Sirius stuff!

Continuation of the discussion from the Solar Eclipse topic.

Here's sandokhan's last post in its entirety. As usual, it's excessively long and hops around, but this seems the most convenient way to change the location of the discussion to a new thread. Response will follow.

His post was in response to my post before it, which links back to earlier parts of the discussion.

Kepler's results are famous and widely used because they actually work.

But they do not, that is why they were totally faked in the first place.

The acceleration of the rate of axial precession DEFIES Newtonian mechanics.

For you to complain of a single second, while at the same time you close your eyes and accept the totally faked treatise Nova Astronomia says a lot about you.


Let us examine the entire interval of 20 years using your figure of 2.6 seconds.



No leap seconds for 1988

For 1989 we add a single leap second: 0.5 (maximum value) + 1 = 1.5



One leap second for 1990: 0.6 (maximum value ) + 1 = 1.6



No leap seconds for 1991



One leap second for 1992: 0.5 (maximum value) + 1 = 1.5



One leap second for 1993: 0.8 (maximum value) + 1 = 1.8



One leap second for 1994: 1 (maximum value) + 1 = 2



Leap seconds for the years 1995, 1997, 1998

0.5 (maximum value) + 1 = 1.5



Leap seconds for the year 2005

0.5 (maximum value) + 1 = 1.5

Therefore the claims made by Uwe Homann are true: no precession for Sirius over a period of 20 years.

and cannot find any other, more reliable, evidence to back up your claim. If you do find any, please do present it for consideration.

Really?

Let me demolish your false beliefs right now.

Here is the perfect test for our situation: Homann's claims and experimental data that Sirius does not undergo precessional motion vs. the claims made by the star catalogues you are so fond of.

Obviously, if the Earth does not orbit the Sun, then you are proven to be wrong.

The ORBITAL Sagnac effect is missing and is greater in magnitude than the ROTATIONAL Sagnac effect.

That is, the GPS satellites operate AS IF the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.

Moreover, the ORBITAL solar gravitational potential effect upon these satellites is also missing, is not being registered at all.

http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.

Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.

The author actually present a local-ether model (MLET, Modified Lorentz Ether Theory) in order to account for the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

Published by the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one of the most prestigious journals in the world today.

C.C. Su, "A Local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave," in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., vol. 45, no. 1, p. 637, Mar. 2000 (Minneapolis, Minnesota).

http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/









Both the rotational and the orbital motions of the earth together with the orbital
motion of the target planet contribute to the Sagnac
effect. But the orbital motion of the sun has no effects
on the interplanetary propagation. On the other hand, as
the unique propagation frame in GPS and intercontinental
links is a geocentric inertial frame, the rotational motion
of the earth contributes to the Sagnac effect. But the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun and that of the
sun have no effects on the earthbound propagation. By
comparing GPS with interplanetary radar, it is seen that
there is a common Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation
and a common null effect of the orbital motion of the sun
on wave propagation. However, there is a discrepancy in
the Sagnac effect due to earth’s orbital motion. Moreover,
by comparing GPS with the widely accepted interpretation
of the Michelson–Morley experiment, it is seen that
there is a common null effect of the orbital motions on
wave propagation, whereas there is a discrepancy in the
Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation.

Based on this characteristic of uniqueness and switchability of the propagation frame,
we propose in the following section the local-ether model
of wave propagation to solve the discrepancies in the in-
fluences of earth’s rotational and orbital motions on the
Sagnac effect and to account for a wide variety of propagation
phenomena.

Anyway, the interplanetary Sagnac effect is due to
earth’s orbital motion around the sun as well as earth’s
rotation. Further, for the interstellar propagation where
the source is located beyond the solar system, the orbital
motion of the sun contributes to the interstellar Sagnac
effect as well.

Evidently, as expected, the proposed local-ether model
accounts for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation and
the null effect of earth’s orbital motion in the earthbound
propagations in GPS and intercontinental microwave link
experiments. Meanwhile, in the interplanetary radar, it accounts
for the Sagnac effect due both to earth’s rotation
and to earth’s orbital motion around the sun.

Based on the local-ether model, the propagation is entirely
independent of the earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever and the velocity v for such an earthbound
experiment is referred to an ECI frame and hence
is due to earth’s rotation alone. In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v²/c²
=~ 10^-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v²/c²∼ 10^-12 which is merely 10^-4 times that due to the orbital motion.

The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.

More information on Dr. C.C. Su's paper on the orbital Sagnac effect.

His paper was also published by HARVARD UNIVERSITY:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?2001EPJC...21..701S

See the headline at the top:

NASA ADS Physics/Geophysics Abstract Service

So far, Dr. C.C. Su's papers, which include the correct orbital Sagnac calculations, based on a circular loop with the center of rotation located at the Sun, have been published by:

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL

EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL

JOURNAL OF ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES AND APPLICATIONS

Further information here:

http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/

Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:

http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/qem/f3c.pdf

For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital
motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well. This local-ether model
has been adopted to account for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the
global positioning system (GPS), the intercontinental microwave link,
and the interplanetary radar.

The peer reviewers at the Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications agree that the orbital Sagnac is larger than the rotational Sagnac, that it is missing, and that a local-ether model has to be adopted in order to account for this fact.

The solar gravitational potential effect upon the GPS clocks is also missing:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706

This means that the hypotheses of the RUDERFER EXPERIMENT are totally fulfilled:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192

Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361


in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.

A GPS satellite orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the entire system is orbiting the Sun, IS A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EXPERIMENT.


Given the very fact that these GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect, means that THE HYPOTHESES OF THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT ARE FULFILLED.

Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.

However, indirectly, the counteracting effects of the transit time and clock slowing induced biases indicate that an ether drift is present. This is because there is independent evidence that clocks are slowed as a result of their speed. Thus, ether drift must exist or else the clock slowing effect would be observed.

In fact, there is other evidence that the wave-front bending and absence of the
Sagnac effect in the earth-centered frame is due to the clock-biasing effects of velocity
and that an ether drift velocity actually exists in the earth-centered frame. First, the
gradient of the solar gravitational effects upon clocks on the surface of the earth is such
that the clocks will speed up and slow down in precisely the correct way to retain the
appropriate up-wind and down-wind clock biases. Thus, the clocks must be biased or
else the solar gravitational effects would become apparent.

A total refutation of your false claims, and a total debunking of the false beliefs held by the authors of the Stellarium software.

A change of venue won't help you, in fact you don't know what you've gotten yourself into.

and cannot find any other, more reliable, evidence to back up your claim. If you do find any, please do present it for consideration.

A short history lesson.

Mathematics applied to deterministic problems in the natural sciences (C.C. Lin/L.A. Segel), chapter 2: Deterministic systems and ordinary differential equations (pg. 36-70)

To accomplish a mathematical formulation, we adopt a polar coordinate system (r, θ) with the sun as the origin.

The second law of Kepler then states that, following the orbit (r(t), θ(t)) of a planet,

r²dθ/dt = h

The first law of Kepler states that the orbit can be described by the simple formula,

r = p/(1 + ecosθ)

Then one can show that the acceleration in the radial direction is

a_r = d²r/dt² - r(dθ/dt)² = -h²/pr²

Thus the acceleration is inversely proportional to the square of the radial distance.

Newton, by combining the above results with his second law of motion, was led to formulate the present form of the law of universal gravitation.

This, in turn, leads to a system of N particles in gravitational interaction; e.g., the solar system comprising the sun and the nine major planets.


A single counterexample to the present form of the law of universal gravitation will also debunk the Keplerian claims, that the Earth is orbiting the Sun in the shape of an ellipse, and thus the claims made by the creators of the Stellarium software.


ALLAIS EFFECT

REFERENCE #1

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf

(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)


The title of the paper is as follows:

A NEW CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT
DURING THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OF 31 MAY 2003

"During the total solar eclipse of 11 August 1999, the existence of the Allais effect was confirmed."

The authors indicate that more measurements/experiments have to be undertaken during future solar eclipses.


REFERENCE #2

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE SEPT. 2006 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Articol.pdf

The title of the article is as follows:

A confirmation of the Allais and Jeverdan-Rusu-Antonescu effects
during the solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 , and the quantization
of behaviour of pendulum


"The experiments made with a paraconical pendulum during annular solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 confirm once again the existence of the Allais effect."


REFERENCE #3

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://stoner.phys.uaic.ro/jarp/index.php/jarp/article/viewFile/40/22

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


REFERENCE #4

The Allais pendulum effect confirmed in an experiment performed in 1961:

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf074/sf074a05.htm


REFERENCE #5

Observations of Correlated Behavior of Two Light Torsion Balances and a Paraconical Pendulum in Separate Locations during the Solar Eclipse of January 26th, 2009:


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701910_Observations_of_Correlated_Behavior_of_Two_Light_TorsionBalances_and_a_Paraconical_Pendulum_in_Separate_Locationsduring_the_Solar_Eclipse_of_January_26th_2009

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/263818/

Published in the Advances in Astronomy Journal

Another independent confirmation has been obtained of the previously established fact that at the time of solar eclipses, a specific reaction of the torsion balance can be observed. During a solar eclipse, the readings of two neighboring TBs seem to be correlated. This fact demonstrates the nonaleatory character of the reactions of TBs. Consequently, the reaction of these devices is deterministic, not random. A solar eclipse is such a determinant, since upon termination of a solar eclipse, the correlation becomes insignificant. This conclusion is supported by the PP observations. The PP graph and the TB graphs showed obvious similarity, with the coefficient of correlation of these two independent curves being close to 1.

In particular, we wonder how any physical momentum can be transferred to our instrument during a solar eclipse. Gravity can hardly suffice as an explanation even for understanding the results of the PP measurements. The gravitational potential grows slowly and smoothly over a number of days before eclipse and then declines smoothly afterwards without any sudden variations, but we see relatively short-term events. Moreover, gravity is certainly not applicable to the explanation of the results of the TB observations, since the TB is not sensitive to changes in gravitational potential.

