth Rotation Service, US Naval Observatory or NASA, for example.

Have these observations been independently confirmed by anyone?

Solar precession is an absolute reality: it is the SUN which moves 1.5 km/year in a westward shift, the Earth is absolutely stationary.

Is emphasis in red what you think it takes to make a baseless claim true?

You seem to have missed this in my earlier post:

Star atlases published using 1950 as the epoch show different celestial coordinates, compared with Epoch J2000.0, by nearly a degree along the Ecliptic down to near zero near the ecliptic poles, mostly due to 50 years' worth of precession.

Can you explain why high-quality star atlases from epochs 50 years apart show coordinates of fixed stars along the Ecliptic have shifted almost a degree, while they haven't shifted at all 90° from the Ecliptic?

Sirius has shifted a total of 0.5391° relative to the Ecliptic and Equinoxes in the 50 years between epoch J1950.0 and J2000.0, according to Stellarium. That's 0.01078°, or 38.82 arcseconds per year. Since Sirius is at ecliptic latitude 39.58°, then the motion of the Equinoxes along the Ecliptic is 38.82" / cos(39.58°) = 38.82" / 0.7707 = 50.36"/yr. This is close to the expected value of 5,029 arcseconds per Julian century[nb]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession#Values[/nb].



[speculation]
"But... but..." you'll splutter. "Stellarium uses a model that assumes precession. Of course it will give the expected answer."
[/speculation]

That's true, but the 1950.0  coordinates for Sirius given by Stellarium agree with the location for Sirius in the Atlas Coeli 1950.0 I have (mine is the 1962 edition), which is large enough that it be read to a tenth of a degree or better, and the J2000.0 Stellarium location agrees with the more modern Pocket Sky Atlas (and my telescope, which precesses coordinates to date from J2000.0). If one of these sets of coordinates is wrong, which one is it? Mislocating most celestial objects by more than a half degree would have caused howls in the professional and amateur astronomical community at one or the other of those times. None have been heard.

Your previous message was a long, rambling collection of anecdotes about the history of some religious traditions and various other unsubstantiated assertions. It's not proof of anything other than that you can paste copied text into a very long post.

Perhaps you are in need of some urgent psychiatric treatment.

EVERYTHING you know about history is based on the works of J. Scaliger and D. Petavius.

In turn, THEY base the central pillar of their interpretation of the chronology of history on the works of Matthew Vlastar and Dionysius Exiguus.


ARE YOU CALLING GAUSS' EASTER FORMULA AN ANECDOTE?

Is this guy for serious?

Gauss' Easter Formula is the most precise astronomical dating available.

It proves immediately that the spring equinox did not fall on March 21 in the year 325 AD.


With the Easter formula derived by C.F. Gauss in 1800, Nosovsky calculated the Julian dates of all spring full moons from the first century AD up to his own time and compared them with the Easter dates obtained from the Easter Book. He reached a surprising conclusion: three of the four conditions imposed by the First Council of Nicaea were violated until 784, whereas Vlastar had noted that “all the restrictions except the last one have been kept firmly until now.” When proposing the year 325, Scaliger had no way of detecting this fault, because in the sixteenth century the full-moon calculations for the distant past couldn’t be performed with precision.

G. Nosovky:

The Council that introduced the Paschalia – according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council – could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if we’re to follow the consensual chronological version, we’ll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.



Anecdotes?


Just an extraordinary application of Gauss' celebrated formula to the historical/astronomical records YOU CLAIM TO BE TRUE.


What could possibly be the matter? Why don’t modern commentators find themselves capable of quoting the rest of Vlastar’s text? We are of the opinion that they attempt to conceal from the reader the fragments of ancient texts that explode the entire edifice of Scaliger’s chronology. We shall quote this part completely:

“There are four rules concerning the Easter. The first two are the apostolic rules, and the other two are known from tradition. The first rule is that the Easter should be celebrated after the spring equinox. The second is that is should not be celebrated together with the Judeans. The third: not just after the equinox, but also after the first full moon following the equinox. And the fourth: not just after the full moon, but the first Sunday following the full moon… The current Paschalia was compiled and given to the church by our fathers in full faith that it does not contradict any of the quoted postulates. (This is the place the quoting usually stops, as we have already mentioned – Auth.). They created it the following way: 19 consecutive years were taken starting with the year 6233 since Genesis (= 725 AD – Auth.) and up until the year 6251 (= 743 AD – Auth.), and the date of the first full moon after the spring equinox was looked up for each one of them. The Paschalia makes it obvious that when the Elders were doing it; the equinox fell on the 21st of March” ([518]).



Thus, the Circle for Moon – the foundation of the Paschalia – was devised according to the observations from the years 725-743 AD; hence, the Paschalia couldn’t possibly have been compiled, let alone canonized, before that.


DO YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH?

Do I have to spell it out for you?

THE HISTORICAL RECORDS PROVE THAT THERE WAS NO AXIAL PRECESSION OF THE EARTH.

For this to have happened, you need the spring equinox to fall on March 21 in the year 325 AD.

Period.

Gauss' Easter formula proves immediately that the spring equinox fell on March 21 in the  year 743 AD.

A total debunking of your statements.


ANECDOTES?


Let us have a look at how the biography of the central pillar of modern chronology, Dionysius Exiguus, was faked:

Here we have the most direct, comprehensive, and splendid proof, again using Gauss' Easter Formula (which no RE or UAFE can deny) that our official chronology of history was absolutely falsified during the Renaissance:

Dionysius Exiguus, On Easter (translation from Latin to English)


http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/dionysius_exiguus_easter_01.htm


Exiguus assigns the date of March 24, year 563 AD, for the Passover.


However, in the year 563 AD, the Passover fell on March 25.


http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/easter/easter_text4a.htm


Dr. G. Nosovsky:

We don’t have to observe the sky or perform astronomical calculations every time; compiling a table of March and April full moons for any given period of 19 years should suffice for further reference. The reason is that the phases of the moon recur every 19 years in the Julian calendar, and the recurrence cycle remains unaltered for centuries on end – that is, if the full moon fell on the 25th March any given year, it shall occur on the 25th of March in 19 years, in 38 (19 x 2) years, etc.

The malfunctions in the cycle shall begin after 300 years, which is to say that if we cover 300 years in 19-year cycles, the full moon shall gradually begin to migrate to its neighbouring location in the calendar. The same applies to new moons and all the other phases of the moon.

But Exiguus could not have been unaware of the date of Passover in the the almost contemporary year 563! To that end it was sufficient to apply the Metonian cycle to the coming 30-40 years; the inaccuracy of the Metonian cycle does not show up for such intervals.

As he specially worked with the calendar situation of almost contemporary year 563 and as he based his calculation of the era "since the birth of Christ" on this situation, Dionysius could not help seeing that, first, the calendar situation in the year 563 did not conform to the Gospels' description and, second, that the coincidence of Easter with Passover in 563 contradicts the essence of the determination of Easter the Easter Book is based on.


Therefore, it appears absolutely incredible that the calculations of the First Easter and of the Birth of Christ had been carried out in the 6th century on the basis of the calendar situation of the year 563. It was shown in Sec. 1 that the Easter Book, used by Dionysius, had not been compiled before the 8th century and had been canonized only at the end of the 9th century. Therefore, the calculations carried out by (or ascribed to) Dionysius the Little had not been carried out before the lOth century.

Using Gauss' Easter Formula, Dr. G.V. Nosovksy verified the interval of 100 BC - 1700 AD, using the exact conditions stipulated by Exiguus, and found that ONLY the date of 1095 AD corresponds exactly.



For your information, EVERYTHING you know about ancient history is based totally on Exiguus' easter tables calculation.

His tables form the basis of Scaliger's and Petavius' works, especially the crucial datings of Christ's crucifixion and the dating of the Council of Nicaea.


But his tables were forged centuries later, Gauss' Easter formula proves this very clearly.

YOU have no historical/astronomical data to prove that the Earth EVER underwent an axial shift (precession).

Your miserable trolling is over.

The latter link is to a web archive from March 2010, more than six years ago.

No shit.

That web archive link date is correct: IT IS dated March 2010.

Was this comparison ever done?

It was an OPEN INVITATION for the US Naval Observatory or NASA to go ahead and release their data on the subject, or to at least offer some comments.

None were offerred.

No one else has been able to devote the time and effort required to duplicate the extraordinary results obtained by Karl-Heinz Homann.

But it can be done anytime.


You certainly have no idea what stellar precession really is all about.

The apparent motion of the entire sphere of the fixed stars - the general precession of 50.26" per tropical year - is due to our non-stationary sun moving through space
around sirius.

This is the key result of the data obtained by Homann.

The continuous measurement of 6 April 1994 to 5 April 2000 confirmed this fact conclusively. In that period the total negative deviation of 'Sirius time' from the total mean sidereal time accumulated to 4.1 seconds. This means about negative 0.68 s per year (!). Again, according to 'precession' a negative time difference of 6 × 3.34 s or about 20 seconds should have occurred, but did NOT occur with respect to Sirius!

