Round planet orbits sun, round moon orbits planet, sometimes moon gets between sun and planet.
Eclipse.
Please!
That video is pure, absolute horse shit!
Hey globers! If the earth is so undeniably spherical, then someone explain to me how there is going to be a perfect solar eclipse on Aug. 21, 2017.
Why is he talking about lunar eclipses but showing footage of a plane chasing a solar eclipse? ???Round planet orbits sun, round moon orbits planet, sometimes moon gets between sun and planet.
Eclipse.
Not likely. Ever heard of the Mayans? See video
Hey globers! If the earth is so undeniably spherical, then someone explain to me how there is going to be a perfect solar eclipse on Aug. 21, 2017.
Since both exact time and position of landfall/trajectory of that eclipse was predicted by using SHM calculations I really do wonder what point you're trying to make here. If any. ???
Since both exact time and position of landfall/trajectory of that eclipse was predicted by using SHM calculationsSource?
Hey globers! If the earth is so undeniably spherical, then someone explain to me how there is going to be a perfect solar eclipse on Aug. 21, 2017.Seriously? What do you think is so difficult about it.
Please!
That video is pure, absolute horse shit!
The time occupied by the moon in returning to the same star is called the time of her sidereal revolution. At the beginning of this century it amounted to 27.32 mean solar days. Its value is not the same in every century. From the time of the most ancient observations until the present day, we find that the sidereal revolution has been gradually becoming shorter and shorter. Will this acceleration always continue? This is a question which observation is incapable of deciding.
Popular Astronomy by Francois Arago 1858 - Page 235
How about you stop spamming the same crap all over the place and focus on the discussion at hand?Please!
That video is pure, absolute horse shit!
Like the moon does not accelerate?QuoteThe time occupied by the moon in returning to the same star is called the time of her sidereal revolution. At the beginning of this century it amounted to 27.32 mean solar days. Its value is not the same in every century. From the time of the most ancient observations until the present day, we find that the sidereal revolution has been gradually becoming shorter and shorter. Will this acceleration always continue? This is a question which observation is incapable of deciding.
Popular Astronomy by Francois Arago 1858 - Page 235
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bNAUAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA257&dq=Popular+astronomy+volume+2&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUsPij6e7TAhWELcAKHQfdDo4Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Popular%20astronomy%20volume%202&f=false (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bNAUAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA257&dq=Popular+astronomy+volume+2&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUsPij6e7TAhWELcAKHQfdDo4Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Popular%20astronomy%20volume%202&f=false)
Hey globers! If the earth is so undeniably spherical, then someone explain to me how there is going to be a perfect solar eclipse on Aug. 21, 2017.Seriously? What do you think is so difficult about it.
The moon and sun, due to their respective distances and sizes are approximately the same angular size.
The moon is more variable due to its elliptical orbit.
If the moon passes in front of the sun, it will block the light of the sun.
What is wrong with this explanation?
Since both exact time and position of landfall/trajectory of that eclipse was predicted by using SHM calculationsSource?
Hey globers! If the earth is so undeniably spherical, then someone explain to me how there is going to be a perfect solar eclipse on Aug. 21, 2017.Seriously? What do you think is so difficult about it.
The moon and sun, due to their respective distances and sizes are approximately the same angular size.
The moon is more variable due to its elliptical orbit.
If the moon passes in front of the sun, it will block the light of the sun.
What is wrong with this explanation?
I don't want to sound arogant here, but your explanation doesn't make any sense. This does:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/73/77/55/737755f8ef50768472adb34d4d5c4ce3.jpg)
...
I don't want to sound arogant here, but your explanation doesn't make any sense. This does:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/73/77/55/737755f8ef50768472adb34d4d5c4ce3.jpg)
Hey globers! If the earth is so undeniably spherical, then someone explain to me how there is going to be a perfect solar eclipse on Aug. 21, 2017.Seriously? What do you think is so difficult about it.
The moon and sun, due to their respective distances and sizes are approximately the same angular size.
The moon is more variable due to its elliptical orbit.
If the moon passes in front of the sun, it will block the light of the sun.
What is wrong with this explanation?
I don't want to sound arogant here, but your explanation doesn't make any sense. This does:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/73/77/55/737755f8ef50768472adb34d4d5c4ce3.jpg)
OK, I will stop writing on this thread as of now!You don't need to announce your buthurt departure.
I don't want to sound arogant here, but your explanation doesn't make any sense. This does:So you can't point out anything wrong with our explanation?
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/73/77/55/737755f8ef50768472adb34d4d5c4ce3.jpg)No, this doesn't make any sense at all.
Hey globers! If the earth is so undeniably spherical, then someone explain to me how there is going to be a perfect solar eclipse on Aug. 21, 2017.Seriously? What do you think is so difficult about it.
The moon and sun, due to their respective distances and sizes are approximately the same angular size.
The moon is more variable due to its elliptical orbit.
If the moon passes in front of the sun, it will block the light of the sun.
What is wrong with this explanation?
I don't want to sound arogant here, but your explanation doesn't make any sense. This does:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/73/77/55/737755f8ef50768472adb34d4d5c4ce3.jpg)
Round planet orbits sun, round moon orbits planet, sometimes moon gets between sun and planet.
Eclipse.
Not likely. Ever heard of the Mayans? See video
It's been a while but IIRC, that's a convexo concave lens. Your refraction angles are all wrong. You should probably check the various kinds of lenses prior to posting a picture like this. In particular a convexo concave lens.Hey globers! If the earth is so undeniably spherical, then someone explain to me how there is going to be a perfect solar eclipse on Aug. 21, 2017.Seriously? What do you think is so difficult about it.
The moon and sun, due to their respective distances and sizes are approximately the same angular size.
The moon is more variable due to its elliptical orbit.
If the moon passes in front of the sun, it will block the light of the sun.
What is wrong with this explanation?
I don't want to sound arogant here, but your explanation doesn't make any sense. This does:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/73/77/55/737755f8ef50768472adb34d4d5c4ce3.jpg)
OK all you Heliocentric Priest,
Can you explain this to me about the shadows of the Solar Eclipse on Earth.
If the Moons diameter is 3474 km, all when light hits an object is parallel to it, and it's shadow must be equal to or greater than the objects dimensions, why does the moon shadow on a Solar eclipse is only 70 miles wide,
The Heliocentric hypothesis is wrong!!!!
Not likely. Ever heard of the Mayans? See video
I was the first to specifically state that the solar eclipse is not caused by the Moon.
I mentioned Rahu and Ketu, the Black Sun, many years ago.
Subsequently, my ideas were copied and used without acknowledging the source.
Not only that, but I provided the detailed analysis of the Allais effect, the most direct proof that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse.
Not likely. Ever heard of the Mayans? See videoAmazing how this black sun never blocks any stars at night! Amazing how it just happens to be in the exact same place as the moon would be projected to be on any model! Amazing how you cannot explain why the umbra is 70 miles wide this time, but can vary from no umbra to an even larger umbra! Nor can you explain the penumbra which is massive! Come on, give us a model of how the magical black sun would be able to do all the things that the elliptical orbits of the earth and moon allow for explanations and prediction of all eclipses past and future!
I was the first to specifically state that the solar eclipse is not caused by the Moon.
I mentioned Rahu and Ketu, the Black Sun, many years ago.
Subsequently, my ideas were copied and used without acknowledging the source.
Not only that, but I provided the detailed analysis of the Allais effect, the most direct proof that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse.