The cause of the time lag between the response of the device in Suceava and the reactions of the devices in Kiev also remains unknown. What can be this force which acts so selectively in space and time?

The anomalies found, that defy understanding in terms of modern physics, are in line with other anomalies, described in a recently published compendium “Should the Laws of Gravitation be reconsidered?” [14].


REFERENCE #6

Precise Underground Observations of the Partial Solar Eclipse of 1 June 2011 Using a Foucault Pendulum and a Very Light Torsion Balance

Published in the International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Journal


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701885_Precise_Underground_Observations_of_the_Partial_Solar_Eclipse_of_1_June_2011_Using_a_Foucault_Pendulum_and_a_Very_Light_Torsion_Balance

http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-4500094_26045.htm

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=26045


Simultaneous observations of the solar eclipse on 06/01/2011 were carried out using a Foucault pendulum and a torsion balance. The instruments were installed in a salt mine, where the interference was minimal. Both instruments clearly reacted to the eclipse. We conclude that these reactions should not be considered as being gravitational effects.

REFERENCE #7

Dr. Erwin Saxl experiment (1970)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70052.msg1892354#msg1892354

Published in the Physical Review Journal

Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory).


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.

For the same masses/corresponding distances of the Earth, Sun and the Moon, during the Allais experiment, the pendulum's direction of rotation changed from clockwise to counterclockwise, at the end of the eclipse it resumed its normal direction of rotation.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity. Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause.


Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.

In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”


"Allais used the phrase “a brutal displacement” … to describe the “sudden, extraordinary backwards movement” of the pendulum his laboratory chief had seen (and carefully recorded!), even while not knowing its “mysterious” cause ... until later that same afternoon.

Here (below) is what those “anomalous eclipse motions” in Allias’ pendulum looked like; this graphic, adapted from Scientific American, depicts the mechanical arrangement of Allais’ unique paraconical pendulum (below – left).

The three vertical panels to its right illustrate the pendulum’s “highly anomalous motions” -- recorded during two partial solar eclipses to cross Allais’ Paris laboratory in the 1950’s (the first in 1954, the second in 1959); the phase of each eclipse that corresponded with these “anomalous motions,” is depicted in the last three vertical strips (far right)."




"This normal, downward-sloping trend is abruptly REVERSED!

From there, things rapidly got even more bizarre--

As the pendulum’s azimuth motion continues in an accelerating, COUNTER-clockwise direction … for the next 45 minutes; then, after peaking, the pendulum motion REVERSES direction (moving clockwise again …), only to reverse BACK again (counterclockwise!) … briefly [as the Moon reaches “mid-eclipse” (the central green line)] -- before abruptly reversing once more, accelerating again in a CLOCKWISE direction … before eventually “bottoming out” … parallel to the ORIGINAL “Foucault/Earth rotation” downward-sloping trend line!"

HERE ARE THE PRECISE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING THE ALLAIS EFFECT:




Dr. Maurice Allais:

With regard to the validity of my experiments, it seems
best to reproduce here the testimony of General Paul Bergeron,
ex-president of the Committee for Scientific Activities for
National Defense, in his letter of May 1959 to Werner von
Braun:

"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."

This letter confirms clearly the fact that was finally
admitted at the time - the total impossibility of explaining the
perceived anomalies within the framework of currently
accepted theory.



An overview of the Allais effect (parts I - VII):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1676115#msg1676115 (the Black Sun and the laevorotatory subquarks)

and cannot find any other, more reliable, evidence to back up your claim. If you do find any, please do present it for consideration.

Agreed.

As we have seen from the previous message, Newton, by combining the Kepler's results with his second law of motion, was led to formulate the present form of the law of universal gravitation.

A single counterexample to the present form of the law of universal gravitation will also debunk the Keplerian claims, that the Earth is orbiting the Sun in the shape of an ellipse, and thus the claims made by the creators of the Stellarium software.

BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT

In earlier experimentation, Thomas Townsend Brown had made the startling discovery that a Coolidge X-ray tube exhibited thrust when charged to high voltage. It took Brown a while to realize that the motion was not caused by the X rays themselves, but by the electricity coursing through the tube. Brown went on to develop a device he called the "Gravitor," an electrical condenser sealed in a Bakelite case, that would exhibit a one percent weight gain or a one percent weight loss when connected to a 100-kilovolt power supply.

"The Gravitor, in all reality, is a very efficient motor. Unlike other forms of motor, it does not in any way involve the principles of electromagnetism, but instead it utilizes the principles of electro-gravitation.

A simple gravitor has no moving parts, but is apparently capable of moving itself from within itself. It is highly efficient for the reason that it uses no gears, shafts, propellers or wheels in creating its motive power. It has no internal mechanical resistance and no observable rise in temperature. Contrary to the common belief that gravitational motors must necessarily be vertical-acting, the gravitor, it is found, acts equally well in every conceivable direction."

T.T. Brown, 1929

In 1955, he went to work for the French aerospace company SNCASO—Société Nationale de Constructions Aéronautiques du SudOuest. During this one-year research period, he ran his discs in a vacuum. If anything, they worked better in a vacuum.

“When a high voltage (~30 kV) is applied to a capacitor whose electrodes have different physical dimensions, the capacitor experiences a net force toward the smaller electrode (Biefeld-Brown effect).

The calculations indicate that ionic wind is at least three orders of magnitude too small to explain the magnitude of the observed force on the capacitor (in open air experiments).”
In the Paris test miniature saucer type airfoils were operated in a vaccum exceeding 10-6mm Hg. Bursts of thrust (towards the positive) were observed every time there was a vaccum spark within the large bell jar.

Condensers of various types, air dielectric and barium titanate were assembled on a rotary support to eliminate the electrostatic effect of chamber walls and observations were made of the rate of rotation. Intense acceleration was always observed during the vacuum spark (which, incidentally, illuminated the entire interior of the vacuum chamber). Barium Titanate dielectrique always exceeded air dielectric in total thrust. The results which were most significant from the standpoint of the Biefeld-Brown effect, was that thrust continued, even when there was no vacuum spark, causing the rotor to accelerate in the negative to positive direction to the point where voltage had to be reduced or the experiment discontinued because of the danger that the rotor would fly apart.

In short, it appears there is strong evidence that Biefeld-Brown effect does exist in the negative to positive direction in a vacuum of at least 10-6 Torr. The residual thrust is several orders of magnitude larger than the remaining ambient ionization can account for. Going further in your letter of January 28th, the condenser "Gravitor" as described in my British patent, only showed a loss of weight when vertically oriented so that the negative-to-postive thrust was upward. In other words, the thrust tended to "lift" the gravitor."

T.T. Brown, 1973


“The initial experiments conducted by Townsend Brown, concerning the behavior of a condenser when charged with electricity, had the characteristic of simplicity which has marked most other great scientific advancements.

The first startling revelation was that if placed in free suspension with the poles horizontal, the condenser, when charged, exhibited a forward thrust toward the positive poles. A reversal of polarity caused a reversal of the direction of thrust. The experiment was set up as follows:



The antigravity effect of vertical thrust is demonstrated by balancing a condenser on a beam balance and then charging it. After charging, if the positive pole is pointed upward, the condenser moves up.

If the charge is reversed and the positive pole pointed downward, the condenser thrusts down. The experiment is conducted as follows:"




VACUUM TEST #1

http://lifters.online.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm (includes all necessary technical information and the video itself)


At the pressure of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ( High Vacuum conditions ), the apparatus rotates when the High Voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV.


VACUUM TEST #2

https://web.archive.org/web/20050216062907/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~reginald/liftvac.html (includes technical information and video)


VACUUM TEST #3

https://web.archive.org/web/20070212193741/http://www.t-spark.de/t-spark/t-sparke/liftere.htm (includes technical information and video)


MULTIPLE TESTS PERFORMED IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT ION WIND COULD NOT HAVE AN INFLUENCE ON THE EXPERIMENTS THEMSELVES:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifteriw.htm


VACUUM TEST #4: PROJECT MONTGOLFIER

https://web.archive.org/web/20140110041712/http://projetmontgolfier.info/

https://web.archive.org/web/20131025082102/http://projetmontgolfier.info/TT_Brown_Proposal.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20130522083124/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf

In 1955 and 1956 Townsend Brown made two trips to Paris where he conducted tests of his electrokinetic apparatus and electrogravitic vacuum chamber tests in collaboration with the French aeronautical company Société National de Construction Aeronautiques du Sud Ouest (S.N.C.A.S.O.) .

In addition the Project Montgolfier team constructed a very large vacuum chamber for performing vacuum tests of smaller discs at a pressure of 5 X 10-5 mm Hg:



The report says that under high vacuum conditions the discs always moved in the direction of the positive pole, regardless of the polarity on the outboard wire. 

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon. 

PAGE 26 OF THE FINAL REPORT FULLY DESCRIBES THE OBSERVED BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER

When the DISK SHAPED CAPACITOR WAS USED, the total deviation/movement was A FULL 30 DEGREES (deviation totale du systeme 30 degre).


VIDEO: BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT, balancing a condenser on a beam balance

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/elghatv1.htm (includes three videos of the experiment)




BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM: NEW VIDEO



(vacuum test performed by Gravitec, increasing the voltage from 15kv to 18 kv, clear movement/thrust of the capacitor can be seen; near the end the power is switched off, and then turned on again, and we can the visible thrust of the capacitor for a second time)

Brown’s experiments with charged saucers implemented in full vacuum fully violates and contradicts all the concepts of Newton and Einstein because they moved in a vacuum without another body gravitationally pulling them or warping space.

A total debunking of the false claims made by the creators of the Stellarium software: the Earth does not orbit the Sun and the "law" of universal gravitation is a piece of thrash.

and cannot find any other, more reliable, evidence to back up your claim. If you do find any, please do present it for consideration.