As a matter of fact, the mean rotation period of the earth relative to Sirius is nearly identical to the time interval of the mean sidereal day of 86164.09054 seconds.

The meridian transit measurements of Sirius have shown that neither a time difference of 6 × 1223 s, nor a difference of 6 × 3.34 s has occurred over the 6-year observation period from April 1994 to April 2000.

These observations clearly indicate that the so-called 'precession of the earth' is NOT a scientific fact.

In other words, Sirius moves with the sun and therefore does not precess relative to the equinox or solstice.

The only way this could be true is if the binary theory of precession were true and if Sirius were the Sun’s companion. In this alternate model, the observable of precession is due simply to a solar system in motion (around another star that acts as a pivot point or crossing point) and has nothing to do with a wobbling earth.


Can you understand this much?

When it comes to the Solar System, we have a big problem with angular momentum. This problem is related to the theory of how the Solar System formed out of a nebular cloud, otherwise known as the Nebular Condensation Theory.

According to the theory, every nebula starts out with a certain amount of angular momentum. As the particles and gasses condense to form a central proto-star, the proto-star's rotation should accelerate to conserve the total angular momentum. Think of an ice skater as she brings her arms and legs close to the vertical axis of rotation, spinning ever faster.

But despite what the Nebular Theory predicts, the Sun actually has very little angular momentum to speak of, at least compared to the other planets. The Sun contains about 1000 times more mass than all the planets combined, yet it possesses a mere 0.3 percent of the total angular momentum of the Solar System. Most of the angular momentum exists in the outer-gas planets like Saturn and Jupiter. So the question is, if the Nebular Theory is accurate, then where is the Sun's missing angular momentum?



If we factor in a hypothetical 24,000 year binary orbit shared with another star, then the missing angular momentum shows up in the Sun exactly where we'd expect it (see graph below.)



"However, when it comes to the difference between the Sidereal Year and the Solar (or Equinoctial, or Tropical) Year, we have a completely different explanation. There is about a twenty minute difference between the two, such that the Sidereal Year is always slightly ahead of the solar year - just like the sidereal day is slightly ahead of the solar day, by analogy. The accepted theory for this precessional movement is called the Lunisolar Theory (which has to do with the wobbling motion of the Earth's axis, explained in greater detail below.) When dealing with the Sidereal Day versus Solar Day, we see that these differences are due to the extra orbital movement of the Earth around the Sun. So the question is: should the Sidereal Year be treated in the same manner? If the difference between the Sidereal Day and the Solar Day is the Earth's orbit about the Sun, couldn't the difference between the Sidereal Year and the Solar Year (known as precession) be due to the Sun's orbit about another body? That's how the analogy goes in any case. In the Binary Model both the Sidereal Day and the Sidereal Year are caused by the same type of Keplarian orbital motion."

First of all, if this axial top-like motion were occurring, then we'd expect to lose a small amount of time each day. We would start to notice a small shift in our calculations for eclipses, planetary transits and such, which have to be measured fairly accurately. The motion of the planets that we observe in the sky should also precess along with the rest of the stars and galaxies in the background, but according to Karl Heinz and Uwe Homann in their studies, they don't. According to Crutenden, we don't take into account precessional movement when calculating the positions of the planets or anything within our solar system for that matter. So any planets or other objects within the Solar System do not appear to precess with respect to the Earth. The only objects that follow precessional movement are those outside the Solar System. If this is the case, then precession cannot be due to this top-like motion that the Lunisolar Theory dictates.

Another feature of precession that the Luni-solar model has a difficult time explaining is the fact that the rate of annual precession appears to be increasing. The graph below plots several rates taken at various times throughout the last Century. The first set of points were recorded by the astronomer Simon Newcomb in the early 1900's, and then later were taken from the Astronomical Almanac. The red line represents the best-fit rate of change for the observed precession.



Now if this were due to a top-like motion of the Earth's axis a la the Luni-solar theory, then we should be able to extrapolate this trend out to millions of years - still a blink of the eye in terms of Earth's history. This means that the precessional top-like movement would be so slow millions of years ago that it would be hardly noticeable. The Earth would hardly appear to wobble at all. Whereas if we look ahead millions of years, we would find the Earth's axis wobbling so fast that it makes a full precessional cycle in a matter of years! The more likely explanation is that the observed increase in annual precession rate is due to something other than the Earth's axial motion.

The Luni-solar Theory becomes even more absurd when one considers the fact that the forces due to gravity are used to explain this top-like motion. This implies that the mass of the Earth or Moon, or Sun is somehow changing in size or distribution. Given what we can see and observe, this seems unlikely (although who knows how a companion star might affect the gravitational dynamics as it approaches its nearest point to the Sun.) More than likely, the Earth does not wobble to any significant degree, other than rotational wobbling like the Chandler wobble, and the observed precession is not due to any movement of the Earth itself.

This increase in the annual precession rate is exactly what we would expect from a binary star system, however. In a binary star system, both stars oscillate towards and then away from each other, all the while spinning around some imaginary center of gravity. As the stars approach one another, their velocity accelerates until they reach perihelion (or the closest point of approach), then their velocity decreases until they reach aphelion (or the furthest point of separation.) This means that based on the increasing trend shown in the graph above, we should expect the two stars to be somewhere on the path approaching perihelion.


Explain the angular momentum of the Sun paradox.

Explain the increasing rate of annual precession.

Historical records do show precession.
http://www.space.com/10527-earth-orbit-shaped-sahara.html

Wow! Two long posts in response. I mush have touched a nerve!

First this:

Your previous message was a long, rambling collection of anecdotes about the history of some religious traditions and various other unsubstantiated assertions. It's not proof of anything other than that you can paste copied text into a very long post.

Perhaps you are in need of some urgent psychiatric treatment.

You dummy.

Is that the best argument you have?

Weak.

EVERYTHING you know about history is based on the works of J. Scaliger and D. Petavius.

In turn, THEY base the central pillar of their interpretation of the chronology of history on the works of Matthew Vlastar and Dionysius Exiguus.

ARE YOU CALLING GAUSS' EASTER FORMULA AN ANECDOTE?

Is this guy for serious?

Gauss' Easter Formula is the most precise astronomical dating available.

Citation needed.

It proves immediately that the spring equinox did not fall on March 21 in the year 325 AD.

For the purpose of determining the date of Easter, isn't the vernal equinox defined to occur on March 21? If Gauss' formula gives a different date, then how accurate can it be?

With the Easter formula derived by C.F. Gauss in 1800, Nosovsky calculated the Julian dates of all spring full moons from the first century AD up to his own time and compared them with the Easter dates obtained from the Easter Book. He reached a surprising conclusion: three of the four conditions imposed by the First Council of Nicaea were violated until 784, whereas Vlastar had noted that “all the restrictions except the last one have been kept firmly until now.” When proposing the year 325, Scaliger had no way of detecting this fault, because in the sixteenth century the full-moon calculations for the distant past couldn’t be performed with precision.

G. Nosovky:

The Council that introduced the Paschalia – according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council – could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

...

Thus, if we’re to follow the consensual chronological version, we’ll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.

Anecdotes?

Yeah... that's the kind of anecdotal evidence I was referring to.

No, you dummy.

Weak.

Just an extraordinary application of Gauss' celebrated formula to the historical/astronomical records YOU CLAIM TO BE TRUE.

Where did I make such a claim?

I did find this:

Using the Gauss algorithm for years prior to 1583 is historically pointless since the Gregorian calendar was not utilised for determining Easter before that year. Using the algorithm far into the future is questionable since nothing is known about how different churches will choose to define Easter that far ahead. Easter calculations are based on agreements and conventions, not on the actual celestial movements nor on indisputable facts of history.

What could possibly be the matter? Why don’t modern commentators find themselves capable of quoting the rest of Vlastar’s text? We are of the opinion that they attempt to conceal from the reader the fragments of ancient texts that explode the entire edifice of Scaliger’s chronology. We shall quote this part completely:

“There are four rules concerning the Easter. The first two are the apostolic rules, and the other two are known from tradition. The first rule is that the Easter should be celebrated after the spring equinox. The second is that is should not be celebrated together with the Judeans. The third: not just after the equinox, but also after the first full moon following the equinox. And the fourth: not just after the full moon, but the first Sunday following the full moon… The current Paschalia was compiled and given to the church by our fathers in full faith that it does not contradict any of the quoted postulates. (This is the place the quoting usually stops, as we have already mentioned – Auth.). They created it the following way: 19 consecutive years were taken starting with the year 6233 since Genesis (= 725 AD – Auth.) and up until the year 6251 (= 743 AD – Auth.), and the date of the first full moon after the spring equinox was looked up for each one of them. The Paschalia makes it obvious that when the Elders were doing it; the equinox fell on the 21st of March” ([518]).

"Easter calculations are based on agreements and conventions, not on the actual celestial movements nor on indisputable facts of history."