OK all you Heliocentric Priest,
Can you explain this to me about the shadows of the Solar Eclipse on Earth.
If the Moons diameter is 3474 km, all when light hits an object is parallel to it, and it's shadow must be equal to or greater than the objects dimensions, why does the moon shadow on a Solar eclipse is only 70 miles wide?
Video time 8:28 till end
The Heliocentric hypothesis is wrong!!!!
OK all you Heliocentric Priest,http://mathscinotes.com/2010/10/solar-eclipse-math/
Can you explain this to me about the shadows of the Solar Eclipse on Earth.
If the Moons diameter is 3474 km, all when light hits an object is parallel to it, and it's shadow must be equal to or greater than the objects dimensions, why does the moon shadow on a Solar eclipse is only 70 miles wide?
Video time 8:28 till end
The Heliocentric hypothesis is wrong!!!!
Amazing how this black sun never blocks any stars at night!
Johnorbital said the same thing with regard to the lunar eclipse:
I asked why your 'slightly transparent extra celestial body' doesn't block out the lights of other stars.
And you did receive the answer: it has everything to do with the DISTANCE involved.
In the first case, the Shadow Moon passes exactly in front of the Moon, perhaps less than a few hundred meters; as such, the radiation emitted by the Moon is picked up by the Shadow Moon, and its form can be seen, but only as it passes in front of the Moon.
The stars orbit much farther above: perhaps some 20-25 more kilometers in altitude. Their radiation is not nearly strong enough to make the Shadow Moon manifest itself.
Moreover, both the Black Sun and the Shadow Moon orbit at a low altitude beyond the Dome, and only cross the sky to cause the solar or the lunar eclipse (respectively).
Basically it said that the shadow cast by a light source will always be greater or equal to the size of the object.Again,
Why then, do we only see 70 miles of moon shadow during a solar eclipse on the earth if the moon has a diameter of 3474 km.
A very valid point, since the light source, the sun has all of its sun rays parallel between the moon and the Earth. See image below
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Seasons.svg/1280px-Seasons.svg.png)
Why does the site use this image to depict the sun's rays and not parallel as we have been told for all these years in school.
(https://mathscinotes.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/symboldefinitions.png?resize=640%2C313)
and not this one
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Seasons.svg/1280px-Seasons.svg.png)
Can you make me a photo of an object that will have a smaller shadow than its size?
Why does the site use this image to depict the sun's rays and not parallel as we have been told for all these years in school.Yes, so could you!
(https://mathscinotes.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/symboldefinitions.png?resize=640%2C313)
and not this one
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Seasons.svg/1280px-Seasons.svg.png)
Can you make me a photo of an object that will have a smaller shadow than its size?
Why does the site use this image to depict the sun's rays and not parallel as we have been told for all these years in school.Yes, so could you!
(https://mathscinotes.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/symboldefinitions.png?resize=640%2C313)
and not this one
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Seasons.svg/1280px-Seasons.svg.png)
Can you make me a photo of an object that will have a smaller shadow than its size?
Hang a tennis ball from a piece of string, use a light source that is wider than the tennis ball, and the shadow caste on the wall will vary according to the distance you move the light source away from the ball, and you can vary the distance the ball is from the wall to add further examples! Then use a ping pong ball and notice the differences.
They are effectively parallel for most anything you can measure by yourself. The convergence happens over very long distances. The same thing happens with the size of the Earth's shadow on the Moon and is one of the ways to estimate the moon's distance.
They are effectively parallel for most anything you can measure by yourself. The convergence happens over very long distances. The same thing happens with the size of the Earth's shadow on the Moon and is one of the ways to estimate the moon's distance.
Add to this that the sun is not a flipping spotlight, as FE'ers assume, but that light emanates from each point on its surface outwards in all directions. Since the sun is bigger than the moon, the outer parts of the sun have rays that converge towards a single point after passing the moon, and depending on the distance from the earth to the moon at the time, the larger or shorter the umbra shadow.
OK all you Heliocentric Priest,Maybe you should as Dutchy to explain how an accurate scale model of the sun-earth-moon can help clear up some common misconceptions about eclipses.
Can you explain this to me about the shadows of the Solar Eclipse on Earth.
If the Moons diameter is 3474 km, all when light hits an object is parallel to it, and it's shadow must be equal to or greater than the objects dimensions, why does the moon shadow on a Solar eclipse is only 70 miles wide?
OK all you Heliocentric Priest,Maybe you should as Dutchy to explain how an accurate scale model of the sun-earth-moon can help clear up some common misconceptions about eclipses.
Can you explain this to me about the shadows of the Solar Eclipse on Earth.
If the Moons diameter is 3474 km, all when light hits an object is parallel to it, and it's shadow must be equal to or greater than the objects dimensions, why does the moon shadow on a Solar eclipse is only 70 miles wide?
OK all you Heliocentric Priest,So sorry, we don't have any Heliocentric Priests. So care to ask your question properly.
As for your 15 mile high sun and 25 mile high stars, you are one of a kindI don't see any discussion of "your 15 mile high sun and 25 mile high stars"!
question is, why in the video on the NASA site, having them SHOW and explain how it happens... the earth is spinning the opposite way of the moons rotation when our ENTIRE LIVES we have been told that the moon rotates the same way as the earth but the earth is 27x faster than the moon.... so in all actuality... the shadow of the Eclipse should be moving west to east as the earth is rotating the same way and faster than the moon!?!?!?! any video you look for this or ANY eclipse it ALWAYS shows the rotations in opposite directions... wtf is up with that!?
here is the LINK on NASA's site
https://nasasearch.nasa.gov/search?query=solar+eclipse&affiliate=nasa&utf8=%E2%9C%93
Here is the actual video link...
VIDEO MADE BY NASA.
so I just find that very confusing as I was a Advanced Physics major so those trajectories make NO sense what so ever.
question is, why in the video on the NASA site, having them SHOW and explain how it happens... the earth is spinning the opposite way of the moons rotation when our ENTIRE LIVES we have been told that the moon rotates the same way as the earth but the earth is 27x faster than the moon.... so in all actuality... the shadow of the Eclipse should be moving west to east as the earth is rotating the same way and faster than the moon!?!?!?! any video you look for this or ANY eclipse it ALWAYS shows the rotations in opposite directions... wtf is up with that!?
here is the LINK on NASA's site
https://nasasearch.nasa.gov/search?query=solar+eclipse&affiliate=nasa&utf8=%E2%9C%93
Here is the actual video link...
VIDEO MADE BY NASA.
so I just find that very confusing as I was a Advanced Physics major so those trajectories make NO sense what so ever.
It is confusing, but they are showing the eclipse from the moons perspective as it crosses the earth. The moon is traveling slightly faster then the earths rotation, so the shadow moves west to east.
question is, why in the video on the NASA site, having them SHOW and explain how it happens... the earth is spinning the opposite way of the moons rotation when our ENTIRE LIVES we have been told that the moon rotates the same way as the earth but the earth is 27x faster than the moon.... so in all actuality... the shadow of the Eclipse should be moving west to east as the earth is rotating the same way and faster than the moon!?!?!?! any video you look for this or ANY eclipse it ALWAYS shows the rotations in opposite directions... wtf is up with that!?
here is the LINK on NASA's site
https://nasasearch.nasa.gov/search?query=solar+eclipse&affiliate=nasa&utf8=%E2%9C%93
Here is the actual video link...