Why not?

Newton, by combining the Kepler's results with his second law of motion, was led to formulate the present form of the law of universal gravitation.

A single counterexample to the present form of the law of universal gravitation will also debunk the Keplerian claims, that the Earth is orbiting the Sun in the shape of an ellipse, and thus the claims made by the creators of the Stellarium software.


DEPALMA SPINNING BALL EXPERIMENT

Dr. Bruce DePalma, MIT and Harvard

One day, one of the greatest experimental physicists of the 20th century was asked a simple question, by one of his students:

If there was any difference in gravitational effect on a rotating object versus a non-rotating object?

After an extensive search in the literature, no evidence could be found that the experiment had been performed before.

This became one of the most celebrated experiments in modern physics: the spinning ball experiment.


"Conceptually, the experiment could not have been much cheaper, or easier to carry out:

Two 1-inch steel balls (like those found in every pinball machine in America ...) were positioned at the business end of an ordinary power drill; one ball was in a cup attached to the drill's motor shaft, so it spun -- at a very high rate of speed; the other ball was in an identical cup, attached by a bracket to the stationary drill casing, adjusted so that it was level with the first ball.

The experiment consisted of positioning the drill vertically, cups "up," and pressing the drill switch on the motor.

The drill motor (and its associated cup, containing one of the steel balls) rapidly spun up to approximately 27,000 RPM. The cup attached to the side of the drill (with the second steel ball inside it ...) was not rotating ....

When the drill motor had attained its maximum speed, DePalma (or, more often, Ed Delvers, his assistant ...) would shove the drill into the air with a fast, upward motion -- suddenly stopping the drill it in mid-flight. This would, of course, cause both 1-inch pinballs to fly out of their retaining cups in the same upward direction -- the "spinning ball" (hence the name ...) and the non-spinning ball, right beside it.

DePalma, from his years spent working with Dr. Herald Edgerton at MIT -- the famed inventor of "stroboscopic photography" -- was an expert in such stop-motion photography as well. By positioning Delvers against a gridded black background, in a darkened laboratory (below), and then illluminating the two upward-flying steel balls with a powerful strobe light, DePalma was able to take time-exposure photographs with the camera's shutter open, the "pinballs" only illuminated (at 60 times per second) by the strobe's periodic flash ....

The result was a striking "stroboscopic, time-lapse photograph" of the parabolic arc of both steel balls -- flying upward and then downward under Earth's gravitational acceleration (below)."



Looked at even casually, one can instantly see in the resulting time-lapse image (above) that the two pinballs did NOT fly along identical parabolic arcs (as they should have); unmistakably, the steel ball that was rotating (at ~27,000 rpm) flew higher ... and fell faster ... than the companion ball that was not rotating!

An experimental result in direct violation of everything physicists have thought they've known about both Newton's Laws and Einstein's Relativity ... for almost (in the case of Newton ...) three full centuries!


Dr. Bruce DePalma graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1958. He attended graduate school in Electrical Engineering and Physics at M.I.T. and Harvard University. At M.I.T. he was a lecturer in Photographic Science in the Laboratory of Dr. Harold Edgerton and directed 3-D color photographic research for Dr. Edwin Land of Polaroid Corporation.


The results of the Spinning Ball Experiment were published in the British Scientific Research Association Journal in 1976. This experiment was also outlined personally by DePalma to Dr. Edward Purcell, one of the most eminent experimental physicists from Harvard at that time. According to DePalma, Purcell, after contemplating the experiment for several minutes, remarked "This will change everything."


The only difference was that one ball was rotating 27,000 times per minute and the other was stationary. The rotating ball traveled higher and then descended faster than its counterpart, which violated all known laws of physics.

The only explanation for this effect is that both balls are drawing energy into themselves from an unseen source, and the rotating ball is thus “soaking up” more of this energy than its counterpart – energy that would normally exist as gravity, moving down into the earth.

With the addition of torsion-field research we can see that the spinning ball was able to harness naturally spiraling torsion waves in its environment, which gave it an additional supply of energy.


A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart. Those who attribute this to an aerodynamic or atmospheric effect, please note that it works just as well in a vacuum. Also note, this effect has since been verified by other researchers. The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.


The law of universal gravitation totally violated: FOR THE SAME MASS OF THE STEEL BALLS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THE ROTATING BALL WEIGHED LESS AND TRAVELED HIGHER THAN THE NON-ROTATING BALL.


More experiments performed by Dr. Bruce DePalma, one of the America's greatest physicists of the 20th century:

A prime example of this is provided by the spinning ball experiments of Bruce DePalma.

He projected two metal balls upwards inside a vacuum container, one spinning at some 20,000 rpm and the other non-spinning, and observed any differences.
He discovered that the spinning ball moved higher and further and also fell faster than the non-spinning one.



Back in the 70's Bruce Depalma did a series of tests involving spinning objects. In his published findings he goes on to describe that a ball spun at a high rate of speed will actually travel higher (sometimes 20% higher) and fall faster then a ball that is not spinning. Now of course the balls are identical and launched at the same trajectory. This test was also done in a vacuum to go on and prove that drag couldn't have an effect on it.


DePalma’s experiment with steel balls in 1972 showed that certain physical properties of an object are radically altered—both its mass and inertia—if it is rotated. According to DePalma, rotation produces a force field, specifically around the main axis of the rotating object, that he measured and called a torsion field or spin field. Time-lapse stroboscopic photographs revealed that the steel ball rotating at ~27,000 rpm flew higher and fell faster than the companion ball that was not rotating. DePalma had since conducted experiments on “bodies in rotation” including massive objects (e.g., over 30 lbs), spinning at very high velocities (~7600 revolutions/minute).

and cannot find any other, more reliable, evidence to back up your claim. If you do find any, please do present it for consideration.

Sure.

Newton, by combining the Kepler's results with his second law of motion, was led to formulate the present form of the law of universal gravitation.

A single counterexample to the present form of the law of universal gravitation will also debunk the Keplerian claims, that the Earth is orbiting the Sun in the shape of an ellipse, and thus the claims made by the creators of the Stellarium software.

NIPHER EXPERIMENTS

“Dr. Francis Nipher, Professor of physics, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, did some of the pioneering electrogravitics work at Washington University in St. Louis back around the turn of the last century. He applied high voltage to lead balls, lead spheres and hollow metal boxes and compared the repulsive effect induced in small test spheres hung vertically near them, similar to the original Cavendish experiments but with high voltage. Dr. Nipher went to great lengths to insert protective, grounded screens of glass between the solid lead spheres and the suspended balls to rule out electrostatic effects.”

Before connecting any form of electric current to the modified Cavendish apparatus, Prof.  Nipher took special precaution to carefully screen the moving element from any electrostatic or electromagnetic effects. His apparatus briefly consists of two large lead spheres ten inches in diameter, resting upon heavy sheets of hard rubber. Two small lead balls, each one inch in diameter, were now suspended from two silk threads, stationed at the sides of the two large lead spheres, from which they were separated by a little distance. Moreover, the suspended balls were insulated elaborately from the large spheres by enclosing them first airtight in a long wooden box, which was also covered with tinned iron sheets as well as cardboard sheets. There was, furthermore, a metal shield between the box and the large metal spheres. The large metal lead spheres now exerted a certain gravitational force upon the suspended small lead balls … and the small lead balls were slightly moved over towards the large spheres.

In further experiments Prof.  Nipher decided to check his results. To do this he replaced the large solid lead spheres with two metal boxes, each filled with loose cotton batting. These hollow boxes (having practically no mass) rested upon insulators. They were separated from the protective screen by sheets of glass and were grounded to it by heavy copper wires. The metal boxes were then charged in every way that the solid lead spheres had been, but not the slightest change in the position of the lead balls could be detected. This would seem to prove conclusively that the "repulsion" and "gravitational nullification" effects that he had produced when the solid balls were electrically charged were genuine and based undoubtedly on a true inter-atomic electrical reaction, and not upon any form of electrostatic or electromagnetic effects between the large and small masses. If they had been, the metal boxes, with no mass, would have served as well as the solid balls.


The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

New Evidence of a Relation Between Gravitation & Electrical Action (1920)
Gravitational Repulsion (1916)
Gravitation & Electrical Action (1916)
Can Electricity Reverse the Effect of Gravity? (1918)

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.


"These results seem to indicate clearly that gravitational attraction between masses of matter depends upon electrical potential due to electrical charges upon them."

Every working day of the following college year has been devoted to testing the validity of the above statement. No results in conflict with it have been obtained. Not only has gravitational attraction been diminished by electrification of the attracting bodies when direct electrical action has been wholly cut off by a metal shield, but it has been made negative. It has been converted into a repulsion. This result has been obtained many times throughout the year. On one occasion during the latter part of the year, this repulsion was made somewhat more than twice as great as normal attraction."

Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

Another interesting experiment was conducted with low frequency alternating current applied to the large lead spheres. Spring contact brushes were fastened to the wooden blocks supporting the large spheres, one brush on either side of the ball. This permitted sending current through the ball from one side to the other. First, a direct current of 20 amperes as sent through the two large masses, but no effect on the suspended masses could be detected. Next, an alternating current of 20 amperes was sent through the two masses, with the result that the gravitational attraction was quickly reduced to zero, and not only that but in 15 to 20 minutes the small lead spheres had moved over one-half as much to the opposite direction as the distance they had been attracted originally towards the large masses. Thus gravitation had not only been completely nullified, but it was actually reversed.

Every working day of the following college year has been devoted to testing the validity of the above statement. No results in conflict with it have been obtained. Not only has gravitational attraction been diminished by electrification of the attracting bodies when direct electrical action has been wholly cut off by a metal shield, but it has been made negative. It has been converted into a repulsion. This result has been obtained many times throughout the year. On one occasion during the latter part of the year, this repulsion was made somewhat more than twice as great as normal attraction.