Yup.

Thus, the Circle for Moon – the foundation of the Paschalia – was devised according to the observations from the years 725-743 AD; hence, the Paschalia couldn’t possibly have been compiled, let alone canonized, before that.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH?

Do I have to spell it out for you?

THE HISTORICAL RECORDS PROVE THAT THERE WAS NO AXIAL PRECESSION OF THE EARTH.

Prove? The historical records themselves are in dispute.

For this to have happened, you need the spring equinox to fall on March 21 in the year 325 AD.

Period.

Gauss' Easter formula proves immediately that the spring equinox fell on March 21 in the year 743 AD.

"Using the Gauss algorithm for years prior to 1583 is historically pointless since the Gregorian calendar was not utilised for determining Easter before that year."

A total debunking of your statements.

Nice claim. All you've done is argue over obscure interpretations of long-ago historical events from apparently faulty records. Unfortunately (for you) nothing has been debunked.

ANECDOTES?

Have you lost your mind completely?

I don't think so, but I am posting on a Flat Earth Society forum, so some people may question this.

Let us have a look at how the biography of the central pillar of modern chronology, Dionysius Exiguus, was faked:

Here we have the most direct, comprehensive, and splendid proof, again using Gauss' Easter Formula (which no RE or UAFE can deny) that our official chronology of history was absolutely falsified during the Renaissance:

See what I mean about disputed historical records? You're the one making this point.

Dionysius Exiguus, On Easter (translation from Latin to English)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/dionysius_exiguus_easter_01.htm

Exiguus assigns the date of March 24, year 563 AD, for the Passover.

However, in the year 563 AD, the Passover fell on March 25.

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/easter/easter_text4a.htm

So it's anecdotal.

Dr. G. Nosovsky:

<more anecdotes>

Using Gauss' Easter Formula, Dr. G.V. Nosovksy verified the interval of 100 BC - 1700 AD, using the exact conditions stipulated by Exiguus, and found that ONLY the date of 1095 AD corresponds exactly.

For your information, EVERYTHING you know about ancient history is based totally on Exiguus' easter tables calculation.

His tables form the basis of Scaliger's and Petavius' works, especially the crucial datings of Christ's crucifixion and the dating of the Council of Nicaea.

But his tables were forged centuries later, Gauss' Easter formula proves this very clearly.

You're making a pretty strong case for all this being anecdotal.

YOU have no historical/astronomical data to prove that the Earth EVER underwent an axial shift (precession).

That reminds me... do you have any comment about the atlases using epochs 50 years apart clearly showing precession? Instead of trying to parse and tease information out of apparently unreliable historical records, how about working with data?

"Easter calculations are based on agreements and conventions, not on the actual celestial movements nor on indisputable facts of history."

Your miserable trolling is over.

Gratuitous ad-homs are a sign of a weak argument.

Moving right along...

The latter link is to a web archive from March 2010, more than six years ago.

No shit.

That web archive link date is correct: IT IS dated March 2010.

Was this comparison ever done?

It was an OPEN INVITATION for the US Naval Observatory or NASA to go ahead and release their data on the subject, or to at least offer some comments.

None were offerred.

I take it the answer is no. Did he actually get in touch with USNO or IERS, or did he just toss that out there and hope they didn't see it so people can claim "conspiracy"? I don't think NASA is involved with this sort of measurement, but since they're the go-to boogeyman for the conspiracy crowd, I suppose it isn't surprising to see their name in the mix, too.

It's up to Herr Homann to make the comparison with the status quo and publish that; the IERS and USNO have more important things to do than to respond to unverified data published in an obscure journal. It's been more than eleven years since that statement was made; plenty of time for follow-up work. Apparently none has been done.

No one else has been able to devote the time and effort required to duplicate the extraordinary results obtained by Karl-Heinz Homann.

Having independently verified data would be helpful, but apparently that's too much bother. Overturning useful models based on centuries of observations is going to take hard work. If no one is willing to undertake the necessary data collection and verification to do so, then don't whine to me about it.

But it can be done anytime.

Then get cracking!

You certainly have no idea what stellar precession really is all about.

It appears I have a much better idea than you do. The model I believe is correct actually works.

The apparent motion of the entire sphere of the fixed stars - the general precession of 50.26" per tropical year - is due to our non-stationary sun moving through space
around sirius.

This is the key result of the data obtained by Homann.

Wow! That's a new one! So Homann thinks the entire solar system is orbiting around Sirius?

That ought to be easy enough to verify. In half the precession cycle Sirius will have migrated into the constellation Hercules while the rest of the stars stay put relative to each other. This would look like very high proper motion of Sirius with respect to stars that currently appear near it. 54 arcseconds per year (using your 24,000-year period, below, but assuming a near-circular orbit) ought to be easy to recognize over, say, 50 years.

I just looked at my atlases; nope. If the pattern of nearby stars were different than shown in the atlases, someone would have noticed. This would also mean the "pole" of precession would have to be 90° away from Sirius, but it's not... as seen earlier, it's about 50° (90° minus ecliptic latitude 39.58°) from Sirius, so that conclusion doesn't match all the other data.

He can't be serious, can he?

But still, at least you now think the fixed stars are on a sphere, so there's some progress!

The continuous measurement of 6 April 1994 to 5 April 2000 confirmed this fact conclusively. In that period the total negative deviation of 'Sirius time' from the total mean sidereal time accumulated to 4.1 seconds. This means about negative 0.68 s per year (!). Again, according to 'precession' a negative time difference of 6 × 3.34 s or about 20 seconds should have occurred, but did NOT occur with respect to Sirius!

As a matter of fact, the mean rotation period of the earth relative to Sirius is nearly identical to the time interval of the mean sidereal day of 86164.09054 seconds.

Did he time the transits of other stars to confirm that Sirius is the only star to exhibit this property?

The meridian transit measurements of Sirius have shown that neither a time difference of 6 × 1223 s, nor a difference of 6 × 3.34 s has occurred over the 6-year observation period from April 1994 to April 2000.

These observations clearly indicate that the so-called 'precession of the earth' is NOT a scientific fact.

Either that, or he's clearly mistaken. My bet is on the latter.

In other words, Sirius moves with the sun and therefore does not precess relative to the equinox or solstice.

The only way this could be true is if the binary theory of precession were true and if Sirius were the Sun’s companion. In this alternate model, the observable of precession is due simply to a solar system in motion (around another star that acts as a pivot point or crossing point) and has nothing to do with a wobbling earth.

Can you understand this much?

I understand that your notion doesn't fit the observational data. That What you propose would be very easy to detect if it were true.

When it comes to the Solar System, we have a big problem with angular momentum. This problem is related to the theory of how the Solar System formed out of a nebular cloud, otherwise known as the Nebular Condensation Theory.

According to the theory, every nebula starts out with a certain amount of angular momentum. As the particles and gasses condense to form a central proto-star, the proto-star's rotation should accelerate to conserve the total angular momentum. Think of an ice skater as she brings her arms and legs close to the vertical axis of rotation, spinning ever faster.

But despite what the Nebular Theory predicts, the Sun actually has very little angular momentum to speak of, at least compared to the other planets. The Sun contains about 1000 times more mass than all the planets combined, yet it possesses a mere 0.3 percent of the total angular momentum of the Solar System^{[citation needed]}. Most of the angular momentum exists in the outer-gas planets like Saturn and Jupiter. So the question is, if the Nebular Theory is accurate, then where is the Sun's missing angular momentum?

This source says the Sun has about 4% of the solar-system's angular momentum. That's a factor of more than ten.

Can you re-calculate that graph using better values, or at least cite the source you are using?

The center of the nebula has less angular momentum than further out, if for no other reason than the radius of rotation has to be much smaller. This isn't a paradox, it's simply what happens.

http://www.sott.net/image/s3/63419/large/ev_img_anglestand2.gif

If we factor in a hypothetical 24,000 year binary orbit shared with another star, then the missing angular momentum shows up in the Sun exactly where we'd expect it (see graph below.)

http://www.sott.net/image/s3/63421/large/ev_img_anglenew.gif

Meanwhile, the center of mass of this system has approximately zero angular momentum.

You're just slamming numbers together to see what might pop out. Sculelos (remember him?) did this all the time, too. His arguments weren't convincing, either.

"However, when it comes to the difference between the Sidereal Year and the Solar (or Equinoctial, or Tropical) Year, we have a completely different explanation. There is about a twenty minute difference between the two, such that the Sidereal Year is always slightly ahead of the solar year - just like the sidereal day is slightly ahead of the solar day, by analogy. The accepted theory for this precessional movement is called the Lunisolar Theory (which has to do with the wobbling motion of the Earth's axis, explained in greater detail below.) When dealing with the Sidereal Day versus Solar Day, we see that these differences are due to the extra orbital movement of the Earth around the Sun. So the question is: should the Sidereal Year be treated in the same manner? If the difference between the Sidereal Day and the Solar Day is the Earth's orbit about the Sun, couldn't the difference between the Sidereal Year and the Solar Year (known as precession) be due to the Sun's orbit about another body? That's how the analogy goes in any case. In the Binary Model both the Sidereal Day and the Sidereal Year are caused by the same type of Keplarian orbital motion."