VIDEO MADE BY NASA.
so I just find that very confusing as I was a Advanced Physics major so those trajectories make NO sense what so ever.
It is confusing, but they are showing the eclipse from the moons perspective as it crosses the earth. The moon is traveling slightly faster then the earths rotation, so the shadow moves west to east.
But how is that correct if the earth travels 27x faster than the moon.... how is the moon moving "slightly" faster than the earth. do you have the mathematical equation to show that "slightly faster" movement than the earth. cause last I checked it takes 27 days for a full orbit of the moon and our 24hou days aren't more than 27 days long so it is physically impossible for the moon to be moving :slightly faster" than the earth spinning the same way. and that still doesn't explain why the two are spinning in opposite directions. why would NASA release false information as fact?
question is, why in the video on the NASA site, having them SHOW and explain how it happens... the earth is spinning the opposite way of the moons rotation when our ENTIRE LIVES we have been told that the moon rotates the same way as the earth but the earth is 27x faster than the moon.... so in all actuality... the shadow of the Eclipse should be moving west to east as the earth is rotating the same way and faster than the moon!?!?!?! any video you look for this or ANY eclipse it ALWAYS shows the rotations in opposite directions... wtf is up with that!?
here is the LINK on NASA's site
https://nasasearch.nasa.gov/search?query=solar+eclipse&affiliate=nasa&utf8=%E2%9C%93
Here is the actual video link...
VIDEO MADE BY NASA.
so I just find that very confusing as I was a Advanced Physics major so those trajectories make NO sense what so ever.
It is confusing, but they are showing the eclipse from the moons perspective as it crosses the earth. The moon is traveling slightly faster then the earths rotation, so the shadow moves west to east.
But how is that correct if the earth travels 27x faster than the moon.... how is the moon moving "slightly" faster than the earth. do you have the mathematical equation to show that "slightly faster" movement than the earth. cause last I checked it takes 27 days for a full orbit of the moon and our 24hou days aren't more than 27 days long so it is physically impossible for the moon to be moving :slightly faster" than the earth spinning the same way. and that still doesn't explain why the two are spinning in opposite directions. why would NASA release false information as fact?
Since you have claimed before to be a physics major you probs should know the difference between angular and orbital velocity in regard of different diameters, right?
Think of it, take your time, and then come back. :P
question is, why in the video on the NASA site, having them SHOW and explain how it happens... the earth is spinning the opposite way of the moons rotation when our ENTIRE LIVES we have been told that the moon rotates the same way as the earth but the earth is 27x faster than the moon.... so in all actuality... the shadow of the Eclipse should be moving west to east as the earth is rotating the same way and faster than the moon!?!?!?! any video you look for this or ANY eclipse it ALWAYS shows the rotations in opposite directions... wtf is up with that!?
here is the LINK on NASA's site
https://nasasearch.nasa.gov/search?query=solar+eclipse&affiliate=nasa&utf8=%E2%9C%93
Here is the actual video link...
VIDEO MADE BY NASA.
so I just find that very confusing as I was a Advanced Physics major so those trajectories make NO sense what so ever.
It is confusing, but they are showing the eclipse from the moons perspective as it crosses the earth. The moon is traveling slightly faster then the earths rotation, so the shadow moves west to east.
But how is that correct if the earth travels 27x faster than the moon.... how is the moon moving "slightly" faster than the earth. do you have the mathematical equation to show that "slightly faster" movement than the earth. cause last I checked it takes 27 days for a full orbit of the moon and our 24hou days aren't more than 27 days long so it is physically impossible for the moon to be moving :slightly faster" than the earth spinning the same way. and that still doesn't explain why the two are spinning in opposite directions. why would NASA release false information as fact?
Since you have claimed before to be a physics major you probs should know the difference between angular and orbital velocity in regard of different diameters, right?
Think of it, take your time, and then come back. :P
Yes very aware of how that works, still doesn't explain why NASA has posted a video that shows OPPOSITE rotations of moon and earth as to show how the shadow will draw across the US continent.
and yea, atleast I can admit I didn't think of the suns angular disordinance relative to the rotation of the earth. in a sense yes, it would go west to east as the sun moves against our rotaion (as it stays fixed and we move CC) faster than the moon would allowing it to cast a shadow west to east.
still would love to know why the Nasa video is Lacking hard
The moon's orbital velocity>earth's rotational velocity
question is, why in the video on the NASA site, having them SHOW and explain how it happens... the earth is spinning the opposite way of the moons rotation when our ENTIRE LIVES we have been told that the moon rotates the same way as the earth but the earth is 27x faster than the moon.... so in all actuality... the shadow of the Eclipse should be moving west to east as the earth is rotating the same way and faster than the moon!?!?!?! any video you look for this or ANY eclipse it ALWAYS shows the rotations in opposite directions... wtf is up with that!?
here is the LINK on NASA's site
https://nasasearch.nasa.gov/search?query=solar+eclipse&affiliate=nasa&utf8=%E2%9C%93
Here is the actual video link...
VIDEO MADE BY NASA.
so I just find that very confusing as I was a Advanced Physics major so those trajectories make NO sense what so ever.
It is confusing, but they are showing the eclipse from the moons perspective as it crosses the earth. The moon is traveling slightly faster then the earths rotation, so the shadow moves west to east.
But how is that correct if the earth travels 27x faster than the moon.... how is the moon moving "slightly" faster than the earth. do you have the mathematical equation to show that "slightly faster" movement than the earth. cause last I checked it takes 27 days for a full orbit of the moon and our 24hou days aren't more than 27 days long so it is physically impossible for the moon to be moving :slightly faster" than the earth spinning the same way. and that still doesn't explain why the two are spinning in opposite directions. why would NASA release false information as fact?
Since you have claimed before to be a physics major you probs should know the difference between angular and orbital velocity in regard of different diameters, right?
Think of it, take your time, and then come back. :P
Yes very aware of how that works, still doesn't explain why NASA has posted a video that shows OPPOSITE rotations of moon and earth as to show how the shadow will draw across the US continent.
and yea, atleast I can admit I didn't think of the suns angular disordinance relative to the rotation of the earth. in a sense yes, it would go west to east as the sun moves against our rotaion (as it stays fixed and we move CC) faster than the moon would allowing it to cast a shadow west to east.
still would love to know why the Nasa video is Lacking hard
Actually where in that video did NASA show opposite rotations of Moon and Earth? ???
As for your 15 mile high sun and 25 mile high stars, you are one of a kind
Then, you be the first REtard to explain the acceleration of the rate of axial precession as it applies to the Earth - Sirius distance:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032
Basic information the subject:
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.
<Big ol' table that illustrates sandokhan's ignorance of the concept of experimental error and what happens when you extrapolate too far> (https://s22.postimg.org/x002plw4x/pre1.jpg)
This, by itself, is enough to shatter to pieces Newtonian mechanics:
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).
Precession has nothing to do with the law of attractive gravitation.
Then you, the REtard, have a huge problem on your hands.
HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?
How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?
If any local force in here the "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky. [/b]
In the official theory of astrophysics, Sirius is 8.6 LIGHT YEARS from Earth.
THAT IS 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS.
And yet it keeps up precisely with the exponential increase of the rate of precession.
Dr. Jad Buchwald (Caltech):
Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes—and so from the solstices— throughout these many centuries, despite precession.