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.

Dr. Francis Nipher one of the most distinguished physicists of the United States:

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/missouri/biography-of-francis-eugene-nipher-ll-d.htm

and cannot find any other, more reliable, evidence to back up your claim. If you do find any, please do present it for consideration.

No problem at all.

The greatest American mathematician of the 19th century, Simon Newcomb, discovered that the axial precession of the Earth is accelerating.

Simon Newcomb included a “constant” in his precession formula to get it to match the increasing rate of precession that was observed leading up to his era.

The “constant” amount was .000222 arc seconds per year.

In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

This shows us the precession rate has increased over the past 100 years by .0346 for an average of .000346” per/year. Comparing this to Newcomb’s 0.000222” figure,  we can see the actual rate of change has not simply increased at a “constant” rate – it has increased at an “exponential” rate.



This, by itself, is enough to shatter to pieces Newtonian mechanics:

"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."

The mass of the Sun/Moon/planets has not increased (we all know that the mass of the Sun is actually constantly decreasing).

The orbital distances are the same (and the Moon is constantly receding from the Earth).


http://www.saturndaily.com/reports/Saturns_bulging_core_implies_moons_younger_than_thought_999.html

“The moons are migrating away much faster than expected.”

The team also found that Saturn moon Rhea is moving away 10 times faster than the other moons.

Not even Saturn can come to the rescue.


One cannot bring the influence of the planets into the acceleration of the rate of precession, since the distances have not changed, and the mass of Jupiter, as an example, has decreased (and not increased) over time.

http://www.sciencefocus.com/article/space/jupiter%E2%80%99s-gravity-pulls-so-much-matter-planet-growing

The mass of Jupiter is DECREASING.

Heliocentrists have to explain the acceleration of the rate of precession, and also have to account for these facts:

1. Solar mass is decreasing

2. Lunar distance from Earth is actually receding

3. Jupiter's mass is decreasing

4. Saturn's moons are receding at an increasing rate

Precession has nothing to do with the law of attractive gravitation.

The Earth is stationary and fixed. Therefore, the precession is caused by the motion of the geocentric solar system through space, above the first dome. Only a moving frame can make sense out of all the “precession” observables. 

Super simple question, where is the moon during a solar eclipse?

and cannot find any other, more reliable, evidence to back up your claim. If you do find any, please do present it for consideration.

Be careful what you wish for.

If precession is caused by local forces one would expect the observation date of the Perseids to change at the same rate that the earth precesses relative to the fixed stars outside the solar system.

The official chronology of history tells us that the Perseid meteor shower has occurred on the same date, each year, at least for the past 2000 years.

But that could not be true in the heliocentrical context: due to the axial precession of the Earth, there should have been a SIX DAY DIFFERENCE, as compared to what is recorded today, in the occurrence of the Perseid meteor shower during the Renaissance.


There are certain meteor showers that can be seen regularly on the same date each year.
They are thought to be the result of the Earth, moving along its orbital path around the
Sun, crossing through that point in space where a comet once intersected our orbit path.
The leftover debris hitting our atmosphere is the cause of these annual meteor showers
that come and go like clockwork. One of the strongest and most well known is the
Perseid Meteor which peaks each year every August 11th and 12th (my birthday). Ever
since I can remember this meteor shower has occurred on my birthday.

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.

As long as the Earth goes around the Sun 360 degrees equinox to equinox, and we keep
our current system of leap corrections we should continue to see this meteor shower
peak every August 11th and 12th for centuries to come. This is because our current
calendar system of time loses less than 1 day every 3200 years relative to the actual
motion of the equinox within the calendar. In other words the equinox remains fixed
within the calendar moving only slightly for differences between the calendar days (365)
and the Earth’s actual rotations in a tropical year (365.2422) and always quickly adjusted
by leap days every four years.

BUT WAIT, lunisolar precession theory says the Earth does not go around the Sun 360
degrees every equinox. It says it comes up 50 arc seconds short of 360 degrees every
tropical year and this is why we see the fixed stars precess by 50 arc seconds per average
tropical year. 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. We know the fixed stars “outside the solar system” have
indeed appeared to move by this much in that time period due to precession but why
hasn’t the Perseid reference point “within the solar system” changed by this same amount of precession? If precession is caused by local sources wobbling the Earth then anything and everything outside the Earth should appear to move at the same rate, excluding proper motion.

Answer: The Earth does not change orientation to the Perseid meteor shower, or to the
Moon, or to eclipses, or to any points of planetary occultations or to anything within the
solar system, because local wobbling of the Earth does not cause precession. What we
call precession only occurs relative to the fixed stars and objects “outside the solar
system” because precession is actually due to the motion of the solar system itself.


Some Catholics refer to the Perseid meteor shower as the "tears of St. Lawrence", as August 10th is the date of the saint's martyrdom. This phenomenon that is linked to the Perseid meteor shower is dated for August 10, between the years of 225 – 258 AD given for the lifetime of this early Christian that was put to death by the Romans. This execution took place on August 10, 258 when a meteor shower was noted and hence the connection. If we account for precession over the same period of 1,753 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. The Perseid shower has been noted almost continually year after year from that time to this, except during unusual circumstances of the darkening or the skies post 535 AD and the following dark ages. This one instance and others like it suggest that the precession has some other cause than the solar system.

Official chronology of history

By tradition, St Lawrence was sentenced at San Lorenzo in Miranda, imprisoned in San Lorenzo in Fonte, and martyred at San Lorenzo in Panisperna. The Almanac of Philocalus for the year 354 mentions that he was buried in the Via Tiburtina in the Catacomb of Cyriaca by Hippolytus and Justin the Confessor, a presbyter. One of the early sources for the martyrdom was the description by Aurelius Prudentius Clemens in his Peristephanon, Hymn II.

St Lawrence is one of the most widely venerated saints of the Roman Catholic Church. Legendary details of his death were known to Damasus, Prudentius, Ambrose and Augustine. The church built over his tomb, San Lorenzo fuori le Mura, became one of the seven principal churches in Rome and a favorite place for Roman pilgrimages. Devotion to him was widespread by the fourth century. Since the Perseid Meteor Shower typically occurs every year in mid-August on or near his feast day, some refer to the shower as the "Tears of St Lawrence."

On 10 August, year 258 AD, the execution of St Lawrence was carried out.

His celebration on 10 August has the rank of feast throughout the Catholic world.

http://througheternity.tumblr.com/post/94146358934/night-of-the-shooting-stars-san-lorenzo


The Escorial Palace, at the foot of Mount Abantos in the Sierra de Guadarrama, was built by King Philip II of Spain to commemorate the victory over King Henry II of France at the Battle of St Quentin, which took place on the feast of St Lawrence, 10 August 1557.

"On August 10 1566, the feast-day of Saint Lawrence, at the end of the pilgrimage from Hondschoote to Steenvoorde, the chapel of the Sint-Laurensklooster was defaced by a crowd who invaded the building. It has been suggested that the rioters connected the saint especially with Philip II, whose monastery palace of the Escorial near Madrid was dedicated to Lawrence, and was just nearing completion in 1566"


One of the earliest descriptions of an August meteor display was briefly mentioned in a book written by Pieter van Musschenbroeck in 1762. In volume two of his book, Introduction a la Philosophie naturelle, he noted that after the heat of summer, falling stars are seen during August, at least in Belgium and the cities of Leiden and Utrecht in the Netherlands.

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-perseids-are-coming-1


Citing Quetelet, 'a superstition has 'for ages' existed among the Catholics of some parts of England and Germany that the burning tears of St. Lawrence are seen in the sky on the night of the 10th of August; this day being the anniversary of his martyrdom.'

http://www.qsl.net/w8wn/hscw/prop/perseids.html


He also searched historical sources for evidence that August meteors had been seen in previous years around the same date. He found seven cases, from 1029 in Egypt to 1833 in England.

The earliest discoverers of the Perseids were anonymous, and their feat lay buried in an English farmer's almanac. Both Quetelet and Herrick chanced upon it. Bravely, Herrick acknowledged, "The annual occurrence of a meteoric display about the 10th of August appears to have been recognized for a very great length of time." Thomas Furley Forster of London had recorded it in 1827 in his Pocket Encyclopaedia of Natural Phenomena. "According to Mr. T. Forster," Herrick reported in October 1839, citing Quetelet, "a superstition has 'for ages' existed among the Catholics of some parts of England and Germany that the burning tears of St. Lawrence are seen in the sky on the night of the 10th of August; this day being the anniversary of his martyrdom."

"The peasants of Franconia and Saxony have believed for ages past that St. Lawrence weeps tears of fire which fall from the sky every year on his fete (the 10th of August)," Herrick wrote, quoting a Brussels newspaper.

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/celestial-objects-to-watch/the-discovery-of-the-perseid-meteors/


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).

Sandokhan, if each of your individual points (posts, documents, whatever), can support your case on its own, then present it on its own. Because throwing them all out in the hopes one will stick creates an image that none of your points can support your case individually. In fact, it looks quite like a fallacious Gish Gallop defence. Especially considering I have already seen (and collaborated on) rebuttals of several of these exact posts in the past. Present one piece of evidence and we'll debate that.

Sandy, are you capable of sticking to the topic at hand, or just pasting in a bunch of irrelevant crap, a lot of which has already been refuted?

This isn't for discussing gravity or your ignorance of it. It is for discussing Sirius.

Do you understand the difference?

It is for discussing Sirius.

Your tag team partner has arrived and he has nothing better to do than to make things much harder for you.

The creators of the Stellarium software are ignorant of the most basic scientific facts regarding the Universe.

QUASARS REDSHIFT: GALAXY NGC 7319

The Picture that Won’t Go Away

"Only in the rarest instances has a single picture altered the direction of a scientific discipline. But in the case of the galaxy NGC 7319 and the "misplaced" quasar in front of it, the message is inescapable: its presence threatened to shatter one of the most cherished themes of mainstream astronomy, the Big Bang.