For that to be consistent with measurements of precession, the orbital plane of the Sun and its partner would have to coincide with the Ecliptic. Not only would this be a huge coincidence, but do you have a particular star on the Ecliptic you think is the one? Hint: it's not Sirius.

First of all, if this axial top-like motion were occurring, then we'd expect to lose a small amount of time each day. We would start to notice a small shift in our calculations for eclipses, planetary transits and such, which have to be measured fairly accurately. The motion of the planets that we observe in the sky should also precess along with the rest of the stars and galaxies in the background, but according to Karl Heinz and Uwe Homann in their studies^{[citation needed]}, they don't. According to Crutenden^{[citation needed]}, we don't take into account precessional movement when calculating the positions of the planets or anything within our solar system for that matter. So any planets or other objects within the Solar System do not appear to precess with respect to the Earth. The only objects that follow precessional movement are those outside the Solar System. If this is the case, then precession cannot be due to this top-like motion that the Lunisolar Theory dictates.

I'd like to see those references. You don't need to consider earth's precession when calculating the positions of solar-system objects in inertial coordinates[nb]Such as the ICRF.[/nb] relative to the Solar System's barycenter (its center of mass); you do consider precession when converting these to RA and Dec for a specific epoch from earth.

Another feature of precession that the Luni-solar model has a difficult time explaining is the fact that the rate of annual precession appears to be increasing^{[citation needed]}. The graph below plots several rates taken at various times throughout the last Century. The first set of points were recorded by the astronomer Simon Newcomb in the early 1900's, and then later were taken from the Astronomical Almanac. The red line represents the best-fit rate of change for the observed precession.

http://www.sott.net/image/s3/64591/large/precession_trends.gif

How does this data compare with Homann's?

Now if this were due to a top-like motion of the Earth's axis a la the Luni-solar theory, then we should be able to extrapolate this trend out to millions of years - still a blink of the eye in terms of Earth's history. This means that the precessional top-like movement would be so slow millions of years ago that it would be hardly noticeable. The Earth would hardly appear to wobble at all. Whereas if we look ahead millions of years, we would find the Earth's axis wobbling so fast that it makes a full precessional cycle in a matter of years! The more likely explanation is that the observed increase in annual precession rate is due to something other than the Earth's axial motion.

Extrapolating trends well beyond the domain of the measurements is not generally a reliable technique. Even assuming the trend is real.

The Luni-solar Theory becomes even more absurd when one considers the fact that the forces due to gravity are used to explain this top-like motion. This implies that the mass of the Earth or Moon, or Sun is somehow changing in size or distribution. Given what we can see and observe, this seems unlikely (although who knows how a companion star might affect the gravitational dynamics as it approaches its nearest point to the Sun.) More than likely, the Earth does not wobble to any significant degree, other than rotational wobbling like the Chandler wobble, and the observed precession is not due to any movement of the Earth itself.

If the speculated increase exists, this would need investigation.

This increase in the annual precession rate is exactly what we would expect from a binary star system, however. In a binary star system, both stars oscillate towards and then away from each other, all the while spinning around some imaginary center of gravity. As the stars approach one another, their velocity accelerates until they reach perihelion (or the closest point of approach), then their velocity decreases until they reach aphelion (or the furthest point of separation.) This means that based on the increasing trend shown in the graph above, we should expect the two stars to be somewhere on the path approaching perihelion.

This explanation has bigger problems, though, as explained above.

Explain the angular momentum of the Sun paradox.

You're claiming there is a paradox where none exists.

Explain the increasing rate of annual precession.

Citation needed.

[Edit] Clarification. Strikethrough old text and underscore new.
[Edit] Insert omitted word minus. Hey... it's a really long post...

I'm going to be on the road for a week or two. I may drop in now and then, but probably not very often. If I don't reply quickly, don't worry.

This will give sandokhan a chance to actually think about his reply and not just quickly post a bunch of junk.

Gauss' Easter formula exposes the massive falsification of the official chronology of history.

The spring equinox could not have fallen on March 21, in the year 325 AD (dating the Council of Nicaea).

IT MUST HAVE FALLEN on March 21, 743 AD (the correct dating of the Council of Nicaea).

A total debunking of the claims made by modern astronomy (that the Earth's axial shift is real).

Gauss' Easter formula tells us that there are no historical/astronomical records to prove any kind of axial shift precessional movement of the Earth.


It also shows how Dionysius Exiguus biography has been forged in order to invent an ancient history which never occurred in the first place.


Dionysius Exiguus, On Easter (translation from Latin to English)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/dionysius_exiguus_easter_01.htm

Exiguus assigns the date of March 24, year 563 AD, for the Passover.

However, in the year 563 AD, the Passover fell on March 25.

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/easter/easter_text4a.htm


These facts cannot be denied, they are real.

They prove immediately the massive effort undertaken by the forgers of history to fake the axial shift of the Earth which never occurred.

Gauss' Easter formula puts to rest the claims that the Earth EVER underwent an axial shift (precession): there are no records available in history to prove this hypothesis.






You're claiming there is a paradox where none exists.

Your deep ignorance on the subject is noted.

The mass of a body and the rate at which it spins, in classical physics, determines an object's "angular momentum."


http://www.zipcon.net/~swhite/docs/astronomy/Angular_Momentum.html (see the graphic there)

So the rotational angular momentum of the Sun, which is 1.1e42, is less than 4% that of the total orbital angular momentum of the planets, which is 3.1e43.

Based on this calculation Jupiter’s orbital angular momentum alone accounts for over 60% of the total angular momentum of the Solar system!

The orbital angular momentum of the Moon 2.9e34 is about four times that of the rotational angular momentum of the Earth, which is 7.1e33.

However, the total orbital angular momenta of the largest moons of Jupiter is less than a hundredth the rotational angular momentum of the planet.



So where did all the angular momentum go if the sun truly formed by gravitational contraction? Astronomers suggest that some of it was transferred to Jupiter and Saturn, which possess 98% of the total angular momentum of the solar system, still far, far less than the angular momentum that would have been generated during the formation of the sun.

Our sun has an extremely small rotational motion—that is, it is turning slowly. This 'angular momentum' is far too small to have evolved from a gas cloud. If our sun came from a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to have been a billion times as much as it is now, in order for our planets to be flung out and orbit it as fast as they do. How could it have lost all of its rotational motion?

A full 99.5 percent of all the angular momentum in the solar system is concentrated in the planets, yet a staggering 99.8 percent of all the mass in our solar system is located in our sun! To an astrophysicist this is both astounding and unexplainable. There is no known mechanical process which could accomplish this transfer of momentum from the sun to its planets.

Our sun is rotating far too slowly to have been formed from a gas cloud that was rotating at high speed. To say it another way: the planets have far too much angular momentum in comparison with the sun. They are moving fast around the sun, while the sun itself is turning very slowly.

Jupiter itself has 60 percent of the planetary angular motion. Evolutionary theory cannot account for this. This strange distribution was the primary cause of the downfall of the nebular hypothesis. To satisfy the theory, the sun would originally have had to spin at an extremely high speed. But instead, it rotates slowly.

*David Layzer, a Harvard University astronomer, could find no solution to the angular momentum problem. If our sun had been part of a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to be a billion times as much as it now possesses. How it could have lost all but one ten-millionth of one percent of its theorized original angular momentum has never been explained. In addition, * Layzer explains, if the sun lost nearly all of its momentum, why did the planets and moons retain so much of theirs?

'Except in the Earth-Moon system (which is exceptional in other respects as well), the primary [the planet] carries the bulk of the angular momentum, instead of the satellites . . This circumstance aggravates the theoretical difficulty presented by the slow rotation of the Sun, for if the Sun has somehow managed to get rid of the angular momentum it would be expected to have, according to the nebular hypotheses, why have the planets not done likewise?'—*David Layzer, 'Cosmogony,' in McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Vol. 3, p. 564.


If the speculated increase exists, this would need investigation.

Your ignorance on the subject is again noted.

The Luni-solar Theory becomes even more absurd when one considers the fact that the forces due to gravity are used to explain this top-like motion. This implies that the mass of the Earth or Moon, or Sun is somehow changing in size or distribution.

Can you understand even the most basic facts of physics?

THE INCREASING RATE OF THE ANNUAL PRECESSION IS A BASIC FACT OF SCIENCE.



It is even listed in the wikipedia page on the axial precession subject.


It is one of the most devastating arguments which proves that the precession HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.

For the same mass of the Sun/Moon, and the for the same supposed law of attractive gravity, the annual precession rate is actually increasing, a clear defiance of the basic principles of astrophysics.

This increase in the annual precession rate is exactly what we would expect from a binary star system, however.