<etc.>
question is, why in the video on the NASA site, having them SHOW and explain how it happens... the earth is spinning the opposite way of the moons rotation when our ENTIRE LIVES we have been told that the moon rotates the same way as the earth but the earth is 27x faster than the moon.... so in all actuality... the shadow of the Eclipse should be moving west to east as the earth is rotating the same way and faster than the moon!?!?!?! any video you look for this or ANY eclipse it ALWAYS shows the rotations in opposite directions... wtf is up with that!?
here is the LINK on NASA's site
https://nasasearch.nasa.gov/search?query=solar+eclipse&affiliate=nasa&utf8=%E2%9C%93
Here is the actual video link...
VIDEO MADE BY NASA.
so I just find that very confusing as I was a Advanced Physics major so those trajectories make NO sense what so ever.
This shows it pretty well
Haven't we been through this before?Don't have have to explain any of what you're asking...nor could I because I'm not strong enough in celestial mechanics to do so.
(https://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/how-about-a-nice-big-cup-of-shut-the-fuck-up-5.png)
You tried your best to minimize the fact that the rate of axial precession is actually accelerating.
At first you tried to DENY THE DATA.
Then, realizing your mistake, you accepted the final figures.
The published constants are certainly close enough for my needs.
They should be.
They were calculated by none other than Simon Newcomb.
The figures are very clear.
(https://s22.postimg.org/x002plw4x/pre1.jpg)
Not even if "it has increased at an 'exponential' rate" were true.
But it is true.
The rate is accelerating.
Please explain why.
"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).
Precession has nothing to do with the law of attractive gravitation.
Sirius has shifted a total of 0.5391° relative to the Ecliptic and Equinoxes in the 50 years between epoch J1950.0 and J2000.0, according to Stellarium.
You tried that shit before.
It didn't work then, it won't work now.
".... despite precession, Sirius and the solstice must remain about the same distance in time from one another during most of Egyptian history. Indeed they do, though it’s doubtful that Burckhardt and Coraboeuf had thought it through. Because of Sirius’ position, and the latitudes at which the Egyptians observed the sky, both Sirius’ heliacal rising and the summer solstice remained nearly the same number of days apart throughout Egyptian history even though the zodiac moves slowly around the ecliptic." (pp 29)
Buchwald, who produced a revealing diagram on the ‘Heliacal Risings of Sirius’ in relation to the vernal points (for the period of 2900 BCE to 2941 CE at intervals of 1460 years) using TheSky software, makes it very clear that "Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes - and so from the solstices - throughout these many centuries, despite precession".
According to the current theory of lunisolar precession the pole, and therefore the equator of the Earth is supposed to “wobble” over a period of roughly 25800 years relative to the position of the fixed stars and the Sun. In other words, if we were to imagine the Earth ‘fixed’ in its revolution around the Sun at the time when Sirius is in conjunction with the Sun (e.g. during the Summer solstice), an observer would not only notice changes in the declination of Sirius and the other stars, but simultaneously equal changes in the declination of the Sun. In practice, however, Sirius does not show any significant variations in its position relative to the Summer solstice.
In order to account for the unusual motion of Sirius, which is minimal relative to the Summer solstice and exceptionally high with respect to the stars of the Zodiac, Karine Gadré, the Associate Researcher at the Department of Astrophysics of the MidiPyrenees Observatory in Toulouse, France offers the following explanation:
“The low change in the celestial coordinates of Sirius comes from its high proper movement, which partly compensated the effects of precession under the Dynastic Period. […] In order to better understand how the proper movement of Sirius can partly compensate the effects of precession, do not only take into account the numerical values of the speed vector. Take also into account the position of Sirius on the celestial vault at a given instant and the direction of the speed vector.”
Now we know that the proper motion of Sirius (i.e. of the Sirius system) over a period of some 5400 years is less than 2°:
"For a long time astronomers had been noticing anomalies in Sirius' proper motion; this motion, well known since Halley's time is equal to 0.0375" in RA (Right Ascension) and to 1.207" in D, (Declination), which gives a yearly resultant motion of 1.32" in the direction of 204°, which is noticeably to the south. In 1834, Bessel showed that the anomalies consisted mainly of deviations between the star's theoretical position and its actual position; these distinctly periodic differences, especially in right ascension, may be as great as 0.321", which is a considerable amount with regard to meridian observations. Overall, instead of moving through space in a straight line, Sirius appears to display a wavy trajectory."
Dr. P. Blaize, Le Compagnon de Sirius, Bull. de la Société astronomique de France (1931)
(https://s1.postimg.org/7jj1vyblr/sothic.jpg)
An Egypto-Julian calendar reveals that New Year Day (beginnings of Sothic Cycles) of the Egyptian calendar synchronized with the following tetraeterises:
Heliopolis, Egypt:
4225 BC July 15
2767 BC July 16
1311 BC July 17
145 AD July 18
This proves that Sirius is not precessing like other stars, since in this 4,370 years time period, the calendar dates have only changed by 3 calendar days!
Moreover, the heliacal rising of Sirius appears to keep up with the calendar.
This heliacal rise of Sirius also appears to be a fixed date according to the Julian calendar for over 4,000 years.
HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?
How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?
If any local force here in "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.
I paid more attention to the video and now put 2 and 2 together and realize they are shoing the individualy path of the eclipse... not the rotations of both LOL.... minor Derp moment
Haven't we been through this before?
< :D Good one!> (https://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/how-about-a-nice-big-cup-of-shut-the-fuck-up-5.png)
You tried your best to minimize the fact that the rate of axial precession is actually accelerating.
At first you tried to DENY THE DATA.
Then, realizing your mistake, you accepted the final figures.
The published constants are certainly close enough for my needs.
They should be.
They were calculated by none other than Simon Newcomb.
The figures are very clear.
<This, again? Still haven't figured out what experimental error is yet? Tsk!> (https://s22.postimg.org/x002plw4x/pre1.jpg)
Not even if "it has increased at an 'exponential' rate" were true.
But it is true.
The rate is accelerating.
Please explain why.
Since you invoke Wikipedia, here are quotes from the article you mention:Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession#CauseThe precession of the equinoxes is caused by the gravitational forces of the Sun and the Moon, and to a lesser extent other bodies, on the Earth. It was first explained by Sir Isaac Newton.Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession#ValuesIn reality, more elaborate calculations on the numerical model of the Solar System show that the precessional constants have a period of about 41,000 years, the same as the obliquity of the ecliptic. Note that the constants mentioned here are the linear and all higher terms of the formula above, not the precession itself. That is,
p = A + BT + CT2 + …
is an approximation of
p = a + b sin (2πT/P), where P is the 410-century period.
...
The classical explanation: there are more things involved than just Sun-Earth-Moon. Nice bluff, though. Too bad (for you) that it didn't work.
The precession of the equinoxes is caused by the gravitational forces of the Sun and the Moon, and to a lesser extent other bodies, on the Earth. It was first explained by Sir Isaac Newton.
"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."[Citation needed]
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).
Precession has nothing to do with the law of attractive gravitation.
The precession of the equinoxes is caused by the gravitational forces of the Sun and the Moon, and to a lesser extent other bodies, on the Earth. It was first explained by Sir Isaac Newton.
Sirius has shifted a total of 0.5391° relative to the Ecliptic and Equinoxes in the 50 years between epoch J1950.0 and J2000.0, according to Stellarium.
You tried that shit before.
It didn't work then, it won't work now.
<poorly-cited quotes and anecdotes>
HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?
How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?