The rationale for the Big Bang rests substantially on an interpretation of a well-known phenomenon called “redshift”. The term refers to the shift of light from distant galaxies toward red on the light spectrum.

Many years ago, astronomers decided that redshifted objects must be moving away from the observer, stretching out their lightwaves. This “Doppler interpretation” of redshift enabled astronomers, based on the degree of redshift, to calculate both the distances and velocities of the objects. From these calculations, certain conclusions were inescapable. If all redshifted objects are moving farther away, the universe must be expanding. If the universe is expanding, the expansion must have had a starting point—an unimaginable explosion producing a universe of galaxies receding in every direction from the observer.

Then came the Hubble photograph, taken on October 3, 2003. The picture showed a galaxy (NGC 7319) known for its dense clouds that obstruct all objects behind its core. In front of the galaxy's core is a strongly redshifted quasar. In fact, under the prevailing assumptions, the redshift of the quasar would put it more than 90 times farther away from us than the big galaxy behind it."



A higher magnification image of the quasar shows a "jet" of matter extending out from the center of NGC 7319 toward the quasar:




http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp


The Discovery of a High Redshift X-Ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0409215.pdf


Published in the Astrophysical Journal

Geoffrey Burbidge, a professor of physics and astronomer at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences

"The quasar was found embedded in the galaxy NGC 7319 only 8 arc sec from its centre. According to the Hubble law the galaxy NGC 7319, with a redshift of 0.022, is at a distance of about 360 million light-years. Therefore these objects could not be physically connected to each other if this was true."


At the meeting of the American Astronomical Society held in Texas in 2004, Professor Margaret Burbidge presented a paper that she had co-authored with Arp and several other leading astronomers, including her husband [subsequently published in the Astrophysical Journal]. It detailed the discovery of a high redshift quasar close to a low redshift galaxy. This time, though, the alignment was different in every significant way.

This time, no one could argue. You see, the high redshift [more distant] quasar lay in front of the [less distant redshift] galaxy NGC 7319! There was no longer occasion to debate the veracity of [Arp’s] matter bridge [connecting galaxies with quasars]. The quasar was in the foreground [the galaxy in the background]. In that impressive gathering of astronomy’s who’s who, you could have heard a pin drop. It was a deafening silence.”

“The significance of this discovery is huge. We have direct, irrefutable, empirical evidence that the Hubble law stands on feet of clay, that the observational justification of an expanding Universe is fatally flawed.”

Hilton Ratcliffe

I'm still trying to wrap my head around Sandy's claim the Sun is only 12 miles high, tbh.
I mean... 

Wrap your head around this.

The discovery of DARK FLOW by the greatest astronomers in the world today has put an end to Newtonian mechanics and to Einstein's theory of relativity.

It shows the utter ignorance of the people who created the Stellarium software, their utmost disregard for real science.

DARK FLOW: THE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE SECOND FLAT EARTH DOME

Dark flow has been described as taking a hammer and beating the living tar out of Einstein’s gravitational theory of the universe.

“Dr. A. Kashlinsky (PhD Cambridge, England), a senior staff scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, has been studying how rebellious clusters of galaxies move against the backdrop of expanding space. He and colleagues have clocked galaxy clusters racing at up to 1000 kilometres per second - far faster than our best understanding of cosmology allows. Stranger still, every cluster seems to be rushing toward a small patch of sky between the constellations of Centaurus and Vela.

So what is behind the dark flow? It can't be caused by dark matter, Kashlinsky says, because all the dark matter in the universe wouldn't produce enough gravity. It can't be dark energy, either, because dark energy is spread evenly throughout space. That, leaves only one possible explanation, he concludes: something lurking beyond the cosmic horizon is to blame.”

"I firmly believe that this is the effect of something outside of our universe."


One of the most disturbing and surprising discoveries of cosmology was made by Alexander Kashlinksy and his team at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. According to Francis Reddy and Rob Gutro:

“Using data from NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) scientists have identified an unexpected motion in distant galaxy clusters. [The two types are ball-shaped clusters filled primarily with elliptical galaxies made up of mostly old supergiant red stars and more open shaped clusters (not necessarily ballshaped) made up of spiral galaxies with mostly younger white, yellow-blue white stars.] The cause [of this unexpected motion], they suggest, is the gravitational attraction of matter that lies [about 32-34 billion light years away] beyond the observable universe [that is outside the 13.7 billion light year Universe].

“Kashlinsky calls the collective motion . . . ‘dark flow’ in the vein of more familiar cosmological mysteries: dark energy and dark matter. The [even] distribution of matter in the observed universe cannot account for this motion,’ he says . . .

“In 2000, Kashlinsky and Fernando Atrio-Barandela from the University of Salamanca, Spain, showed that astronomers could, in essence, amplify the [kinematic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect] SZ term [a minute shift of microwave background’s temperature which indicates the direction the cluster is actually moving]. The trick, they found, is to study large numbers of clusters.

“The astronomers teamed up with Dale Kocevski, at the University of California, Davis and Harold Ebeling . . . to identify some 700 X-ray clusters that could be used to find the subtle spectral shift. This sample included objects up to 6 billion light-years – or nearly half of the observable universe – away.

“. . . The astronomers detected bulk cluster motions of nearly 2 million miles per hour. The clusters are heading toward [or away from] a 20-degree patch of sky between the constellations of Centaurus and Vela.

“What’s more, this motion is constant out to at least a billion light-years.

‘Because the dark flow already extends so far, it likely extends across the visible universe,’ Kashlinsky says.

“The finding [that only galaxy clusters moving toward or away from a point between Centaurus and Vela] flies in the face of predictions from standard cosmological models, which describe such motions . . .

“All large-scale motion [in the universe] should show no preferred direction. . .”

“Kashlinsky and his team suggest that their [galaxy] clusters are responding to the gravitational attraction of matter that was . . . far beyond the observable universe. . .”

According to Amanda Gefter, these “galaxy clusters [are] racing at up to 1,000 kilometers [620 miles] per second – far faster than our own understanding of cosmology allows.

Stranger still, every cluster seems to rush toward a small patch of sky between the constellation of Centaurus and Vela.” The implications for the Big Bang theory are staggering, as Gefter shows, according to:

“Luciano Pietronero, of La Sapienza University, in Rome, Italy, and Francesco Sylos Labini, of the Enrico Fermi Center of Rome, Italy . . . the standard [Big Bang] cosmological model is wrong, and that a different model might explain the motion of galaxy clusters that Kashlinsky found. ‘This is just another element pointing toward the fact that the standard picture of galaxy formation is not correctly describing what is going on in the real universe,’ Pietronero says.”

According to the Big Bang theory, inflation caused the matter in the Universe to be very evenly distributed throughout it. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation indicates that matter in the Universe – including Dark Matter – was generally quite evenly distributed everywhere. Therefore, there is nothing in the known universe that will gravitationally pull only galaxy clusters to or away from it. This attractor must, therefore, lie beyond the known Universe.

According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old; yet the gravitational attractor, tugging only on galaxy clusters, is some 32-34 billion light years away. Additionally, this gravitational force is unique and selective in its action; only affecting galaxy clusters, but not everything else. Gravity undoubtedly must affect the motion of all massive bodies and, therefore, since it is pulling the galaxy clusters, it should be pulling everything else to it, not just galaxy clusters, based on Newtonian Law.

In terms of Einstein, the identical problem exists. A massive object outside the Universe has warped space to cause galaxy clusters to move toward or away from it; that warping of space should do the same for all matter in the Universe. In terms of Dark Energy, all galaxies are supposedly moving away from each other and, therefore, would not also, at the same time, permit only galaxy clusters to not follow this expansion, but move to or away from a preferred area. If Dark Energy existed, these galaxy clusters should also be moving away from one another in different directions.
These clear-cut findings defy the Big Bang theory and, thus, have made the Dark Flow evidence very unwelcome for many cosmologists.

(C. Ginenthal: Newton, Einstein, Velikovsky)


Dr. Kashlinsky explains the concept of dark flow:



starts at 21:50


Probing the Dark Flow signal in WMAP 9 yr and PLANCK cosmic microwave background maps:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.4180.pdf


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1828839#msg1828839 (ether CMBR)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1824970#msg1824970 (fake Andromeda galaxy photographs)

It is for discussing Sirius.

Your tag team partner has arrived and he has nothing better to do than to make things much harder for you.

The creators of the Stellarium software are ignorant of the most basic scientific facts regarding the Universe.

QUASARS REDSHIFT: GALAXY NGC 7319

The Picture that Won’t Go Away

"Only in the rarest instances has a single picture altered the direction of a scientific discipline. But in the case of the galaxy NGC 7319 and the "misplaced" quasar in front of it, the message is inescapable: its presence threatened to shatter one of the most cherished themes of mainstream astronomy, the Big Bang.

The rationale for the Big Bang rests substantially on an interpretation of a well-known phenomenon called “redshift”. The term refers to the shift of light from distant galaxies toward red on the light spectrum.

Many years ago, astronomers decided that redshifted objects must be moving away from the observer, stretching out their lightwaves. This “Doppler interpretation” of redshift enabled astronomers, based on the degree of redshift, to calculate both the distances and velocities of the objects. From these calculations, certain conclusions were inescapable. If all redshifted objects are moving farther away, the universe must be expanding. If the universe is expanding, the expansion must have had a starting point—an unimaginable explosion producing a universe of galaxies receding in every direction from the observer.

Then came the Hubble photograph, taken on October 3, 2003. The picture showed a galaxy (NGC 7319) known for its dense clouds that obstruct all objects behind its core. In front of the galaxy's core is a strongly redshifted quasar. In fact, under the prevailing assumptions, the redshift of the quasar would put it more than 90 times farther away from us than the big galaxy behind it."