Your FAILURE to explain the increasing rate of the annual precession is a precise debunking of all your "arguments" presented here.


You still do not understand the nature of the binary system Sirius-Sun, here is a basic introduction:

https://magneticnature.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/how-our-sun-orbits-sirius/

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-91430.html (scroll down to the answer provided by Polestar101, 2009-Aug-03, 02:39 AM; a splendid explanation to a question identical to the concern raised in the previous message)

http://pperov.angelfire.com/galactic.html#bin


You have to explain the increasing rate of the annual precession (which cannot be explained in the context of classical astrophysics); if you cannot, anything you say on the subject amounts to nothing.

THE ALLAIS EFFECT: AXIAL PRECESSION IS NOT RELATED TO NEWTONIAN MECHANICS


http://www.allais.info/docs/pugarticle.pdf

The detailed behavior of both pendulums over the eclipse period shown in Fig. 8 was remarkable. During the period before the eclipse no particular disturbance was detected, and the 10-minute precession amounts of both pendulums generally exhibited the same behavior. After the local eclipse maximum the precession amount of the automatic pendulum started to increase steadily, while that of the manual pendulum started to decrease steadily. This trend continued unabated until about forty minutes after fourth contact, when the sense of change of the precession of the manual pendulum changed to be the same as that of the automatic pendulum.

After this both pendulum precession amounts marched together in almost perfect lockstep, decreasing until about 12:15, then executing an abrupt spike upwards and back downwards which ended at about 13:15, and then increasing until about 14:20, at which point the manual pendulum precession again reversed its trend. It is clear from the calmness of the environmental data that these phenomena were not linked to any variation of meteorological conditions.


Analysis. This long Foucault-type pendulum behaved in a very stable manner. However well after the end of the locally visible eclipse, at around 11:33 (to the recording resolution, i.e. between the readings at 11:29 and 11:36), some influence clearly acted for a short period to increase the precession rate. This influence was no longer apparent during the next inter-reading interval (from 11:36 to 11:43), and then reversed itself to some extent during the next interval (from 11:43 to 11:50).


A total debunking of the premises you take to be true: axial precession has nothing to do with attractive gravitation.

THE ALLAIS EFFECT: AXIAL PRECESSION IS NOT RELATED TO NEWTONIAN MECHANICS


http://www.allais.info/docs/pugarticle.pdf

The detailed behavior of both pendulums over the eclipse period shown in Fig. 8 was remarkable. During the period before the eclipse no particular disturbance was detected, and the 10-minute precession amounts of both pendulums generally exhibited the same behavior. After the local eclipse maximum the precession amount of the automatic pendulum started to increase steadily, while that of the manual pendulum started to decrease steadily. This trend continued unabated until about forty minutes after fourth contact, when the sense of change of the precession of the manual pendulum changed to be the same as that of the automatic pendulum.

After this both pendulum precession amounts marched together in almost perfect lockstep, decreasing until about 12:15, then executing an abrupt spike upwards and back downwards which ended at about 13:15, and then increasing until about 14:20, at which point the manual pendulum precession again reversed its trend. It is clear from the calmness of the environmental data that these phenomena were not linked to any variation of meteorological conditions.


Analysis. This long Foucault-type pendulum behaved in a very stable manner. However well after the end of the locally visible eclipse, at around 11:33 (to the recording resolution, i.e. between the readings at 11:29 and 11:36), some influence clearly acted for a short period to increase the precession rate. This influence was no longer apparent during the next inter-reading interval (from 11:36 to 11:43), and then reversed itself to some extent during the next interval (from 11:43 to 11:50).


A total debunking of the premises you take to be true: axial precession has nothing to do with attractive gravitation.

Will you shut the fuck up about the Allais effect?!  Nobody actually cares!

The spirit of denial urges one to reject anything which is not
immediately included in the hypotheses with which one is familiar.

M.A. Ampere


For a theoretician really deserving of the name, there is accordingly
nothing more interesting than a fact which contradicts a theory which
has been previously considered to be true, and thus real work starts at
this point.

M. Planck


blue moon is no aerospace engineering student.

In fact he can barely use the wikipedia pages.


blue moon has no qualifications to speak for Nasa.



forum t f e s .org

Flat Earth Q&A

Why are there two high and low tides each day, etc.?   thread


Confronted with the prospect of actually discussing the advanced mathematics relating to the RE equations of planetary motion/orbits, he answered in this manner:

There's no way I have time to read all that.


When asked to explain the faint young sun paradox, he rapidly accessed the wikipedia page and copied this information:

It's only a contradiction if you assume the same amount of greenhouse heating then as in modern times and don't factor in the stronger tidal heating from the moon, which was much closer at the time.  We don't lose too much sleep over it. 

He had no idea, no knowledge about the recession rate of the moon paradox.


Yet, he delusionally calls himself "qualified" to speak on behalf of Nasa.


Then he again used the wikipedia page to inform us of seismic waves.

But he got it all wrong. Again.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66454.msg1773655#msg1773655


Nasa is very interested in the Allais effect.

In fact, here is the memoir/report prepared by Dr. Maurice Allais for Nasa:

http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf

W. von Braun himself urged Dr. Allais to have his papers translated into English, so that the entire scientific community could have access to his extraordinary findings.

"Before writing to you, I considered it necessary to
visit the two laboratories of Professor Allais (one 60
meters underground), in the company of eminent
specialists – including two professors at the Ecole
Polytechnique. During several hours of discussion, we
could find no source of significant error, nor did any
attempt at explanation survive analysis.

"I should also tell you that during the last two years,
more than ten members of the Academy of Sciences and
more than thirty eminent personalities, specialists in
various aspects of gravitation, have visited both his
laboratory at Saint-Germain, and his underground
laboratory at Bougival.

"Deep discussions took place, not only on these
occasions, but many times in various scientific contexts,
notably at the Academy of Sciences and the National
Center for Scientific Research. None of these discussions
could evolve any explanation within the framework of
currently accepted theories."


If your choice, blue moon, is to school yourself in senselessness, to develop the negation of reality into a mental habit, then go ahead.

For your information, the entire scientific community, in each and every country, is very much interested to resolve the Allais effect.



The important facts are the crucial facts…. that is to say, those which
can confirm or invalidate a theory. After this, if the results are not in
accord with what was anticipated, real scientists do not feel
embarrassment which they hasten to eliminate with the magic of handwaving;
on the contrary, they feel their curiosity vividly excited; they
know that their efforts, their momentary discomfiture, will be repaid a
hundredfold, because truth is there somewhere, nearby, still hidden and,
so to speak, adorned by the attraction of the mystery, but on the point of
being unveiled.

H. Poincare

The spirit of denial urges one to reject anything which is not
immediately included in the hypotheses with which one is familiar.

M.A. Ampere


For a theoretician really deserving of the name, there is accordingly
nothing more interesting than a fact which contradicts a theory which
has been previously considered to be true, and thus real work starts at
this point.

M. Planck


blue moon is no aerospace engineering student.

In fact he can barely use the wikipedia pages.


blue moon has no qualifications to speak for Nasa.


blue moon is a total fraud.

forum t f e s .org

Flat Earth Q&A

Why are there two high and low tides each day, etc.?   thread


Confronted with the prospect of actually discussing the advanced mathematics relating to the RE equations of planetary motion/orbits, this coward answered in this manner:

There's no way I have time to read all that.


When asked to explain the faint young sun paradox, this numskull rapidly accessed the wikipedia page and copied this information:

It's only a contradiction if you assume the same amount of greenhouse heating then as in modern times and don't factor in the stronger tidal heating from the moon, which was much closer at the time.  We don't lose too much sleep over it. 

He had no idea, no knowledge about the recession rate of the moon paradox.


Yet, he delusionally calls himself "qualified" to speak on behalf of Nasa.


Then he again used the wikipedia page to inform us of seismic waves.

But he got it all wrong. Again.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66454.msg1773655#msg1773655


Nasa is very interested in the Allais effect.

In fact, here is the memoir/report prepared by Dr. Maurice Allais for Nasa:

http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf

W. von Braun himself urged Dr. Allais to have his papers translated into English, so that the entire scientific community could have access to his extraordinary findings.

"Before writing to you, I considered it necessary to
visit the two laboratories of Professor Allais (one 60
meters underground), in the company of eminent
specialists – including two professors at the Ecole
Polytechnique. During several hours of discussion, we
could find no source of significant error, nor did any
attempt at explanation survive analysis.

"I should also tell you that during the last two years,
more than ten members of the Academy of Sciences and
more than thirty eminent personalities, specialists in
various aspects of gravitation, have visited both his
laboratory at Saint-Germain, and his underground
laboratory at Bougival.

"Deep discussions took place, not only on these
occasions, but many times in various scientific contexts,
notably at the Academy of Sciences and the National
Center for Scientific Research. None of these discussions
could evolve any explanation within the framework of
currently accepted theories."