If any local force here in "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.
sandokhan trying to bore the thread to death like he has done to hundreds of othersI guess he has no answers for posters who present him with evidence.
Why wait?So what? How does that affect or explain the solar eclipse.
HERE IS THE PERSEID METEOR SHOWER PARADOX: a most direct contradiction of Newtonian mechanics.
It doesn't...not without a bunch of conjecture and assumption. Otherwise there would be an actual analytical model to show why it contradicts Newtonian mechanics. Since there isn't, it's all just smoke and mirrors.Why wait?So what? How does that affect or explain the solar eclipse.
HERE IS THE PERSEID METEOR SHOWER PARADOX: a most direct contradiction of Newtonian mechanics.
It is always smoke and mirrors with Sandy.It doesn't...not without a bunch of conjecture and assumption. Otherwise there would be an actual analytical model to show why it contradicts Newtonian mechanics. Since there isn't, it's all just smoke and mirrors.Why wait?So what? How does that affect or explain the solar eclipse.
HERE IS THE PERSEID METEOR SHOWER PARADOX: a most direct contradiction of Newtonian mechanics.
Mike
alphaomega, you are trying for the upteenth time to bullshit your readers.
They can see that you have no valid arguments at all, that you are wasting everybody's time here, again.
And they do not react well at all to being treated like this: you are simply insulting their intelligence.
Your quotes are useless.
They do not address at all the situation I described: a sure sign of cognitive dissonance on your part.
Here is the situation.
The rate of axial precession is ACCELERATING.
No scientist can explain why.
THE INCREASING RATE OF THE ANNUAL PRECESSION IS A BASIC FACT OF SCIENCE.
...
It is even listed in the wikipedia page on the axial precession subject.
Simon Newcomb's calculation at the end of the 19th century for general precession (p) in longitude gave a value of 5,025.64 arcseconds per tropical century, and was the generally accepted value until artificial satellites delivered more accurate observations and electronic computers allowed more elaborate models to be calculated. Lieske developed an updated theory in 1976, where p equals 5,029.0966 arcseconds per Julian century. Modern techniques such as VLBI and LLR allowed further refinements, and the International Astronomical Union adopted a new constant value in 2000, and new computation methods and polynomial expressions in 2003 and 2006; the accumulated precession is:
pA = 5,028.796195×T + 1.1054348×T2 + higher order terms,
in arcseconds, with T, the time in Julian centuries (that is, 36,525 days) since the epoch of 2000.
The rate of precession is the derivative of that:
p = 5,028.796195 + 2.2108696×T + higher order terms.
The constant term of this speed (5,028.796195 arcseconds per century in above equation) corresponds to one full precession circle in 25,771.57534 years (one full circle of 360 degrees divided with 5,028.796195 arcseconds per century)[24] although some other sources put the value at 25771.4 years, leaving a small uncertainty.
The precession rate is not a constant, but is (at the moment) slowly increasing over time, as indicated by the linear (and higher order) terms in T. In any case it must be stressed that this formula is only valid over a limited time period. It is clear that if T gets large enough (far in the future or far in the past), the T2 term will dominate and p will go to very large values. In reality, more elaborate calculations on the numerical model of the Solar System show that the precessional constants have a period of about 41,000 years, the same as the obliquity of the ecliptic. Note that the constants mentioned here are the linear and all higher terms of the formula above, not the precession itself. That is,
p = A + BT + CT2 + …
is an approximation of
p = a + b sin (2πT/P), where P is the 410-century period.
Theoretical models may calculate the proper constants (coefficients) corresponding to the higher powers of T, but since it is impossible for a (finite) polynomial to match a periodic function over all numbers, the error in all such approximations will grow without bound as T increases. In that respect, the International Astronomical Union chose the best-developed available theory. For up to a few centuries in the past and the future, all formulas do not diverge very much. For up to a few thousand years in the past and the future, most agree to some accuracy.
You cannot bring in the influence of other planets, as their contribution is infinitesimal
The precession of the equinoxes is caused by the gravitational forces of the Sun and the Moon, and to a lesser extent other bodies, on the Earth. It was first explained by Sir Isaac Newton.
in fact it would have constituted the first line of attack by astrophysicists in order to explain the acceleration of the precession; they, unlike you, know that they cannot bring such a silly argument to the table.
ONLY the gravitational effect from the Sun and from the Moon matters.
Here are the facts.
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.
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).
Precession has nothing to do with the law of attractive gravitation.
You never refuted it, either. Can you show, with actual data, not anecdotes, that it's incorrect?
But I did in very certain terms.
It seems you are back to your old shenanigans, where a most direct proof has to be run by you once, twice, thrice, four times, maybe even five times before you get the point.
The orbit of Sirius represents one of the greatest mysteries in modern astronomy.
Read the facts which are not taken into consideration neither by the folks over at the Stellarium, nor by yourself.
Instead of carrying on about this by citing out of context quotes and questionable references, why don't you actually go out in the real world and check to see if your argument has any merit?
Can you show that Sirius is not at RA 06h 46m, Dec −16° 44′ now? Do you have any hard evidence that Sirius was not at RA 06h 43m, Dec −16° 39' in 1950? That's a difference of 3 minutes of Right Ascension, almost three-quarters of a degree. A change in position that large is easily detected in many currently-available amateur telescopes, and has been in professional telescopes for much more than a century. A change in position with respect to other stars in the vicinity could be detected by even the most basic instruments for centuries.
In order to account for the unusual motion of Sirius, which is minimal relative to the Summer solstice and exceptionally high with respect to the stars of the Zodiac... which partly compensated the effects of precession under the Dynastic Period. ...
Now we know that the proper motion of Sirius (i.e. of the Sirius system) over a period of some 5400 years is less than 2°:
"For a long time astronomers had been noticing anomalies in Sirius' proper motion; this motion, well known since Halley's time is equal to 0.0375" in RA (Right Ascension) and to 1.207" in D, (Declination), which gives a yearly resultant motion of 1.32" in the direction of 204°, which is noticeably to the south. In 1834, Bessel showed that the anomalies consisted mainly of deviations between the star's theoretical position and its actual position; these distinctly periodic differences, especially in right ascension, may be as great as 0.321", which is a considerable amount with regard to meridian observations. Overall, instead of moving through space in a straight line, Sirius appears to display a wavy trajectory."
Dr. P. Blaize, Le Compagnon de Sirius, Bull. de la Société astronomique de France (1931)
In 1844, the German astronomer Friedrich Bessel deduced from changes in the proper motion of Sirius that it had an unseen companion. On January 31, 1862, American telescope-maker and astronomer Alvan Graham Clark first observed the faint companion, which is now called Sirius B, or affectionately "the Pup".
Listen to the experts in the field.
<more anecdotes>
HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?
How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?
If any local force here in "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.
Next time we meet you are going to have to explain the Perseid meteor shower paradox: a most direct contradiction of your whimsical beliefs.
Your tricks don't work with me, or with the readers.
More proofs that the unusual motion of Sirius is MINIMAL relative to the summer solstice:I'm sorry. I must be missing something. What does this prove/disprove about solar eclipses?
<snip>
You have been warned (reply #71) not to use the quote trees unnecessarily.I was just trying to understand how that post fits into the subject of a solar eclipse. I was quoting a single post by you, not a tree. I guess I could have reduced the size.
More bad news for the RE.Irrelevant!
Your tricks don't work with me, or with the readers.
The wikipedia page you are quoting was written by amateurs (such as yourself), who are not experts in the field.