A higher magnification image of the quasar shows a "jet" of matter extending out from the center of NGC 7319 toward the quasar:




http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp


The Discovery of a High Redshift X-Ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0409215.pdf


Published in the Astrophysical Journal

Geoffrey Burbidge, a professor of physics and astronomer at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences

"The quasar was found embedded in the galaxy NGC 7319 only 8 arc sec from its centre. According to the Hubble law the galaxy NGC 7319, with a redshift of 0.022, is at a distance of about 360 million light-years. Therefore these objects could not be physically connected to each other if this was true."


At the meeting of the American Astronomical Society held in Texas in 2004, Professor Margaret Burbidge presented a paper that she had co-authored with Arp and several other leading astronomers, including her husband [subsequently published in the Astrophysical Journal]. It detailed the discovery of a high redshift quasar close to a low redshift galaxy. This time, though, the alignment was different in every significant way.

This time, no one could argue. You see, the high redshift [more distant] quasar lay in front of the [less distant redshift] galaxy NGC 7319! There was no longer occasion to debate the veracity of [Arp’s] matter bridge [connecting galaxies with quasars]. The quasar was in the foreground [the galaxy in the background]. In that impressive gathering of astronomy’s who’s who, you could have heard a pin drop. It was a deafening silence.”

“The significance of this discovery is huge. We have direct, irrefutable, empirical evidence that the Hubble law stands on feet of clay, that the observational justification of an expanding Universe is fatally flawed.”

Hilton Ratcliffe

A couple of alternative theories is that the quasar is shining through a "hole" in the galaxy or that it is the stripped remains of a galaxy that collided with NGC7319.

It is for discussing Sirius.

Your tag team partner has arrived and he has nothing better to do than to make things much harder for you.

The creators of the Stellarium software are ignorant of the most basic scientific facts regarding the Universe.

QUASARS REDSHIFT: GALAXY NGC 7319

Again, this is for discussing Sirius.
If you don't want to discuss Sirius then FUCK OFF!

Start your own thread on this other BS.

Again, this seems to be a common trend with you. You continually spout pure BS and repeatedly change topic, as if you know you cannot defend your claims on one topic and thus need to keep jumping between them to try and avoid defeat.
When you are forced to discuss a single topic you are repeatedly refuted and eventually run away like a pathetic child.

GROW UP!!!

No astronomer would permit himself/herself to put forward such a silly "alternative" theory.

I ALWAYS include the best possible information in my messages.

You obviously failed to read the entire message.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0409215.pdf

We have clearly demonstrated that the ULX lying 8 arc sec from the nucleus of NGC
7319 is a high redshift QSO. This is to be added to a list of more than 20 ULX candidates
which have all turned out to be genuine QSOs (cf. Burbidge, Burbidge & Arp 2003; Arp,
L´opez-Corredoira and Guti´errez 2004). Since all of these objects lie within a few arc minutes or less of the centers of these galaxies, the probability that any of them are QSOs at cosmological distance, observed through the disk of the galaxy, is negligibly small. Thus this is further direct evidence that high redshift QSOs are generated and ejected in low redshift active galaxies. The case described here is particularly interesting since there is a considerable amount of evidence that the QSO is interacting with the gas in the main body of the galaxy. Most of the evidence has been discussed in the previous sections.

Here is another paper published by this team of highly respected and renowned astronomers, showing one more quasar-galaxy pair:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0401007.pdf

jackblack, tell your own father or mother to fuck off.

You are in no position to tell me or anybody else what to do here.

You are undergoing another episode of cognitive dissonance.

STFU!

It takes less than 30 seconds to debunk your miserable and failed messages.

You don't stand a chance with me here.

Read these words carefully:

and cannot find any other, more reliable, evidence to back up your claim. If you do find any, please do present it for consideration.

And this is exactly what I have done here, to present the necessary evidence which shows the utter contempt for real science held by the creators of the Stellarium software (the real subject beind discussed here).

[Note: The quote hotlink is to the first post in this thread. The hotlink in that quote block will take you to the original in the other thread]

Kepler's results are famous and widely used because they actually work.

But they do not, that is why they were totally faked in the first place.

Yeah, sure they don't work. That's why satellite orbit predictions are based on Kepler's equation. The parameters describing the orbit that are typically used in the solution of Kepler's equation are called Keplerain elements; they are a mathematical description of the size and shape of a unique ellipse [actually, any conic: circle, ellipse, parabola, or hyperbola] and its orientation in inertial space.

It works quite well, by the way, despite your protest.

The acceleration of the rate of axial precession DEFIES Newtonian mechanics.

You keep saying that. You're still wrong. It's more complicated than earth-sun-moon, which seems to create difficulty for you

For you to complain of a single second, while at the same time you close your eyes and accept the totally faked treatise Nova Astronomia says a lot about you.

*Yawn* That shtick has gotten stale. You need a new one. Try to pick something that has a basis in fact for a change. It'll age better.

Let us examine the entire interval of 20 years using your figure of 2.6 seconds.

<Collection of graphs along with an enumeration of leap seconds. It does plump up your post, but other than that, so what?>

Therefore the claims made by Uwe Homann are true: no precession for Sirius over a period of 20 years.

Aren't those are the same graphs as in one of your earlier posts? How does any of that lead you to the conclusion you want to get?

and cannot find any other, more reliable, evidence to back up your claim. If you do find any, please do present it for consideration.

Really?

Really!

Let me demolish your false beliefs right now.

Here is the perfect test for our situation: Homann's claims and experimental data that Sirius does not undergo precessional motion vs. the claims made by the star catalogues you are so fond of.

Sirius SIMBAD lookup. SIMBAD is a database of objects created and maintained by and for professional astronomers and whoever else needs or wants the data:

* alf CMa -- Double or multiple star

FK5 coord. (ep=J2000 eq=2000) :   06 45 08.917 -16 42 58.02 [ 11.70 10.90 90 ]
FK4 coord. (ep=B1950 eq=1950) :   06 42 56.72 -16 38 45.4 [ 67.39 63.09 0 ]

The square brackets indicate the major and minor axes of the ellipse of uncertainty in milliarcseconds, and orientation of the major axis in degrees.

Since you seem to like Excel plots, here's a plot of those locations, along with the data point from Becvar's 1950 catalog, and Stellarium's calculated positions for the beginning of 1950, 1968, 1988, 2000, and 2008. The plot area is 1° in both RA and Dec.



You can clearly see that the Stellarium pretty much nails the two SIMBAD catalog locations (they agree to within 15 seconds of arc in RA and Dec), and Becvar's 1950 location matches the others within the precision published, which is 0.1 minute in RA and 1 minute in Dec.

Stellarium positions for the other years are consistent with the others, indicating the clear trend of precession, including the roughly 1/4° it precessed during period of the Homanns' tests.

But, you may splutter...  but, but, but... those are just numbers you read from a screen (or a book). That's true, but the fact remains that those numbers have been and still are currently used by astronomers and others using astrometry to point, align, calibrate, and validate equipment. If there were significant errors in Sirius' position, there would be loud consternation. Yet we hear none. None from mid century, when the 1950 atlas was widely used, and none now. The fact remains that Stellarium's coordinates for Sirius can be used to accurately align and accurately point a telescope. A quarter degree of error in its expected position would be immediately obvious. This is true whether you like it or not.

Obviously, if the Earth does not orbit the Sun, then you are proven to be wrong.

Lol! That's a pretty big if.

The ORBITAL Sagnac effect ...

<nothin' to see here, folks, just another attempt to deflect the conversation, which is about Sirius and its precession (or alleged lack thereof)>

A total refutation of your false claims, and a total debunking of the false beliefs held by the authors of the Stellarium software.

Still nothing but Mr. Homann's questionable data, just huffing, puffing, and spamming, I see.

All that because you don't like Stellarium? At least Stellarium works. This is probably why you hold it in low esteem!

No astronomer would permit himself/herself to put forward such a silly "alternative" theory.

I ALWAYS include the best possible information in my messages.

You obviously failed to read the entire message.

No, you include complete BS and already refuted crap.

I didn't bother reading the entire message as the vast majority (if not all), had nothing at all to do with the topic at hand, SIRIUS!!!!

Do you understand that?
While you spam irrelevant crap which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I will just point that out, and not bother reading your post.

If you wish to discuss that BS make a new thread on it, stop spamming it here.

jackblack, tell your own father or mother to fuck off.

You are in no position to tell me or anybody else what to do here.

You are undergoing another episode of cognitive dissonance.

STFU!

It takes less than 30 seconds to debunk your miserable and failed messages.

You don't stand a chance with me here.

Really?
Is that why you have been completely unable to refute a single thing I have said and instead had your ass handed to you repeatedly, in numerous topics, including the Sagnac effect and something as simple as 2 boats and a rope.

Read these words carefully:

and cannot find any other, more reliable, evidence to back up your claim. If you do find any, please do present it for consideration.

And this is exactly what I have done here, to present the necessary evidence which shows the utter contempt for real science held by the creators of the Stellarium software (the real subject beind discussed here).

No it isn't.
You have provided a bunch of crap which has nothing at all to do with the claim at hand.

A change of venue won't help you, in fact you don't know what you've gotten yourself into.

The change in venue was to spare the readers of the Solar Eclipse thread having to scroll past mountains of dreck from you.

We've discussed things before, so I know exactly what to expect...

You'll try to hide your lack of facts with a tidal wave of insults, unrelated arcane stuff, keep trying to change the subject, and generally try to baffle everyone with bullshit since you can't dazzle us with brilliance.

and cannot find any other, more reliable, evidence to back up your claim. If you do find any, please do present it for consideration.

A short history lesson.

Mathematics applied to deterministic problems in the natural sciences (C.C. Lin/L.A. Segel), chapter 2: Deterministic systems and ordinary differential equations (pg. 36-70)

To accomplish a mathematical formulation, we adopt a polar coordinate system (r, θ) with the sun as the origin.