If your choice, blue moon, is to school yourself in senselessness, to develop the negation of reality into a mental habit, then go ahead.

For your information, the entire scientific community, in each and every country, is very much interested to resolve the Allais effect.



The important facts are the crucial facts…. that is to say, those which
can confirm or invalidate a theory. After this, if the results are not in
accord with what was anticipated, real scientists do not feel
embarrassment which they hasten to eliminate with the magic of handwaving;
on the contrary, they feel their curiosity vividly excited; they
know that their efforts, their momentary discomfiture, will be repaid a
hundredfold, because truth is there somewhere, nearby, still hidden and,
so to speak, adorned by the attraction of the mystery, but on the point of
being unveiled.

H. Poincare

Wow.  Nice one.  You must feel really good about yourself, thinking you've figured me out.  In reality, you're just really good at derailing intelligent discussion with mountains of pasted text.  If you had any concise, original, intelligent posts, I would be interested to see them, but nope!  Not one valid point has ever been raised by any flat earther on this site.  Meanwhile, we of the engineering community have thousands of satellites making your everyday life possible.  It will take a lot more than one or two anomalies to disprove them. 

Meanwhile, we of the engineering community have thousands of satellites making your everyday life possible.  It will take a lot more than one or two anomalies to disprove them.

Satelittes you say...


Here is the equation of motion describing the librational motion of an arbitrarily shaped satellite in a planar, elliptical orbit:

(1 + εμcosθ)ψ" - 2εμsinθ(ψ' + 1) + 3K_isinψcosψ = 0

ψ' = δψ/δθ

K_i = (I_xx - I_zz)/I_yy

εμ = eccentricity of the orbit

For small ε, and using 1/(1 + εμcosθ) = 1 - εμcosθ + O(ε²), we obtain


ψ" + 3K_isinψcosψ = ε[2μsinθ(ψ' + 1) + 3μK_isinψcosψcosθ] + O(ε²)

This is a fully nonlinear ordinary differential equation (initial condition). For weakly nonlinear ODE, we can use methods such as multiple scaling and averaging.

For a fully nonlinear ODE, we need very advanced perturbation techniques: the Melnikov method.


Even for a simpler version of this fully nonlinear differential equation, the orbit of a tethered satellite system, we will get chaotical motions for realistic/real flight parameters:

http://www.uni-magdeburg.de/ifme/zeitschrift_tm/1996_Heft4/Peng.pdf

In theory, time delay feedback control methods are used to try to minimize the chaotical motion; however, in real time flight, parameters values can and will exceed the data used in the theorized version.


Then we have the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox.

And we have to deal with the Lamoreaux effect which does prove that terrestrial gravity is a force of pressure, and is not attractive.


All satellites use a different source of energy/antigravitational effect.

Here is the Biefeld-Brown effect, proven to exist even in full vacuum:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759935#msg759935

Sandokhan, please stop. Your posts are unreadable, boring, confusing and massive, plus this entire thread has now become unreadable from mobile phones. Please, make shorter, more concise posts that do not consist of mountains of pasted text, and stick to the subject matter. 90% of your posts has nothing to do with what was originally discussed.

If you want, you can create other threads on this forum to discuss those ideas, one at a time. What you're doing could be considered a form of "Gish gallop", ie you're just overloading your opponent with so many propositions that are probably incorrect, that he can not possibly address them all.

Now if I'm not mistaken, the essence of your "original" posts (because I don't even know what those were about anymore) was that somehow the chronological system was altered in such a way that the council of Nicaea ended up being dated almost 400 years before it happened? Please answer with a YES or a NO, and we'll just take it from there.

Ooooh, I just realized what sandokhan is talking about. He is talking about Fomenko's "new chronology". For anyone he doesn't know, it's a pseudoscientific view of history that claims there was no history before 800AD, and requires a conspiracy much greater than what is proposed by FET. Yes, that's possible. It tosses away mountains of historical evidence and dismisses it as false, just to fit its narrative. It's also a complete mess when it tries to explain Mesopotamian and ancient Egyptian history.

I'm not knowledgeable enough in history to get into that debate, and it definitely doesn't belong here. But from the looks of it, it's just rubbish.

Oh yeah, and on 325AD, the vernal equinox took place on 20th of March. I don't think anybody doubts that. The rest of your post I can not figure out what it is supposed to mean.

My favorite part is how he posted a quote from Plank when he doesn't believe in transverse waves. Also he uses sources which claim to agree with him, but then other articles from the same author talk about fusion in the sun. ( which he doesn't believe).

The more outlandish the article is, the more he believes it. Anyways I will just post my usual picture again. He will run away from it for awhile.

Oh yeah, and on 325AD, the vernal equinox took place on 20th of March. I don't think anybody doubts that.

It is absolutely impossible for the vernal equinox to have taken place on March 20, in the year 325 AD.

We have at our disposal the most precise astronomical dating of them all to prove it: the Gauss Easter formula.


With the Easter formula derived by C.F. Gauss in 1800, Nosovsky calculated the Julian dates of all spring full moons from the first century AD up to his own time and compared them with the Easter dates obtained from the Easter Book. He reached a surprising conclusion: three of the four conditions imposed by the First Council of Nicaea were violated until 784, whereas Vlastar had noted that “all the restrictions except the last one have been kept firmly until now.” When proposing the year 325, Scaliger had no way of detecting this fault, because in the sixteenth century the full-moon calculations for the distant past couldn’t be performed with precision.

Another reason to doubt the validity of 325 AD is that the Easter dates repeat themselves every 532 years. The last cycle started in 1941, and previous ones were 1409 to 1940, 877 to 1408 and 345 to 876. But a periodic process is similar to drawing a circle—you can choose any starting point. Therefore, it seems peculiar for the council to have met in 325 AD and yet not to have begun the Easter cycle until 345.

Nosovsky thought it more reasonable that the First Council of Nicaea had taken place in 876 or 877 AD, the latter being the starting year of the first Easter cycle after 784 AD, which is when the Easter Book must have been compiled. This conclusion about the date of the First Council of Nicaea agreed with his full-moon calculations, which showed that the real and the computed full moons occurred on the same day only between 700 and 1000 AD. From 1000 on, the real full moons occurred more than twenty-four hours after the computed ones, whereas before 700 the order was reversed. The years 784 and 877 also match the traditional opinion that about a century had passed between the compilation and the subsequent canonization of the Easter Book.

G. Nosovky:

The Council that introduced the Paschalia – according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council – could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if we’re to follow the consensual chronological version, we’ll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.

Let us note that J.J. Scaliger could not have noticed this obvious nonsense during his compilation of the consensual ancient chronology, since computing true full moon dates for the distant past had not been a solved problem in his epoch.

The above mentioned absurdity was noticed much later, when the state of astronomical science became satisfactory for said purpose, but it was too late already, since Scaliger’s version of chronology had already been canonized, rigidified, and baptized “scientific”, with all major corrections forbidden.


Can you understand this much?


In the official chronology of history, both Scaliger and Petavius base their entire hypotheses on the works of Matthew Vlastar and Dionysius Exiguus.

BUT VLASTAR TELLS US THAT IN THE YEAR 743 AD, THE VERNAL EQUINOX FELL ON MARCH 21.

What could possibly be the matter? Why don’t modern commentators find themselves capable of quoting the rest of Vlastar’s text? We are of the opinion that they attempt to conceal from the reader the fragments of ancient texts that explode the entire edifice of Scaliger’s chronology. We shall quote this part completely:

“There are four rules concerning the Easter. The first two are the apostolic rules, and the other two are known from tradition. The first rule is that the Easter should be celebrated after the spring equinox. The second is that is should not be celebrated together with the Judeans. The third: not just after the equinox, but also after the first full moon following the equinox. And the fourth: not just after the full moon, but the first Sunday following the full moon… The current Paschalia was compiled and given to the church by our fathers in full faith that it does not contradict any of the quoted postulates. (This is the place the quoting usually stops, as we have already mentioned – Auth.). They created it the following way: 19 consecutive years were taken starting with the year 6233 since Genesis (= 725 AD – Auth.) and up until the year 6251 (= 743 AD – Auth.), and the date of the first full moon after the spring equinox was looked up for each one of them. The Paschalia makes it obvious that when the Elders were doing it; the equinox fell on the 21st of March” ([518]).



Thus, the Circle for Moon – the foundation of the Paschalia – was devised according to the observations from the years 725-743 AD; hence, the Paschalia couldn’t possibly have been compiled, let alone canonized, before that.


The official chronology of history would have us believe that the following sequence of astronomical datings actually occurred:

SPRING EQUINOX

Hipparchus March 24

King Herod March 23

Council of Nicaea March 21

Leo Diaconus March 16

Gregory XIII March 11


However, the most precise astronomical dating tells us something else:

THE GAUSS EASTER FORMULA INDICATES IMMEDIATELY THAT THE SPRING EQUINOX FELL ON MARCH 21 IN THE YEAR 743 AD.