THE INCREASING RATE OF THE ANNUAL PRECESSION IS A BASIC FACT OF SCIENCE.
...
It is even listed in the wikipedia page on the axial precession subject.
That is why they mention a hypothetical periodicity of some 41,000 years without having knowledge of the actual orbital equations.
Let us see what the actual experts in the field have to say on the subject.
Dr. W.M. Smart
Regius Professor of Astronomy at Glasgow University
President of the Royal Astronomical Society from 1949 to 1951
https://s1.postimg.org/p2bdexbpb/bass4.jpg (https://s1.postimg.org/p2bdexbpb/bass4.jpg)
https://s3.postimg.org/w68z5enqb/bass5.jpg (https://s3.postimg.org/w68z5enqb/bass5.jpg)
https://s17.postimg.org/sgi0la43z/bass6.jpg (https://s17.postimg.org/sgi0la43z/bass6.jpg)
https://s17.postimg.org/jyk3erf67/bass7.jpg (https://s17.postimg.org/jyk3erf67/bass7.jpg)
The calculations for the stability of the Earth supposed heliocentrical orbit (including eccentricity, precession and much more) ARE NOT VALID AFTER A PERIOD OF 300 YEARS.
Moreover, the 41,000 supposed periodicity mentioned in the vickypedia article cannot be true, since the Milankovitch cycle is not true either, and RELIES ON THE SAME FIGURE OF 41,000 YEARS.
Here are the precise facts detailing the proof that the Earth has very recently undergone a massive pole shift, contradicting the whimsical calculations for the periodicity of 41,000 years, based on armchair deductions, totally detached from reality:
<self references>
Your quotes amount to nothing at all, just as I have said from the very start.
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.
You cannot bring in the influence of other planets, as their contribution is infinitesimal, in fact it would have constituted the first line of attack by astrophysicists in order to explain the acceleration of the precession; they, unlike you, know that they cannot bring such a silly argument to the table.
ONLY the gravitational effect from the Sun and from the Moon matters.
Now, you have more trouble on your hands.
Not only you have to explain the acceleration of the rate of precession, but also you'd 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
In reality, more elaborate calculations on the numerical model of the Solar System show that the precessional constants have a period of about 41,000 years, the same as the obliquity of the ecliptic.
Now, let us go back to the precise calculations.
Simon Newcomb included a “constant”... <same ol' same ol' repeated yet again>
HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?
How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?
If any local force here in "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.
The star Sirius knows precisely how to account for Newcomb's constant, and not only that, it knows that this constant has actually increased its value.
This could only be possible if the distance Sun-Sirius is measured in mere kilometers, as the common etheric field encompassing these stars would be able move both stars in a precise manner, to account for the exponential rate of the acceleration of precession.
Using the modern value, in 50 years, Sirius proper motion has caused it to move about 0.018°, while its celestial coordinates changed by more than 0.5°, mostly because of precession.
You still don't get it.
Dr. Karine Gadre is the world's foremost expert on the motion of Sirius. Dr. Gadre's PhD dissertation on this subject amounts to some 300+ pages.
Please read carefully:
...
“The low change in the celestial coordinates of Sirius comes from its high proper movement, which partly compensated the effects of precession under the Dynastic Period. […] In order to better understand how the proper movement of Sirius can partly compensate the effects of precession, do not only take into account the numerical values of the speed vector. Take also into account the position of Sirius on the celestial vault at a given instant and the direction of the speed vector.”
Do you understand basic English?
There is a most unusual motion of Sirius, which is minimal relative to the Summer solstice and exceptionally high with respect to the stars of the Zodiac.
That is why at each and every solstice its distance is minimal throughout the centuries, while exceptionally high with respect to the stars of the Zodiac.
An orbit in the shape of a huge waveform, which defies modern astronomy.
Thus its proper motion is synched up with the precession, and there are great anomalies in this proper motion, unaccounted for by modern astronomy.
Listen to the experts in the field.
<repeated pasted text from a few lines ago>
"For a long time astronomers had been noticing anomalies in Sirius' proper motion; this motion, well known since Halley's time is equal to 0.0375" in RA (Right Ascension) and to 1.207" in D, (Declination), which gives a yearly resultant motion of 1.32" in the direction of 204°, which is noticeably to the south. In 1834, Bessel showed that the anomalies consisted mainly of deviations between the star's theoretical position and its actual position; these distinctly periodic differences, especially in right ascension, may be as great as 0.321", which is a considerable amount with regard to meridian observations. Overall, instead of moving through space in a straight line, Sirius appears to display a wavy trajectory."
Dr. P. Blaize, Le Compagnon de Sirius, Bull. de la Société astronomique de France (1931)
Your constant bullshitting cannot change the facts.
<repeated story about the ancient Egyptians>
HOW DOES SIRIUS KNOW HOW TO ACCOUNT FOR NEWCOMB'S CONSTANT?
HOW CAN SIRIUS CALCULATE IN ADVANCE THE EXPONENTIAL INCREASE IN THE ACCELERATION OF THE RATE OF PRECESSION, IF ITS DISTANCE FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM IS SOME 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS?
<copy-paste *again* of narrative about ancient Egypt>
According to the current theory of lunisolar precession the pole, and therefore the equator of the Earth is supposed to “wobble” over a period of roughly 25800 years relative to the position of the fixed stars and the Sun. In other words, if we were to imagine the Earth ‘fixed’ in its revolution around the Sun at the time when Sirius is in conjunction with the Sun (e.g. during the Summer solstice), an observer would not only notice changes in the declination of Sirius and the other stars, but simultaneously equal changes in the declination of the Sun. In practice, however, Sirius does not show any significant variations in its position relative to the Summer solstice.
Do you understand English?
In practice, however, Sirius does not show any significant variations in its position relative to the Summer solstice.
HOW DOES SIRIUS KNOW HOW TO ACCOUNT FOR NEWCOMB'S CONSTANT?
HOW CAN SIRIUS CALCULATE IN ADVANCE THE EXPONENTIAL INCREASE IN THE ACCELERATION OF THE RATE OF PRECESSION, IF ITS DISTANCE FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM IS SOME 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS?
The Perseid meter shower DEFIES your whimsical beliefs:
How many other people completely skip over sandokhans posts. I see his name and immediately scroll till I see another post. His posts are incoherent babble. For someone who thinks they've completely debunked modern physics, why hasn't he published it in a scientific journal? Is it because he knows that any physicist worth a damn would instantly know he's a damn moron? I think so!
alphaomega, you should apply for disability, due to basic ignorance of scientific facts.
The periodic infinite series discovered by Newcomb is STILL IN USE TODAY, for your information.
In fact KAM theory (Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser) grew out of the research done on those infinite series.
The comment made by Professor W. Smart is still valid today, and will always be so.
This shows your basic ignorance of the history of the orbital equations of motion.
Dr. Robert Bass, one of the top astrophysicists of the 20th century, reminding your of your ignorance on the subject:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120916174745/http://www.innoventek.com:80/Bass1974PenseeAllegedProofsOfStabilityOfSolarSystemR.pdf
Go ahead, and write to your local university, informing them that Professor Smart's comment on the Newcomb infinite series is no longer valid, or in use, and they will laugh in your face.
Those equations are fully valid even today, for your information.
As such, Professor Smart's calculation is valid as well.
More bad news for the RE.
<another attempt to divert the discussion, to Saturn, this time>
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.