The second law of Kepler then states that, following the orbit (r(t), θ(t)) of a planet,

r²dθ/dt = h

The first law of Kepler states that the orbit can be described by the simple formula,

r = p/(1 + ecosθ)

Then one can show that the acceleration in the radial direction is

a_r = d²r/dt² - r(dθ/dt)² = -h²/pr²

Thus the acceleration is inversely proportional to the square of the radial distance.

Newton, by combining the above results with his second law of motion, was led to formulate the present form of the law of universal gravitation.

This, in turn, leads to a system of N particles in gravitational interaction; e.g., the solar system comprising the sun and the nine major planets.

Plus other stuff, too, like comets and minor planets. Keplerian orbits only apply to two bodies - the addition of other mass perturbs the ideal Keplerian orbits. Nonetheless, the principles still apply, and the additional masses must be dealt with, often by approximating the real orbits as Keplerian orbits for a finite time, until the perturbations accumulate enough that a new set of Keplerian elements must be used. This it how the typical satellite predictors work, where the effects of every other mass but the earth are small (although the effect of drag is significant for some of the lower satellites).

A single counterexample to the present form of the law of universal gravitation will also debunk the Keplerian claims, that the Earth is orbiting the Sun in the shape of an ellipse, and thus the claims made by the creators of the Stellarium software.

Hey, Stellarium still gives good answers for the behavior of celestial objects, even if you don't want it to.

ALLAIS EFFECT ...

If the counterexample is valid it might warrant a modification of, or even scrapping, our understanding of gravity. So far the Allais Effect is still speculative.

Next.

[Edit] Post before complete.

and cannot find any other, more reliable, evidence to back up your claim. If you do find any, please do present it for consideration.

Agreed.
...
BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT
...

Was there anything in there about the precession of Sirius (or alleged lack)? If it was buried in there it was easy to miss. Maybe your posts should be shorter and more to the point unless you're trying to hide something.

<Nothing here about Sirius, or its precession>

<... or here>

and cannot find any other, more reliable, evidence to back up your claim. If you do find any, please do present it for consideration.

No problem at all.

The greatest American mathematician of the 19th century, Simon Newcomb, discovered that the axial precession of the Earth is accelerating.

Simon Newcomb included a “constant” in his precession formula to get it to match the increasing rate of precession that was observed leading up to his era.

At least this is about precession, but nothing new, and 'Sirius' isn't even mentioned except in the title. Next!

and cannot find any other, more reliable, evidence to back up your claim. If you do find any, please do present it for consideration.

Be careful what you wish for.

It's pretty easy to search for 'Sirius' and 'precess'. If any of your excessively-long posts have no hits, they are most likely off topic and can be blown off. In fact, I can probably search them faster than you can copy'n'paste.

If precession is caused by local forces one would expect the observation date of the Perseids to change at the same rate that the earth precesses relative to the fixed stars outside the solar system.

At least you seem to be talking about precession again, but I don't find anything is this post about how it affects (or doesn't affect) Sirius. Still waiting for some evidence about that.

The official chronology of history tells us that the Perseid meteor shower has occurred on the same date, each year, at least for the past 2000 years.

Is the 'official' chronology of history the one you believe in, or the one you don't believe in?

The Perseids are cool. If you want to start a thread about them, that would be great!

Meanwhile, have you found anything new that shows Sirius isn't precessing along with the rest of the stars?

No? I didn't think so.

It is for discussing Sirius.

Wow! A hit! Your post includes the 'star' of the thread!! [See what I did there?! ]

Too bad it's only when you're quoting someone else though

The creators of the Stellarium software are ignorant of the most basic scientific facts regarding the Universe.

That program really has got your goat, doesn't it? I can see why! It's easy to use, it quite accurately models the sky (which is easy to verify) so it's really easy to check on a lot of balderdash you try to foist on everyone, and it's free!

The rest of the post seems to be devoid of any relation to the topic. Still waiting on some actual facts (not blather) about Sirius' precession.

You do seem to be in full-throttle bury 'em in bullshit mode. Worried?

<Wow! You're really reaching for anything now!>

I ALWAYS include the best possible information in my messages.

You need to find better sources of information if what we've seen is the best you can find.

At least that post was short!

Read these words carefully:

and cannot find any other, more reliable, evidence to back up your claim. If you do find any, please do present it for consideration.

And this is exactly what I have done here, to present the necessary evidence which shows the utter contempt for real science held by the creators of the Stellarium software (the real subject beind discussed here).

Where? Do you mean the posts where you make snarky remarks about the software and its creators? Do you consider that evidence?

Finally, a post that is both short and more or less to the point. Unfortunately, it still remains fact-free.

And, after 20 posts, not a single piece actual of data from Mr. sandokhan backing up his assertion that Sirius is immune to precession, just the usual dump truck full of crap in an effort to cover up the question. I've provided current and historic record showing that it occurs as expected. I didn't expect to see anything meaningful (still don't, but you never know...), but it's been fun anyway.

The ORBITAL solar gravitational potential is missing.

The GPS satellites are not registering this effect at all.

The Earth does not orbit the Sun.

Therefore, the Stellarium software, not to mention the SIMBAD catalog, are totally useless.


The MISSING SOLAR GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL deals another huge blow to heliocentricity.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706

Many people believe that GR accounts for all the observed
effects caused by gravitational fields. However, in
reality GR is unable to explain an increasing number of
clear observational facts, several of them discovered recently
with the help of the GPS. For instance, GR
predicts the gravitational time dilation and the slowing of
the rate of clocks by the gravitational potential of Earth,
of the Sun, of the galaxy etc. Due to the gravitational
time dilation of the solar gravitational potential, clocks in
the GPS satellites having their orbital plane nearly parallel
to the Earth-Sun axis should undergo a 12 hour period
harmonic variation in their rate so that the difference
between the delay accumulated along the half of the orbit
closest to the Sun amounts up to about 24 ns in the time
display, which would be recovered along the half of the
orbit farthest from the Sun. Such an oscillation exceeds
the resolution of the measurements by more than two
orders of magnitude and, if present, would be very easily
observed. Nevertheless, contradicting the predictions of
GR, no sign of such oscillation is observed.

In fact observations show that the rate of the
atomic clocks on Earth and in the 24 GPS satellites is
ruled by only and exclusively the Earth’s gravitational
field and that effects of the solar gravitational potential
are completely absent.

On the other hand, the time dilation effect of the solar
gravitational field on the atomic clocks orbiting with
Earth round the Sun, which is predicted by GR but not
observed, is a highly precise observation. It exceeds by
orders of magnitude the experimental precision and
hence is infinitely more reliable. If the orbital motion of
Earth round the Sun suppresses the time dilation due to
the solar gravitational field and moreover does not show
the predicted relativistic time dilation due to this orbital
motion, then it seems reasonable that a clock in a satellite
orbiting round the Earth in a direct equatorial orbit or in a
jet flying round the Earth too should give no evidence of
such a relativistic time dilation. The relativistic time dilation
alleged in both these round the world Sagnac experiments
is in clear and frontal contradiction with the
absence of such a relativistic time dilation effect in the
case of the orbiting Earth round the Sun.


The ORBITAL Sagnac effect is also missing.

The Earth does not orbit the Sun.

The Stellarium software and the SIMBAD catalog are mathematical pipe dreams, totally detached from reality.


Here is a sirius dose of reality for you.

The papers published by Dr. C.C. Su and by Dr. Daniel Gezari agree exactly with me.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1917978#msg1917978

Published by the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one of the most prestigious journals in the world today.

C.C. Su, "A Local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave," in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., vol. 45, no. 1, p. 637, Mar. 2000 (Minneapolis, Minnesota).

http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/

His paper was also published by HARVARD UNIVERSITY:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?2001EPJC...21..701S

See the headline at the top:

NASA ADS Physics/Geophysics Abstract Service



So far, Dr. C.C. Su's papers, which include the correct orbital Sagnac calculations, based on a circular loop with the center of rotation located at the Sun, have been published by:

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL

EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL

JOURNAL OF ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES AND APPLICATIONS


Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:

http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/qem/f3c.pdf

For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital
motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well. This local-ether model
has been adopted to account for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the
global positioning system (GPS), the intercontinental microwave link,
and the interplanetary radar.


The peer reviewers at the Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications agree that the orbital Sagnac is larger than the rotational Sagnac, that it is missing, and that a local-ether model has to be adopted in order to account for this fact.











Both the rotational and the orbital motions of the earth together with the orbital
motion of the target planet contribute to the Sagnac
effect. But the orbital motion of the sun has no effects
on the interplanetary propagation. On the other hand, as
the unique propagation frame in GPS and intercontinental
links is a geocentric inertial frame, the rotational motion
of the earth contributes to the Sagnac effect. But the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun and that of the
sun have no effects on the earthbound propagation. By
comparing GPS with interplanetary radar, it is seen that
there is a common Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation
and a common null effect of the orbital motion of the sun
on wave propagation. However, there is a discrepancy in
the Sagnac effect due to earth’s orbital motion. Moreover,
by comparing GPS with the widely accepted interpretation
of the Michelson–Morley experiment, it is seen that
there is a common null effect of the orbital motions on
wave propagation, whereas there is a discrepancy in the
Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation.


Based on this characteristic of uniqueness and switchability of the propagation frame,
we propose in the following section the local-ether model
of wave propagation to solve the discrepancies in the in-
fluences of earth’s rotational and orbital motions on the
Sagnac effect and to account for a wide variety of propagation
phenomena.


Anyway, the interplanetary Sagnac effect is due to
earth’s orbital motion around the sun as well as earth’s
rotation. Further, for the interstellar propagation where
the source is located beyond the solar system, the orbital
motion of the sun contributes to the interstellar Sagnac
effect as well.