Dionysius Exiguus, On Easter (translation from Latin to English)


http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/dionysius_exiguus_easter_01.htm


Exiguus assigns the date of March 24, year 563 AD, for the Passover.


However, in the year 563 AD, the Passover fell on March 25.


http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/easter/easter_text4a.htm


But Exiguus could not have been unaware of the date of Passover in the the almost contemporary year 563! To that end it was sufficient to apply the Metonian cycle to the coming 30-40 years; the inaccuracy of the Metonian cycle does not show up for such intervals.

As he specially worked with the calendar situation of almost contemporary year 563 and as he based his calculation of the era "since the birth of Christ" on this situation, Dionysius could not help seeing that, first, the calendar situation in the year 563 did not conform to the Gospels' description and, second, that the coincidence of Easter with Passover in 563 contradicts the essence of the determination of Easter the Easter Book is based on.


This is the unbelieavable power of the Gauss Easter formula: it precisely proves how the entire chronology of history was faked/forged during the Renaissance.


HERE IS ANOTHER VERY PRECISE PROOF: Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed at least after 1700 AD

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1683424#msg1683424

Five consecutive messages where everything is taken into account: paleomagnetic dating of all the artefacts, 16th/17th/18th century maps featuring Pompeii and Herculaneum as cities in full activity, and much more.


Now, we have at our disposal another extremely precise proof on how history was falsified: the Perseid meteor shower paradox.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1775758#msg1775758

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1775914#msg1775914

Sometime around the mid1500’s, after the St. Lawrence feast day had been established as August 10th, people began to call this meteor shower the “Tears of Saint Lawrence”, because right after the feast day the meteor shower would peak for a day or two. Still today the peak of this meteor shower is August 11th and 12th.

But if the Earth does not go around the sun 360 degrees then the Perseid
meteor shower should reflect precession and slip through the calendar 1 day in every 72
years, meaning it should have moved almost six days exactly since the Gregorian
Calendar Reform in 1582.

If we account for precession over the same period of 1,758 (2016 - 258) years, we should see a difference of 24.3 degrees of precession. This should have put the meteor shower on or about July 16th, instead of August the 10th as recorded.

Each and every account of the official chronology of history tells us that the Perseid meteor shower occurred each and every year in the month of August, peaking around August 11th or 12th.

Yet, this fact defies the very definition of the gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (precession).

Here is another devastating proof that the supposed precession of Earth' axis of rotation has NOTHING to do with attractive gravity.

THE ACCELERATION OF THE ANNUAL PRECESSION PARADOX

As can be seen from the chart below, the precession rate (now 50.29 arc seconds per year) has been accelerating over the last 100 years. This means the calculated time required to complete one precession cycle has been falling. Note that the precession rate was under 50.255 arc seconds before 1900 when Simon Newcomb first began to keep accurate records, (meaning a complete precession cycle would have taken about 25,790 years), but now just 100 years later, the rate is 50.29 arc seconds per year and the computed time to complete one full cycle is down under 25,770 years. That is a decline of 20 years of periodicity in just 100 years of record keeping. Also, the trend is fairly consistent year over year and it is accelerating.

If the local gravity theory of lunisolar precession were correct, and this trend was extrapolated back a few hundred thousand years then precession would have been virtually non-existent even though the Sun and Moon exerted about the same gravitational influence as they do now. And if this trend were extrapolated forward a few million years the Earth might be wobbling so severely it would retrograde a day for every day it spins, and essentially stop moving or go into reverse!

Following is a chart with points representing the actual annual calculated precession rates
for the last 100 plus years. The early calculations are by Simon Newcomb and the later
by Williams or the Astronomical Almanac. We have drawn a line in the middle of the
dots to show the slope of the trend. If precession were the result of our Sun’s motion
around another object (causing a reorientation of the Earth) then according to Kepler’s
laws any trend line would reflect the signature of an elliptical orbit.



Figure 1. Current trends in precession. Source: 1900-1980 The American Ephemeris and
Nautical Almanac;
1981-2002 The Astronomical Almanac. United States Naval Observatory


However, in the lunisolar model (local gravity) the changing trend in precession rates was entirely unexpected.

The fact of the matter is the gravity of the Sun and Moon have been very stable for
millions of years [according to the official theory of astrophysics] and there should be no reason in the lunisolar model for this significant upward trend in the wobble rate. If  anything it might be expected to slightly “decrease” under lunisolar theory as the Moon moves a fraction of an inch farther from Earth each year and as the Sun burns up a small fraction of its mass each year. But frankly these amounts are so negligible relative to the mass and scale involved that the precession rate should be noticeably stable year after year – if these masses are indeed the cause of the wobble. Lunisolar theorists not only need to find new inputs to the precession formula for the sake of accuracy, they need to offset these slight diminishments in gravitational forces and come up with larger effects in the opposite direction.

W. Cruttenden


The Allais Effect (axial precession is not related to Newtonian mechanics)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1642033#msg1642033

Ι made the following simple requests in my posts to you sandokhan:
1) Stop making gigantic posts consisting of pasted text full of irrelevant stuff, and instead make shorter, more concise and to the point posts that stick to the subject.
2) Answer with a simple YES or a NO to a question I asked you.

What did you do? Post 2 horribly long posts consisting of pasted text and irrelevant stuff that nobody is going to read. It didn't work last time, but let's try again. STICK TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AND ANSWER JUST THAT:


1) Justify your claim that the Gauss easter formula is the most accurate astronomical tool ever.
2) Post that formula, because there is no single "Gauss easter formula", since Gauss made 2 corrections to it over the years. That way, we can check your claims ourselves.
3) STOP POSTING GARGANTUAN POSTS!!! Please! Nobody is going to read those!

Let's just take it from there and bother with your other claims later.

Those "long" posts include some of the most valuable information you will ever read.

They contain what should be of greatest interest to you: a direct way to verify the claims made by both J. Scaliger and D. Petavius (in case you didn't understand, everything you know about ancient history comes from the works published by these two "historians").

Dr. G. Nosovsky is one of the greatest mathematicians in the world today, and he simply put to good use Gauss' Easter formula: his results prove immediately that the vernal equinox fell on March 21 in the year 743 AD, and not in the year 325 AD (dating the Council of Nicaea).

It is as simple as this.


There is but a single Gauss formula: over the years, the algorithm has been simplified by various other mathematicians.

The correction to one of the steps of the algorithm was made in 1816 (official chronology of history).

Gauss' formula allows us to absolutely and accurately calculate when the first Sunday after the Paschal Moon fell in a certain year in the past (Julian or Gregorian calendar): no other formula has this accuracy for astronomical dating.

History and presentation of the Gauss Easter formula:

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/hovo/downloads/text1_08b.pdf


Online Gauss Easter formula calculation:

http://www.ortelius.de/kalender/forme_en.php?j=544&c=j

http://www.covert.org/paschaldate.html (Passover calculation)

As an example, let us verify the Easter for the year 563 AD.

We get: Easter Sunday March 25





Can you now understand what is going on?

Dr. G. Nosovsky:

We don’t have to observe the sky or perform astronomical calculations every time; compiling a table of March and April full moons for any given period of 19 years should suffice for further reference. The reason is that the phases of the moon recur every 19 years in the Julian calendar, and the recurrence cycle remains unaltered for centuries on end – that is, if the full moon fell on the 25th March any given year, it shall occur on the 25th of March in 19 years, in 38 (19 x 2) years, etc.

The malfunctions in the cycle shall begin after 300 years, which is to say that if we cover 300 years in 19-year cycles, the full moon shall gradually begin to migrate to its neighbouring location in the calendar. The same applies to new moons and all the other phases of the moon.


That is, in order to see when the Passover fell in the year 563 AD, all a person living in the year 525 AD had to do is to use the Metonian cycle to find out the correct date.


BUT EXIGUUS ASSIGNED THE DATE OF MARCH 24 FOR THE PASSOVER, IN THE YEAR 563 AD.

As he specially worked with the calendar situation of almost contemporary year 563 and as he based his calculation of the era "since the birth of Christ" on this situation, Dionysius could not help seeing that, first, the calendar situation in the year 563 did not conform to the Gospels' description and, second, that the coincidence of Easter with Passover in 563 contradicts the essence of the determination of Easter the Easter Book is based on.

Dr. G. Nosovsky went even further with his research into the falsified chronology of history: using Gauss' Easter formula he was able to show that the FIRST EASTER conditions, stipulated by Exiguus, WERE SATISFIED ONLY IN THE YEAR 1095 AD (Saturday, March 24, Paschal Moon).


http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img408.pdf
http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img409.pdf
http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img410.pdf
http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img411.pdf

This means that the biography of Dionysius Exiguus, the central pillar of modern chronology, was falsified at least after 1400 AD (anybody in the period 1095 + 300 = 1395 AD, could have used the Metonian cycle to verify that the conditions were fulfilled in the year 1095 AD), during the Renaissance.