Now, you have more trouble on your hands.
Not only you have to explain the acceleration of the rate of precession, but also you'd 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
Now, let us go back to the precise calculations.
Simon Newcomb included a “constant” in his precession formula ... <repeated copy & paste from here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71409.msg1939180#msg1939180), here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71409.msg1938764#msg1938764),
here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71409.msg1938380#msg1938380), and probably other places>
Now, not only do the RE have to offset these slight diminishments in gravitational forces, but also to come up with larger effects in the opposite direction.
The acceleration of the rate of precession cannot be explained by modern astronomy.
It is as simple as this.
More proofs that the unusual motion of Sirius is MINIMAL relative to the summer solstice:Again??!? (http://)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000JHA....31..149S
The heliacal rise of Sirius and ancient Egyptian chronology...
According to the current theory of lunisolar precession the pole, and therefore the equator of the Earth is supposed to “wobble” over a period of roughly 25800 years relative to the position of the fixed stars and the Sun. In other words, if we were to imagine the Earth ‘fixed’ in its revolution around the Sun at the time when Sirius is in conjunction with the Sun (e.g. during the Summer solstice), an observer would not only notice changes in the declination of Sirius and the other stars, but simultaneously equal changes in the declination of the Sun. In practice, however, Sirius does not show any significant variations in its position relative to the Summer solstice.[citation needed]
Do you understand English?
In practice, however, Sirius does not show any significant variations in its position relative to the Summer solstice.
HOW DOES SIRIUS KNOW HOW TO ACCOUNT FOR NEWCOMB'S CONSTANT?
HOW CAN SIRIUS CALCULATE IN ADVANCE THE EXPONENTIAL INCREASE IN THE ACCELERATION OF THE RATE OF PRECESSION, IF ITS DISTANCE FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM IS SOME 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS?
READ:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000JHA....31..149S
The position of Sirius changes with time due to proper motion and precession.
And YET, in practice, however, Sirius does not show any significant variations in its position relative to the Summer solstice.
How does Sirius know how to account for Newcomb's constant? ...
<snip>Wow you post a lot of info. Hell, in a series of posts you've practically reproduced nearly all of BRI's website. I'm curious though. How does all of this info relate to a solar eclipse. Although, it's interesting that those in the path of totality will be able to see Sirius during the eclipse.
The topic just happens to be "Solar eclipse" and the video starts "The Lunar Eclipse", so why waste 30 minutes on it?Please!
That video is pure, absolute horse shit!
So your admitting you have no way of arguing the facts? You just call it horse shit... Did you even watch the whole thing?
The most precise proof that Sirius has NOT undergone precessional movement from 1988 to 2007:
<links to your own stuff and other sketchy sources>
Extended sidereal time-measurements from 6 April 1994 to 6 April 1996 revealed a total negative time deviation of 1.6 seconds from tropical-sidereal time. According to 'precession' this difference should be about 3.34 seconds per year. Hence a total negative deviation of about 6.68 seconds was to be expected, but did not occur in reality.
The continuous measurement of 6 April 1994 to 5 April 2000 confirmed this fact conclusively. In that period the total negative deviation of 'Sirius time' from the total mean sidereal time accumulated to 4.1 seconds. This means about negative 0.68 s per year (!). Again, according to 'precession' a negative time difference of 6 × 3.34 s or about 20 seconds should have occurred, but did NOT occur with respect to Sirius!
As a matter of fact, the mean rotation period of the earth relative to Sirius is nearly identical to the time interval of the mean sidereal day of 86164.09054 seconds.
Even more surprising is the observation that the mean time interval of the sidereal year, as measured with respect to Sirius is nearly identical (by less than one second) to the time interval of the tropical year. According to the theory of 'precession', a yearly time difference of about 1223 s is supposed to occur between a sidereal year and the tropical year.
The meridian transit measurements of Sirius have shown that neither a time difference of 6 × 1223 s, nor a difference of 6 × 3.34 s has occurred over the 6-year observation period from April 1994 to April 2000.
These observations clearly indicate that the so-called 'precession of the earth' is NOT a scientific fact.
Practical Observation and Measurement of Sidereal Time with respect to Sirius:
My meridian transition time measurement with respect to Sirius (using the UTC atomic-time radio signal from WWV Fort Collins/Colorado), which I conducted over a period of 5 consecutive years, resulted in the following mean sidereal rotation time for the Earth.
Obviously, as indicated by the adjective mean all variations in time caused by periodic or any other fluctuations of the Earth's axis, as well as the assumed precession of the axis, must be included in the 5-year observation period. Technically speaking this is still the easiest and best available method to measure and determine a mean sidereal day.
First meridian transition time of Sirius on 20.04.1994 at 20:16:48.5 hours
Last meridian transition time of Sirius on 19.04.1999 at 20:21:34.5 hours
The total time span between those two measurements is exactly 157 680 286 seconds.
(5 calendar years including one leap day is 5 x 365 days of 86400 s each, plus the time difference of 286 s on the last day)
In this same time interval exactly 5 x 366 sidereal days (meridian transitions) were completed. As a result, the mean sidereal day with respect to Sirius is:
157 680 286 s ÷ 1830 = 86164.09071 seconds.
Note: The mean sidereal day is officially published with 86164.091 s mean solar time, while the mathematically calculated mean sidereal day is exactly 86164.0905382 seconds. Therefore, my precise measurement of 86164.09071 s with respect to Sirius is within the acceptable range of accuracy.
Due to the apparent precession, the measurable mean sidereal day should be about 86164.09966 seconds [on the ecliptic], since logically the actual mean rotation time of the Earth by 86164.0905382 seconds can only be measured with a delay in time relative to the inertial position of the fixed stars. In other words, if precession were indeed to occur, absolutely no fixed star can ever have a mean meridian transition time of 86164.0905382 seconds.
Karl-Heinz Homann (April 29, 1933 – April 23, 2008):
Karl-Heinz Homann was born in Oer-Erkenschwick near Recklinghausen, Germany. He had a background as a mechanic and machinist, and had a Master's Degree as an Electronic Technician. Most of his life he was self-employed, both in Germany and in Canada. He and his family emigrated to Canada in 1980. He spent his remaining years on a small farm near Peers, Alberta.
The wikipedia page you are quoting was written by amateurs (such as yourself), who are not experts in the field.
Editor’s Note: Though Mr. Homann uses the term “Meridian” in his discussion below, in fact (and as he explains) Sirius didn’t pass directly overhead but rather the telescope was pointed to the Southwest.
...
Finally, the pdf data files show the term “Calculated Avg =>” to show where we added interpolated points to provide continuity in the lines of the graphs. This seems to happen when Mr. Homann was re-adjusting the transit and its tripod. These are mostly evident in his early years and the later data, especially after 1994, has almost no omissions, adjustments or re-calibrations.
...
METHOD OF MEASUREMENT:
A basic transit instrument of 25x magnification is solidly mounted. The optic is permanently aligned in a southwesterly direction. This type of alignment offers an optimal period of observation with respect to Sirius throughout the year. The precise time reference signal used to measure the transit intervals of Sirius is the UTC atomic-time radio signal from WWV Fort Collins/Colorado.
Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes—and so from the solstices— throughout these many centuries, despite precession.
HOW THEN CAN SIRIUS ACCOUNT AHEAD OF TIME FOR NEWCOMB'S CONSTANT? FOR THE ACCELERATION OF THE RATE OF AXIAL PRECESSION?