Evidently, as expected, the proposed local-ether model
accounts for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation and
the null effect of earth’s orbital motion in the earthbound
propagations in GPS and intercontinental microwave link
experiments. Meanwhile, in the interplanetary radar, it accounts
for the Sagnac effect due both to earth’s rotation
and to earth’s orbital motion around the sun.


Based on the local-ether model, the propagation is entirely
independent of the earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever and the velocity v for such an earthbound
experiment is referred to an ECI frame and hence
is due to earth’s rotation alone. In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v²/c²
=~ 10^-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v²/c²∼ 10^-12 which is merely 10^-4 times that due to the orbital motion.


The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.



BOTH the orbital solar gravitational potential and the orbital Sagnac effect are MISSING.

Go ahead and tell the folks over at the Stellarium catalogue that the GPS satellites DO NOT REGISTER THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT OR THE SOLAR GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL EFFECT.

This means that the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192

Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361


in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.

A GPS satellite orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the entire system is orbiting the Sun, IS A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EXPERIMENT.


Given the very fact that these GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect, means that THE HYPOTHESES OF THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT ARE FULFILLED.

Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.

However, indirectly, the counteracting effects of the transit time and clock slowing induced biases indicate that an ether drift is present. This is because there is independent evidence that clocks are slowed as a result of their speed. Thus, ether drift must exist or else the clock slowing effect would be observed.

In fact, there is other evidence that the wave-front bending and absence of the
Sagnac effect in the earth-centered frame is due to the clock-biasing effects of velocity
and that an ether drift velocity actually exists in the earth-centered frame. First, the
gradient of the solar gravitational effects upon clocks on the surface of the earth is such
that the clocks will speed up and slow down in precisely the correct way to retain the
appropriate up-wind and down-wind clock biases. Thus, the clocks must be biased or
else the solar gravitational effects would become apparent.


A total refutation of your false claims, and a total debunking of the false beliefs held by the authors of the Stellarium software.

The ORBITAL solar gravitational potential is missing.

Again, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND!!!

Do you understand that?
Do you understand what spam is?
All you are doing now is spamming crap.

What's the matter?
Can't you defend your BS claims about Sirius so you need to deflect by spamming BS?

The topic of this thread is this: are the Stellarium software and the SIMBAD catalog data, as applied to Sirius' supposed precessional motion, based on real science or physics?

The answer is a resounding NO.

Both the Stellarium website and the SIMBAD catalog CLAIM that the Earth is orbiting the Sun.

The missing ORBITAL Sagnac effect and the missing ORBITAL solar gravitational potential prove otherwise: the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.

The GPS satellites' clocks do not register either the orbital Sagnac or the orbital solar gravitational potential.

Certainly these data are totally related to the subject discussed here, as I can prove immediately that the claims made by both the Stellarium software and the SIMBAD catalog are false.

If you have any complaints, please address them to Nasa.

The topic of this thread is this: are the Stellarium software and the SIMBAD catalog data, as applied to Sirius' supposed precessional motion, based on real science or physics?

No. The topic of this thread is specifically regarding Sirius and axial precession, specifically the alleged (i.e. your claim of) acceleration of the rate of axial precession as it applies to the Earth - Sirius distance.

Anything else is off topic and spam.

GPS and Sagnac and so on have nothing at all to do with this and thus are off topic and spam.

Like I said, if you wish to continue discussion on your ignorance and ability to understand the Sagnac effect, go back to that thread.

<irrelevant stuff>

The Earth does not orbit the Sun.

Therefore, the Stellarium software, not to mention the SIMBAD catalog, are totally useless.

If, when you say "are totally useless" you mean "make it easy to refute my argument", then I can see why you'd say that. And why their existence irritates you so much.

Meanwhile, have you found any examples where the SIMBAD, other good catalogs, or Stellarium have mislocated Sirius [since this is the topic of discussion] at the epoch they apply to?

Not yet? Maybe if you spent less time posting huge blasts of unrelated stuff and more time looking, you might find something.

<something about GPS satellites, but no mention of Sirius or precession>

The Stellarium software and the SIMBAD catalog are mathematical pipe dreams, totally detached from reality.

Totally detached from reality? It's really quite remarkable that they work at all, not to mention so well. Fascinating!

Here is a sirius dose of reality for you. [Clever! Let me guess... you'll be here all week. Try the veal. And don’t forget to tip your servers.]

<sagnac stuff>

Go ahead and tell the folks over at the Stellarium catalogue that the GPS satellites DO NOT REGISTER THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT OR THE SOLAR GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL EFFECT.

Why don't you? You're the one that seems to think that is somehow significant, or, for that matter, even a fact. Be sure to let us know what their response is.

Oh, yeah... Stellarium is a program, not a catalog. There's a difference, and we'd hate for you to misuse terms like those when you're corresponding with actual experts. It might make you look ignorant, and we wouldn't want that to happen.

<more stuff unrelated to the topic>

A total refutation of your false claims, and a total debunking of the false beliefs held by the authors of the Stellarium software.

The Sagnac stuff has been extensively discussed in at least one other thread. If you'd like to resume that discussion, please do so there; it's just noise here. I tried to provide a link to the other discussion(s) for your convenience, but the search and similar features of this website are not working at the moment.

Maybe I should plot the change in coordinates for other stars from 1950 and 2000, and compare them with the catalogs, too. That might be interesting. Maybe Aldebaran, because it's close to the ecliptic, and Canopus, since it's fairly close to the ecliptic pole. If you want to nominate another star, I'd be happy to entertain that.

It seems that your trying to make sense of curved space, has only warped your mind.

Both the Stellarium software and the SIMBAD database are nothing more than video games.

The Sagnac stuff

Your amateurish approach to science is best evidenced by your words.

You mean the SAGNAC EFFECT.


BOTH the orbital solar gravitational potential and the orbital Sagnac effect are MISSING.

Go ahead and tell the folks who created the Stellarium software that the GPS satellites DO NOT REGISTER THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT OR THE SOLAR GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL EFFECT.

This means that the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192

Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361


in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.

A GPS satellite orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the entire system is orbiting the Sun, IS A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EXPERIMENT.


Given the very fact that these GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect, means that THE HYPOTHESES OF THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT ARE FULFILLED.

Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.

However, indirectly, the counteracting effects of the transit time and clock slowing induced biases indicate that an ether drift is present. This is because there is independent evidence that clocks are slowed as a result of their speed. Thus, ether drift must exist or else the clock slowing effect would be observed.

In fact, there is other evidence that the wave-front bending and absence of the
Sagnac effect in the earth-centered frame is due to the clock-biasing effects of velocity
and that an ether drift velocity actually exists in the earth-centered frame. First, the
gradient of the solar gravitational effects upon clocks on the surface of the earth is such
that the clocks will speed up and slow down in precisely the correct way to retain the
appropriate up-wind and down-wind clock biases. Thus, the clocks must be biased or
else the solar gravitational effects would become apparent.


A total refutation of your false claims, and a total debunking of the false beliefs held by the authors of the Stellarium software.


Unless you can explain both the missing orbital Sagnac effect and the missing solar gravitational effect, you are done here, nobody is going to believe anything you say regarding any subject on astronomy.


You can no longer ignore the FACT that the GPS satellites' clocks fail to register/record the orbital Sagnac effect and the orbital solar gravitational potential.

You had no knowledge of the Ruderfer experiment before reading my messages: for your information, its hypotheses are totally fulfilled by the missing Sagnac/solar grav. potential effects, this means the existence of ether is proven 100%.

The missing orbital Sagnac effect, which is much larger than the rotational Sagnac, means that the Earth is NOT orbiting the Sun, contrary to what your bibliographical sources tell us.

It seems that your trying to make sense of curved space, has only warped your mind.

Both the Stellarium software and the SIMBAD database are nothing more than video games.

The Sagnac stuff

Your amateurish approach to science is best evidenced by your words.

You mean the SAGNAC EFFECT.


BOTH the orbital solar gravitational potential and the orbital Sagnac effect are MISSING.

Go ahead and tell the folks who created the Stellarium software that the GPS satellites DO NOT REGISTER THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT OR THE SOLAR GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL EFFECT.

This means that the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192

Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361


in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.

A GPS satellite orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the entire system is orbiting the Sun, IS A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EXPERIMENT.


Given the very fact that these GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect, means that THE HYPOTHESES OF THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT ARE FULFILLED.

Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.

However, indirectly, the counteracting effects of the transit time and clock slowing induced biases indicate that an ether drift is present. This is because there is independent evidence that clocks are slowed as a result of their speed. Thus, ether drift must exist or else the clock slowing effect would be observed.

In fact, there is other evidence that the wave-front bending and absence of the
Sagnac effect in the earth-centered frame is due to the clock-biasing effects of velocity
and that an ether drift velocity actually exists in the earth-centered frame. First, the
gradient of the solar gravitational effects upon clocks on the surface of the earth is such
that the clocks will speed up and slow down in precisely the correct way to retain the
appropriate up-wind and down-wind clock biases. Thus, the clocks must be biased or
else the solar gravitational effects would become apparent.


A total refutation of your false claims, and a total debunking of the false beliefs held by the authors of the Stellarium software.


Unless you can explain both the missing orbital Sagnac effect and the missing solar gravitational effect, you are done here, nobody is going to believe anything you say regarding any subject on astronomy.


You can no longer ignore the FACT that the GPS satellites' clocks fail to register/record the orbital Sagnac effect and the orbital solar gravitational potential.

You had no knowledge of the Ruderfer experiment before reading my messages: for your information, its hypotheses are totally fulfilled by the missing Sagnac/solar grav. potential effects, this means the existence of ether is proven 100%.

The missing orbital Sagnac effect, which is much larger than the rotational Sagnac, means that the Earth is NOT orbiting the Sun, contrary to what your bibliographical sources tell us.

You quote a lot of scientists and experiments you claim prove the earth does not rotate.
Can you show any of those scientists coming to the same conclusion?  Can you show a quote from them saying their work proves the earth is stationary?