Dr. G. Nosovsky went even further with his research into the falsified chronology of history: using Gauss' Easter formula he was able to show that the FIRST EASTER conditions, stipulated by Exiguus, WERE SATISFIED ONLY IN THE YEAR 1095 AD (Saturday, March 24, Paschal Moon).


http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img408.pdf
http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img409.pdf
http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img410.pdf
http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img411.pdf

This means that the biography of Dionysius Exiguus, the central pillar of modern chronology, was falsified at least after 1400 AD (anybody in the period 1095 + 300 = 1395 AD, could have used the Metonian cycle to verify that the conditions were fulfilled in the year 1095 AD), during the Renaissance.

You are just the worst....

J. Scaliger and D. Petavius (in case you didn't understand, everything you know about ancient history comes from the works published by these two "historians").

Who told you that and why do you believe it?

It is a fact of the basic study of chronology.

The chronology of the ancient and medieval history, as we know it today, was created in a series of fundamental works: Scaliger, in the works Opus novum de emendatione temporum (1583) and Thesaurum temporum (1606), and Petavius, De doctrina temporum (1627).

It is Scaliger who claimed that the first Council of Nicaea occurred in the year 325 AD.

He based his calculations, as he described in his works, on the Easter tables of Dionysius Exiguus, and in turn, on the writings of Matthew Vlastar.

Had he been confronted with the Gauss Easter formula, which proves that Exiguus' biography was forged during the Renaissance, he would have been forced to REPLACE/REDO the entire chronology of history.


Here are two formidable works that destroy the entire foundation of the Scaligerian premises.

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm (Edwin Johnson, one of Britain's greatest historians)

http://web.archive.org/web/20130601161610/http://www.specialtyinterests.net/heinsohn.html (Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn, one of the world's leading archaeologists)

It is a fact of the basic study of chronology.

The chronology of the ancient and medieval history, as we know it today, was created in a series of fundamental works: Scaliger, in the works Opus novum de emendatione temporum (1583) and Thesaurum temporum (1606), and Petavius, De doctrina temporum (1627).

No.

Here are two formidable works that destroy the entire foundation of the Scaligerian premises.

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm (Edwin Johnson, one of Britain's greatest historians)

http://web.archive.org/web/20130601161610/http://www.specialtyinterests.net/heinsohn.html (Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn, one of the world's leading archaeologists)

FORMIDABLE WORKS!



LEADING ARCHAEOLOGIST!

Let us now combine the new radical chronology of history with the subject of this thread: precession.

If we can prove that Pompeii and Herculaneum were actually destroyed by the eruption of the Vezuvius volcano at least after 1700 AD, then this fact would shatter the very foundation, the very base of modern chronology.

Pompeii and Herculaneum, cities in full activity during the late Renaissance:



A. Ortelius map: dated 1570 AD

http://halsema.org/people/theleonardifamily/history/mapsof15-18thcentitaly/images/fullsize/3.jpg

Map dated 1725 AD



Map dated 1778 AD

http://www.newparadigma.ru/engines/NPforum/files/21/POMPEAkarta.jpg

Map dated 1631 AD






http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/pompejigallerydt.htm

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/gallery/pom13.jpg
http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/gallery/pom14.jpg

In the window of the museum can be seen a lot of glass products, including bottles, flasks for perfumes, multicolored glass of different shades. Particularly noteworthy are absolutely transparent thin glass vases. The same glass vases are shown on Pompeian frescoes.

Then, at the mid point of the 15th century, Angelo Barovier produced what was to become known as vetro cristallo or cristallo veneziano. This was a pure, bright, completely transparent crystal glass.

http://www.bigbeadlittlebead.com/guides_and_information/Venetian_Glass/04_BBLB_Cristallo_Glass_1580.jpg

Perfectly flat window glasses at Herculaneum:

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/gallery/pom16.jpg
http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/gallery/pom15.jpg

It was in 1688, in France Experts developed new process of making Flat glass, mainly used in Mirrors. The process was pouring molten glass onto a special table and roll it flat, later when cooled it was polished using felt disks, then it is coated with reflective material to produce the Mirrors.

https://books.google.ro/books?id=jXgnnCpz22QC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=flat+window+glass+first+obtained+at+st.+gobain+1688&source=bl&ots=kADb-hHyu9&sig=CZw5-KyF8ZGQDxyrtHnG2SA7b90&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=Spw3VbvTNcWmsgHgsIDgCg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=flat%20window%20glass%20first%20obtained%20at%20st.%20gobain%201688&f=false


"The use of Renaissance artists of identical details, same colors decisions, motives, general composition plans, the presence in the Pompeian frescoes of the things that emerged in the 15 to 17 century, the presence in Pompeian paintings of genre painting, which is found only in the epoch of the Renaissance, and the presence of some Christian motifs on some frescoes and mosaics suggest that Pompeian frescoes and the works of artists of the Renaissance come from the same people who have lived in the epoch. "Vitas Narvidas," Pompeian Frescoes and the Renaissance: a comparison, "Electronic Almanac" Art & Fact 1 (5), 2007.


The water conduit built by the architect/engineer Domenico Fontana starting with 1592 A.D. (official chronology), which runs EXACTLY through Pompeii:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QuuzyDV-N3M/UyLcBoBI4yI/AAAAAAAAB7A/8GnA9OPEMSw/s1600/pompei-canale-del-sarno.png




http://www.anticorpi.info/2014/03/la-pompei-sepolta-nel-1631-svela-i.html

English translation:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anticorpi.info%2F2014%2F03%2Fla-pompei-sepolta-nel-1631-svela-i.html&edit-text=


The water conduit passes through Via de Nocere, Pompeii:



Many more photographs with the water conduit integrated perfectly with the arhitecture/urban landscape of Pompeii:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilya.it%2Fchrono%2Fpages%2Fpompejidt.htm&edit-text=



The Fontana water conduit built while POMPEII WAS A CITY IN FULL ACTIVITY:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_sc5PfjuCqQ#t=0

A remarcable documentary, signed A. Tschurilow, which take the viewer on a journey through Pompeii, street by street, and demonstrates that the water conduit built by D. Fontana was constructed while Pompeii was a city in full activity.


The most important work on the extraordinary similarities between the frescoes discovered at Pompeii and the Renaissance paintings/sculptures (Raphael, Tintoretto, Da Vinci, Botticelli, Goltzius):

http://web.archive.org/web/20120202135352/http://artifact.org.ru/kalibrovka-teorii/vidas-narvidas-pompeyskie-freski-i-renessans-ochnaya-stavka.html

English translation:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20120202135352%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fartifact.org.ru%2Fkalibrovka-teorii%2Fvidas-narvidas-pompeyskie-freski-i-renessans-ochnaya-stavka.html&edit-text=


Archaeomagnetic dating of the artifacts at Pompeii:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1683846#msg1683846

All the artifacts tested belong to the 17TH century (including a fresco attributed to "antiquity").


Paleomagnetic parameters of the artifacts found at Pompeii and Herculaneum:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1685184#msg1685184

The data coincide perfectly: the artifacts found at Pompeii and Herculaneum belong to the 17th century


SOUTHERN ITALY ARTIFACTS CONVENTIONALLY DATED 800 BC - 500 AD ACTUALLY BELONG TO THE 17TH CENTURY


List of 31 artifacts, paleomagnetic parameters:



Paleomagnetic parameters, Southern Italy, 1600 - 2000 AD:



Figure 1. The actual data describing the evolution of the parameters of the geomagnetic field of Southern Italy in the last 400 years [Tanguy, 2005]. The results of instrumental measurements of vector direction of the geomagnetic field, represented in the form of the path of movement of the North Magnetic Pole, shows dark yellow line. Black circles show the direction of the residual magnetization vectors of samples of lava eruptions of Etna (E) and Vesuvius (V). The size of the circle corresponds to the measurement error. Digit near the circle - the year of the eruption. Blue line shows the path of movement of the North Magnetic Pole, estimated by paleomagnetic product parameters volcanoes Etna and Vesuvius.

The data coincide perfectly: the artifacts found in Southern Italy ("800 BC - 500 AD") belong to the 17th century:



A.M. Tyurin:

Comparison of the parameters of the samples with the actual data that characterize the evolution of the parameters of the geomagnetic field of Southern Italy in the last 400 years [Tanguy, 2005], gave surprising results (Figure 4). Paleomagnetic parameters for the Archaeological Site Carthage, samples of artifacts that characterize the event "The eruption of Vesuvius in '79" and most of the specimens, artifacts characterizing the period 800 BC - 500 AD, roughly correspond to the parameters of the geomagnetic field of the first half of the 17th century.


Even more striking results were obtained when comparing between them averaged parameters of the samples (Figure 5). It was found that the parameters of the Archaeological Site Carthage, averaged parameters of the samples of artifacts that characterize the event "The eruption of Vesuvius in '79" and averaged parameters of the samples, characterizing artifacts period 800 BC - 500 AD practically coincide (Figure 5, they circled in red ellipse).