<< Off topic irrelevant copy-pasta deleted >>The topic is "Solar eclipse..." so how can a 19 km high sun cause a 495 km wide umbra or a 114 km wide one as on Aug 21?
You are in no position to complain about any experiments at all, especially this one.
Remember this?
<irrelevant>
And yet, you and the star catalogues you quote so often, have accepted this fakery with no problem at all.
Not a mere few seconds (which, by the way, do not influence the experiment at all, given the huge discrepancy between what should have been recorded and the data obtained in real time), but a massive falsification of each and every figure.
<gratuitous calculation of average leap seconds per year>
How do you feel, complaining about a very well done experiment, with a sneer on your face
while at the same time, you accept wholeheartedly the humongous fakery done by Kepler?
How can you live with yourself, waving your hands and feet, complaining about a single second (which does not help your cause in any way) per year, and yet accepting with a straight face the total falsification of each and every figure done by Kepler?
The star catalogues you mention have a fatal error: they rely on A STATIC SOLAR SYSTEM, and not on a DYNAMIC SOLAR SYSTEM.
As such they assume that the solar system is static is not moving at all, which it is.
The data gathered by U. Homann and K.H. Homann is real, and the experiment has been performed correctly.
<Is it really necessary to keep repeating this crap?>
<Yet another attempt to change the subject>
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.
<More diversion and repetition>
Not even once, over a period of 20 years, had Sirius reached the required precession rate of 3.34 s.
<diversion>
<long post>
A change of venue won't help you, on the contrary...It isn't designed to help him, it is to remove your spam from this thread. You seem completely incapable of discussing the topic at hand and instead seem to need to bring up completely irrelevant crap and repeatedly jump topic, as if you are incapable of defending anything and just need to bury your opponent in mountains of crap.
jackblack, shut the fuck up!No, only a sane, rational person would.
Only an imbecile like you could claim that the orbital Sagnac is 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac.
jackblack, shut the fuck up!Oh, aren't we getting a trifle riled up! ;D
Only an imbecile like you could claim that the orbital Sagnac is 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac.
Sagnac effect in an off-center rotating ring frame of referenceAnd
Abstract
Interference resides deeply in our understanding of the wave properties of light. In this paper, the century famous Sagnac effect is demonstrated to be independent of the rotation axis position, using a rotating ring optical fiber in a straightforward laboratory experiment. A simple theoretical explanation for this result is given for any arbitrary closed loop interferometer. The level of this discussion should be suitable for undergraduate physics or engineering courses where electromagnetic theory and optics are discussed. The experiment described utilizes basic and important aspects in modern optics which every science student should acquire.
Sagnac showed experimentally that the centre of rotation can be away from the geometric centre of the apparatus, without affecting the above result.Which really puts the kibosh on you interpretation of the "Orbital Sagnac Effect", so nice to know.
From: TIME and the SPEED of LIGHT - a NEW INTERPRETATION, A.G.Kelly (http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly-TimeandtheSpeedofLight.pdf)
This phase difference has been demonstrated in a rotating interferometer as well as in a geostationary one.
In the latter case, the Sagnac effect is due solely to earth’s rotation with ωl = ωE. The earth rotation rate ωE is about 2π/(86400 s) and the corresponding maximum phase difference is as large as 2 rad, when the wavelength is 0.6 µm and the loop area S = 0.2 km2. Thus, a loop interferometer can be utilized as a precise means to detect earth’s rotation rate.
Moreover, according to the local-ether model, earth’s orbital motion around the sun or others does not con-
tribute to the Sagnac effect in an earthbound propagation loop. In as early as 1904 Michelson supposed that
the Sagnac effect due to the orbital motion of the earth around the sun might be detectable, although the angular
speed of the orbital motion is about 1/365 times that of the rotation .
And all analyses end up with results where only the area appears.Again, go back to the Sagnac thread, you know, the one where you got your ass handed to you repeatedly?
Exactly.
No such thing ever happened.No, that was exactly what happened.
You were taken out of the ring on a stretcher, wearing your t-shirt (defeater of...)Nope. I left the ring walking out after you ran away like a pathetic child.
Let's put your statement to the test.Let's not. Like I said, if you wish to discuss it, GO BACK TO THAT THREAD!!!
You are undergoing another episode of cognitive dissonance, which is a terrible way to live.Once again describing yourself.
Your piece of shit analysis was shown to be totally erroneous.No it wasn't. You were unable to show a single flaw in it. You had to run away and pretend it didn't exists.
Here are the undeniable facts.No, here are the facts (which nut jobs like you still deny):
And thus:
dto/dtr=k*wo/k*wr=wo/wo=1/365.
Just like I said.
I also backed up this formula with my own derivation.
This is the correct calculation:
Δto/Δt r=[4Aiωo/( c² - vo²)] / [4Aiωr/( c² - vr²)]
Note, the area here has nothing to do with the area of Earth's orbit or radius of it or the radius of Earth. It is the area of the interferometer, as my derivation.
No where in any derivation did the area of Earth's orbit come into it.
So to continue:
Δto/Δt r=[4Aiωo/( c² - vo²)] / [4Aiωr/( c² - vr²)]
Obviously, ( c² - vo²) and ( c² - vr²) are very close to the same number, so let's lave them off.
=4Aiωo/ 4Aiωr
Then to simplify:
=ωo/ ωr
And would you look at that? It ends up being just like what we claim.
You have ωo/ ωr.
As Earth rotates roughly 365 times for each orbit, ωr=365*ωo.
Thus we get:
Δto/Δt r=ωo/ ωr
=ωo/ (365*ωo)
=1/365
Just like we claim.
And all analyses end up with results where only the area appears.You missed a bit And all analyses end up with results where only the area of the Sagnac loop appears.
And all analyses end up with results where only the area appears.So let me ask again. Do you have any quotes from any of these scientists that show they agree with your conclusions?
Exactly.
Earth's orbital radius = 150,000,000 km r² = 22500000000000000
∆t = 4πR²ω/(c²-v²)
Please show exactly where Mathpages, 2.7 The Sagnac Effect claims that!
The equation for the sagnac is:
4Aω/( c² - v²)
One must calculatate the area swept out by the path and that is A = πR², where R is measured from the Sun to the center of the Earth (radius of the orbital path loop).
If two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a stationary circular loop of radius R...
Mathpages says one must use the center of rotation which is the sun.
It is a loop and the earth is moving along the loop in its orbit around the sun.
Sagnac also established that the effect does not depend on the shape of the loop or the center of rotation.
Certainly there are cases where this theory applies, but the rotational Sagnac and the orbital Sagnac effects are NOT two of them.
Both the rotational and the orbital Sagnac effect use the definition provided in mathpages:
"circular loop of radius R"
One must use the center of rotation which is the sun.
It is a loop and the earth is moving along the loop in its orbit around the sun.
You haven't read the paper by E.J. Post.
Post (1967) shows that the two (Sagnac and STR) are of very different orders of magnitude. He says that the dilation factor to be applied under SR is “indistinguishable with presently available equipment” and “is still one order smaller than the Doppler correction, which occurs when observing fringe shifts” in the Sagnac tests. He also points out that the Doppler effect “is v/c times smaller than the effect one wants to observe." Here Post states that the effect forecast by SR, for the time dilation aboard a moving object, is far smaller than the effect to be observed in a Sagnac test.
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.
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.
Thus, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are totally fulfilled:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721
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.